Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/05/2005 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB119 | |
| HB16 | |
| HB156 | |
| HB122 | |
| HB149 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 122 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 149 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 156 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 201 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 16 | ||
| = | HB 119 | ||
HOUSE BILL NO. 16
"An Act relating to funding for school districts
operating secondary school boarding programs and to
funding for school districts from which boarding
students come; and providing for an effective date."
EDDY JEANS, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION SUPPORT SERVICES, DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, spoke of Resolution 0125
from the state Board of Education in support of HB 16. He
reported on the number of small boarding schools and their
enrollment. He related an example from Nenana regarding the
hold-harmless provision, which is a stopgap while the pilot
program is in place.
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked how many schools are involved. Mr.
Jeans responded that there are three.
Representative Hawker questioned the need for a requirement
that all students go to a boarding school. He wondered
about the overriding policy that fewer than 10 students are
not viable. Mr. Jeans responded that he does not want to
see communities left out.
2:10:21 PM
Co-Chair Chenault asked how long before it is no longer a
pilot program. Mr. Jeans reported that the program is not
in effect right now. The three schools are currently
generating resources to support themselves. The bill allows
DOE time to gather information about how to deal with
boarding schools.
Representative Kelly voiced a concern about going below 10
students. He said he supports the boarding school concept
and the test period, but not beyond that. He suggested that
boarding schools need to have high caliber discipline plans
like in Galena. He referred to page 2, line 4, and said he
wants to have parents involved. He stated opposition to
line 2.
Mr. Jeans related that the per-pupil stipend mirrors a
current program already in place regarding airfare.
Stipends on the spreadsheet that support the fiscal notes
are the same as currently in place. They do not add up to
100 percent. Representative Kelly suggested that parents
pay all of the stipend.
2:17:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, sponsor of HB 16, agreed that
the government should not hold the costs. Under the bill
the stipend would cover about 1/3 of the costs. He agreed
that the benefit to Alaska is great. He requested support
for the bill.
Representative Joule spoke of a personal experience with
boarding schools and his family. He said he is very pleased
to see this bill, but noted that it is not a broad enough
look. He suggested that the state step up to the plate to
help. He spoke of regional learning centers and how they
contribute to communities.
2:24:23 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze related a personal story about a family
growing up poor. He asked if students could work off their
stipends. Mr. Jeans replied that DOE does not regulate
tuition amounts. Nenana has scholarships to help families.
Representative Coghill added that families could work for
the tuition in Nenana.
Representative Hawker pointed out that taking the $1.2
million fiscal note and dividing it by 231 students arrives
at a per student cost of $5,311. He noted that the language
that says the stipend should be determined by the department
on a regional basis is troublesome. He suggested that it be
more specific. Mr. Jeans responded that the boarding home
program has been in regulation since 1985, and costs have
remained at about $185,000 for five years. He opined that
the department has not abused the stipend. Mr. Jeans
explained that there is statutory authority to operate this
program. Representative Hawker read from the statute about
who is eligible to claim costs incurred from the per pupil
stipend. He interpreted it to allow anyone to run their
program as they want.
2:31:10 PM
Representative Coghill replied that was not the intention,
nor the practice of the department. He said he was open to
suggestions.
Representative Foster commended the Rasmuson Foundation for
the grant. Mr. Jeans replied that he did not know the
dollar amount of the grant, but it accompanied a business
plan.
Representative Weyhrauch asked what the State Board of
Education is doing to develop policies for boarding schools.
Mr. Jeans said the board has not developed policies, but
does support this pilot program. All three of these school
districts started the programs on their own, and the board
passed a resolution and found them worthy of a second look.
He explained the evaluation system.
2:35:51 PM
Representative Hawker asked if there is a defined public
program. Mr. Jeans replied only the three boarding schools
that are currently operating are eligible: Galena, Nenana,
and Bethel. Representative Hawker observed that there is
nothing that shows what will be had because of this program.
He inquired about the pilot project.
Representative Coghill replied that the purpose of the pilot
project is to evaluate whether to participate in boarding
school programs at this level. Student access, career
moves, and No Child Left Behind Standards will be used to
evaluate success. Representative Hawker spoke against open-
ended commitments. He asked for accountability and a
definition of a work product. He concluded that funding is
important, but it needs missions and measures.
2:40:47 PM
Representative Coghill explained there are ways to measure
progress. He noted that this is part of the question, "Can
we do it better?"
Vice-Chair Stoltze pointed out that that charter schools
need to display credibility, also. Missions and measures
are already in place. Representative Coghill explained that
he did not mean to disparage charter schools.
2:45:31 PM
Co-Chair Meyer concluded that there would be some
measurements of success, such as benchmark exams.
Representative Weyhrauch WITHDREW Amendment 1.
Representative Weyhrauch MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2:
Page 2, line 17
Delete "2010"
Insert "2006"
Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Weyhrauch explained that Amendment 2 would
provide an earlier sunset date for the legislation.
Representative Coghill stated that he would like to see a
five-year period before a review. He estimated that there
would be discussions during the entire five years.
Representative Joule point out that budget subcommittees
raise the issue of how programs are doing every year. He
felt that the current process would allow sufficient review.
He spoke against the amendment.
2:49:50 PM
Co-Chair Meyer questioned if the department would be able to
provide a report in 2010 regarding school performance. Mr.
Jeans stated that it would be their intent to provide the
State Board of Education a report detailing performance
statistics on a yearly basis.
Representative Weyhrauch WITHDREW Amendment 2.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Hawker maintained an objection to the idea in
the amendment. He reiterated that the there are no clear
expectations outlined in regards to the pilot program. He
expressed concern with the lack of accountability.
Representative Hawker said he would not object to moving the
bill out today.
2:52:23 PM
Co-Chair Meyer reiterated that there would be means and
standards to measure the return of the programs.
Representative Holm noted that there are several
intangibles.
Co-Chair Meyer agreed.
2:53:31 PM
Representative Kelly agreed with Representative Hawker about
accountability. He stressed that schools need to
demonstrate what they are replacing and that the schools are
performing. He maintained that there should be high
performance measures in terms of graduation rates and GPA.
He stressed there should be better returns than "average".
Co-Chair Meyer agreed that there is concern that the state's
money be well spent.
2:55:35 PM
Representative Coghill agreed with the need for
accountability. Communities have reached into their pockets
to go the extra miles. Students and parents have made
sacrifices. He urged the Committee to step up to support
boarding schools. Boarding schools have the same
requirements as other schools. He questioned why boarding
schools should have to outperform other schools.
Representative Kelly clarified that there should be a
measurement of improvement from the local school the student
left behind.
2:58:25 PM
Representative Hawker clarified that he is not asking
boarding schools to outperform other schools. He reiterated
the need have performance measures.
Representative Foster MOVED to report HB 16 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and with the accompanying
fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 16 was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a fiscal impact note #1 by the
Department of Education and Early Development.
3:01:03 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|