S24: The LEARN Act of 2017

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: West_Midlander

[West_Midlander]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I made a typo in part 5, citing Article I instead of Article II. I also think we should amend the bill to push the date so it's applicable for the next coming semester (Spring 2018). Strikethrough text will be removed, bold text will be added.

[diptheriadan]

I'd like to scrap the "public four-year universities and colleges" part and replace it with Trade or Vocational Schools. I'd also like to scrap the "Have received a high school diploma or a GED" part. Additionally, I like to lower the monetary requirements and possibly change them to relate to the poverty line or just scrap it all together.

[West_Midlander]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Trade schools added to the bill. High school diploma/GED requirement struck. Article 5 updated, as per my earlier amendment. Article III adds partially free tuition (40% covered) for lower income folks who are not extremely destitute.

[diptheriadan]

I'm not sure if I can vote aye on that.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I'm not sure if I can vote aye on that.

What would the minimum amount of changes need to get you on board?

[diptheriadan]

The only thing (and the biggest thing) I'm having trouble getting on board with is the the stuff for four year public universities/colleges. I think that, combined with free tuition for students in poverty would cost more money than we should spend.

[Vern]

I believe only community colleges should be free, and maybe pay a certain percentage of other college.

[West_Midlander]

Amended bill.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Making the bill more pragmatic. Community college is covered for the poor under FAFSA. Most of the four-year aid-allowed degrees are among the top highest paid non-STEM fields.

[Vern]

I like that a lot! Thank you for your hard work! You have my support.

[West_Midlander]

I like that a lot! Thank you for your hard work! You have my support.

This bill has popular support in the Chamber, I think we should move to a vote.

[Vern]

I like that a lot! Thank you for your hard work! You have my support.

This bill has popular support in the Chamber, I think we should move to a vote.

I agree

[Santander]

You guys realize that HOPE already covers 90% of tuition, right?...

I also have serious reservations about the language used in the bill. I would prefer legislation to not look like it was written by a 7-year old.

[Vern]

You guys realize that HOPE already covers 90% of tuition, right?...

I also have serious reservations about the language used in the bill. I would prefer legislation to not look like it was written by a 7-year old.

Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

[Vern]

Upon reading the Hope Act, I think we need to add something to end the Hope Act. This LEARN Act covers everyone not just "outstanding" students.

Or that students can not get both aids. Just one or the other.

[West_Midlander]

Upon reading the Hope Act, I think we need to add something to end the Hope Act. This LEARN Act covers everyone not just "outstanding" students.

Or that students can not get both aids. Just one or the other.

Sounds good. Going to amend the bill to add an end to the HOPE Act and stating that students can only recieve benefits to either college or vocational schools.

[West_Midlander]

Amended bill.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[JustinTimeCuber]

I move that the amendment be adopted by unanimous consent and that we proceed immediately to a final vote.

[Vern]

I move that the amendment be adopted by unanimous consent and that we proceed immediately to a final vote.

I agree.

[West_Midlander]

I move that the amendment be adopted by unanimous consent and that we proceed immediately to a final vote.

I agree.

[JustinTimeCuber]

We have 51 hours left. Maybe if it's that important to amend it you all should bring it back up next session.

[Leinad]

The language in parts of this is weird--it kind of goes back and forth between third-person and second-person. This is probably what Santander was referring to. Also it switches between "the poverty line" and "100% of the poverty line" which irks me slightly.

Also, perhaps we should put in some sort of "sliding scale?" It looks to me like, for example, in Article IV and V, you get in for free if you make 100% of the poverty line, for 60% of the cost if you make 101% or 200% (or anywhere in between those), and for all of the cost if you make 201% of the poverty line.

Lastly, not saying this is a bad idea at all, but I'd like to be aware of how much it costs.

[Fmr. Representative Encke]

Just a few comments (apologies if I made some incorrect assumptions or am overlooking something that has already been stated in older legislation):

1) West's rationale for removing the 'community college' segment was that community college is already covered for the poor under FAFSA (presumably in the form of the RL Pell grants, as no other thread in the AFG board mentions the FAFSA). However, to receive such a grant, one must have a high school diploma or GED certificate. This requirement was removed from the LEARN act (without any stated rationale), meaning the requirements to receive a Pell grant are different than the requirements to apply for aid under the LEARN act (?).

2) What exactly constitutes 'pursuing a degree in...'? How does an applicant prove that he/she is pursuing a degree in one of the subjects listed? Many public colleges accept undeclared applicants, and students are allowed to enroll in a particular major program any time before the end of sophomore year. If, for instance, a college freshman is undeclared, will he/she be ineligible for free tuition? What if a college freshman is 'pursuing a degree in,' say, history, and then changes majors after receiving a few years of free tuition?

3) As Leinad said, this needs a sliding scale.

4) What is the rationale for only listing non-STEM majors?

[diptheriadan]

I think putting the "Diploma or GED" requirement back in for public 4/y universities would be alright.

[West_Midlander]

I think putting the "Diploma or GED" requirement back in for public 4/y universities would be alright.

We can do this, it just seems unnecessary considering that a diploma or GED would be under the requirements to attend a four-year (or a community college) anyway (and meeting the requirements to attend is already part of the bill).

Encke: STEM majors are excluded, in favor of STEM-major students pursuing education at vocational and trade schools, in place of sending all students to four-years in order to reduce the total cost of the bill.

I'm open to amendment to correct grammar, and to clarify that students have to announce their major upon application to a four-year. Students' aid will also be severed, should they switch to a non-covered major (but I don't think they should have to pay back for the year/years that were covered prior to switching majors).