|
The Colorado Commission on Higher Education Thursday began filling in the details of Gov. Bill Ritter’s proposed Colorado Promise Scholarships, approving a set of guidelines for setting up the program if it makes the ballot and is approved by voters in November.
Under those guidelines, it’s estimated the scholarships could range from $1,000 a year at a community college for a student from a relatively high-income family to $6,000 a year at a research university for a student from a poorer family. A staff report also estimated that awards could go to students from families with income of up to $102,000 a year. (Before you get outraged, read the whole story.)
The commission also approved a resolution endorsing Initiative 113, for which proponents still are gathering signatures.
Initiative No. 113 would eliminate an existing property tax-severance tax offset for energy and mining companies and increase the tax on some low-volume wells. The additional revenue would be used for the scholarships, wildlife habitat, renewable energy programs and transportation and water projects in communities affected by energy development. It’s a proposed change in state law, not a constitutional amendment. Estimated first-year revenue is up to $290 million, with up to $157 million for the scholarships.
Early on the program was criticized for not providing details on who would be eligible and what the size of the awards might be. At its June meeting, the commission directed staff at the Department of Higher Education to starting fleshing out the program. (Much of the motivation is practical. If passed, the plan would go into effect for the 2009-10 school year. That means colleges will have to start assembling financial aid packages next February. Department officials say that if they don’t do any planning for the program until after the Nov. 4 election, there might not be time to have regulations and procedures in place by February.)
But, the commission’s June action drew fire from Initiative 113 opponents (i.e., the energy industry and some Republican politicians), who claimed doing that planning amounts to illegal work in support of the initiative. A formal complaint has been filed. (State law does allow the commission to vote in support of a ballot measure, as it did Thursday.)
Department Director David Skaggs Thursday rejected such arguments, saying, “I’m quite confident that what we’re doing is not an advocacy exercise … there is ample authority in the statutes.” He added that “We would face an absolutely impossible situation” if the planning wasn’t started now.
Skaggs and Celina Duran of the department prepared a 17-page policy memo for the commission, outlining 10 fundamental policies and five administrative ones for the program. The commission voted to adopt the staff recommendations. Here’s what they are:
Fundamentals
1 – Eligibility will be based on a family’s Free Application for Federal Student (FAFSA), not just on adjusted gross income. The FAFSA, which is used for all federal financial aid and many other programs, considers income, household size, assets, number of kids in college and tax exemptions to come up with what’s called an Expected Family Contribution. The difference between a college’s costs and the contribution is the number colleges try to meet with financial aid. (This is where the $107,000 in annual income comes in. The staff estimated a family with that much income could qualify, if other factors reduced its expected contribution.)
2 – The amount of federal aid will have to be determined first, with the amount of the opportunity scholarship determined after that, along with other sources of aid.
3 – Students and families should be expected to contribute to college costs, but the details remain to be worked out.
4 – Recipients would need to meet existing admissions requirements for initial scholarship eligibility (rather than a higher standard).
5 – Recipients would need to maintain a 2.0 average for the first 60 credit hours (usually the first two years) and a 2.5 GPA for credits hours beyond that (usually junior and senior years).
6 – The amount of scholarships would be pegged to individual college costs, with larger awards for students at CU campuses, CSU, Mines and UNC, lower amounts for students and state four-year colleges and CSU-Pueblo and the lowest for community colleges.
7 – Specific minimum and maximum award amounts should be set.
8 – Students can receive scholarships for only 145 credit hours (the same limit as for the College Opportunity Fund stipends that all in-state students receive).
9 – Students can receive aid only for full or half-time class loads, the same standard applied to current state aid programs. (A representative of the community college system urged a more flexible standard, noting many of the neediest students attend less than half time.)
10 – A portion of the funds will be set aside for merit scholarships to be administered by each college.
The five administrative principles adopted by the commission include use of the FAFSA and the requirement that recipients be citizens or legal residents; administrative coordination of the promise scholarships with most other existing aid programs; annual adjustment of maximum award depending on enrollment and program revenues; give current students existing aid or promise scholarships, whichever is greater; and apply existing auditing and reporting requirements to the promise scholarships.
Three of the commission’s nine members weren’t at the meeting and therefore didn’t vote, including unaffiliated Mike Plachy and Republicans B.J. Scott and Greg Stevinson. The commission met at Aims Community College in Greeley.
In a related action – or non-action – the commission tabled until September a resolution on Initiative 121, which would allow voters in Colorado gambling towns (Black Hawk, Central City and Cripple Creek) to increase bet limits and casino hours, as well as add new games. If such changes were made, up to $78 million in additional revenue would go to the state’s community and local-district colleges. The community college system is supporting that measure, which also is in the signature-gathering phase and is heavily financed by casino interests.
Click here for a story on ballot measure fundraising.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comment form
