As the president of Tulsa non-profit, Young People of the Next Generation, I believe passing of SB 639 as it is currently written will undermine the efforts of YPNG, other non-profits, educators and parents who are helping underprivileged students strive for and achieve a postsecondary education. 

While SB 639 does some good things in term of extending the number of years students can receive the scholarship to better match programs in engineering and architecture and covers more technical training programs, our opinion is the claw back provision is flawed as a method to improve completion rates. Here are some of the specific problems with this approach expressed by college admissions counselors, high school career counselors and nonprofits like ours that helps kids from low income families find ways to afford a postsecondary education:

• Oklahoma’s Promise students and families have few financial resources to repay awards:
  • In 2019-20, the average family income of Oklahoma’s Promise award recipients was about $35,000.
  • Nearly 90% of Oklahoma’s Promise recipients in 2019-20 met the low-income eligibility criteria for the federal Pell Grant.
• There is a high probability the “claw back” provision will discourage enrollment in Oklahoma’s Promise: As parents and students have become more cautious of student loan debt, our experience tells us the fear of potential debt acquired through Oklahoma’s Promise will create a reluctance to enroll in the program.
• The “claw back” provision would require additional administrative responsibilities and costs for colleges and career technology centers:  Colleges and career technology centers would be required to administer the repayment requirement. 

Here is a link to a March 14th article by a former Regent’s staff member that goes into detail on why he opposes the claw back provision: 

https://okeducationtruths.wordpress.com/2021/03/14/oklahomas-promise-fingers-crossed/

Everyone supports increasing the completion rate for students going to college or getting technical training. But in our opinion, there are much better ways to accomplish this goal than with the claw back provision. As an alternative, other ideas are being developed by educators in colleges and high schools across the state that will be vetted and ready to present in the Fall. In the meantime, we request that the legislature either strike the claw back provision or hold the bill until a better alternative program can be presented to the committee to replace the claw back provision.

The website greatvaluecolleges.net recently evaluated 21 state promise scholarship programs and ranked Oklahoma’s Promise at #4 out of the 21 programs under its present structure. We want to work with the legislature to make this program even better and at the same time improve the graduation rates for all Oklahoma college students.