Legislature(2009 - 2010)Anch LIO Room 220
11/24/2009 01:00 PM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Report by Larry Ledoux, Commissioner of the Department of Education and Early Development on Governor's Performance Scholarship Proposal | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT MEETING
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
SENATE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
November 24, 2009
1:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
SENATE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
Senator Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Senator Joe Thomas, Co-Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins
Senator Donald Olson
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz, Vice Chair
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Peggy Wilson (via teleconference)
Representative Robert L. "Bob" Buch
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
SENATE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
Senator Bettye Davis, Vice Chair
Senator Gary Stevens
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
Representative Bryce Edgmon
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Fred Dyson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Report by Larry LeDoux, Commissioner of the Department of
Education and Early Development on Governor's Performance
Scholarship proposal
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
LARRY LeDOUX, Commissioner
Alaska Department of Education and Early Development
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained the Governor's Performance
Scholarship (GPS) proposal.
EDDY JEANS, Director
School Finance
Alaska Department of Education and Early Development
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on the Governor's Performance
Scholarship proposal.
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director
Alaska Commission on Post Secondary Education
Alaska Department of Education and Early Development
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on college financial aid issues.
SAICHI OBA, Assistant Vice President
Student Services and Enrollment Management
University of Alaska (UAA)
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on college financial aid issues.
JOHN BOUCHER, Senior Economist
Office of the Governor
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on the Governor's Performance
Scholarship.
DAVE LONGANECKER, President
Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education (WICHE)
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on college financial aid issues.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:04:58 PM
CO-CHAIR JOE THOMAS called the joint meeting of the Senate and
House Education Standing Committees to order at 1:04 p.m.
Senators Olson, Meyer, and Thomas, and Representatives Munoz,
Keller, Buch, Gardner, and Seaton were present at the call to
order. Representative Wilson was present via teleconference and
Senator Huggins arrived as the meeting was in progress.
^Report by Larry LeDoux, Commissioner of the Department of
Education and Early Development on Governor's Performance
Scholarship proposal
1:05:38 PM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS announced the first order of business would be a
report from the commissioner of the Department of Education and
Early Development regarding the Governor's Performance
Scholarship proposal. He remarked that the issue of providing
access to post-secondary education is a pressing one in Alaska
that ranks "dead last" nationally in the percentage of low
income families who can afford a higher education, be it a
vocational school a community college or the University of
Alaska. The state would have to double the enrollment rate of
low-income Alaskans before it could catch the number 50 spot on
the list.
1:07:50 PM
LARRY LeDOUX, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Education and
Early Development, said the Governor's Performance Scholarship
(GPS) proposal is an important move forward to improve education
by inviting our students to pursue excellence. Graduation
requirements can be increased, but they know now that if that is
done unilaterally it actually decreases graduation rates. The
real battle with young people is attitude; they must be engaged
in a vision and be invited to move forward. Sometimes they need
help in developing a personal vision for success, and that is
one thing the scholarship program does. The path begins when a
child in the middle schools sits down with his parents and
school officials and lays out an education plan. The student can
then pursue excellence with his parents' support.
1:12:26 PM
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX stated that the Governor's Performance
Scholarship (GPS) program would provide financial incentives for
high school students to earn admission to and be prepared to
excel at public and private institutions of vocational or
academic higher education in Alaska. GPS recipients would be
required to complete a rigorous course of study in high school,
have good grades and score well on an assessment. Students who
meet the eligibility requirements would be entitled to a
scholarship; Alaska Post-Secondary institutions would remain
free to determine their own admission policies.
The program would begin with the high school class of 2011,
which would enter college or technical schools in the fall of
2011. The high school course requirements would be phased in
over time with the full curriculum requirements being four years
of English, math and science and three years of social studies.
Rigorous course requirements are central to the program's value
he said. The state currently requires high school graduates to
take four years of English and three years of social studies,
but only two years of math and science. ACT, a nationwide
nonprofit with extensive experience in college entrance
assessments, reports that students are much more likely to do
well in college if they have taken at least four years of
English, three years of math, social studies and science in high
school. The GPS has even higher requirements than that. In fact,
ACT has found that students who take a curriculum similar to the
GPS requirement are significantly more likely to do well in
college than other students. The GPS program would require
school districts to talk to students in the spring of their
eighth-grade year or to students who are enrolling in an Alaska
public high school for the first time about their high school
curriculum options in the GPS program. Parents and guardians
would be invited to attend.
The goals of the GPS program are to improve student performance
in high school, to increase high school graduation rates, to
improve students' preparation for college level work, to improve
students' scores on college entrance exams, which are the basis
for some national scholarships, to bolster the rigor of high
school curriculum, to boost students' opportunity for job
training, to increase parents' involvement in the education of
their children, to reduce students' remediation in college, to
increase students' academic achievement in institutions of
higher education, and provide for timely completion of higher
education degrees. The proposal envisions these categories of
scholarships:
· A career and technical scholarship has to have an
acceptable GPA and assessment score on a work ready
assessment for awards capped at $3,000/year for two years.
· A silver scholarship has a C+ or higher GPA, an acceptable
score on a college entrance assessment for an award equal
to 50 percent of UA's tuition for the 2010/11 academic
school year for up to eight semesters.
· A gold scholarship requires a B or higher GPA and an
acceptable score on a college entrance assessment for an
award equal to 75 percent of UA's tuition in the 2010/11
academic year for up to eight semesters.
· A platinum scholarship requires an A average GPA, an
acceptable score on a college entrance assessment, and
would pay 100 percent of UA tuition for the 2010/11
academic school year for up to eight semesters.
The GPS may be use for tuition and other academic costs.
Students would be allowed to use the GPS only after all
scholarship funds including the Alaska Scholars funds have been
expended. The GPS funds would be sent directly to the education
institutions. The eligibility criteria are pretty straight
forward; eligible students must be Alaska residents, home school
and private school students are eligible if they can establish
they have the equivalent of a high school diploma and the
required GPA, assessment scores and curriculum. Recipients must
apply for the scholarship within six months of graduating from
high school and would have six years from high school graduation
to use their scholarship unless they receive an extension for
military service. They must maintain an acceptable GPA of 2.5 in
a post secondary school to maintain eligibility.
Part-time students would receive an award appropriate to their
part-time status. Recipients would be eligible to continue to
receive scholarships during graduate school if they completed
their four year degree, are within six years of initial
eligibility and have received fewer than eight semesters of
support for the program.
Non-eligible students include students who are in default of
government education loans, have not complied with selective
service requirements or are convicted felons. The last mentioned
can appeal their eligibility to the Alaska Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED).
1:16:01 PM
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX said the responsibilities for implementing
the program have been divided between several agencies to
minimize the cost of operating the program. High schools which
hold students' transcripts would certify student eligibility.
The DEED would adopt regulations regarding eligibility such as
requirements for courses, GPAs and assessment scores in the high
school, and the process by which home schooled and privately
schooled students demonstrate eligibility and requirements for
satisfactory progress in post secondary institutions.
The Alaska Commission on Post Secondary Education would provide
financial accountability and disburse the funds to institutions.
The DEED in consultation with the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development would adopt regulations to set criteria by
which career and technical programs are eligible to participate
in the program. The Governor envisions this program would be
paid for by using interest gained from fencing off some of
Alaska's earnings.
1:18:37 PM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS noted that John Boucher from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) was online to answer questions. He
asked how different the curriculum would be from what actually
takes place now.
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX answered that Alaska does not require
students to take more than two years of math or science and this
program would require four. These are skills that universities
and employers say students are weak in. Many schools already
require four years of English, but not all. Also, they can't
just think of traditional course work in sciences like
chemistry, physics and biology. Many different kinds of sciences
will meet the requirement. Before No Teacher Left Behind (NTLB)
came on line, school districts did a lot of work with
integrating math and some of the necessary vocational
programming. So he thought they we would see creativity and
innovation in designing real rigorous science, math, social
studies, and language arts courses.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked if he felt that people are basically doing
minimum requirements, so this would have a dramatic impact on
the amount of math and science that students will take.
COMMISSION LeDoux replied that students who are on the college
track would take these courses anyway, but he believes this
program will invite students who would not consider college a
possibility to engage in a more rigorous program and go on to
college or technical school. If they have hope, that is
motivation to engage on that path.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked how that would affect staffing.
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX replied they would certainly be looking at
that. Some courses go away and others move in, but you still
have the same number of students taking courses.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked if the school districts would standardize
which classes would qualify as math, science, et cetera.
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX replied that each district would set its
curriculum, but the DEED would work very closely to develop
alternative methodologies and curriculum to assist districts to
develop that course work.
1:22:39 PM
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked if the language arts requirement includes
foreign languages or is it just English.
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX answered that it does not include foreign
language, although some national scholarship programs include
two years of a foreign language.
CO-CHAIR MEYER said that seems like something to consider in
committee discussion. It seems like foreign language is
important any more to everything.
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX agreed with that point; but they felt that
needs to go through the deliberative process. Some rural schools
and distance education programs would find difficulty with that.
CO-CHAIR MEYER said he has found a lot of need-based
scholarships, but not much for middle class students who may not
be "A" students. Did he have any idea of how many students would
take advantage of the GPS?
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX said he expected that interest in the
scholarship would grow; it will be talked about from eighth
grade on. The nearest estimate they have is from the State of
Wyoming that instituted a similar program called the Hathaway
Scholarship. About 25 percent of their students use it. He
emphasized that the criteria for this scholarship is very
rigorous. "We want them to be proud. This is not going to be a
cakewalk."
CO-CHAIR MEYER said the PFD is already set up to go so that
students can have a free ride at the University, which is good,
but he wanted to know if the scholarship has flexibility for
folks who might want to go to technical school who wouldn't need
the four years of math, for instance.
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX replied that other scholarships have
differing levels of curriculum demands. However, industry says
that their young people need to be proficient in the areas of
math, technical writing and problem solving; and so they are
holding to a rigorous standard. This does not mean that all
students would take calculus and new curricula may have to be
developed, which has been done in the past. For instance, math
concepts have been combined with welding or technical reading.
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked if a student has to complete all four years
of college and graduate before getting the scholarship.
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX replied that students receive the funds as
they become eligible and eight semesters of eligibility is
envisioned that a student would have to use within six years.
Students would have to register for the program within six
months of graduating from high school. So, if a student goes for
two years under this program, for instance, and then chooses to
not go any more the institution would be paid for the first two
years they had attended.
1:29:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the first grant is proposed to start
in 2011 with the idea of building expectations from eighth grade
on to engage students in something they are not already doing.
Now it seems like they are saying the current A and B students
will be getting scholarships and it's not going to be dependent
on changing of attitude or requirements. "Am I missing
something?"
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX said he had accurately portrayed it, but the
reason to implement the scholarship in 2011 is because they
believe they have students who are working hard in school right
now. They will clear the pathway for other students who are
being motivated. Implementation could take two years, because
all students take two years of those core areas.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he wanted to keep the goals of the
program in sight. He also wanted to know if these scholarships
are going to be other than GPA-based.
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX replied that they envision three criteria
for eligibility. The first is to complete a rigorous course of
study, the grade point requirement must be met, and the third
criterion is the assessment score that would be set depending on
the scholarship. The highest assessment score would be required
for the platinum scholarship; the lowest would be silver. All
three would have to be met, and each has a place in determining
the goals of the program. Without the assessment they could end
up with rampant grade inflation, something that has happened in
other states. That doesn't do any good; the criterion has to be
rigorous enough to actually prepare the students for the
college. A correlation between student performance in college
and some national exams, the ACT and SAT, has been well
established statistically. The State Board of Education would
actually set the cut scores. He advised that legislation should
not provide too many specifics, because it would get in the way
during implementation of the program. Having the Board set the
scores would provide for public input and be based on
regulations promulgated by the department.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he was trying to figure out how all
three were going to be done. Does an ACT score override a good
GPA, for instance?
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX answered that they believe a student's ACT
score will be commensurate with his GPA - they go together.
1:36:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH questioned if the funding would require a
constitutional amendment, because they are talking about
dedicating funds.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS said he hadn't heard the issue raised, and he
didn't know the answer.
1:37:50 PM
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX responded that the Governor's initial
proposal talked about "fencing off" some of the savings to pay
for the scholarship. Other states have set aside a certain
amount of money and pay for the scholarship through accumulated
interest; some states do direct appropriations; some set up a
lottery system. He thought it was up to the legislature to come
up with the funding process.
1:38:38 PM
EDDY JEANS, Director, School Finance, Department of Education
and Early Development, said that the Governor talked about
setting aside $400 million out of current savings and using the
interest from that through appropriation. He thought John
Boucher from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) could
respond to the constitutional question, but basically that is
why they are not calling it an endowment fund.
1:39:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH said it seems to him to still be dedicating
funds.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS said he realizes if it's an annual
appropriation, "that might be where the break line is."
1:40:43 PM
SENATOR OLSON remarked that some of his district's schools are
not on A,B,C,D,F system and asked how are those students would
be ranked.
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX replied that all school districts that are
involved in a standards-based system have developed an algorithm
to report grades, and they will have to do the same to evaluate
grade point averages. The great equalizer is the curriculum
taken and the assessment score.
SENATOR OLSON asked how older students who are still having
trouble because of family or getting a late start - with a GED -
can become eligible for the GPS.
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX replied that some states have put together a
different pathway for students who score a certain score on a
GED to receive merit support. This program currently does not
include that pathway, but it does exist. He knows that some
people do take some time to settle down and get some common
sense in their head, and the DEED is working very closely with
the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWFD)
to respond to those young people. He just visited a facility in
Kodiak that is jointly sponsored by the district and the DLWFD
that works with young people from the ages of 16-24 - providing
services like credit recovery, high school graduation,
preparation for the GED, and job and career counseling. Agencies
are starting to cooperate to provide opportunities for success.
Providing a pathway for these young people could be an important
component of this program.
SENATOR OLSON asked on the other end of spectrum, how provisions
can be made for the required four years of math, for instance,
with a student who is highly motivated and gets through high
school in three years.
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX answered that usually those students who
graduate in three years meet all of the graduation criteria
already. There are many opportunities for high achievers to
engage in co-credit opportunities and doubling up for college
credits before they graduate from high school - sometimes
amounting to their whole first and second years.
SENATOR OLSON asked what affect he saw this having on rural
students who are struggling.
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX answered that their challenges in getting
rural students ready to enter this program are great - the same
that they face now. Steps are being taken through implementation
of their education plan; they are developing the initial stages
of a comprehensive virtual school to insure that every child has
access to a highly qualified teacher wherever he lives.
Improving the quality of education available to rural students
will be very important to the implementation of this project,
but he emphasized they are not there yet.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked him to explain more fully the levels of
scholarships and what the tie-breaker would be for them.
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX said he had not considered such a process at
this point, but he would have to come up with a fair process to
spread the money out. A student who takes a rigorous curriculum,
works hard and gets a C+, who is working at the very highest
ends of their ability, to him, merits the same as someone who
gets an A and maybe works at half of their ability.
1:47:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ said she thought the program is positive.
Following up Senator Olson's question in the same vein, she
asked how they ensure that kids in the seventh and eighth grades
are adequately taking advantage of this opportunity when they
know that scholarships tend to favor those already on the fast
track.
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX answered that as an elementary principal, he
always asked his sixth grade students where they will go to
college or where they will go to tech school, and they all have
an answer. Some say they don't know, but it's only because they
have not thought about it yet and are surprised at the question.
But at that age they all have a dream and see themselves doing
that. They also know at the other end only 60 percent of
students are graduating in four years; and so many of them are
not. One of the key components of this program is to build a
vision in each child and that vision starts in the sixth,
seventh and eighth grades. Students who perform well at the
middle school level carry that performance on to the high school
and likewise, students who start failure in the early grades
carry it on to high school. A sixth grader who is behind just
one grade level in math or language arts, who has poor
attendance and who may get a negative in discipline, has a one-
in-ten chance of graduating from high school. Dreams must start
early so parents can see the pathway with their children. It's
so important that the Governor has initiated a very
comprehensive effort to develop interventions at the middle
school level. If he had his way, he would have every student
come in with their parents every year and update and review
their education plan.
1:51:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said normally when one thinks about access
to post secondary education one thinks about money, and he
st
wanted to know what was meant by Alaska being 51 in access.
1:53:04 PM
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director, Alaska Commission on Post
Secondary Education, explained that is a reference to the rate
at which college age kids go on from high school to [indisc.].
Typically they look at the umber of 19-year olds that are
currently enrolled in post secondary institutions as a
percentage of the number of ninth graders.
1:53:53 PM
CHAIR SEATON asked since the GPS scholarships will be given
after application of other scholarships including the Alaska
Scholars and since they are both merit-based tuition grants, how
they relate financially.
1:54:46 PM
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX explained that they decided to make the GPS
the scholarship of "last pay" and before student loans. Many
students get several scholarships and when those are added up,
the GPS would be the last to pay. It wouldn't pay any more than
was necessary to pay for tuition and those costs associated with
the college.
1:55:39 PM
MS. BARRANS added that the way student financial aid is
administered the funds typically flow through the financial aid
office. The financial aid directors are their partners in
administering those aids and are familiar with the rules that
apply, whether it's a Pell, state or university grant. The rules
that guide the funds for this program could be set in the
legislation. She understood that the GPS funds were to
supplement, not supplant other non-loan aids.
CHAIR SEATON asked if under the current proposal a student
qualified for a full Alaska scholarship, would he get anything
out of the GPS if he went to the University of Alaska.
MS. BARRANS replied that they have talked about having the
dollar amount of the award be associated to tuition, but that
the use of the award would not be restricted to tuition only. So
if tuition is satisfied from another earned financial aid
source, non-loan, or other source the certified costs of
attendance could be defrayed from the scholarship award amount.
CHAIR SEATON said they need more information on that. He asked
if the criteria for career or technical requirements were
similar to the Hathaway plan that has qualifications with
WorkKeys or are they still talking about ACT tests.
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX replied that the intent is to use WorkKeys
with vocational and career technical scholarships as the
assessment of choice, but that will be decided by the State
Board of Education - but he wouldn't suggest using the ACT.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked for information on existing need-based
scholarships.
2:00:04 PM
MS. BARRANS replied that currently the state has one program,
the Alaska Advantage Education Grant; it is not portable and the
maximum a student can receive through it is $2,000. It has been
funded through the current fiscal year from a combination of
sources. The first is $500,000/year from the Alaska Student Loan
Corporation, about $100,000 from the federal LEAP program, and
about a year ago the legislature made a $800,000/year capital
appropriation over a three-year period. The total numbers of
awards they make under that program are relatively limited.
She explained that their current financial situation would not
allow the Alaska Student Loan Corporation to do that into the
foreseeable future and the current year is the last one to put
funds into that program. One more year of funding remains in the
capital appropriation; so for 2010/11 they expect the funding to
be limited to just the capital appropriation and the federal
dollars. After that they need to take a new look at funding
sources for that program.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked for a summary of that for the committee.
MS. BARRANS agreed to get that and added that the more
materially important thing for need based financial aid is the
federal Pell grant, which is in excess of $5,000/year at the
maximum level.
2:02:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER expressed her understanding that tuition
covers a small portion of the actual cost of having a student at
the University and asked Melissa Hall [representing the
University of Alaska] if a student has a scholarship covering
tuition and the GPS program brings in a lot more students to the
University, would that impact its funding for a host of other
things unless the legislature also increased the funding to the
University. [Waiting for Ms. Hall to come back on line.]
2:03:52 PM
CHAIR SEATON asked for more information on the use of ACT scores
by other states that use the Taylor Plan.
2:05:19 PM
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked if Alaska could go back to a program like
the student loan forgiveness program that the state used to
have.
MS. BARRANS responded that from about 1968-1987 Alaska had an
education loan program that was funded directly by the general
fund and during that period of time essentially a borrower
agreed that if they completed their certificate or degree for
which they borrowed the funds and then returned to Alaska for a
period of time (initially it required that they be employed and
later simply to reside) that they could have up to 50 percent of
the loan forgiven. Switching back to that program would require
the state to again begin to fund that program at whatever the
value of the expected forgiveness benefit would be with some
expectation for losses. She noted that one of the unfortunate
side effects of that program was that students borrowed with the
expectation that they would complete their degree and return to
Alaska, so they borrowed more than they needed at the time. The
end result was very high default rates of 28-29 percent. So,
there were costs to the program beyond the cost of forgiveness.
Probably less than one quarter of the students actually
completed their degree and met the residency criteria. Even so,
the cost associated with forgiveness over time was about $70
million. The flip side is that the state was funding the loans
to the tune of $60-80 million annually in general fund
appropriations. So there are some complexities to consider with
that model.
2:08:32 PM
CO-CHAIR MEYER remembered when he was co-chair of Finance that
the Student Loan Corporation would pay the state a dividend and
he asked if it is still paying a dividend and if that money
could be used to fund the GPS program.
MS. BARRANS replied that the statutory authority by which the
Corporation Board has paid returns to the state in the past
still exists, but they have not paid a dividend to the state in
the current fiscal year and the Board will be recommending
against paying one in the upcoming fiscal year simply because of
the financial circumstances in which the corporation finds
itself. This year it was unable to issue bonds in the market to
continue to finance their programs and the legislature passed a
bill that allowed them to essentially have an investment in the
Student Loan Corporation in the form of a loan from the
Department of Revenue. So, until the corporation normalizes its
financial status, they have recommended to the Board, and it has
agreed, to retain earnings for use in making the new loans and
to continue paying the costs of operating the agency.
2:10:31 PM
SAICHI OBA, Assistant Vice President, Student Services and
Enrollment Management, University of Alaska, said he would
respond to the question from Representative Gardner who asked if
these programs attract more students, would the legislature have
to provide more operating money to the University. The answer is
that tuition does not cover the total cost of educating
students, so there is the chance that the GPS program could
increase enrollment dramatically and that the University would
have to ask for more funds.
In reference to a comment by Commissioner LeDoux about the
estimated number of students that might be attracted to the
University or post secondary education following something like
GPS, he said that the University for two years in a row has
attracted 17 percent more first-time freshmen than in the
previous year. So, if enrollment were to increase by 25 percent,
that would be about 8 percent more than current increases. So,
Representative Gardner's question about the University needing
more money is appropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER commented that they would probably need a
fiscal note from the University, too, before moving any bill
forward.
2:12:57 PM
CHAIR SEATON asked the department to provide the relative
increments of increases that took place under the
Hathaway plan to use as a base line for what to expect in
university enrollment.
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX said he would try to make that information
available. He just spent some time with the deputy commissioner
in Wyoming that has the Hathaway scholarship program, and she
emailed 200 pages of that data to him. He reminded everyone of
something that is different than all the other states in that
the GPS scholarship is not just limited to the University of
Alaska, it's limited to credited institutions in the State of
Alaska and technical schools that have been certified by the
Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. So the
increase will not just be to universities, but throughout the
state. He thought they would see enrollment increase at
community colleges because students can live at home while
attending school, and they will see the development of quality
technical programs to support building the pipeline. This may
balance some of the costs associated with the University of
Alaska.
2:14:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked Ms. Barrans if the Corporation had
analyzed the impacts that fewer loans will have on it with the
implementation of the GPS program.
MS. BARRANS replied that the corporation continues to be a sound
financial entity, but the marketplace to issue bonds backed with
student loans has disappeared during this period of disruption.
That could normalize with respect to their ability to issue
fixed rate debt.
She explained that the student loan situation has multiple
moving parts right now. President Obama has proposed, and the
House has adopted, a plan to eliminate the federal family
education loan program. This means that going forward the
federal government would make education loans available through
the Department of Education directly. The commission has already
been engaged in that area since 2002 when it became a lender in
the federal Education Loan Program, which represents about 60
percent of the annual lending volume that she makes currently.
Once some certainty regarding timing of the change to a direct
loan-only program has been established, their entire business
model will have to be looked at.
Additionally, Ms. Barrans said, at their request a bill was
passed to raise the credit criteria on alternative state loans
(the state funded loans, not those that have the federal
guarantee). As a result of this raise, they saw a steep drop in
the number of loans made through that program. So, absent
federal lending activity, they expect to see their lending
activity drop by about 80 percent.
Everyone agrees that the impacts of the GPS would be gradual
over time. The expectation is that those students going on over
the three-to-four-year phase-in would be much better prepared to
benefit from the post secondary education training. They do see
students being able to substitute non-loan aid for loan debt as
being a positive thing, not necessarily for the corporation, but
for the students.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS said he wanted John Boucher to respond to
Representative Buch's question about dedicated funds versus
annual appropriations.
JOHN BOUCHER, Senior Economist, Office of the Governor, said
they initially envisioned that the fund would be capitalized
with $400 million; however, the source of that funding is still
under discussion. The idea is that approximately $20 million of
the earnings from this "400 Fund" would be spun off on an annual
basis, and that would be subject to an annual appropriation
process by the legislature. The first appropriation to the fund
would be a one-time appropriation. The actual scholarships would
be granted and used for operations out of the smaller of the two
funds.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH said he thought having a one-time
appropriation would make the Governor's long term budgeting much
easier and he wanted the public to understand the plan so they
support it.
MR. BOUCHER assured them that they are not interested in
creating a dedicated fund.
2:24:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if "holding out a carrot here" for
students and parents to follow the plan might create a problem
when a future legislature chooses not to appropriate funds.
"What happens then?"
MR. BOUCHER responded that is an excellent point that will have
to be deliberated in the process of creating the fund.
2:25:10 PM
CO-CHAIR MEYER remarked that this is no different than what is
done with school bonds that are subject to appropriation each
year.
2:25:40 PM
CHAIR SEATON said the Amerada Hess Fund in the Permanent Fund is
similar; it automatically spins out the interest which gets
appropriated or not for any purpose, and the Legislature has a
pretty good history of following up with appropriations.
2:26:40 PM
CHAIR SEATON remarked that other states have been looking for
ways to increase the competency of their work forces, and one of
the things that has been most productive has been looking at the
non-traditional student - like some which Senator Olson was
talking about. It seems this program would look only at students
who go through a certain curriculum and finish the program
within a certain amount of time - and that goes against ideas
that are being generated in other parts of the United States.
2:29:04 PM
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX restated his belief that this program will
invite students to graduate from high school after going through
a rigorous curriculum. It does not mean that students who do not
qualify for the scholarship will not go to college or pursue
some other avenue of financing their college education. This
will create a culture of learning and achievement in schools and
it will draw all students forward. It raises the bar and demands
excellence and if those are achieved, there will be a pathway to
go to college.
Also, he said, the design of the legislation is such that the
DEED and the DOLWFD can provide the flexibility to respond to
individual students within the program. That is why they are
trying to be non-specific about students' qualifications.
CHAIR SEATON said he thought he heard "high school graduates
within six months of graduation," which does not seem to be
flexible enough for non-traditional students. He hoped the
department could come forward with other avenues for qualifying.
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX responded that requiring students to
register for the program within six months of graduation doesn't
mean they have to go to college right then; it means the
department needs to know in terms of financial accountability
how many students are eligible to draw on the funds - so a
student who qualifies for a scholarship and chooses to go spend
three years going to school outside the state would not give up
the right to access their scholarship when they return to
Alaska. It's more of a registration of participation. For
instance, a student can go outside to school and get a
Bachelor's degree, come back to Alaska, and because he
registered for the scholarship he would still have two years of
eligibility (for a total of six years).
He related that the Hathaway scholarship has 80 pages of
regulations. Further he said that University of Alaska graduates
don't have to leave the state because of the declining economy;
they are getting hired by Alaskan institutions. This program
encourages them to stay and fill the state's workforce needs.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked if they had looked at all of the states
that use the Hathaway plan. Were some more relative to Alaska's
economy?
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX replied that they looked at all states, but
the Hathaway Plan in Wyoming is the most similar to ours. It set
aside $400 million, for instance.
2:35:59 PM
SENATOR OLSON asked if WAMI is the only program this caters to
as far as students going to medical school, and if they aren't
accepted into the WAMI program, could they still be provided for
if they have the incentive to get accepted into another medical
school outside the State of Alaska?
2:36:51 PM
MS. BARRANS responded that the use of funds outside the state
hadn't been extensively discussed. The initial proposal is for
non-portable funds.
SENATOR OLSON asked if the intent of the bill is to get higher
st
than 51 place or to get more students to stay in Alaska, and
why don't they focus on some of the state's needs especially in
the medical field.
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX replied that the intent of the scholarship
program is to insure that Alaskan students have the knowledge
and capability to engage in any profession when they graduate
from high school. He believes that one of the limitations to
students entering the medical and science fields right now is
their lack of preparation in math, science, and language arts;
this program will invite students to achieve a higher standard
of excellence so that universities do not have to remediate
them. The department feels that because of the quality of
Alaska's post secondary institutions its students will elect to
stay if they have that opportunity. Other institutions besides
the university will grow and continue to invite these students.
"So, our intent is, as the Governor has indicated, that in 20
years we want to be able to fill our own jobs with our own
people, with a highly trained workforce in the State of Alaska.
We feel this is one of the steps to make that happen."
2:38:52 PM
SENATOR OLSON said his concern as a policy maker is that it
looks like they are putting more emphasis on people who can go
to graduate school and get a Ph.D. in physics - which is not
necessarily what is needed in Alaska. More people are needed in
the health care field he repeated.
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX responded that GPS has a strong emphasis on
opportunity for those students who are interested in career and
technical education. It doesn't differentiate between a four-
year and a two-year degree and it is open to other non-state
institutions in Alaska that are career and technical type
programs. And, he said, it's to make sure that every graduate
wherever they go to school has the skills, knowledge and
confidence, and vision to be successful.
2:44:33 PM
At ease
2:55:51 PM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS called the meeting back to order at 2:55.
DAVE LONGANECKER, President, Western Interstate Commission on
Higher Education (WICHE), said his purpose isn't to critique the
GPS program, but to talk about the experience around the country
with respect to financial aid programs and how they have worked,
and what the strengths and weakness of different approaches have
been. He would talk about both need based and merit based
financial aid programs.
2:58:02 PM
MR. LONGANECKER said whenever you are talking about financial
aid you have to think about it in the context of the overall
financing structure of post secondary education in Alaska. You
can't think about financial aid without thinking about the way
and extent to which you are supporting your institutions and
appropriations, tuition policy and financial aid policy. All of
those programs affect student success and institutional quality
and should be in sync, but he would focus on financial aid.
As a starting point five key factors make good financial aid
policy. The first is a strong clear rationale and philosophy
behind what is going to be done and what it is that will get you
from here to there; and what is it about today's policies that
aren't getting you there. The second is knowing what will get
you to those goals and how you will know that you have reached
them. Third, you want a program that supports the goals and the
rationale. Then you design the program. Fourth, you want a
winning coalition for program; it makes very little sense to
develop the perfect program that nobody can support. Fifth, you
want a program that you can afford into the future.
2:59:32 PM
MR. LONGANECKER said there are generally two perceived
rationales behind financial aid programs; one is using it to
make college accessible financially, and the other is to reward
meritorious behavior. Both have passionate supporters.
Louisiana is very passionate about its Taylor Program which he
wouldn't support.
He remarked that there is more to the story than the little
battle between need based and merit based financial aid. Some
say that the Taylor Plan and the Hope scholarship in Georgia
were the great discoveries of the 1990s, but that is not so.
Need based aid started in about 1960, and some would say with
the G.I. bill after 1945. Until then financial aid was only done
for meritorious students. The Higher Education Act of 1964/65
really started providing need based grant aid and encouraged the
states to do the same with a state student incentive grant
program. The LEEP program (Laclede Early Education Program)
brought a lot of states into the position of providing
substantial grant aid - but not Alaska.
Usually in the modern context these are focused on covering
tuition or a portion thereof, he explained. That is very
different than need based aid which generally looks at the total
budget the student faces, trying to make sure that they can
afford to go to college - not just that their tuition is somehow
taken care of.
These programs are designed to go after a myriad of goals and
what those goals are needs to be determined. There are four
major goals. One is to reward those who achieve the highest
levels of accomplishment. The classic example of this was the
National Merit Scholarship Program, which used to provide a lot
of aid to students who were in the top 1 or 2 percent of their
graduating class in the country. That program no longer provides
that kind of funding.
The second goal is to encourage students to prepare better for
college. A lot of provisions in the Governor's proposal are
along those lines. A third goal is to increase college
participation rates overall and the fourth is to attract the
best and brightest to stay in the state. Those are the goals
behind most of the merit based programs in the country.
3:04:03 PM
MR. LONGANECKER addressed the question first of how well merit
programs rewarding those who achieve the highest levels work.
The answer is "Well, it depends." Intuitively it seems like the
programs would do great at this - students are rewarded for
doing extremely well. And if the program is highly focused as
the National Merit Scholarship Program was, it probably does
provide something in that regard. If it is spread too broadly,
it doesn't work because those exceptional students are thinking
they are exceptional, but then they see everybody else getting
one. Therefore they don't really feel rewarded.
Another problem is that the way aid is packaged by financial aid
administrators often diminishes the impact on the very bright
students. Many of the states with which he works have
foundations that provide scholarships to the best and the
brightest; so those students are already getting about the same
amount of money - just from different sources. At that point
they feel pretty good about the array of aid they got, but don't
see any particular source of aid as the lead on that,
particularly the last dollar in, which is the way the GPS is
designed.
The second question is how well these work to encourage students
to better prepare for college. Again the answer is "It depends."
But clearly, encouraging them to take a rigorous curriculum is
the most important thing to do. It is much more important than
encouraging them to get good grades. A publication from the U.S.
Department of Education by Cliff Adelman provided statistics
from the high school and beyond studies that shows what makes
the difference in whether students succeed in college is not so
much what grades they got, but whether they took a curriculum
that prepared them for college. ACT data shows that in effect
the skills required to get a living wage job today without a
college education are essentially the same as those required for
success in post secondary education. So in fact it's to the best
interests of those students to take a rigorous curriculum
whether they are headed to college or not.
3:07:21 PM
The Georgia experience is helpful here, because when Georgia
HOPE was started it was all based on grades, and the requirement
for remediation actually went up, not down. The reason is that
students quit taking the rigorous courses because they needed
the high grades to get the HOPE scholarship. Mr. Adelman's work
shows that decent grades are important - you have to do decently
- but you don't have to get high grades. Decent grades and a
rigorous curriculum are highly related in terms of student
success once they go to post secondary education. The idea of
requiring a rigorous curriculum is very important, particularly
for students from low income families. An interesting detail, he
said, is that very smart poor kids are less likely to go to
college and succeed than very modestly intellectually endowed
rich kids.
MR. LONGANECKER said the third goal for merit programs is to
increase participation rates overall and again the success
depends. Nationally research indicates there is very little
"price elasticity for demand" in higher education except for low
income students. That means that middle income and high income
students go to college or they don't irrespective of the price
of going to college - that's nationally. That may not be the
case in Alaska, because being "far on the curve to the right" it
might not fit the norm of the nation. Georgia has some contrary
evidence which sort of looks like Alaska. They are both states
where folks don't go to college, even middle income folks. But
when Georgia instituted Georgia HOPE they increased their
college participation rate of recent high school graduates from
30 percent to 37 percent, a pretty substantial increase. More
able, low income students and some middle income students went
to college. That was made up of three different populations of
students; one is their more able low income students went to
college. Some middle income students who hadn't gone to college
before went to college, but it didn't change what Zell Miller
had hoped for, which was a change in the ethic of post secondary
education in the state. Thirty-seven percent has not gone up
appreciably. The HOPE program had a very substantial impact, but
not the one he had hoped for.
3:11:04 PM
There was a similar impact in Nevada where participation rate
went up from 40 percent to 47 percent. That held for a little
while, but then it started to fall back, in a sort of "halo
effect."
3:11:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said one of the goals of the Hathaway
Program is to build a more rigorous high school kind of climate
where people are demanding higher quality courses, where parents
are trying to get their students to engage in those courses.
Georgia or Nevada have any success in that area?
MR. LONGANECKER answered that Georgia successfully reversed its
problem of "lowering remediation" after it put in the core
curriculum requirement. Nevada's Millennium Scholarship Program
did not have a strong connection between the high school
curriculum and going on to college; it didn't work there.
Louisiana's Taylor Plan has the lowest continuation rates in
college of any state in the South. But Louisiana just adopted a
core curriculum; so he is expecting that to change
substantially.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked if remediation is the criteria he
used to measure.
MR. LONGANECKER responded that it is one indicator, but he was
using it as an example of what can happen as an unintended
consequence. The better indicators are whether students complete
their college education. Most of the evidence is if you give a
harder curriculum, students achieve at higher levels. He said:
We have a sort of crisis of low expectations in our
country - worrying that if we actually expect
something from our high school students, they will
fail - when, in fact, all of the - most all of the
evidence the only contrary evidence is in Texas, but
virtually every other state has shown that students,
when you imposed higher expectations on them, a much
larger share, particularly of students from
economically disadvantaged families, do better.
3:14:49 PM
[CO-CHAIR THOMAS handed the gavel over to CHAIR SEATON.]
3:14:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked how the engagement of the students
is measured.
3:15:35 PM
MR. LONGANECKER replied that would be answered within his
comments as he moves along.
He said the fourth objective in some of the states is to attract
some of the best and brightest to stay in the state. Without
doubt that was part of the goal in Georgia and Nevada. If the
goal is to keep them in state in college, it appears to be
fairly successful - at least at first. Oklahoma said it would
give every National Merit Scholarship semi-finalist a full ride
to the University of Oklahoma. Well, they got a lot of
Oklahomans and others to come to Oklahoma and they now rank
something like third or fourth behind Harvard and a couple of
others in the share of their National Merit Scholarships semi
finalists who stayed in state. But that was a huge inducement!
They were given tuition and housing. These students were as
highly prized as football players.
It worked well in Georgia. Before Georgia HOPE, 23 percent of
high SAT students stayed in state; afterwards, 75 percent
stayed. They were losing a lot of their students to South
Carolina and Florida. As the reputation of the University of
Georgia improved with these programs, they clearly have
attracted a much larger share to stay in state and South
Carolina and Florida suffered.
Nevada's evidence wasn't nearly as favorable. Before Millennium,
59 percent of the students who would have been eligible if there
had been a program stayed in the state; afterwards it went up to
63 percent. And since implementation it has actually dropped
below the previous figure - below 59 percent according to the
Chancellor's office.
So in terms of attracting students to go to college in a state,
it probably works and would probably work pretty well for some
of the students being lost presently. But you need to ask if the
real goal is to get them to stay in college in the state or to
stay in the state after completing college. That story is a
little more mixed.
3:18:21 PM
The National Bureau of Economic Research has a working paper
that shows that there is only a modest relationship between
where a student at the baccalaureate-and-above level gets his
education and where he ends up working. In fact, it's much
stronger at the associate degree level and below.
He said they could maybe look at another strategy, which is try
to attract students back afterward post secondary education
rather than worrying so much about whether they go out to
another state to get it. He is intrigued by a program in South
Dakota called "Dakota Roots" where they actually contact the
students who left after a while and tell them how good life is
in South Dakota. They even have an advertisement on TV during
the holidays when kids come home for Christmas that shows the
house and car you can buy for what you can get a hovel for in
Los Angeles, Denver or Seattle, which is where all their
students have gone. They will actually arrange five interviews
for jobs if they agree to come back.
MR. LONGANECKER next discussed if this makes sense in terms of
the investment. It is clear that "you pay a lot for a modest
impact." But it may be worth it in a variety of ways. Most of
the people who will receive this award were going to college
anyway and most were going to go to college in Alaska. However,
it does increase the affordability for the most needy who
qualify for merit as well. In Georgia, for example, currently a
lot of people who love need based financial aid complain that
this program does not help needy students. Today the program is
around $300 million and around $50 million of that goes to
students with assessed financial need. But Georgia didn't have a
need based program before; so now $50 million is available for
needy students. That's comparatively few compared to the
distribution of students of the Taylor Plan, the TOPS program in
Louisiana, where 40 percent of the funding goes to students from
families with incomes over $100,000 - and Louisiana is a poor
state. About 10 percent of the Hathaway Plan goes to students in
the need based component. So, the funds are disproportionate to
those from incomes that go up the income strata rather than
down. It does reduce the burden for all of the others, and there
is nothing wrong with reducing the burden of going to college,
but it doesn't really increase their financial access.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked how it reduces the burden for
others.
MR. LONGANECKER answered that it simply reduces the cost of
going to college, unless they were going to get it from one
source of aid or another. In most cases, particularly in the
context she referred to, if they get a couple of thousand or
something approaching tuition, that reduces their financial
burden.
He cautioned, "You want to beware of unintended consequences."
To the credit of the folks in Alaska, they had thought of some
of them, but not all. One is the effect on price or on tuition.
This has gone different ways in different states. In Georgia
where the universities set the tuition rates, once this went
into effect, tuition skyrocketed at the major universities.
Because at both the University of Georgia and the Georgia Tech,
almost all students were HOPE scholarship recipients; so they
could pass virtually all the costs on to the state - a very
rational way for the institutions to respond. So that
constrained the amount that the other institutions, many of
which serve broader access goals, were able to do in the way of
tuition, because they could pass it on to all of their students.
In Louisiana the legislature sets the tuition, and it has kept
tuition rates extremely low. They have done this at a time when
they've also not had a lot of resources; so they have to keep
their state appropriation very low. So, Louisiana State
University is starving for funds. It is a research university
operating on far less funding than necessary to manage a
research university. If they increase tuition there, it would
substantially increase the cost of the TOPS program.
3:26:09 PM
West Virginia and New Mexico fund their merit based program
through the state lottery. They figured that students were being
taken care of by the merit program, so they cut back on their
need based program. In both programs the need based program
suffered at the expense of the merit based program even though
it wasn't their original intent.
MR. LONGENACKER said that was not the case in most states with
merit programs, because most of those didn't have need based
programs of any consequence anyway.
3:28:30 PM
MR. LONGANECKER reminded them that these programs exclude
essential students from the future of the state's economic
development. To complete the President's goal of returning the
U.S. to being a leader in the world, we can't get there with
high school graduates, alone he said. Adults also have to be
brought back into the higher education arena. He stated that a
single program should not try to serve all needs, but this GPS
program doesn't provide much of an avenue for adults coming
back, for military and veterans unless they signed up for
eligibility within six months of graduating from high school, or
for late achievers. They also need to be careful that whatever
they structure, that they don't leave "a whole bunch of federal
funding on the table." Most students are eligible for federal
tax credits for their tuition, but if they don't pay tuition
they don't get the federal tax credit. Ms. Barrans mentioned the
way to get around this is to use language saying it can be used
for any education expenses. This kind of language will avoid the
federal problem.
3:29:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked who has offered a merit based
program that doesn't leave federal tax credits on the table.
MR. LONGANECKER answered that Nevada made changes that brought
them into full compliance, Hawaii changed its tuition voucher
program, and Washington was in compliance but they eliminated
their merit program. New Mexico redesigned theirs so they are in
compliance.
3:30:57 PM
MR. LONGANECKER turned to the issue of need-based programs. He
said the original purpose of these programs, particularly the
ones that grew out of the Great Society programs of the 1960s
was to expand access to higher education. The U.S. was moving
from a meritocratic system to an egalitarian system, one in
which every student who could benefit from some post secondary
education and could qualify for it should benefit and be able to
choose the institution that best served their needs.
The more recent thrust started in about the 1990s and expanded
the concept from access to success. First it was thought access
was a goal - if people could go to college they would get a
college education. But it was discovered that many who went to
college dropped out. Huge increases in the percentage of
students going to college were seen, but not huge increases in
the share of students graduating from college. So, something
different was needed. The programs that have evolved in the last
decade have been focused on student success as much as access.
How do need based programs measure up on the goal of expanding
access? Actually, Mr. Longanecker said they were quite
successful. The price elasticity of demand studies show that a
change in price for low income students will increase their
participation in college from 5-10 percent per $1,000 change in
price. So if you give a needy student a $3,000-scholarship,
you're going to substantially change the probability that that
student will go to college. That research goes back into the
late 1960s and through the 70s and 80s.
However, he said, "We have been much less successful in
achieving student success." Students have been brought in, but
the dropout rates have increased. They have increased the
success of low income students and students of color, but not as
fast as the success of middle and high income students has
increased. So, the gap has actually increased. He said that even
though they got better in every category slightly, the equity
gaps remain huge in American higher education between the haves
and the have nots.
The other dilemma with these programs is that they are not as
politically popular. Poor people don't tend to vote as much as
middle and higher income folks. When Zell Miller came out with
the HOPE Scholarship in Georgia, all the other southern states
came out with HOPE-like programs within two years. "These are
politically popular programs."
3:34:57 PM
MR. LONGANECKER said the need based programs had some real
problems even thought they achieved part of the goal; they had
the unintended consequence of not getting the students through
the college. So over the last 20 years blended programs have
evolved and these come in three variations: one is those that
are merit programs that add on a need component, another is
those that are basically need based programs that add on a merit
component, and those that are truly a blended of the two.
MR. LONGANECKER said the first is the need based being add on to
the merit based. Wyoming's Hathaway scholars program is a good
example of this. To qualify you have to take a rigorous
curriculum, you need to achieve a certain composite of the GPA
and ACT. They have three different levels up to $3,200 per year
and you need to maintain a specific GPS while you are in college
to maintain eligibility for the award. All qualified students
receive an initial scholarship regardless of whether they have
any need or not. Needy students get a supplement as well, but
they have to qualify for the scholarship first. So, it's a merit
program with a need based component tacked on.
Many of these strong components are embedded in the GPS
proposal. The strength of that program is that it rewards strong
preparation and assists with affordability for the neediest
students. Even though for many years cost was thought to be the
barrier to higher education, but research has shown that
preparation is as key to success in college as finances are, and
maybe more so.
The other thing he liked about the Hathaway Plan is that it is a
fixed amount not dependent on the actual tuition amounts, and
since it is based on the cost of tuition, he presumed the
students who attend the community colleges which have lower
tuition actually come out a little bit ahead. So there is a cost
of choice and it seems to make sense that students should be
making a decision on where they go in part on the basis of the
cost.
MR. LONGANECKER also said he liked the fact that the Hathaway
Program is funded by a trust fund approach and does not rely on
annual appropriations that many things do. The other thing he
likes is that it fits Wyoming well; it fits the culture. The
limitations of it are two-fold - that it's available (as the
proposed GPS) only for those students who are graduating from
high school and who fit this criteria. So it is limited to
Wyoming high school graduates of the present era.
3:39:41 PM
MR. LONGANECKER said the second kind of merit is merit added on
to need. The best examples of this come out of the federal
legislation - the academic competitiveness grants and the SMART
grants (part of the Pell grant program today). The academic
competitiveness grants provide Pell grant recipients who took a
rigorous curriculum in high school get an additional $750 tacked
on in their first year and $1,300 in the second year. The reason
- at the federal level - for the increase in the second year is
they see that most students who drop out of college drop out in
the first year and they are trying to provide some incentive to
keep them into the second year.
The second program is the National Science and Math Access
Program (SMART) for juniors or seniors which is a $4,000 grant
that is tacked on to the Pell grant. If you are a Pell grant
recipient majoring in the stem fields and you have a 3.0 grade
point or above, you get a SMART grant. The strengths of this
program are that it rewards students for preparing well for
college; it encourages students to major in an area of national
need and it is focused on those students most underrepresented
in the desired fields. This program has some limitations; one is
that is excludes students from high schools that don't offer the
rigorous curriculum. The other is that it is not permanently
authorized so the program's sustainability is in question and,
in fact, it is not proposed in the budget for next year.
3:42:21 PM
MR. LONGANECKER said the third type is the ones that blend merit
and need. These programs include non separable merit and need
components - both have to be demonstrated. The standard programs
in this regard are the ones that come out of Indiana called the
Twenty-first Century Scholars Program and the one out of
Oklahoma called the Oklahoma Promise Scholarship. Each of these
essentially say if a student takes a rigorous curriculum and
achieves at a reasonable level (2.5 in Indiana and 3.0 in
Oklahoma) they will have an award equal to tuition for the
period of time that they go to college. Those programs seem to
have changed the thrust of the high school activities; they seem
to have a real impact on what the high schools offer and what
the students take and how well prepared they come to college.
They also require that students have assessed financial need
using a family income cut off of $50,000.
The program that he is particularly keen on is patterned after
one in Minnesota called "Shared Responsibility," and he helped
set it up in Oregon. Minnesota has a real philosophy behind its
program that involves the total expense of going to college, not
just the tuition. It varies from a two-year to a four-year
institution because while tuition might be less at a community
college the other expenses will be the same as if the student
goes to a four year college. This model looks at those students
and has four partners. The first partner they expect is the
student who is the principal beneficiary. When Minnesota
surveyed its residents, they said everybody should go to college
but they ought to pay their way through college like I did. Most
people don't fully understand that there is no way they could
pay their way through college today. So they said the first
partner who is going to benefit most from this is the student.
So they said is the student who goes to a community college
ought to be able to pay for that while going to work 10 hours a
week and working summers, and that would be their contribution.
They used 10 hours a week because research shows if you work
more than 20 hours a week it reduces your likelihood of success
in college. If a student went to a state university that is more
expensive, he should be willing to take out loans.
So the four-year college amount was based on the student working
that same amount and then borrowing an amount that they could
reasonably pay back if they went into a low paying job, like
teaching and social work.
What is interesting about the Oregon program and what could be
key for a blended program for Alaska is basing the grant amount
on work and borrowing, savings the student has saved before
going to college, or it can come from other scholarships. The
benefit of this for Oregon's philanthropic community was that
their dollars no longer were going to be substituted for the
state dollars. If the state gave the student a scholarship, it
was going to count against his share. So they could earn the
money by working or by scholarship. He suggested that Alaska
could blend the merit component into a plan like this. He said
in Oregon this philosophy is extended to all students whether
they have financial need or not.
3:47:33 PM
The second partner is the parents and he has portrayed parents
that don't have much in the way of income. But for many students
this will fill up all of the rest of what they need because they
may come from a family with substantial wealth. But the argument
was that even the student from a wealthy family should make a
contribution toward their education. That is where the GPS
scholarship component could go.
The third partner is to bring in everything that the federal
government was going to provide including the tuition tax
credits and the Pell grants. This is essentially identical for a
student going to a high cost and low cost institution. Then
their philosophy was a fourth partner was the state and they
would fill in the difference.
He advised that they need to think about whether the state is
really prepared for success and explained that Oregon looked at
research on price elasticity of demand and projected a 7-10
percent increase in participation rates. However, in the first
year, the increase was 17 percent in the universities and 27
percent in the community colleges. Oregon did not have the money
in the appropriations to fund this. They came back and in the
first year they put all of the money in and then economics hit
Oregon pretty hard. It's one of the four hardest hit states and
they have had to cut back and ration their awards this year. So
the success of the program will have financial impacts on
demands for this program and on the universities in general.
3:49:57 PM
MR. LONGANECKER next discussed what is best for Alaska. If the
goal is to reward the best and the brightest, merit is the best
approach, but it won't address affordability. It will affect
where students go to college, but not whether they go to
college. The evidence may be different for Alaska because it is
such a low participation state over all - looking a little more
like Georgia.
If Alaska's goal is to retain the best and brightest, merit is a
possible approach, but it is pretty expensive. It might be
better to try and entice them back after they went to school
somewhere else. If the goal is to expand access through lower
cost, need based will get the students in the door, but not
through it, and it doesn't send the message about the importance
of working hard to prepare for college. If they want access to
success and that is the highest priority, he said a blended
model may hold the most promise - plus it's more cost effective
than either a straight need based or straight merit.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked what he would suggest if their only
goal was to increase rigor.
3:51:21 PM
MR. LONGANECKER replied if the intent is to increase rigor, a
merit program is the way to go. But he thought they could
achieve more by doing a blended program that covers both rigor
and need, because you won't get needy students with rigor alone.
He said that research doesn't support Senator Meyer's comment
that plenty of scholarships are available. Most need-based
students have the greatest amount of unmet need in almost all of
his calculations. Ms. Barrans talked about the current program
that provides up to $2,000, which is very similar to a need
based program that Louisiana started last year to complement the
TOPS program. Students know that tuition is not all they have to
pay; they know they will have room and board, as well.
3:53:07 PM
CO-CHAIR MEYER said the reason he supports the Governor's
program is if someone is showing effort in school with a C+ and
better average, they are accommodated regardless of their
income.
MR. LONGENECKER agreed and added that is the strength of the
Hathaway over the TOPS program, which is an all or nothing
program.
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked if he agreed that there is merit to having
our children go off and see how the Lower 48 lives, and then get
them back.
MR. LONGANECKER said they run the WUWI program which encourages
interstate collaboration; but of course he thinks that exposure
to the rest of the country is a valuable asset. Kids get a good
education in Alaska and most Alaskans would say they wish their
kids would stay home. The benefits of a program like the
Governor is proposing are that students will be preparing for
the University of Alaska, but it will open up their horizons and
possibilities and they will be able to go other places because
they'll be much better prepared. They will be scoring well on
the WorkKeys and be able to go in the trades and a lot of
occupational areas that they're simply not well prepared to go
into today.
3:57:16 PM
CO-CHAIR MEYER said they keep using ACT as a bench mark, and
asked if SAT is the same.
MR. LONGANECKER replied pretty much, but they originated on very
different principles and he liked the rationale behind ACT
better than SAT, which is a measure of innate ability and
intelligence. ACT was based on achievement.
3:57:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if the merit portion of Oregon's
blended program is a combination of rigor, GPA and independent
assessment or is it available to all high school graduates.
MR. LONGANECKER replied that Oregon does not have a merit
component. It is built that way so that the foundations and
institutions would fill in there. Their rationale is that
institutions like to give merit aid; they don't like to give
need based aid - because they like to get the best and the
brightest students. They like the UA Scholars Program; and in
fact, there is some redundancy between that and the platinum
level in the proposal. Oregon is not facing the same statistics
as Alaska is; it doesn't have as high a participation rate as it
would like, but most of the students graduate from high school
and most of those go on to post secondary education.
If they are trying to change the ethic in the high school in a
more substantial way, there is nothing wrong with intentionally
blending that in and having a state component that would be part
of that. He pointed out the danger is if they tie the grant to
tuition at UAA and UAF, because almost all students will be
eligible for this scholarship at the gold or platinum level and
that will provide pressure on those institutions to increase
tuitions. The way Wyoming came up with $3,200 scholarship is
because tuition is $3,200; but it is not locked in at that
level. This also makes it easier to defend legally on federal
tax issues. He remarked that there was a lot of redundancy
between the platinum level and the University of Alaska Scholars
Program.
4:01:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked about other places who tried to win
back students after graduation by using incentives like Alaska's
old forgiveness program.
MR. LONGANECKER replied that no state is "buying back their
talent." But certain states will forgive loans for doctors and
lawyers, for example. Most of those programs find that about a
third of the people come and serve out their obligation and
leave, about a third come and serve their obligation and stay,
and about a third "buy out" their obligation and leave. He
mentioned that states don't have all the tools it needs to
follow up on unpaid obligations of those who leave. The state
would have to essentially run a collection mechanism at the same
time. New Jersey did that for a number of years, but gave it up
about the same time Alaska did.
4:04:55 PM
MR. LONGANECKER said he thinks there is a lot that can be done
subtly. One possibility would be to provide a more attractive
option to receive back those students who go to graduate school.
The WICHE medical program has a contract with students to serve
two years for every year contract they have with the state. They
found that 74 percent of those students return to that state as
opposed to 50 percent for those students who aren't on a
contract. You can get return on investment for that, but that
may be a work place issue as well as a work force issue. There
needs to be places for those people to come back and work. He
was interested in seeing how the South Dakota Roots program
works over time.
4:07:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH said part of their obligation is to consider
the fact that students need a job. So it's a matter of
economics. In building these models the end goal is to improve
the economics of the state.
4:07:34 PM
SENATOR OLSON asked how many of the 74 percent of medical
students who come back to the state are still there 5 or 10
years later.
MR. LONGANECKER didn't know the answer to that. Within the WICHE
region they have a very strong presence. From his time in
Minnesota that has a federal program that encourages doctors
with a similar state loan forgiveness he knows that only about
half of those who came back stayed.
SENATOR OLSON asked if he is familiar with the M.D. program
versus the D.O. program.
MR. LONGANECKER answered yes.
SENATOR OLSON said he has heard that the D.O. program is less
expensive and that encourage medical students to go to the D.O.
schools. Are there any significant differences in their return
rates?
MR. LONGANECKER answered there seems to be a much larger share
of osteopathic physicians who come back to rural areas than in
the standard allopathic medicine programs - in part because they
don't have areas of specialization. The form of education both
in terms of providing it and receiving it is less expensive. The
best students still seem to prefer the M.D. route.
SENATOR OLSON asked how many students in a North Dakota-type
program actually returned, because they are facing the same type
of rural practice and doctor shortages Alaska has.
MR. LONGANECKER replied he didn't know the answer to that, but
South Dakota has a lot of students staying in the state; but
that is partly because the South Dakota School of Medicine isn't
terribly highly thought of elsewhere. The WAMI program has some
pretty strong success with its clinical sites and that is a good
way to have students return. Medicine and dentistry are fairly
unique and probably require a different set of strategies than
the standard undergraduate approach where they could think in
broader terms and look for more standard models than in high
cost programs. Part of the dilemma with medicine is that
opportunity costs to come in to a rural area are huge. They
might need to think about much different ways to deliver
education, but he is very impressed with the way Alaska
developed capacity in mental health services through a "grow
your own building up professional development model." He thought
it had potential in other areas for a rural state.
4:12:32 PM
CHAIR SEATON mentioned that Alaska has a unique tool in trying
to win back people and in two previous legislatures they talked
about programs for holding the PFD in trust after two years or
so of allowable absences for students in a Masters or Ph.D.
program. They could get those back checks when they
reestablished their residence here. He asked for data on how
GPAs coordinated with success rates. He wanted to know the
criteria they are using rewards future success.
MR. LONGANECKER said he would do the best he could to pull that
together for them, but his sense is that they will get their
biggest bang for the buck from the students who just take a
rigorous curriculum who wouldn't have before and who aren't
going to be exceptional performers. They will be just regular
folks who will be much better prepared for college. In terms of
rewarding, that's where they would have to be comfortable with
the larger awards, the platinum level for instance, farther up
the continuum. That might keep some students in state who would
have gone elsewhere, and it clearly provides a reward for
exceptional students - and there is nothing wrong with that.
But they have to determine how valuable that is compared to
other focuses and how much that will cost the state.
The profile for future eligible students could be drawn from the
Louisiana State University where 92 percent of the students are
TOPS eligible. About 17 percent of the students at Baton Rouge
Community College are TOPS eligible. He referenced a graph by
John LeGuardy that looked at income distributions.
4:17:25 PM
CHAIR SEATON said one of his concerns with the Hathaway Plan is
that the profile of Alaska students is similar to the profile of
the two-year "outside" college students - and only less than 5
percent of those students in those two-year colleges qualified
for the need based portion.
MR. LONGANECKER agreed that something was "screwy" with the need
component there that he would have to figure out. It's possible
that the Pell grant is making their need based students
ineligible for the need component of Hathaway. He would share
that information when he figured it out.
CHAIR SEATON said the Alaska Scholars Program is based on the
top 10 percent of each graduating class, and he wanted a
comparison of what increase in participation would be for this
program versus that one.
MR. LONGANECKER said he would work with them on that issue.
Texas has a 10 percent scholars program, but the real problem
with the GPA and the assessment is if students actually achieved
at a higher level it would cost the state a lot of money. That
would be a nice problem to have, though, he mused.
4:21:48 PM
CHAIR SEATON said he thought the presentation had been helpful.
Finding no further comments or questions the meeting was
adjourned at 4:21 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 2008 Wyoming Hathaway Scholarship Report.pdf |
HEDC 11/24/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 11-24-09-Alaska.ppt |
HEDC 11/24/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Governor's Performance Scholarship Q&A.docx |
HEDC 11/24/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HSP Freshmen 200809.pdf |
HEDC 11/24/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HSP Fall-09.pdf |
HEDC 11/24/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HellerMeritImpact.pdf |
HEDC 11/24/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| hathway_rubric.pdf |
HEDC 11/24/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Hathaway 2008-09.pdf |
HEDC 11/24/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Hathaway 2007-08.pdf |
HEDC 11/24/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| FarrellMeritImpact (2).pdf |
HEDC 11/24/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| counselors_quick_ref.pdf |
HEDC 11/24/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| College Access Report 2007.pdf |
HEDC 11/24/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HSP Juniors 200809.pdf |
HEDC 11/24/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HSP Sophomores 200809.pdf |
HEDC 11/24/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Merit-Need ACPE e-mail.docx |
HEDC 11/24/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| WPE-CACG-10-2009.pdf |
HEDC 11/24/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Rep_Seaton_on_UA_Scholars.pdf |
HEDC 11/24/2009 1:00:00 PM |