Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
04/08/2011 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation(s): Superintendent, Lake and Peninsula School District (lpsd) | |
| HB145 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 145 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 143 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 145-K-12 SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM
CHAIR DICK announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 145, "An Act establishing the parental choice
scholarship program to be administered by school districts for
the purpose of paying the cost of attending grades kindergarten
through 12 at public and private schools; and providing for an
effective date." [In front of the committee was Version D,
adopted as the working draft on March 25, 2011]
8:37:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER, Alaska State Legislature, noted that
a witness was on-line to address any concern that the bill was a
threat to the public schools. He urged the committee to move
the bill to enhance the discussion that it would trigger.
8:39:23 AM
JEFF REED, State Programs & Government Relations Director,
Foundation for Educational Choice, said that the foundation was
founded in 1996, based on Dr. Milton Friedman's 1955 idea of
school choice for all children. He explained that the idea was
for students to be directly funded and to choose the school
which was best for them. He reported that the findings of the
foundation indicated that children made academic gains by having
this choice. He said that both groups of children, those who
chose to go to schools which better fit their needs and those
who chose to stay in the public schools, did better.
8:42:48 AM
CHAIR DICK expressed concern that the public schools would have
a higher proportion of special needs students.
8:43:15 AM
MR. REED replied that many of the school choice programs were
developed toward special needs children and the parents chose
them for the appropriateness for their child. He reported on
the statistics that supported this statement. He stated that
public schools benefited from the resulting smaller class size.
8:44:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to HB 145, which
allowed the private school to select the children they would
accept, with no parameters on exclusions for religion or special
needs. He asked if the schools he described had a different
type of selection process.
8:46:24 AM
MR. REED explained that the majority of school choice programs
did not require private schools to accept all children. He
reported that private schools accepted a diverse set of students
for many reasons, including the need to fill empty seats, and
for economic diversity. He stated that the mission statement of
the religious schools was to serve the neediest. He opined that
evidence indicated that a lot of private schools do not turn
down students, and merely used the screening process for
placement purposes.
8:48:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA, acknowledging the rural location and the
diverse needs of many of the schools, stated that it was
difficult to compare Alaska to other states. She directed
attention to the huge transportation costs, and she expressed
reservations for how this could work for Alaska.
8:50:59 AM
MR. REED referred to the Florida special needs scholarship
program, which was based on a student's Individual Education
Plan (IEP), and reported that the dollars attached to the IEP
could be taken to the school of choice. There was no
stipulation that the local public school could not be attended.
However, concerned citizens would often establish schools for
children with common issues, and he remarked on Representative
Cissna's earlier comments about entrepreneurship. He stressed
that the important aspect was that every student was eligible to
make a choice, which forced accountability on the public
schools.
8:54:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if transportation was included in
these programs.
MR. REED replied that it varied. He said that his organization
had not researched the transportation component of school
choice. He reported that Maine and Vermont used the tuition
dollars on a case by case basis. He described an assortment of
methods for transportation, which included rerouting of bus
routes and car pools.
8:56:47 AM
CHAIR DICK asked if there had been any rush out of the public
schools and if there had been any chaos.
8:57:23 AM
MR. REED replied that there had not been any mass exodus from
the public schools. He pointed to various school choice
programs, and noted the percentage of use in different cities.
He referred to school choice programs as "fire alarms," stating
that these were safety mechanisms. He stated that the rate of
use for the school choice program started small.
8:59:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, referring to the aforementioned
comparative analyses that indicated public schools were
improving, asked if this was similar for states with and without
school choice programs.
MR. REED replied that this had not been analyzed, but that the
studies had been going on for years in geographic areas where
public schools were affected by school choice programs. He
pointed out that the school choice program funding allowed for
distance learning, which could be an advantage in Alaska. He
offered his belief that many of the wide spread gains of the
education reform environment in Florida, specifically on the
fourth grade reading scores on the national assessment of
educational progress, were a direct result of the school choice
program.
9:02:20 AM
CHAIR DICK asked if other states also had the need for a
constitutional amendment to provide school choice.
9:03:04 AM
MR. REED replied that these were Blaine Amendments in many state
constitutions, although some were not as restrictive as others.
He allowed that some of the decisions were also based on case
law.
9:04:37 AM
MIKE KELLY, as a former legislator, reflected that Alaska had
struggled for decades with meeting educational standards. He
listed the low high school graduation rate, a high remediation
rate for students entering the University of Alaska, and low
quality education ratings as problems. He said that although
more money was spent on education in Alaska than in most states,
the educational quality and results had remained "dismal." He
stated his belief that the school choice program in HB 145 would
affect the necessary changes. He stated that it had worked well
elsewhere, as it put parent and students in primary control,
"not the NEA and their activists who make the average legislator
quake and who believe they know better than parents in matters
of educating our children." He said that the proposed bill
would introduce competition in all schools, would cause more
positive results in the public education system, and would offer
a competitive alternative by allowing parents to make the choice
where their kids would go to school, "a fairly American way of
doing things." He stated that it would reduce the overall cost
of education infrastructure and operation, and would introduce
fairness. He said that the proposed bill would allow for a
parallel education system to be put in place, and he encouraged
its passage from the House Education Standing Committee.
9:08:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA, addressing the tax alluded to by Mr.
Kelly, pointed out that this was not a state tax, but a property
tax; and she offered her belief that this was a local community
issue, not a state issue.
9:10:37 AM
MR. KELLY offered his belief that "the dollars at the state
level belong to the citizens of Alaska" and that this proposed
bill offered an opportunity for a change, which was most
efficient at the state level.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER reflected that the oil taxes, the major
source of state revenue, were directed into the state general
fund, which paid for public schools.
9:12:40 AM
CHAIR DICK closed public testimony.
9:12:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, directing attention to page 2, line 3,
read: "regardless of the attendance area in the school district
in which the student resides." He asked, since the foundation
formula and geographic cost differentials were outlined in
statute and the district provided the school choice program
money to the student, if the intention of the sponsor was for
the money provided to be equal to the money paid by the district
in which the student was attending school.
9:14:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER replied that it was based on the cost for
a "similarly situated" student in the school district being
attended. He said the Department of Education and Early
Development (EED) would write the new regulations and
guidelines.
9:15:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his belief that the bill
specifically stated otherwise, as the bill did not include a
statement about physical address of the school, and that the
intention did not appear to be in statute.
9:15:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER explained that the funding for the school
of choice was based on the actual cost of the education, as
noted on page 2, lines 12-13. It would be the lesser of the
cost the district determined for a similarly situated student or
the actual educational cost for the student. He stated that it
would be based on the cost of the participating school.
9:16:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed his disagreement. He emphasized
that the proposed bill stated that the school's cost, including
the proration for its facility and operating expenses, would be
established by the individual school, not by the district. He
asked how the financial parameters would be created, as they did
not exist in the current version of the bill.
9:17:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER responded that the proposed bill
explicitly left the district in charge of administering the
funding based on the existing funding formula. He reported that
the amount paid to the participating school would be based on
the lesser of the amount of money generated by the student or
the actual cost of education. He said that the details for use
by education programs would be written in regulation, and he
opined that it would include restrictions.
9:18:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that the method of schooling
was not determined in the proposed bill. He opined that 100
percent of the student funding received by a school, both state
and local, would be covered, no matter where the student
attended school. He offered his belief that no financial
parameters existed in the proposed bill.
9:19:30 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:19 a.m. to 9:21 a.m.
9:21:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT, on behalf of Representative Dick, moved
to adopt Amendment 1, which read [original punctuation
provided]:
Remove p 2 lines 12-13
Remove line 6 " (1) that is equal to the lesser of"
Add line 7 "70% of"
Remove line 10 "100 percent"
Add line 10 "70 percent"
9:21:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected for discussion.
9:21:59 AM
CHAIR DICK read: [original punctuation provided] [Included in
members' packets]
There is currently a 70/30 rule, where school
districts must spend at least 70% of funding on
classroom instruction unless waived.
Intent of Amendment #1:
The districts will pass through 70% of the monies
received from the state for instruction, and the 30%
administrative and building costs associated with each
student will remain with the district to maintain.
He said that this proposed amendment would simplify the "brick
and mortar" concerns of the school left behind.
9:23:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE, pointing out that local tax money was
applied to the school district, asked if only 70 percent of what
the state provided would be enough to educate a child in a
private school.
9:24:12 AM
CHAIR DICK asked if deleting "from the state" would satisfy that
concern.
9:24:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked if the state had the authority to
dictate to municipalities how to spend its tax money.
9:24:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON explained that the 70/30 rule covered
every school to which Alaska provided funding. She pointed out
that the federal government paid the difference in funding for
communities which had no local taxes.
9:25:20 AM
CHAIR DICK, in response to Representative Seaton, said that the
70/30 rule was not part of the proposed Amendment 1, it was just
an indicator.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, directing attention to Version D, page 2,
line 10, asked if it would be necessary to delete "and local" in
order to eliminate any reference to the state dictating to local
municipalities.
9:26:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER explained that any percentage was an
arbitrary indicator. He opined that this would be deliberated
during future discussions on this proposed bill, especially as
the EED structured guidelines for the regulations.
9:27:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA offered her belief that the proposed bill
brought forth many interesting ideas, but that it was necessary
for further outcome studies by EED.
9:28:26 AM
CHAIR DICK asked if her comments were directed toward the
proposed Amendment 1 or toward the proposed bill.
9:28:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA replied that it was merely a statement.
She stated her hesitancy to vote on an issue for which there
were still many questions.
CHAIR DICK replied that EED was available for questions.
9:29:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON stated that it cost more to run a
public school, and she expressed her support for proposed
Amendment 1, as it would not take money from the smaller
schools.
9:30:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked if an intention of the bill was for
the student to have the full tuition paid for them.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER replied that the proposed bill did not
address that specifically. He directed attention to page 3,
lines 25-31, which stated, in part, that "The department shall
adopt regulations necessary to carry out the program in a manner
that ensures the highest number of student and school
participation..." He said that the question itself would be a
policy question for the committee.
9:31:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE questioned whether the private schools
would be allowed to charge additional tuition.
9:33:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER replied that the proposed bill allowed
private schools to charge additional tuition.
9:33:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 1 to proposed
Amendment 1, as follows:
Page 2, line 10, after "from all state"
Delete "and local"
9:34:25 AM
CHAIR DICK objected for discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that local municipalities should
not be mandated by the state for how they will spend tax
dollars.
9:35:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER replied that this was the prerogative of
the committee, in which case he would suggest an adjustment from
70 percent back to 100 percent in proposed Amendment 1.
9:36:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE suggested that it was necessary to
understand where all the education money was coming from. He
opined that, should the committee follow the suggestion of the
bill sponsor, the large municipalities would have money to
maintain the facilities, but the rural school districts would
suffer if the student count decreased.
9:37:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered his belief that the student would
still be part of the student count which qualified schools for
funding.
9:38:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked that this be verified. He opined
that, should a student leave a community to attend school
elsewhere, then the count would be affected.
9:38:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER, referring to page 3, lines 9-10, said
that the requirements for being a private school included the
maintenance of monthly attendance records which were reported to
the local school superintendent.
9:40:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that the State of Alaska
received federal dollars for education which were used to offset
the local contributions, but he stated that it was state dollars
that funded the schools. He pointed out that local
municipalities could not contribute more than 23 percent of the
school cost, but they did not have to contribute. He stated
that every municipality did not have the money; often, in the
rural districts, 100 percent of the funding was received from
the state, which included federal contributions.
9:42:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON questioned how the student count would
work.
9:43:20 AM
JIM POUND, Staff, Representative Wes Keller, Alaska State
Legislature, referred to page 2, line 22, and read: "A
participating school shall include students who are enrolled
under this section in the student count for purposes of
calculating state aid under AS 14.17.610." He said that the
private school would do the student count, and this would be
used in determining the financial support for the school
district.
9:43:45 AM
MR. POUND, in response to Representative P. Wilson, said that
the funding would be based on the school district in which the
student was attending school.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON offered her belief that 95 percent of
the testimony on HB 145 had been received from parents whose
children were already attending private schools. She asked for
clarification for the school being funded by the state.
MR. POUND replied that the funding would be provided to the
district, which would "transfer the money to the appropriate
school based on the student."
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked to clarify that, although a
student may have never attended a public school, this proposed
bill would send revenue to the school district, which would, in
turn, forward the revenue to the private school.
MR. POUND agreed.
9:45:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE pointed out that a child attending a
private school had not been counted in the district. He opined
that private schools which were accepted into the program by the
school district would increase the district student counts and
the commensurate amount of revenue.
9:46:25 AM
MR. POUND agreed that although this was the principle, it was
dependent on the school district accepting the private school
into the district.
9:46:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that he could not find any criteria
for acceptance or denial of a school in the proposed bill. He
asked if a school district could refuse to accept any private
schools.
9:47:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER replied that EED would establish the
regulations. He noted that the proposed bill stated that a
school would be accepted if it met all the criteria.
9:48:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if a school district had any choice
but acceptance, if the school had complied with the EED
criteria.
9:49:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER replied that the intent was to minimize
the basis for rejection of a school, in order to encourage
participation and competition.
9:49:43 AM
CHAIR DICK withdrew proposed Amendment 1. He asked the bill
sponsor to further review the funding percentage and the issue
for the state mandating to the municipality as previously
discussed on page 2, line 10.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER requested that EED also be consulted.
9:50:52 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:50 a.m. to 9:52 a.m.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON withdrew proposed Amendment 1 to proposed
Amendment 1.
9:53:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt Amendment 2, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
Remove: Page 2 lines 14-18
Insert: Page 2 line 14-
"Those parents who choose to send their children to
schools of choice other than public schools will
assume full responsibility for transporting their
children to the school of their choice."
9:53:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI objected for discussion.
9:53:23 AM
CHAIR DICK stated that the intent of proposed Amendment 2 was to
"remove confusion regarding transportation of students."
9:53:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked how this would affect a rural school
district, and he offered his belief that proposed Amendment 2
held the school district responsible for all transportation to
other public schools.
9:54:35 AM
CHAIR DICK explained that the intent of the amendment was to
remove the burden for transportation from the school districts.
9:55:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE suggested inserting "local" in front of
"public schools."
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested the removal of "other than
public schools."
9:55:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER opined that lines 14-18 contained language
permissive to the option of transportation by the school
district. He asked about retaining lines 14-18, while also
adding: "Those parents who choose to send their children to
schools of choice other than public schools will assume full
responsibility for transporting their children to the school of
their choice."
9:56:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested that lines 14-18 allowed a
local school district the option to include transportation.
9:57:39 AM
CHAIR DICK suggested an addition to proposed Amendment 2, which
stated: "the district may participate in the transportation of
students."
9:57:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE suggested, instead of removing lines 14-18,
to include the insert from proposed Amendment 2 after line 18.
9:58:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved Amendment 1 to proposed Amendment 2,
which would delete "Remove: Page 2 lines 14-18" and, after
"schools of choice" delete "other than public schools." There
being no objection, Amendment 1 to proposed Amendment 2 was
adopted.
10:00:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested to make proposed Amendment 2, as
amended, a conceptual amendment, as follows:
Page 2, line 14, before "If a parent or legal
guardian"
Insert: "Those parents who choose to send their
children to schools of choice will assume the full
responsibility for transporting their children to the
school of their choice."
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT agreed that proposed Amendment 2, as
amended, should be a conceptual amendment.
10:01:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI removed his objection, but stated that
he still had questions.
There being no further objections, conceptual Amendment 2, as
amended, was adopted.
10:02:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER agreed to present at a future committee
meeting the requested information on funding percentage and
state mandates to municipality expenditures.
10:02:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested a legal opinion regarding the
state mandate for local tax expenditures.
[HB 145 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|