![[Top]](/images/nav-top.gif)
![[Back]](/images/nav-back.gif)
![[Home]](/images/nav-home.gif)
June 24, 2005
University of Wyoming Outreach Building
Casper, Wyoming
Senators: Tex Boggs and Charles Scott
Representatives: Steve Harshman and Jeff Wasserburger
Other members: Reed Eckhardt, Andrew Hansen, Tom Kinnison, Dr. Joe Megeath, Bryan Monteith, Lisa Skiles Parady and Marta Stroock
Dave Gruver
Please refer to Appendix 1 to review the Committee Sign-in Sheet for a list of other individuals who attended the meeting.
All meeting materials and handouts provided to the Committee by the Legislative Service Office (LSO), public officials, lobbyists, and the public are referenced in the Meeting Materials Index, attached to the minutes. These materials are on file at the LSO and are part of the official record of the meeting.
Chairman Harshman called the meeting to order at 9:30 p.m. Minutes from the last meeting were amended to reflect changes suggested by Dr. Rose of the Community College Commission and as amended were moved to be approved by Dr. Megeath, seconded by Mrs. Stroock and approved. Cochairman Boggs assumed the chair as cochairman Harshman excused himself to attend a funeral.
Merit scholarship programs in other states
Dr. James Caillier, with the Taylor Scholarship Plan in Louisiana, addressed the Committee by conference call. Also joining the meeting by conference call was Melissa Goff with the Indiana merit scholarship program. Dr. Caillier addressed the movement to merit based scholarships from need based scholarships nationwide. In his view a merit program must have a core curriculum, minimum GPA of 2.5 and a minimum score on a standardized test. He stated that merit programs generally do not have enough history to allow for good empirical studies of their effect at this time, but generally they do tend to keep students in state, raise standardized test scores and high school performance and graduation rates. Not one state which has instituted a merit based program has rescinded the program, according to Dr. Caillier; they are very popular with students and parents.
Dr. Caillier stated that what seems to work best is a merit based program based upon the cost of tuition. For those students with a need beyond that, existing scholarship programs can be looked to as supplemental funding. While he does not represent the State of Louisiana's program, that program presents a challenge to students with its high requirements and in his view is one of the best merit programs.
Senator Scott questioned if the two types of programs, merit and need merge. Dr. Caillier agreed that occurs. Senator Scott also questioned whether the existing federal programs are sufficient, after a merit scholarship, to ensure that any qualifying Wyoming student can attend college. Dr. Caillier responded that there will always be some need remaining, although Wyoming does provide considerable need based scholarships currently.
In response to the question of whether the better approach is a hard dollar amount or an amount tied to tuition, Dr. Caillier stated that tuition can be seen as increasing in response to the program if scholarships are tied to the tuition amount.
As to whether a state standardized test versus a national test should be used, Dr. Caillier suggested a nationally based test should be used. The use of a national test allows the state to compare its students' performances with the remainder of the country. While a state standardized test could be used in conjunction with the national test, Dr. Caillier believed that would be unnecessary.
Including a maximum income level in a merit based program has a negative impact in Dr. Caillier's view. The students earn the scholarship; that should not change when a parent's income increases. The use of an income cap can discourage students. He suggested not using an income cap but reducing the amount of the awards, if the goal is to reduce program costs.
Dr. Caillier noted that merit programs have the effect of increasing four year institutions' enrollment as students move from two year institutions. Most students prefer to attend a four year school, which is often seen as more prestigious. The scholarship allows them to fulfill that wish and thus moves students from two year to four year institutions.
In response to Committee questions regarding a graduated reward system and the impact extra incentives have on performance, Dr. Caillier stated that there is some indication that is effective but more history is needed to make any definite statement. Regarding the use of GPA only, Dr. Caillier stated that grade inflation will occur and that a GPA is only a single factor and is influenced by teacher decisions. The more important factor is requiring a stronger curriculum, otherwise students can be set up for failure at the college level. He also stated that high school students are performing at perhaps a 40% level of academic capacity and that additional requirements of a merit based program can be the catalyst to redesign high schools, which have remained stagnant the past few decades.
Regarding the Louisiana technical career program, Dr. Caillier stated that the program is impacted by students wanting to attend four year programs. Louisiana is attempting to redesign the technical program.
Committee members discussed a reasonable timeframe to implement the program. Dr. Caillier stated that every state which has implemented a program has done so within two years. Some roll in students each year so the program is fully implemented after 4 years. Waiting longer than two years can lose momentum for the program in his view.
Dr. Caillier suggested that all states will eventually move to merit programs.
Seanna Murphy, with Indiana' 21st century program, stated that the program is an attempt to get additional lower income students into colleges; thus it is unlike many of the merit programs. It has been in existence for about 15 years, becoming larger over the years. The program is not course requirement specific, but does have a 2.5 high school GPA requirement. While the program is not core specific it strongly encourages students to take a core curriculum. If the core is not taken then only community colleges or specific institutions are available to the student. There is an interview with any student who chooses not to take the core curriculum. There is a movement to make the core curriculum required for the program. That was on the floor for legislative debate this past session, but did not pass. Ms. Murphy could foresee that becoming a requirement.
The students are required to sign pledges to remain alcohol and drug free. The program has other support activities and participation in those activities has a high correspondence to success in college. The program has 16 support sites throughout the state. It employs 5 full time staff and 92 parents as outreach coordinators. The amount of tuition paid changes based upon the need of the student. The average award currently is $1,926. The program is a last dollar program in that if the student receives enough grants/scholarships elsewhere, the program scholarship is not provided.
The program students are graduating at a higher level than non-program students and are completing core curricula at a higher rate. The program's graduates are used as mentors and have tended to stay in the state.
In discussing the usefulness of spending on the "outreach" portion of the program, Ms. Murphy stated that the type of students and families being sought under the program make the outreach an important component of the program. The rural areas show the greatest need for the outreach as farm areas turn from farming but the idea of attending college is still not fully ingrained in those areas.
In summarizing recommendations for a merit program, Ms. Murphy stated that the most important aspect is to be clear regarding what the requirements are. The work with parents is the most difficult yet most beneficial part of the Indiana program. A summary of the Indiana program is attached as appendix 3.
Melissa Goff with the Arkansas Academic Challenge Program addressed the Committee by conference call. The program has been in existence since 1991 and is funded entirely by state general revenues. It is a combination of need and merit providing a graduated award amount. Between 25% and 30% of the students lose the award after the first year. Therefore the legislature has recently provided for an increasing award each year in college in order to retain students.
The program encompasses up to the middle and higher middle income students. The starting maximum income to qualify is $60,000, with an additional $5,000 income limit per child and an additional $10,000 if an additional child is in college. These income levels allow the program to take advantage of federal funding.
The required core curriculum is challenging, including a fourth year of math, beyond Algebra 2. The merit component is somewhat generous, a combination of GPA and ACT scores – with ACT as low as 15 and a 3.0 GPA in the core curriculum. A high ACT can offset a low GPA and vice versa. Only core courses, not overall GPAs, are included in the merit calculations. The number of students taking the core curriculum has risen from 40% to 80% since the program was instituted.
Both public and private non-profit institutions are participating. Ms. Goff suggested setting a specific award amount, rather than tuition.
In responding to Committee questions, Ms. Goff stated that the number of students with ACTs of 15 finishing college was unknown, but they would be required to attend a two year school to begin with. The program's graduation rates have not been compared with other programs, but within the state those in the program have a graduation rate of almost double those not within the program. Ms. Goff agreed to send information on graduation rates to the Committee.
As to remediation rates, Ms. Goff stated that before the program, over 60% of college freshmen were taking some remediation. That has decreased to about 50% with the program. There was no breakdown in the three remediation course categories.
Of the $30 million appropriated for the program up to 1.5% may be used for administrative costs. Two full time and two part time positions run the program. About $250,000 is used for marketing the program to students to urge them to take core courses and meet other program requirements. The staff travels to high schools throughout the state to publicize the program.
Increasing college participation rates.
Committee member Dr. Andrew Hansen addressed the Committee regarding work he has done studying college attendance rates. Summary points from his presentation are attached as appendix 4. The job market has changed from 1950 in which 80% of jobs were classified as unskilled, now 85% are skilled and require postsecondary education. While nationally 88% of 8th graders state they will pursue post-secondary education, in Wyoming only 40 of 100 entering 9th graders actually do.
The issues affecting low college attendance are preparation, financial and transitional. He stated that all three of the issues need to be addressed. The "preparation" which he is addressing is course selection in high school. Also, while Wyoming student ACTs are above the national average, they are below in the national average in high scoring ACTs (26 and above). Providing and requiring a rigorous high school "success curriculum" is key to college success in Dr. Hansen's view. The ideal high school curriculum should consist of four years of grade level English and mathematics, three years of science and social studies and two years of the same foreign language. He urged that information regarding the courses a student must take be provided early and often. One avenue suggested was a web based portal to allow students to plan and apply for college. Another suggestion was a mentor system.
Regarding financial needs, Dr. Hansen stated that while 5% of students with high test scores and from affluent families fail to go directly to college, 25% of students with high test scores from low income families fail to go directly to college. He noted that the average debt at graduation from the University of Wyoming is $15,000. Mr. Eckhardt noted that the average debt at graduation needs to be broken down to a mean number so the debt at various income levels is known. Dr. Hansen agreed to provide that information.
Mr. Kinnison questioned what it would require to establish a middle school class on post secondary education. Mr. Hansen believed there is room in the curriculum, given what many see as a lost senior year. Ms. Skiles Parady stated that local school districts could implement that program without any state legislation. Senator Scott suggested that any such course in middle school could be attended by both students and their parents. Dr. Hansen reiterated that the class must be no later than middle school in order to allow sufficient participation time. He also suggested other actions could be taken to blur the boundaries between the high school and college levels and allow easier transitions.
Representative Wasserburger asked for additional information on the nuts and bolts of the curriculum for such a class. Dr. Hansen had not worked that issue through, but offered to do so if allowed by the University. A possible pilot of the course was discussed.
Scholarship cost model
Rick Miller, University of Wyoming, provided information regarding a cost model for scholarships at various ACT and GPA levels. Dr. Burke Grandjean and Suzanne Koller, of the University explained the model in depth. Mr. Miller explained that the model is based upon not completely "scrubbed data" and the Committee should not take the figures provided as exact numbers for costs of the program.
Dr. Grandjean provided three scenarios demonstrating the model and a summary of the model. Appendices 5a, 5b and 5c, with 5c containing two scenarios. He explained the numerous variables that could be manipulated in order to determine the cost of a scholarship program set at various GPA and ACT criteria. Numerous other assumed criteria can be manipulated as well, such as percentage of enhanced high school graduation and college attendance rates caused by the program. The amount of cost of the program at various fixed assumptions is shown on appendices 5a and 5b. One example setting a high school GPA at 2.75 and an ACT at 20, providing $1,764 per semester at UW and $937 per semester at community colleges would cost $17.3 million when fully implemented (assuming no effect of the program on college attendance rates). Various scenarios based upon differing assumptions were reviewed.
Cochairman Harshman asked if a need component could be included. According to Mr. Miller, it could, but that would take significant time.
The Committee inquired as to a separate variable for ACT scores for the community colleges. Dr. Grandjean stated that the number of students attending community colleges and taking the ACT is minimal and varies greatly by community college and thus in the University's view including that data in this presentation could be misleading.
The Committee requested the following additional components of the model: enhanced persistence rates and those meeting a core curriculum requirement (as expressed as a movable percentage rather than based upon data showing a set percentage). Cochairman Boggs asked for a component for need after receiving a merit scholarship. Cochairman Harshman requested a variable for unmet financial need excluding loans. Mr. Hansen asked for a combination of those requests, with a need based add on based upon unmet financial need with that term being defined both with loans and without loans. Senator Scott asked if the model could contain a percentage of earnings to define unmet need and then the additional funds for "need" could be decided based upon the college performance of those students. Dr. Grandjean was uncertain as to whether there was data to perform that analysis.
Ms. Skiles Parady questioned whether the model could contemplate non-traditional students. That could be done by extending the time period between high school graduation and entrance in college, but the problem is determining the number of nontraditional students who would be included; that number is unknown.
Mr. Eckhardt and Representative Wasserburger asked for differing levels of scholarships in one program to be included with higher levels for higher performance. Mr. Monteith requested the same with performance being measured by high school proficiency levels. Cochairman Harshman noted the problem that presents is that different districts measure proficiency in different ways.
Investment of state funds
The Committee is to determine a scholarship program which can be funded from earnings on the merit scholarship corpus of $400 million (eventually). LSO staff explained that one of the issues which will affect the Committee's determination is the timing for when the corpus will contain $400 million. That will be dependent upon federal mineral royalty revenues and spending from the school foundation program account as the law is currently structured.
Another of the issues is earning expectations. While different experts have different views of foreseeable earnings, the State Treasurer anticipates earning about 4 to 4.25% on fixed income investments and approximately 7% on the overall portfolio investment for fixed income and stocks, once fully invested at a 50/50 mix. Thus whether the scholarship fund can be invested in stocks is a major consideration in determining a program to be supported from investment earnings.
LSO staff reviewed limitations on the investment of state funds and an Attorney General opinion on the issue of investment of state funds. Under the Wyoming Constitution as interpreted by the Attorney General, only the permanent Wyoming mineral trust fund, permanent land funds, permanent land income funds and the worker's compensation fund may be invested in stock. The scholarship fund cannot be unless it is made a subfund of the permanent Wyoming mineral trust fund. Investment earnings from that fund must be deposited to the general fund. While a statute could dedicate a like amount from the general fund to the scholarship income account, that could be changed by future legislative action. LSO staff also noted that there are some determinations in the Attorney General opinion which are debatable. Finally staff stated that the issue of investment of state trust funds is before the Joint Appropriations Committee and the Management Council was also expected to address the overall issue at its next meeting.
Senator Scott suggested the Committee recommend a constitutional amendment, which he provided in writing. (Appendix 6). The Committee discussed the issue and how it should be handled. Senator Scott suggested the Committee review the proposal and determine at a future meeting whether it wishes to recommend the legislation.
The Committee discussed the next meeting. It was set for August 3 and 4.
Draft legislation
The cochairmen stated they were working on a bill draft to be sent to Committee members to modify and propose amendments to at the next meeting. The Committee discussed what each member would like to see in the bill.
Mr. Eckhardt stated merit should be the primary goal for the program. Community service should also be part of the program.
Mr. Hansen stated the major issues should be the success curriculum with a need supplement after the merit criteria is met (if costs must be cut use financial need to cut costs). He thought the program should address preparation, financial help and transitioning to college.
Representative Wasserburger stated he has moved from pure merit to a merit/need component. He suggested the Arkansas program should be reviewed for that combination. Nontraditional students should be addressed.
Mr. Monteith was concerned not to make the program overly complex, it should be as simple and transparent as possible. The program should be oriented more to merit than need, although he can accept some need based component. He is fine with the ACT as a standard but opposes use of a GPA without orientation to some core curriculum, being at least the four core content areas plus one other.
Mrs. Stroock suggested there should be some consideration for the student who excels and still cannot afford college even with the scholarship.
Senator Scott stated that there needs to be a consensus from the Committee in order to avoid legislative fights over the specifics of the program. He wants to accelerate funding of the program in order to take advantage of the current revenues. He also agreed with Mrs. Stroock that all students who meet the requirements should be able to go to college; perhaps setting aside a portion of the income for the need especially for those with the most merit. Setting a fixed dollar amount is better than tying to tuition and while not building an inflation factor into the legislation, it should be expected to increase. The program should start on the lean side. The constitutional amendment discussed above should be pursued. The formulas in the legislation should be simple, with some left to rulemaking but still overall simple enough for high school students to "get it". He would like to see what could happen with an additional $100 million in the endowment. He would like to see how the existing scholarships can be used and perhaps built upon.
Ms. Skiles Parady would prefer a combination of GPA, ACT and PAWS (state assessment test) as requirements, perhaps with interrelation to the three tier diploma. She prefers a focus on merits with a need supplement. The program needs to focus on core curriculum. The time frame should be sooner rather than later and there should be a marketing/education component. There should be a career vocational education component and nontraditional students should be addressed. The model should be subject to revision.
Mr. Megeath stated there should be no cap on income. The program should be merit based with a percentage used to supplement based upon need. There should be tiers based upon performance. Fixed dollar amounts rather than tuition should be used. Nontraditional students should be addressed. Data on the program should be collected. Who manages the program should be addressed.
Mr. Kinnison listed funding as an item to address, administration must be realistic, flexibility should be incorporated so rules can be used to tweak the program. The program must be kept simple.
Cochairman Boggs stated that simplicity should be sought, but also the law needs to be written with enough directive so the program can be run and managed relatively easily. , While simplicity should be sought, solutions addressing all the issues may not necessarily be simple. He supported the recommendations that students be given an introduction to college requirements early on, a success curriculum for students should be incorporated. The curriculum should challenge individuals seeking either the degree or certificate, GPA should be a part of the program, ACT should also be a component and WORKKEYS could be used as the vocational component as an option. Proficiencies in the core areas could be included. There should be requirements to stay on a degree track.
Cochairman Harshman also supported the concept of a class at middle school on college. It is important to make the program as straightforward as possible. Fixed dollars rather than tuition should be used. The program should be aimed to increase math and science requirements. "Merit base" should be the first consideration, but need can be an additional component. The core curriculum areas should be part of the program, as should ACT and GPA in some combination with PAWS. The vocational track should not take a back seat to the traditional degree track – the amounts should be the same. There should be a notification provision – every piece of mail from school districts should have a provision for providing notice of the program. Schools should certify the qualified applicants and the University and community colleges should administer the program.
Senator Scott raised four additional items. Home schoolers should be addressed, high schools should be private or public to qualify and private post secondary schools should be addressed.
Cochairman Boggs suggested that the University and Colleges should share with the Legislature how the existing scholarships can be incorporated into the program.
The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________
Representative Steve Harshman Cochairman