<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7654.12">
<TITLE>Update on Oklahoma's Promise legislation</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/rtf format -->
<BR>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">It appears that the Legislature has decided to make only a couple of changes to the Oklahoma's Promise program this session. A bill signed out of conference committee yesterday contains no action on some of the recommendations of the Task Force on Oklahoma's Promise that met last fall. The bill, SB 982, was passed on the Senate floor this afternoon and is awaiting final action on the House floor. As you may be aware, the Legislature is scheduled to adjourn</FONT><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"></FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">tomorrow, May 22. A copy of the text of the bill is attached.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The bill really contains only two changes:</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<UL>
<LI><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Delaying the new second income limit until 2012-13 so that the limit does not apply to any student for whom it was not a condition at the time the student enrolled in the program in the 8th, 9th, or 10th grade. This was a recommendation of the OKPromise Task Force. The Task Force still had concerns about possible unintended consequences and the ultimate value of eventually implementing a second income limit, even in 2012-13. However, the most urgent issue was to make sure it was not unfairly applied to students/parents that were not aware of it at the time the student enrolled in the program. Without this change, the requirement would have inappropriately applied to about 6000 students in 2010 and another 3,000 in 2011. While only a small percentage would probably have actually lost the scholarship due to the second income limit at $100,000 (maybe 3-5% of the students), the Task Force was concerned about the credibility of the state being seen as changing the program requirements after the students were already enrolled. [For example, we recently received an e-mail from an OKPromise parent of a junior in high school who had been a single mom for seven years until recently remarrying. She knew that the program did not look at income a second time when she initially enrolled her son. However, she now realized that she would be subject to the second income limit. With her new husband, their joint income is now slightly over $100,000, but her husband also has three children of his own either in college or soon to be. She was very concerned that her son would now be disqualified from receiving the OKPromise award because she had remarried. The delay of the second income limit in the bill will address her particular situation. In 2012-13, the second income limit could still deny the award to students in this situation, but at least the parent would be aware of the possibility from the time of initial application.]</FONT></SPAN></LI>
<BR>
<LI><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Restricting the OKPromise award amount paid at state-system four-year institutions to only the "nonguaranteed" tuition rate. Because current law was silent on this issue, freshmen OKPromise students entering in fall 2008 could be reimbursed for either the higher-cost guaranteed rate (about 15% more expensive as a freshmen, but doesn't increase if the student meets certain requirements) or the nonguaranteed rate. While only a small percentage of OKPromise freshmen chose the guaranteed rate, it cost the program about an extra $100,000 in 2008-09 and would have cost about $200,000 in 2009-10. The guaranteed tuition option was really intended for students having to pay their own tuition so they could choose some cost certainty during their college career. Paying the guaranteed rate with OKPromise was an unnecessary cost since the program already guarantees to pay the student's actual tuition rates as long as the student remains eligible. This change would become effective for all enrollment periods beginning on or after July 1, 2009.</FONT></SPAN></LI>
<BR>
<BR>
</UL>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Following are items that are not addressed by the bill:</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<UL>
<LI><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">There is no change in the current family income limit applied at the time of application in the 8th, 9th, or 10th grade. It will remain at $50,000 (regardless of family size) and be based on total taxable and nontaxable income. The OKPromise Task Force had recommended that the income limit be adjusted for family size and be based only on Adjusted Gross Income (AGI).</FONT></SPAN></LI>
<BR>
<LI><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">There is no change or delay in the college GPA requirements. Beginning with students entering college in 2010-11, the students must attain a 2.0 cumulative GPA for courses taken through the sophomore year and a 2.5 GPA for courses taken<U> during</U> the junior year and thereafter. The OKPromise Task Force was especially concerned about the odd GPA calculation for the junior year and higher. The Task Force had unanimously recommended that this requirement be changed to require the student to meet the academic standards of the institution in which they were enrolled. We anticipate that monitoring this GPA requirement may add more administrative burden to the institutions. The Task Force had also found research from other states that indicated that college GPA requirements in excess of academic retention requirements can cause students to take fewer math and science courses or avoid majors in science, technology, engineering and math due to fear of jeopardizing their scholarship eligibility.</FONT></SPAN></LI>
<BR>
<LI><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The bill also does not include a post-college residency requirement for OKPromise recipients. The Task Force acknowledged that some legislators had interest in such a requirement, but cautioned the Legislature to examine the issue carefully to avoid adding complexity and administrative expense.</FONT></SPAN></LI>
<BR>
</UL>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">We will try to let you know when we are sure of the ultimate fate of the bill.</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Let me know if you have questions.</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Bryce Fair</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"> </FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Bryce Fair </FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Assoc. Vice Chancellor for Scholarships & Grants </FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education </FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Phone: (405) 225-9162 </FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Fax: (405) 225-9230 </FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">E-mail: bfair@osrhe.edu </FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Mailing Address: </FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">P.O. Box 108850 </FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Oklahoma City, OK 73101-8850 </FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Street Address: </FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">655 Research Parkway, Suite 200 </FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Oklahoma City, OK 73104 </FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE=2 COLOR="#000000"> <<05-21-09-SB982-CCS.RTF>> </FONT></SPAN>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>