02/16/2009 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview(s) Department of Education - No Child Left Behind; Minimum Expenditure by District | |
| HB94 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 94 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 16, 2009
8:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz, Vice Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Robert L. "Bob" Buch
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative David Guttenberg
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW(S): DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION - NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND;
MINIMUM EXPENDITURE BY DISTRICT
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 94
"An Act creating a postsecondary scholarship program for Alaska
residents based on high achievement and financial need."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 94
SHORT TITLE: POSTSECONDARY SCHOLARSHIPS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GUTTENBERG
01/28/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/28/09 (H) EDC, FIN
02/16/09 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
LES MORSE
Deputy Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented an overview by the department,
focusing on the issue of No Child Left Behind.
EDDY JEANS, Director
School Finance and Facilities Section
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented an overview by the department,
focusing on the issue of minimum expenditure by district.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID GUTTENBERG
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 94, as prime sponsor.
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director
Postsecondary Education Commission
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and responded to questions during
the hearing on HB 94.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:00:38 AM
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. Representatives Seaton, Wilson,
Edgmon, Buch, Gardner, and Keller were present at the call to
order. Representative Munoz arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
^OVERVIEW(S) DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION - NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND;
MINIMUM EXPENDITURE BY DISTRICT
8:01:04 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business was the
overview by the Department of Education - No Child Left Behind;
Minimum Expenditure by District.
8:03:04 AM
LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education and
Early Development, said he would cover the following regarding
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): what it is, what its requirements
are, what it does and does not fund, and how it is working in
Alaska. He said he would be referring to page 9 of the
department's budget, as well as a pie chart from a document from
Cindy Curran (ph) [included in the committee packet].
MR. MORSE said NCLB is an amendment to the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). That Act specifically
targets "students in schools that are low income." Those
schools are often referred to as Title I Schools. The original
Act passed in 1970, he noted, but has been amended several times
- once in the early '90s as the Improving America's Schools Act
(IASA). He said NCLB was proposed in 2001.
8:05:51 AM
MR. MORSE stated that the intent of NCLB is to ensure students
with low incomes have opportunities to be successful in school
and are evaluated on equal ground with all other students.
Before NCLB, he related, there was an [adequate yearly progress]
(AYP) system of judging schools, but it only applied to Title I
schools. When NCLB passed, it required all schools to be
evaluated in the same manner, and publicly, which required some
states to build an accountability system for the first time that
would cover all schools, and which is why more people are aware
of NCLB. He said NCLB is designed so that students in Title I
schools have support when struggling to perform well, and it
specifically focuses on reading, mathematics, and science
testing. Alaska has added to that the assessment of writing
skills.
MR. MORSE mentioned the term "highly qualified," as it relates
to teachers. He explained that the intent of the law is to
ensure that teachers are knowledgeable about each subject they
teach - not only those subjects tested under NCLB, but all
subjects. He pointed out that that brings a challenge to
Alaska, because the state has a large number of schools where
there are three or fewer teachers.
8:08:41 AM
MR. MORSE, in response to a question from Chair Seaton, said the
requirement applies to all grade levels; however, the amount of
content knowledge required at the elementary level is different
than that required at the secondary level. He offered further
details. In response to a follow-up question, he clarified that
first through sixth grade is elementary school, while seventh
grade [through twelfth] would be secondary school.
8:09:39 AM
MR. MORSE, in response to Representative Edgmon, directed
attention to page 9 of the aforementioned budget document, which
illustrates the funds that fall under NCLB. He noted that there
are other federal funds coming to the department.
8:11:25 AM
MR. MORSE, in response to Representative Wilson, said NCLB was a
new authorization of IASA, and most of the requirements were
consistent in the change. It was up to each individual school
to decide whether to continue any programs that were ended with
the change to NCLB. The previous Act required standards to be
developed by every state in multiple content areas, whereas NCLB
focuses on mathematics and reading as its core. He explained,
"It really didn't mean you had to completely drop something you
previously had; you had to bring focus ... on reading and
mathematics. And then, there are pieces that come about, in
terms of a school not meeting adequate yearly progress and a set
of consequences they face." In response to a follow-up question
from Representative Wilson, he said the programs "were to
provide instructional support"; therefore, they were not
dropped, but rather shifted in focus.
8:15:21 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if Mr. Morse is saying that social studies,
for example, is still taught, but the reading content within
social studies must be measured.
MR. MORSE responded that is correct.
8:16:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she has heard schools complain that
they have to provide funding to cover [the provisions of IASA]
because the funding was switched to [NCLB].
8:16:47 AM
MR. MORSE responded, "The old law went away; it was reauthorized
as ... NCLB."
8:16:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked Mr. Morse if he thinks Title I money
has resulted in an increase in the proficiency of students.
8:17:22 AM
MR. MORSE responded that in the five years of testing, there has
been gradual improvement in student proficiency. Large jumps in
proficiency would "create a suspicion," he added. There are
clear guidelines of what the accountability must look like
nationwide, which created comparison points and made the
information on which students were tested and how schools have
been held accountable to the public. Mr. Morse said there are
challenges and problems with the law; however, it has raised an
awareness and a level of attention regarding all students'
achievement that did not previously exist.
8:18:57 AM
MR. MORSE relayed that consequences for not making AYP are only
applied to the Title I schools that receive the federal funding.
It is the state's choice whether or not to apply those
consequences to other schools. Alaska examines the performance
of non-Title I schools.
8:20:32 AM
MR. MORSE listed the types of things that Title I program funds
might cover, including: instructional aides; a certified
reading teacher to offer supplementary or support services; and
improvement dollars to help schools not making adequate yearly
progress. Title II funds are used toward qualified staffing, he
said. The focus of the funds listed under the "Federal NCLB"
column of page 9 of the budget handout is to improve student
achievement in the aforementioned disciplines. He offered
further details.
8:23:01 AM
MR. MORSE said approximately 59 percent of the budget funds the
Division of Teaching & Learning Support (TLS), while a large
part of the funding goes to programming. In response to Chair
Seaton, he noted which entities are encompassed within TLS. A
large portion of the dollars with which TLS operates comes from
NCLB.
8:24:03 AM
MR. MORSE said NCLB has provided programs that did not exist
before, along with assessments of those programs. He specified
that he is not talking about the statewide assessment, but
rather reading programs that can be purchased. One challenge
has been in meeting the requirement for highly qualified
teachers; however, a system has been established in Alaska
wherein teachers can become highly qualified by demonstrating
that they know enough about various content areas.
8:26:05 AM
MR. MORSE spoke about waivers. He said Alaska asked for and was
granted a waiver that would allow the measurement of student
performance based on growth. Another waiver granted Alaska
allows some of the districts to change the order of some of the
consequences that apply to schools when they do not meet
adequate yearly progress. One waiver that was not granted would
have allowed the schools to change what types of consequences
are applied. Some states received such a waiver, and Alaska is
researching how they worded their request. Mr. Morse said the
department is paying attention to the new administration and is
looking for other potential opportunities for waivers.
8:28:32 AM
MR. MORSE, in response to a question from Representative Edgmon,
confirmed that the waivers primarily apply to Title I schools,
and the consequences apply only to those schools. However, the
performance of every school is monitored. A Title I school is
defined via a formula; if the poverty rate is 40 percent or
higher in the area, the school in that area would be a Title I.
In response to a follow-up question, he said he does not believe
there are more Title I schools this year owing to the rising
cost of energy. He estimated that 230 of Alaska's 500 schools
are Title I.
8:31:36 AM
MR. MORSE, in response to a question from Representative Wilson
regarding an aforementioned waiver, explained that certain
consequences occur when AYP is not met within the first year;
other measures must be taken when AYP is not met within two
years; and by the third year, supplementary services must be
instituted. The waiver granted was to change the order in which
the consequences would apply. In response to a follow-up
question, Mr. Morse confirmed that there are a number of non-
Title I schools that are not meeting AYP. If those schools are
found to be insufficient under state laws, the department tries
to provide services to those schools. He offered examples. The
department conducts examinations of all schools in the state
"because of the law that passed last year," in order to
determine if there is something that can be done, he said.
Whether or not the school covers the cost of intervention
varies. Some of the services are paid for with department
dollars sourced from state funding or federal NCLB funding.
8:36:19 AM
MR. MORSE, in response to Representative Munoz, related that the
Title I schools have a clear set of articulated standards, which
increases progressively. If they have not met AYP steps in the
first year, the school must do an improvement plan. After a
second year of not meeting AYP, the school has to "offer
choice." He said, "The district will have to use some of their
federal dollars to offer transportation." By the third year,
the school would have to offer supplementary services by way of
after school tutoring. Beyond that, the consequences become
more complex and include: replacing staff, reexamining and
changing curriculum, and eventually a redesign of the school.
In response to a follow-up question from Representative Munoz,
he said every school in the state, including those that are non-
Title I, fall under state rules and statutes regarding
accountability. Any schools that the state deems need closer
scrutiny have conversations between the superintendant and the
department regarding improvement plans, and a determination is
made as to whether additional work needs to be done.
8:38:55 AM
MR. MORSE, in response to Representative Munoz, said the same
standard used to decide which child gets into the food program
is used to decide poverty level. The number of students within
a school that fall within that category factors into determining
whether the school would be eligible for Title I funds at the
district level. The district has to make the determination as
to which of its eligible schools will receive the Title I funds.
8:40:21 AM
MR. MORSE, in response to Representative Keller, said the
department determines whether a waiver makes sense and would be
allowed under state statute. There is a potential that
regulations would have to be changed to put the waiver in place.
He said there is not an automatic reporting mechanism regarding
waivers, and those that the department has sought were
aforementioned. He emphasized that he would never hesitate to
share that information with the House Education Standing
Committee.
8:40:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER remarked, "It seems like the policy-making
body should have been in on that discussion at some level - or
should be." He expressed appreciation for the information being
shared, and expressed his desire to keep abreast of it.
8:41:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if Title I monies could be utilized
for innovative programs such as early language learning,
learning a second language, or teaching Native languages.
MR. MORSE responded that there is "a door open to innovative
programs." Title III funding provides monies for language
development, but it is for the purpose of developing the English
language proficiency in those student who speak English as a
second language.
8:43:15 AM
MR. MORSE, in response to Representative Wilson, said replacing
staff in a school - when allowed under NCLB - applies at a
school level, as part of the school's improvement plan. He
said, "We haven't deployed that from the department end."
However, because of state law passed last year, the department
does have the authority to replace staff under state statute,
but that is focused on people in instructional leadership roles,
such as the superintendant, assistant superintendant, or
principal. The department has not had to use that tool, he
noted. He said the department did intervene in one district,
strongly recommending to the district that it remove one of its
principals. The district agreed and carried that forward.
8:44:31 AM
MR. MORSE, in response to Chair Seaton, said staff replacement
is one choice, and in some cases in Alaska, the priority is to
have continuity of staff - to not increase turnover. Therefore,
that choice is not typically employed.
8:46:07 AM
MR. MORSE, in response to Chair Seaton, said districts have
volunteered to use both the teacher mentor program and the
principal coaching program, and the department has been able to
serve everyone in that regard, but on a first-come/first-served
basis. He said it will not be that way next year, because the
department plans to ensure that the first-served are the
neediest. He offered further details.
8:47:32 AM
MR. MORSE confirmed for Chair Seaton that the ruling on
[Kristine Moore, et al vs. State of Alaska] will have an impact.
He said many of those things that the judge has indicated the
state needs to do to be compliant had already been put in
motion. One example, he said, is the aforementioned change to
first serve the neediest districts, in terms of the teacher
mentor program and the principal coaching program, before
opening the programs statewide. However, there are some other
areas that were identified by the judge as needing improvement,
and they have to do with requiring versus inviting districts to
participate.
8:48:56 AM
MR. MORSE, in response to Chair Seaton, said the student lunch
and breakfast programs are in place, but he cannot relate
details of the funding without further research.
8:50:10 AM
MR. MORSE, in response to Chair Seaton, said the AYP growth
model is used with every school in the state and is somewhat
complicated. He explained that to determine whether a student
is on track for becoming proficient in a subject within four
years, that student's growth is measured against his/her ability
the previous year. He provided numbers to indicate how the
proficiency gains are determined. Statistical pieces are
applied to make the model more complicated, he added, so that
when a student does improve in performance, the improvement
shown is true and not coincidental. In response to a follow-up
question, he said the tracking for this growth model is only in
its second year. He said a student who meets the growth
standard one year has to meet it the next year in order to stay
on target. He confirmed that the measure of each child affects
the overall AYP of the school.
8:55:42 AM
MR. MORSE, in response to Representative Wilson, explained that
some of the grants are noncompetitive, which means that they are
given if the grantee meets the requirements outlined in federal
requirements and state regulations. In response to a follow-up
question, said the majority of the grants are noncompetitive.
8:58:00 AM
MR. MORSE, in response to a question from Representative
Gardner, said he is not familiar with any of the programs or
grants that have been awarded under the category of special
education state improvement grant support; however, he said
state improvement grants have "come out through those dollars" -
usually to fund various ways to support students in special
education. He said he can procure information for
Representative Gardner related to any of the current competitive
grants that exist.
8:59:02 AM
MR. MORSE, in response to Representative Keller, said a report
card to the public is published on the Internet in phases,
beginning in January. By middle March, the complete prior year
will have been reported. The "thick report," which is given to
the speaker of the House, the Senate president, and the
governor, is given at a different time.
9:00:18 AM
MR. MORSE, in response to Chair Seaton, said there are two tests
given in Alaska that are also given in other states: the
National Assessment of Educational Progress, which is given to
students in fourth and eight grades; and the Terra Nova
Assessment, which is given to students in fifth and seventh
grades and reflects in which percentile Alaska's students
generally land compared to all the other students. He said
Alaska's students generally fall within the 55th-63rd
percentile. In response to a follow-up question, Mr. Morse said
he thinks at this point the department considers the tests and
standards adequate. He said it is good to continually examine
standards, but at this point it makes more sense to keep that
measure consistent for a few more years.
9:04:47 AM
MR. MORSE, in response to Representative Buch, said he was a
teacher during the 1990s. It is difficult to compare
information from tests of the '90s to the information derived
from today's tests, because the measure has changed. However,
Mr. Morse noted that one test that has remained the same is the
national assessment of educational progress (NAEP). He said he
could provide the results of the NAEP tests in which the state
has participated.
9:05:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH said he is familiar with those reports,
which indicated that Alaska was testing in the upper 2 or 3
percent of the nation at the time.
9:06:55 AM
MR. MORSE, in response to Representative Wilson, confirmed that
at one time, Alaska administered the Iowa Basic skills test.
Today a similar test, the Terra Nova, is given.
9:07:47 AM
MR. MORSE, regarding funding, said there is money coming in from
various directions. Much of it will be funneled through formula
programs, particularly NCLB. He stated, "The greatest amount of
money coming to the Department of Education or to education will
be money that will pass through the noncompetitive grant
situations that pass through to school districts in our formula
funding mechanisms that we have in place right now." He said he
is not prepared to speak regarding other parts of the stimulus
package, because specific information is still forthcoming.
CHAIR SEATON asked that Mr. Morse forward that information to
the committee when it becomes available.
9:08:56 AM
MR. MORSE, in response to a question from Representative Gardner
regarding NCLB, said although it is too early to tell, he does
not anticipate changes from the new administration in terms of
the reauthorization for at least a year.
9:10:12 AM
MR. MORSE, in response to Representative Wilson, said he does
not know whether the department will see the [stimulus] money
this year or next.
9:10:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER observed that it is difficult to look at
the budget and ascertain what it is that the state is being
required to do that is unfunded.
9:10:54 AM
MR. MORSE talked about the concerns of the state and federal
government and offered details as to why it would be a challenge
to document what the parts of the unfunded mandate are. At the
local level, he said, there is concern regarding being able to
use dollars to directly support student performance within a
school and providing transportation to the school of choice.
9:13:46 AM
MR. MORSE, in response to Representative Guttenberg, said he
thinks NCLB has been in place long enough to make certain
determinations, such as in supplemental service areas. However,
to make a major shift would be challenging, because student
assessment has been taking place for four, going on five, years.
The science assessment will be given for the third time this
spring, and it will be important to have additional data prior
to making major determinations regarding the program.
9:15:42 AM
MR. MORSE, in response to Representative Guttenberg, said
although there are fine detailed aspects of the law that are
known to be problematic, that would not change the focus of the
law.
9:16:17 AM
MR. MORSE, in response to Representative Wilson, said there are
only a handful of schools - less than 10 - that have switched
students from one school to another. The majority of the
schools do not have that choice.
9:17:57 AM
MR. MORSE, in response to Representative Buch, explained that
the state assessment and the NCLB assessment are the same; the
assessments that are different are those utilized on a local
level, which are purchased by individual schools to determine
weekly improvement in preparation for the state assessment.
9:18:57 AM
MR. MORSE, in response to Representative Gardner, indicated that
if parents have the option of transporting their child to
another school but decide not to do so, the supplemental
services available to those who don't have that option would be
available to that child if it is a school that has to do "both
supplemental service providing and choice."
9:19:07 AM
CHAIR SEATON established the importance of understanding NCLB
and how it applies to Alaska.
9:20:21 AM
9:20:30 AM
EDDY JEANS, Director, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Department of Education and Early Development, presented the
second part of the overview by the department, regarding minimum
expenditure by district. He said the minimum expenditure
requirement, passed in 1998, was Alaska's first step toward
accountability to its public schools. The legislature had an
interest to ensure that funds were being spent on instruction.
Since that time, the focus has been directed to the individual
student. He mentioned the assessment system and a student
identification system.
9:21:57 AM
MR. JEANS noted that the Alaska State Board of Education passed
"Resolution 01-2009," which asks the legislature "to reconsider
or amend statute that requires districts to spend a minimum of
70 percent of their operating funds on instruction, in
acknowledgment that a system of accountability directly tied to
student achievement is in place."
9:22:34 AM
MR. JEANS said there are two tests provided to determine whether
or not a district is meeting the minimum expenditure
requirement. The first test is when the districts submit their
budgets in July for the upcoming school year and the division
reviews those budgets. If the district is not meeting the 70
percent requirement, it must apply for a waiver to the Alaska
State Board of Education. If the waiver is denied, then state
aid is reduced by the dollar amount by which the district missed
the 70 percent mark. Mr. Jeans noted that the department has
recommended to the board to impose that sanction three times.
He offered further details.
MR. JEANS said through this process, which has been in place for
ten years, the division has been able to identify two distinct
patterns. First, a small district with a budget of $3 million
or less probably will not meet the 70 percent requirement
because of operating costs. Second, if a district's cost for
operation and maintenance uses 20 percent of its budget, there
is no way the district will meet the 70 percent instructional
requirement. Mr. Jeans named some benefits of the
aforementioned legislation, including that it has helped
districts focus their expenditure patterns on instruction and
helped the department focus on categorization of expenditures by
districts, resulting in more uniform financial data for public
schools.
9:25:40 AM
MR. JEANS directed attention to a handout in the committee
packet showing the results of audits done on the operating fund
minimum expenditure for instruction from 1999 to 2008. In 1999,
the statewide average minimum expenditure for instruction was 63
percent; 42 school districts did meet the 70 percent minimum.
In 2008, the statewide average minimum expenditure for
instruction was 69 percent; 22 school districts did not meet the
minimum. He pointed out that those schools on the handout
listed as having decreased their expenditure for instruction
since 1999 are very small sites that fall into the
aforementioned category of having a $3 million or less total
budget.
9:26:51 AM
MR. JEANS explained that the reason the state board has asked
the legislature to review this requirement again is because, in
addition to the requirements of NCLB, Senate Bill 285 - passed
in 2008 - requires the department to look at individual schools,
based on student performance, and intervene in those districts
where students are underachieving, in order to ensure the
improvement of student performance through instructional
practices. The state law allows the department to redirect how
districts spend their funds. There are also funds available to
pay for mentoring in those districts. Mr. Jeans related that
the state board undergoes this process twice a year and is
frustrated because it does not view the process as being tied to
improving student achievement and is unsure of what can be done.
He reported that there will be between 20-25 districts that
cannot meet the minimum expenditure requirement, but there is no
gray area in the law. He opined that the statute has run its
useful course and should be repealed.
CHAIR SEATON asked, "Will you still get the budgets of the
individual districts submitted to the department?"
9:30:01 AM
MR. JEANS responded that the requirement still exists to submit
the budgets and financial statements to the department. The
department is required to review those budgets to ensure they
comply with state laws and regulations and are operating under a
balanced budget. He said one of the greatest benefits of this
requirement has been a uniformity that has been brought forward
through looking at the budgets and directing districts in their
expenditure allocation. He noted the system has come a long way
since the 1998 McDowell Group report regarding the inconsistency
in the way that financial data was reported.
9:31:24 AM
MR. JEANS, in response to Chair Seaton, said he thinks that if
the statute were repealed, the department would still have the
ability to require uniformity. He offered further details.
9:31:49 AM
MR. JEANS, in response to a question from Representative Wilson,
explained that the aforementioned board resolution gives the
legislature the option of amending the existing statute if that
body does not want to reconsider it. However, he said the board
has no suggestion as to how an amendment might work. Even if
the statute was amended to allow districts under a certain size
to only have to meet a 60 percent instructional requirement,
while larger districts would still have to meet the 70 percent
requirement, he said he would still have to go through the
process of granting waivers for certain districts that are below
60 percent every year.
9:33:09 AM
CHAIR SEATON echoed Mr. Jeans' previous comment that the statute
has served is purpose but is no longer necessary, given
improvements that have been made. The committee may sponsor a
bill to repeal the statute, he indicated.
9:34:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON suggested including this issue in a bill
that she will be sponsoring.
9:34:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER requested that additional discussion occur
before voting on whether or not to repeal the statute.
9:34:52 AM
CHAIR SEATON reviewed the importance of considering this issue
in the form of legislation rather than as presented in an
overview.
HB 94-POSTSECONDARY SCHOLARSHIPS
9:37:25 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 94, "An Act creating a postsecondary scholarship
program for Alaska residents based on high achievement and
financial need."
9:38:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID GUTTENBERG, Alaska State Legislature,
introduced HB 94, as prime sponsor. He characterized HB 94 as a
needs- and merit-based scholarship bill. He noted that the
National Center for Public Policy has given Alaska an "F" grade
in terms of affordability of college. People are not going to
college because of financial cost and "burdens." Qualifications
related to the bill have to do with defining "needs" and
considering a person's grade point average (GPA).
Representative Guttenberg said he thinks the grade point average
is set too high in the bill. He explained that a single parent
with two kids, who is working two jobs, should not have to jump
too high a hurdle in terms of his/her GPA. He said he would
like to see the person who has graduated [from high school] but
has not gone directly to college to "come back" to school.
9:43:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG, in response to Chair Seaton,
confirmed the bill, as currently written, would require a person
to have a "B" or above GPA in order to be eligible. In response
to a question from Chair Seaton, he suggested that the use of
the term "qualifying postsecondary institution" may need to be
discussed to determine whether it means only a state
institution. The union trade schools are covered, he said,
"because there is no tuition." He added, "But those other ones
would be qualified if they're covered under this."
9:44:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said it is open for the committee to
establish how those parameters would fall.
CHAIR SEATON cited page 3, lines 27-29, which read as follows:
(2) "qualifying postsecondary institution"
means a postsecondary school located in the state that
is accredited by a national or regional accrediting
body recognized by the Council for Higher Education
Accreditation;
CHAIR SEATON asked if all the [postsecondary] schools in the
state, including trade schools, fall under that definition.
9:45:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG replied that most are, but not all.
He indicated his intent for the bill to include programs that
are Alaska-based but could be accredited Outside.
9:46:57 AM
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director, Postsecondary Education
Commission, Department of Education and Early Development, in
response to Chair Seaton, said the commission agrees that there
is unmet financial need in the state that is not covered by
available programs. She suggested an administrative change that
would address whether or not the record can reflect the level of
authority the commission has to modify or add rules for the
proposed program. She said when insufficient funding is
available, "we are to look to those with the greatest need and
address their need first." She said it would be helpful to
specify a maximum award amount in the bill or allow the
commission, by regulation, to set the amount. Without that
guideline, decisions would have to be made regarding how far the
money should be spread when less than adequate funds are
available.
9:49:51 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Ms. Barrans to confirm she is saying that the
bill, as currently written, may result in the neediest person
receiving everything while other needy students receive nothing.
MS. BARRANS answered that is correct. Regarding how financial
need is determined, she noted that the language on page 2, lines
20-21, references the Free Application for Federal Student Aid
(FAFSA). The inclusion of this in the bill, she indicated,
ensures that all students seeking funds through the proposed
program would be seeking other federal funds first. She
explained that FAFSA works by collecting information regarding
current or prior year income and assets of the parent of the
student on whose behalf the FAFSA is being filed. The formula
is complex and - based on that information - calculates what
funds should be available to pay the estimated family
contribution (EFC). The unmet need of the student is whatever
cost is left over after subtracting the EFC and the amount of
aid. In the case of an independent student, just the student's
income and assets would be considered in that formula.
9:52:34 AM
MS. BARRANS, in response to a question from Representative
Gardner regarding summer or part-time jobs, said the formula
takes into consideration earnings and assets of the student
based on the prior year. Typically, she said, the FAFSA is
filled out each year between January and March. There is no
preset contribution that the student would be expected to have
earned during that period of time, she added.
9:53:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON observed that the intent of the bill is to
"encourage the postsecondary administration to confine this
program to instate institutions," but "you could probably still
provide this to Alaska residents who were going to school
outside the state as well." He asked Ms. Barrans to confirm if
that is correct.
9:54:02 AM
MS. BARRANS offered her understanding that "we would be
precluded from making awards to students attending outside of
Alaska."
9:54:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON directed attention to the language on page
2, lines [4]-6, which read:
(a) There is created the Alaska achievers' incentive
scholarship program to be administered by the
commission for the benefit of eligible students who
have been admitted to a qualifying postsecondary
institution.
9:54:40 AM
MS. BARRANS cited language on page 3, lines 27-29, [text
provided previously], which specifies the location be in the
state.
9:54:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER directed attention to page 2, line 25,
which read:
(3) has an unmet financial need that is not
less than $4,000;
MS. BARRANS said that is determined on an annual basis.
9:55:38 AM
MS. BARRANS, in response to Chair Seaton, said as the bill is
currently written, there is no limit placed on the number of
years that a person could apply to receive the proposed
scholarship. The language on page 2, lines 29-31, indicates
that in order to continue his/her eligibility, the student would
be attending school not less than half time and must be making
satisfactory progress toward completion of a degree or
certificate. She said that would presume that satisfactory
progress is a set number of credits being accumulated in each
term. In theory, someone attending school half-time might take
four years to earn an associate degree and eight years to earn a
baccalaureate degree. She said it might be worth considering
the addition of cap either on the amount of grants a person
could receive cumulatively or the number of years the person
would be eligible to receive the grant. A person who transfers
from one institution to another may end up spending a number of
years attending school full time before receiving his/her
degree.
MS. BARRANS added that currently the bill language is "wide
open" with respect to collegiate level; there is no limitation
to a first undergraduate degree or even to undergraduate
studies. She explained that means, in theory, a person could
pursue multiple undergraduate degrees, move on to graduate
school, and continue to qualify for the scholarship program.
9:57:52 AM
CHAIR SEATON brought up the issue of "professional students,"
and he questioned whether the idea is to keep people in school
or to help Alaskans through school.
9:58:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked if there is a standardization of
grades between districts, such that earning a "B" would mean the
same thing in all districts.
MS. BARRANS said she has no expertise on that subject, thus she
deferred to others in the department who might be better
equipped to answer the question.
9:59:44 AM
MS. BARRANS, regarding the question of whether or not a "B"
average requirement is sensible, suggested that there may be a
need for an alternative methodology to determine if a person is
likely to succeed. She said the department is currently
promoting the use of a "work keys assessment," which assesses
actual competency that may not necessarily be reflected in a
GPA.
10:00:53 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he would like the committee and the bill
sponsor to work together toward producing a better means of
assessment.
10:02:17 AM
MS. BARRANS, in response to Chair Seaton, indicated that no
further language is needed in the bill regarding the issue of
scholarship funds being a supplement to, not a replacement of,
other non-loan aid; however, she said that is an area where the
commission's administrative ability to issue regulations could
offer clarity.
10:02:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER observed that the sponsor statement
stipulates the number two reason students drop out is because of
financial need; she asked what the number one reason is.
MS. BARRANS said she could only speculate.
10:03:57 AM
MS. BARRANS suggested that the committee consider what
institutions will be considered for this funding. She said the
Council for Higher Education Accreditation focuses its approval
on collegiate institutions. She said changes would be necessary
to include at least the two vocational institutions in the state
that are nationally accredited: the Alaska Vocational Technical
Center (AVTEC) and the Career Academy. In response to Chair
Seaton, she noted that those vocational institutions are the
only two which are regionally or nationally accredited and
located in Alaska. There are providers of workforce training in
the state that are not accredited, and those institutions would
not be eligible under the proposed bill. She said she would
provide the committee with a complete list.
[HB 94 was held over.]
10:05:26 AM
CHAIR SEATON made an announcement pertaining to the committee's
upcoming calendar.
10:05:38 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:06 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| AS 14.17.520.doc |
HEDC 2/16/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| Board of Education Resolution on Minimum Expenditure for Instruction.pdf |
HEDC 2/16/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| NCLB Information.doc |
HEDC 2/6/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/16/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| HB 94 Materials.pdf |
HEDC 2/16/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 94 |
| HB 94 Fiscal note.pdf |
HEDC 2/16/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 94 |
| FY10 Governor's_121508 (2).pdf |
HEDC 2/16/2009 8:00:00 AM |