Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 106
03/11/2014 05:00 PM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB278 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 278 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 278-EDUCATION: FUNDING/TAX CREDITS/PROGRAMS
5:04:02 PM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 278, "An Act increasing the base student
allocation used in the formula for state funding of public
education; repealing the secondary student competency
examination and related requirements; relating to high school
course credit earned through assessment; relating to a college
and career readiness assessment for secondary students; relating
to charter school application appeals and program budgets;
relating to residential school applications; increasing the
stipend for boarding school students; extending unemployment
contributions for the Alaska technical and vocational education
program; relating to earning high school credit for completion
of vocational education courses offered by institutions
receiving technical and vocational education program funding;
relating to education tax credits; making conforming amendments;
and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR GATTIS noted that before the committee was CSHB 278,
Version U.
5:04:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved Conceptual Amendment 25, as
follows:
Page 2, line 25:
Following: "ACT"
Insert: "or"
Following: "assessment,"
Delete: ", or the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude
Battery"
CHAIR GATTIS seeing no objection, announced Conceptual Amendment
25 was adopted.
5:06:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved Amendment 12, labeled 28-
GH2716\U.29, Mischel, 3/11/14 [text provided at the end of this
document].
CHAIR GATTIS objected for discussion.
5:07:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to page 14, line 20 and
said this amendment adds another category for receipt of tax
credit funding. He paraphrased from Amendment 12 and said the
intent is to provide a stimulus for contributions to early
childhood learning programs; an action that has been discussed
on multiple occasions and supported by the governor. He pointed
out that the committee packet includes material to identify what
constitutes an early learning and development program.
5:09:22 PM
CHAIR GATTIS stated her understanding that the tax credits have
no associated costs.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that tax credits are allowed for
educational purposes, and Amendment 12 does not increase the
eligible tax credit amount, or alter the sunset date. Amendment
12 is intended to add a new contribution category.
CHAIR GATTIS suggested that, although it doesn't represent a
direct cost, it may divert money from another area, and the
state may then need to increase an allocation elsewhere in the
budget to make up the difference.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON acknowledged that it may effect where a
donor chooses to take advantage of an educational tax credit.
5:11:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD recalled discussions to allow for-profit
entities to also take advantage of educational tax credits and
offered [Conceptual] Amendment 1 to Amendment 12, as follows:
Page 1, line 8:
Following: "by a"
Insert: ", for-profit agencies, or"
The committee took an at-ease from 5:11 p.m. to 5:15 p.m.
5:15:08 PM
CHAIR GATTIS objected for discussion.
5:15:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said the intent here is to encourage all
interested businesses to support early childhood learning.
5:17:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for the definition of the term
"agency".
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD deferred to Legislative Legal Services,
where the draft language was originated.
5:18:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired whether AS 10.20 are the
statutes governing non-profit organizations.
5:18:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said, "Yes, that is correct," and directed
attention to a committee handout labeled, "Chapter 10.20 Alaska
Nonprofit Corporation Act," which lists the substantive
provisions relating to nonprofit entities.
5:18:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX cited three reasons that govern corporate
donations: an advantageous state/local tax credit, benevolence,
or for federal tax law benefits. She questioned whether federal
law would allow a tax credit on a contribution made to a for-
profit agency.
5:21:13 PM
ANGELA RODELL, Commissioner, Department of Revenue, responded
that a tax credit is received by the donor, and the question is
whether the for-profit is required to recognize such a donation
as income, and, thus, declare tax on the contribution. She
deferred commenting on federal tax implications. An important
point to remember is that the tax credit is provided to the
donor not the donee, she finished.
5:22:15 PM
CHAIR GATTIS observed that it is up to the for-profit facility
to decide whether to accept a specific donation.
COMMISSIONER RODELL agreed and said, as recipient, the donee
would handle any tax obligation.
5:22:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said the donor corporation receives the
tax credit and would seek benefit under federal law. She
theorized that a corporate entity would be loath to donate to
any organization, if the action did not provide the maximum
state and federal tax benefit; and suggested a for-profit
organization could not offer a good level of tax relief.
COMMISSIONER RODELL concurred and added that tax planning and
due diligence would need to be heeded by the donor.
5:23:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that all of the other
recipients are non-profit entities or state operated facilities,
as indicated in Version U pages 13 and 14. He opined that by
including for-profit entities, the effect of tax credits for
early learning programs across the state may be lost.
Maintaining concern for the overall ramifications, he stated
opposition to Conceptual Amendment 1.
5:25:20 PM
CHAIR GATTIS maintained her objection to Conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendment 12.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives LeDoux, Saddler,
Reinbold and Gattis voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 12. Representatives Seaton, Kito III (Alternate), and
P. Wilson voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendment 12 was adopted by a vote of 4-3.
CHAIR GATTIS removed her objection to Amendment 12, and without
further objection, Amendment 12 was adopted, as amended.
5:27:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved Amendment 13 labeled 28-
GH2716\U.12, Mischel, 3/10/14 [text provided at the end of this
document].
CHAIR GATTIS objected for discussion.
5:27:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD explained that the amendment caps the
indirect cost rate at 4 percent.
5:28:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked what effect this amendment may have
on the fiscal arrangement between the school districts and the
charter schools.
5:29:28 PM
ELIZABETH SWEENEY NUDELMAN, Director, School Finance and
Facilities Section, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), responded that it would depend on the
district's current federal rate. Providing an example, she said
if the current federal rate was above 4 percent then the school
district would retain a lesser amount of money and the charter
school would retain more funding. There are a range of rates,
from 3 percent to over 10 percent, which are specific to each
district.
5:30:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD explained that charter schools pay back
to the district a varying percentage each year, and the amount
is variable. Amendment 13 proposes to cap the percentage to be
paid back to a district, at a reasonable rate, and in doing so
provide charter schools with more predictable and staid budgets.
5:30:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III noted that the indirect rate is a
federal rate, and asked what types of services are included in
the calculation.
MS. NUDELMAN answered that the costs would typically include the
area wide business operations of school districts. To arrive at
the percentage, she explained, the pool of indirect costs is
divided by the eligible costs.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III expressed further interest in
identifying specific costs that are included in arriving at the
rate, and whether there is a relationship with the activities
that a district provides to a charter school.
MS. NUDELMAN answered that the business manager's salary would
be one item, and possibly the technical support department;
however, it may vary between districts.
5:33:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER noted that the range is from 3-10 percent
and asked if there is a median rate and if so, would 4 percent
be reasonable.
MS. NUDELMAN said no median exists, and declined to opine on the
reasonableness of the proposed 4 percent.
5:34:58 PM
CHAIR GATTIS suggested that under an established cap budgetary
planning could be more focused, optional services considered,
and spending priorities identified, rather than operating on an
annual sliding scale.
5:36:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to the committee packet and
testimony labeled as, "Alaska Charter Schools Legislator
Information," to paraphrase information under the page 3
heading, "Why should the state place a cap on indirect fees?"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Presently, charter schools pay indirect fees to their
local school districts out of the BSA received per
pupil. The indirect fees vary each year - from roughly
less than 3% to more than 6%. While charter schools
recognize and appreciate the symbiotic relationship
with the individual school districts, there is no
transparency with regard to the benefits received as a
result of these indirect fees and there is no
consistency as to the amount of the fee itself. The
Department of Education and Early Development sets the
indirect fees and it appears as though some districts
may also add on to that. We ask that, for planning
purposes, the local district submits to the state the
value of services received and that the amount be
capped at 4%.
5:37:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the department sets the fee.
MS. NUDELMAN responded that it is a federal indirect rate and is
a result of reported expenditures. Flexibility is not a
characteristic, and the calculation is based on spending
information received from each district. The department
procedurally processes and approves the rate.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to whether indirect costs are
mandated to be delivered by a school district, and is it
incumbent for the charter school to accept the services. She
provided a scenario of a charter school opening bids for
technical services and choosing a competitive provider over the
school district. She asked how an arrangement of that nature
might be handled.
5:38:51 PM
SUSAN MCCAULEY, Director, Teaching and Learning Support,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), said the
answer is likely no, and offered statutory language, which
indicates that the budget shall not be less than the amount
generated by students enrolled, less administrative costs
retained by the local school district. The method for
determining what the administrative costs will be is the
department approved indirect rate. There is not meant to be a
direct correlation between the indirect cost rate and the
services that contribute to calculation of that rate, and the
services received by a charter school. She said negotiations do
occur, when a charter school is forming a contract with a
district to agree upon what services will be provided and
covered by the amount retained by the district. The
conversation may include a litany of services and take into
account the consideration of private service contractors.
5:41:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON noted that the fees vary between
districts.
The committee took an at-ease from 5:41 p.m. to 5:44 p.m.
5:44:13 PM
MS. MCCAULEY pointed out that a reasonable cap may be the
intent; however, Amendment 13 links the indirect rate to the
unadjusted base student allocation (BSA). She opined that using
the BSA in this manner, may not prove optimal, and suggested
inserting language cleanly and clearly stating a 4 percent cap.
5:46:07 PM
MS. NUDELMAN added that the indirect rate is applied to other
requirements and, as such, is not being adjusted, but is being
capped for this specific provision. On request, she indicated
that the amendment would better serve the purpose if the
language being inserted was "up to four percent".
[Proposed language treated as Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 13.]
5:48:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON described how the situation is handled
by the Ketchikan Gateway School District. The indirect costs
are calculated and divided among each school to create a fair
and equitable distribution. Furthermore, she stressed, every
school service is different every year for any number of
reasons, and although it seems that having a set budget should
be possible, it is not seated in reality. Citing fairness
issues, she said she would not be able to support Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 13.
5:50:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III indicated interest in providing a
predictable environment for funding charter schools; however,
not knowing the extent of the indirect rate, it would be
difficult to support the amendment. He said a variety of costs
may be impacted and the ramifications could include
personnel/retirement services.
MS. NUDELMAN assured that the salaries and benefits would only
be the ones attributable to a business manager type position;
not teaching staff.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III asked if all of the teaching staff costs
and benefits are part of the direct costs a charter school is
receiving from the district or is any aspect attributable to the
indirect rate.
MS. NUDELMAN replied:
The costs are direct costs of the positions, wherever
those positions are located. So for the charter
school, the retirement costs are part of the teachers
at the charter school.
5:53:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER recalled that the indirect rate varies
from 3-10 percent and asked if the variance is between districts
or between schools within a district.
MS. NUDELMAN answered that the indirect rate is attached to the
district.
5:53:40 PM
CHAIR GATTIS asked if the indirect rates are attributable to
each neighborhood school in a district, as well as the charter
schools.
MS. NUDELMAN responded that for the non-charter schools, the
district makes the decision on the funding levels for each
school, and could use the indirect rate; however, she added,
that the policy is not practiced.
5:55:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER voiced his understanding that an indirect
rate is set for the district but not all the schools in the
district are subject equally to the indirect rate.
MS. NUDELMAN clarified that the charter schools receive the
funding generated by the facility. Other schools within the
district are not under mandate to receive a specific amount of
funding as generated. The district makes decisions for the non-
charter schools in a different manner.
5:56:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON emphasized the importance of having the
indirect fees imposed to cover the services being rendered. A
small charter school may rely on the district office to issue
pay checks, along with other administrative activities. Every
school district handles this differently, and placing this in
statute may be good for some districts but not others. She
stressed the importance for a better understanding of how this
action might affect all districts.
5:57:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked about effects if the districts were
to bill the charter schools directly for services rendered,
which would allow for cost saving decisions. If the cap were at
4 percent, the district could indicate which services would be
provided to the cap and the charter school would need to budget
for the remainder. She questioned the benefit of Amendment 13.
MS. MCCAULEY answered that negotiations are part of the
contract, which typically spans five years unless changed
through mutual agreement. The indirect rate is not negotiated
but takes into consideration the provided services. By capping
the indirect rate, the discussion will be altered regarding how
these services are addressed.
5:59:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD summarized that the intent of Amendment
13 is to provide transparency and consistency for calculating
the indirect rate, and capping it at 4 percent.
The committee took an at-ease at 6:01 p.m.
6:01:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD withdrew Amendment 13.
6:02:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved Amendment 14, labeled 28-
GH2716\U.13, Mischel, 3/10/14 [text provided at the end of this
document].
CHAIR GATTIS objected for discussion.
6:03:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said that Amendment 14 allows a school
district to offer a charter school the right of first refusal to
lease space and may negotiate a lease agreement with the charter
school for the true operational costs calculated on a square
foot basis for space leased.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER indicated he had prepared a similar
amendment, and stated support for Amendment 14.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III indicated he had prepared a similar
amendment, and stated support for Amendment 14.
CHAIR GATTIS withdrew her objection, and without further
objection Amendment 14 was adopted.
6:04:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved Amendment 15, labeled 28-
GH2716\U.14, Mischel, 3/10/14 [text provided at the end of this
document].
CHAIR GATTIS objected for discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD withdrew Amendment 15.
6:05:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved Amendment 16, labeled 28-
GH2716\U.15, Mischel, 3/10/14 [text provided at the end of this
document].
CHAIR GATTIS objected for discussion.
6:05:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted that the High School Graduation
Qualifying Examination (HSGQE) was repealed with the passage of
[HB 220]. Amendment 16 will remove the SAT and ACT assessments,
as well, from Version U. She expressed concern that these two
well established assessments have recently undergone alignment
with the Common Core standards.
6:06:08 PM
CHAIR GATTIS questioned the impact of removing the verbiage, as
proposed under Amendment 16.
6:06:25 PM
LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education and
Early Development (EED), responded that it was envisioned that
students would take either the SAT or ACT, initially paid for by
the state and have the participation effort, not the score, be
made a requirement for receipt of a diploma. The amendment
removes this requirement from the bill.
6:07:21 PM
CHAIR GATTIS stated her understanding that HB 278 allows a
student to choose to take the ACT, SAT, or WorkKeys assessment,
and have the cost billed to the state. Amendment 16 removes
this requirement from Version U.
MR. MORSE said the governor and administration would like to see
an aspirational assessment provided, which would give students a
direction for their future. It is an important component of the
original bill and would be removed by this amendment.
6:08:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said a test is taken to pass or fail, and
it is difficult to support an examination effort that results in
a mark of participation. She stated support for Amendment 16.
6:08:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if Amendment 16 removes the
requirement for eleventh grade students to take the WorkKeys
assessment.
MR. MORSE responded that, under the current structure, WorkKeys
would be retained status quo. To follow-up questions he said
the eleventh grade students would still have the WorkKeys
Assessment proctored, and the cost is retained in the budget.
6:09:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III expressed his support for having the
state fund the ACT/SAT college preparation tests, and opined on
the importance to include these tests along with the career
assessment.
6:10:10 PM
CHAIR GATTIS stated her understanding Amendment 16 removes the
references for taking the ACT or SAT but the WorkKeys remains in
place as it is established under a different section.
MR. MORSE concurred.
6:10:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD pointed out that any student can decide
to take the ACT or SAT; however, the amendment removes the state
sponsorship for the proctoring. She said traditionally students
have paid for college entrance exams and that practice should
continue.
CHAIR GATTIS maintained her objection to Amendment 16.
6:11:20 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives LeDoux, Seaton,
Reinbold, and P. Wilson voted in favor of Amendment 16.
Representatives Saddler, Kito III (Alternate), and Gattis voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 16 was adopted by a vote of 4-
3.
6:12:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved Amendment 17, labeled 28-
GH2716\U.16, Luckhaupt/Mischel, 3/10/14 [text provided at the
end of this document].
CHAIR GATTIS objected for discussion.
6:12:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said Amendment 17 seeks to include an
additional technical/vocational facility to the list of
recipients for the Alaska Workforce Investment Board funding,
formerly known as the Alaska Human Resource Investment Council.
Currently the University of Alaska (UA) receives 45 percent of
the funds and this would redirect 3 percent of that allocation
to support the Southern Southeast Alaska Technical Education
Center (SSATEC), and added there is no effect to the fiscal
note. She described the SSATEC as a successful facility whose
graduates are in high demand in the region. Reportedly, the
students are tracked through the vocational center by local
businesses and offered jobs prior to graduation. To a question
from Representative Saddler, she said the allocation amount
varies annually, as it is based on the amount that is collected
through the unemployment tax.
6:15:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked why the school wasn't originally
included, conjecturing that perhaps it lacked accreditation.
6:16:24 PM
DIANNE BLUMER, Commissioner, Department of Labor & Workforce
Development, deferred and offered to provide information
regarding the facilities accreditation status.
6:16:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said many of the schools on the list
are not accredited, and pointed out that SSATEC was not in
existence when the distribution list was initially established.
6:17:15 PM
CHAIR GATTIS asked for an opinion on adjusting the UA percentage
to accommodate the SSATEC facility.
COMMISSIONER BLUMER said the department has been a neutral party
in the allocation of the formula funding, as an agency that
serves all of the training centers; it is a legislative
decision.
6:17:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for the number of students that the
facility serves, and how much money the 3 percent might
represent.
6:18:15 PM
CHAIR GATTIS resolved that the question is whether the committee
will adjust the percentage allocation. She asked if 3 percent
is in line with the other allocations.
COMMISSIONER BLUMER reported that other schools of similar size
receive 2-9 percent, and opined that 3 percent seems fair.
6:20:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned whether being an accredited
facility is of concern.
COMMISSIONER BLUMER offered that not all of the facilities on
the recipient list are accredited.
6:20:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER indicated that he would like to have more
information on the facility in order to support Amendment 17.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON described how some of the programs work
using hands on activities, and operates in conjunction with the
Ketchikan Indian Association. The way in which it is set up,
each student receives personal, social support as well as skill
building. She touted it as a possible blue ribbon program.
6:24:04 PM
CHAIR GATTIS asked if there is any reason why this school was
not initially included in the list.
COMMISSIONER BLUMER deferred.
6:25:03 PM
CHAIR GATTIS expressed regret that SSATEC has come to the fore
late in the session.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said the facility has come under
discussion in a variety of committees, during session. She
emphasized that the facility didn't exist when the technical
list was generated. However, SSATEC now represents a successful
vocational facility, similar to what is supported in other areas
of the state. The facility is doing a good job of work force
development for the state and should be included in the
allocation list.
6:26:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked how long the facility has been
operational.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON estimated that the center has operated
for about three years. The facilities that existed at the time
of the original allocations were included in the list and, she
maintained, this is the time for amending the list.
6:27:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out the five year sunset date, as
indicated on page 1, line 9, with the 2009-2014 allocations.
The allocations being proposed are for the years 2015-2024, and
he concurred that this is the appropriate time for amending the
list to include additional vocational facilities. Further, he
indicated that the departments do not get involved in allocating
funds to the facilities.
6:29:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON noted that traditionally labor and
workforce development has been in charge of distributing the
funds, and asked if it is a new activity for the department.
6:30:53 PM
CHAIR GATTIS asked for further direction from the department.
COMMISSIONER BLUMER said if the formula funding did not exist
the department would make decisions based on a competitive
granting process, but at this point it is formula funded and
under the purview of the legislature.
CHAIR GATTIS maintained her objection to Amendment 17.
6:32:06 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives LeDoux, Seaton,
Reinbold, P. Wilson, Kito III (Alternate), and Gattis voted in
favor of Amendment 17. Representative Saddler voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 17 was adopted by a vote of 6-1.
The committee took an at-ease from 6:32 p.m. to 6:40 p.m.
6:40:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved Amendment 18, labeled 28-
GH2716\U.17, Martin/Mischel, 3/10/14 [text provided at the end
of this document].
CHAIR GATTIS objected for discussion.
The committee took an at-ease at 6:41 p.m.
6:42:37 PM
CHAIR GATTIS announced Amendment 18 withdrawn.
6:42:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved Amendment 19, labeled 28-
GH2716\U.23, Martin/Mischel, 3/10/14 [text provided at the end
of this document].
CHAIR GATTIS objected for discussion.
6:43:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER withdrew Amendment 19.
6:43:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved Amendment 18, labeled 28-
GH2716\U.17, Martin/Mischel, 3/10/14 [text provided at the end
of this document].
CHAIR GATTIS objected for discussion.
6:43:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III explained that Amendment 18 provides
start-up funding for charter schools at the rate of $500.00 per
student, for purchase of supplies and teaching materials.
6:44:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked what would be the source of the
allocation, does it come directly from the EED budget, and, if
so, does the department have any planning over the number of
charter schools to be authorized.
MR. MORSE responded that the department would not be absorbing
the costs, as Amendment 18 indicates a legislative
appropriation. He directed attention to page 1, line 17 and
pointed out the language regarding the requirement for
appropriation, and said the funds would be distributed by the
department pro rata to whatever schools qualified.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether it was the sponsor's intent
to require legislative appropriation, and Representative Kito,
III, replied, "Yes."
6:46:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON queried what the current start up
practice is for establishing a charter school.
MR. MORSE responded that once approval has been granted, the
department provides funding at the beginning of the fiscal year,
July 1. To a follow-up question, he confirmed that there are no
extra funds provided to cover start-up costs.
6:47:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired about the costs related for
implementing Amendment 18.
MR. MORSE offered that from a historical look back on a 20 year
average, it would be about $225,000 annually.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked from where the $225,000 would be
allocated.
CHAIR GATTIS interjected her understanding that funding would be
through a legislative grant.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for direction to locate the bill
language indicating the legislative grant.
6:49:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III offered that adopting Amendment 18,
thereby placing the requirement in statute, the grant would be
established and the program further defined through departmental
regulation.
6:49:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether a grant is available when
a non-charter public school is starting up.
MR. MORSE replied, "No," and added that the district would fund
a new neighborhood school.
6:50:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III pointed out that a start-up neighborhood
public school is allowed capital funding to purchase supplies
and materials. In response to a committee member, he clarified
that charter schools are not eligible for similar capital funds,
as it is part of the building cost; charter schools generally
lease space versus build new.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked, "And nothing we've done in all
these amendments changes that, is that correct."
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III responded that one item has been added
into the bond debt reimbursement program allowing a district to
construct a charter school, in which case capital funds could be
accessed for purchase of supplies and materials. He emphasized
that a charter school operating in a leased or renovated space
would not have the same access to capital funds.
6:52:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON recapped that the committee has adopted
Amendments 1, 2, 4, 7, 11, and 13, all of which pertain to
charter schools. She expressed concern for possible cumulative
effects the amendments may carry, including fiscal impacts, and
stressed the need for the committee to exercise caution. She
voiced reluctance to support further charter school related
amendments, lacking a compelling argument.
CHAIR GATTIS agreed that the financial aspect may be in
question, but bringing parity to charter schools, and all
schools, is important.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER expressed similar concern for the
cumulative effects and costs of the amendments being adopted.
CHAIR GATTIS maintained her objection.
6:54:54 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives LeDoux and Kito III
(Alternate), voted in favor of Amendment 18. Representative
Saddler, Seaton, Reinbold, P. Wilson, and Gattis voted against
it. Therefore, Amendment 18 failed by a vote of 2-5.
6:55:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved Amendment 20 labeled 28-
GH2716\U.26, Martin/Mischel, 3/10/14 [text provided at the end
of this document].
CHAIR GATTIS objected for discussion.
6:55:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that Amendment 20 addresses the
secondary school vocational and technical instruction component
of the block grant, which allocates 1.5 percent per student.
Amendment 20 restricts the funding for distribution according to
the students being served; currently a school gets funded for
students of all ages. He pointed out that technical and
vocational classes are typically offered at the secondary level,
but kindergarten through eighth grade students are counted for
the block grant allocation. The amendment corrects the
apportionment to be directed to secondary students.
6:57:44 PM
CHAIR GATTIS asked whether Amendment 20 represents additional
funding or a redistribution of the current proposed allocation.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that it is a re-distribution.
6:58:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX queried why Amendment 20 doesn't include
funds generated by special need students.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that, although considered, special
needs funding applies not only to disabled students, but
encompasses other programs that are integrated throughout the
grades; vocational/technical studies are specific to secondary
level students. He pointed out that a charter school could
receive a portion of the grant, based on the actual number of
secondary students in attendance of seventh grade and above. A
kindergarten through sixth grade program would no longer receive
vocational/technical grant money.
6:59:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER directed attention to a drafting error
and suggested the need to amend a coma, to clarify the intention
for placement of Amendment 20.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said a friendly amendment would be
accepted; however, it may not be required by the drafters. He
said the intent is understood.
7:00:17 PM
CHAIR GATTIS asked for clarity of how the funds are to be
distributed.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded that the definition of a
secondary school is from seventh grade through graduation, and
1.5 percent would be calculated for distribution, based on the
attendance in those grades; including charter schools.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX conjectured that a charter school might be
focused on the fine arts, and asked how such a facility would be
affected under the original language, as well as Amendment 20.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON emphasized that the intent is to direct
funds appropriately to secondary schools offering
vocational/technical classes. He deferred to the department for
further comment.
7:02:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON clarified that Amendment 20 provides
identical funding to charter as well as non-charter schools in
this regard.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded, "Correct."
7:02:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD observed that Amendment 20 represents
defining language.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said, "Correct."
7:03:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether the measure would be a
result of less money to schools under current law, and asked for
further clarification of Amendment 20 effects on the formula.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that the members question regards
allocations of funds and clarified that the districts receive a
vocational/technical allocation, for distribution to the
secondary schools. However, the concern being addressed is that
a school may only span kindergarten through eighth grade and yet
still receive the vocational/technical education increment on a
per student basis; contrary to the original intent of the
funding. The amendment allows a charter school to receive the
increment based on secondary grade student attendance;
disallowing the primary student count. He pointed out that this
does not require additional funding, only a redistribution of
what has been allocated.
7:04:50 PM
MR. MORSE clarified that the vocational/technical increment is
one component of the funding formula that drives the amount of
money that each district receives. It is an aspect of the
larger educational block grant. He said that every student,
regardless of grade level, generates these dollars. The
legislature's original intent was for these dollars to support
vocational/technical education for secondary students; however,
the allocation is currently based on student counts from all
grades. Potentially, he opined, Amendment 20 could direct fewer
dollars to a charter school, as the current statutory language
for charter schools is based on student counts in generating
funding for a district; lacking this language to clarify the
intent.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated her understanding of how the
student count influences the funds distributed to a district.
She acknowledged that a charter school with kindergarten through
sixth grade levels, as proposed under Amendment 20, would no
longer receive the vocational/technical increment, due to the
curricula not traditionally pertaining to those grade levels.
Finally, she noted that a charter school with a secondary level
would receive this increment under current law, as well as under
the proposed amendment; even if the charter school focus were on
fine arts.
MR. MORSE affirmed Representative LeDoux's understanding, and
added that a kindergarten through sixth grade school may
incorporate vocational/technical study, as it could take a form
in the lower grade curriculum, but agreed that it is not
traditionally brought to those grade levels.
7:09:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER recapped his understanding of the
situation, and added that it appears to tighten up the
distribution of funds, and could result in fewer dollars for a
charter school.
MR. MORSE concurred.
7:09:51 PM
EPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD reported that all charter schools in the
Anchorage area may receive less funding, under Amendment 20. A
school which she contacted has estimated a loss of $40,000 would
be realized.
7:10:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stressed that the intent of Amendment 20
is to support vocational education in secondary schools; lacking
an ear mark, it may be used in other ways. However, vocational
education is more expensive than many classes, requiring an
equipped shop, lab, kitchen or other specifically designed
classroom. If a charter school has a secondary level class, the
school would be eligible for the funding. Without Amendment 20,
he said funds are being directed away from vocational/technical
training; funding that was originally intended as stimulus for
these programs in each district.
7:11:35 PM
EPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether the amendment alters the
calculation of the vocational funding.
MR. MORSE reported that the districts are expected to follow the
intent language and distribute the funds to schools with seventh
to twelfth grade levels; however, all students generate the
state funds.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER surmised that Amendment 20 creates a
disparity.
MR. MORSE clarified that, if districts are following the current
law for distribution of funds, charter schools may receive less
funding; however, it may not represent a disparity, he opined.
7:12:58 PM
CHAIR GATTIS maintained her objection to Amendment 20.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives LeDoux, P. Wilson,
and Seaton voted in favor of Amendment 20. Representatives
Saddler, Reinbold, Kito III (Alternate), and Gattis voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 20 failed by a vote of 3-4.
7:13:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved Amendment 21 labeled 28-
GH2716\U.27, Mischel, 3/11/14 [text provided at the end of this
document].
CHAIR GATTIS objected for discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD withdrew Amendment 21.
7:14:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved Amendment 22, labeled 28-
GH2716\U.20, Mischel, 3/10/14 [text provided at the end of this
document].
CHAIR GATTIS objected for discussion.
7:15:42 PM
MS. NUDELMAN said Amendment 22 substitutes a 75 average daily
membership (ADM) requirement for the existing 150, and removes
the 95 percent calculator. Thus, a charter school with a 75 ADM
may exist at this formative level for three years, which
provides an extended period to become established.
7:17:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated his understanding that a charter
school, starting up with fewer than 150 students will be funded
at the 150 level, and the 95 percent factor will not be applied.
MS. NUDELMAN clarified that, currently, for one year, if a
school ADM is below 150 but above 120, funding would be received
at the 150 level. The amendment increases that variance to an
ADM of 75, instead of 120, and be funded at the 150 level for
three years.
7:18:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III asked about the fiscal impact, and
whether it represents an addition to the foundation formula, or
a reallocation of the existing formula funding.
MS. NUDELMAN replied that it is part of the foundation program,
the school size chart calculation, which applies to charter
schools. It adjusts the floor from 120 for one year to 75 for a
three year period. Looking at the last six years of school
start-ups, she estimated that, if this provision had been in
practice, the cost would have been $230,000 per school.
7:19:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER surmised that Amendment 22 may provide
additional funding to start-up charter schools by basing the
allocation at the 150 student level, and allow the funding to be
at 100 percent of the count rather than 95 percent, for the
first three years of operation.
MS. NUDELMAN clarified that a school will only receive funding
for the number of students that are enrolled.
7:20:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked to have the actual rates stated.
MS. NUDELMAN clarified that currently a charter school with an
ADM of 120 or more would be paid at a rate of 1.45, for the
first year. The amendment lowers this to an ADM of 75 or above,
and allows the rate of 1.45 to be paid for three years. In the
sense of a hold harmless, it adds two years, she finished.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON requested the rates and terms for a
standard public school of the same size.
MS. NUDELMAN responded that the rate begins at 1.45, with an ADM
requirement of 150.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON observed that Amendment 22 provides a
boost to charter schools at start-up; district money will be
directed away from the neighborhood schools to the charter
schools.
MS. NUDELMAN clarified that the proposed measure will not affect
the district as the calculation will be undertaken for the
charter school and it will provide a solid base for the charter
school for three years.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON questioned how it would not affect the
district funding and asked for the source of the money.
MS. NUDELMAN indicated that it's provided for through the
foundation formula. The state aid would be provided for the
amount that the charter school generates.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON stated her understanding that the
amount of money which a school receives is calculated through
the formula and provided to the school district.
MS. NUDELMAN answered, "Correct," and statute specifies that the
funding generated by a charter school is forwarded on; thus, the
charter school with at least 75 students would receive funding
at the 150 ADM level for the first three years.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON added, "Which is in the school district
which the money comes from the school district."
MS. NUDELMAN clarified that the money is first allocated by the
state, at the level specified, and directed to the district for
distribution.
7:25:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III offered that it is an increase to the
funding that the schools will get. It doesn't come out of the
existing funding, but rather changes the formula and increases
the amount that is allocated to a district.
CHAIR GATTIS maintained her objection.
7:26:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON maintained that the amendment will cost
more money, not directly to a district, but to the state.
CHAIR GATTIS said, "It does."
7:26:30 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives LeDoux, Saddler,
Reinbold, Kito III (Alternate), and Gattis voted in favor of
Amendment 22. Representatives Seaton and P. Wilson voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 22 was adopted by a vote of 5-
2.
7:27:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved Amendment 23, labeled 28-
GH2716\U.24, Nauman/Mischel, 3/10/14 [text provided at the end
of this document].
CHAIR GATTIS objected for discussion.
7:27:54 PM
COMMISSIONER RODELL said Amendment 23 is proposed to encourage
contributions towards educational opportunities around public
service leadership programs. It will help students by advancing
and fostering public service for future generations in Alaska
and advance their education towards public service leadership.
She opined that this is an important aspect to encourage.
7:28:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if the amendment was drafted with
particular non-profits in mind, and if so, what non-profits are
being considered.
COMMISSIONER RODELL replied that a number of non-profits may
benefit from this addition, whether it's a program offered
through the University of Alaska system or a particular entity.
One organization that comes to mind, she said, is the Elders &
Youth program through the First Alaskans Institute of the
[Alaska Federation of Natives] (AFN). A number of entities
within the state may find benefit and it encourages and provides
an avenue for public service to be pursued by students.
7:29:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON questioned the meaning of the
terminology, "legacy of public service."
MR. MORSE offered that the intent for using the word legacy is
to embrace the history of, and indicate a look forward to, the
future of public service.
7:31:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III pointed out that the university is not,
to his understanding, a non-profit organization. Additionally,
the AFN Youth & Elders program is not promoting a legacy for
public service. He asked for organizations that will be
impacted by this measure.
COMMISSIONER RODELL said that the Ted Stevens Foundation has
established a legacy of public service. Fostering public
service is important and practiced throughout the state, she
maintained.
7:32:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed concern and directed attention
to Version U page 18, [line 27], which indicates that a
nonprofit must be a 501(c)(3) charitable or educational
organization, and Amendment 23 does not appear to align with
that requirement. Further, he pointed out that the amendment
also appears to be restrictive and he agreed with the previous
member's statement that the university would not qualify.
7:32:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD stated similar concerns and said a
resolution might be a better vehicle to accomplish this goal.
7:33:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether deleting the term "legacy
of" would change the intent of Amendment 23.
COMMISSIONER RODELL said striking "legacy of" would not
materially affect.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER opined that deleting "legacy of" would
bring focus to promoting public service and be more broadly
applied to many public service organizations.
COMMISSIONER RODELL suggested that the intent is to recognize
and foster public service. She opined that, for implementation
purposes, one of the points that will be considered is the
501(c) (3) status and the organizations intent for fulfilling
that status.
7:35:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III asked whether the measure would apply to
organizations such as Rotary International.
COMMISSIONER RODELL responded that the educational opportunity
supported by Rotary is not clear, and she deferred response.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III mentioned the Rotarian's international
student exchange program, which appears to foster public service
and education.
COMMISSIONER RODELL said the criteria would be reviewed and
qualification could be possible.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX interjected that the Rotary organization
is dedicated to public service and education.
7:37:18 PM
CHAIR GATTIS inquired about the Ted Stevens Foundation, and the
functions promoted.
COMMISSIONER RODELL stated her understanding that it provides a
variety of educational opportunities and acts as a center for
students to pursue public service.
CHAIR GATTIS acknowledged the public service cultivated by the
late Honorable Ted Stevens, and the work that is fulfilled in
his name.
7:38:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment
23, as follows:
Page 1, line 7:
Delete the language: "legacy of"
7:39:07 PM
CHAIR GATTIS objected for discussion.
7:39:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER voiced support for the Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 23.
CHAIR GATTIS maintained her objection to Conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendment 23.
7:39:42 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives LeDoux, Saddler, P.
Wilson, Kito III (Alternate), and Seaton voted in favor of
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 23. Representatives Gattis
and Reinbold voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment
1 to Amendment 23 was adopted by a vote of 5-2.
7:40:30 PM
CHAIR GATTIS maintained her objection to Amendment 23, as
amended.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives LeDoux, Saddler,
and Gattis voted in favor of Amendment 23, as amended.
Representatives P. Wilson, Kito III (Alternate), Seaton, and
Reinbold voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 23, as amended,
failed by a vote of 3-4.
7:41:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved Amendment 24, labeled 28-
GH2716\U.25, Nauman/Mischel, 3/10/14 [text provided at the end
of this document].
CHAIR GATTIS objected for discussion.
7:42:07 PM
MR. MORSE paraphrased the substantive language of Amendment 24
page 1, lines 3-14 [text provided at the end of this document]
and added that the measure is intended to assist students to
take advantage of, and earn dual educational credits for
programs such as the Alaska Native Science and Engineering
Program (ANSEP), the Alaska Summer Research Academy, and the
Rural Alaska Honors Institute (RAHI).
7:43:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III referred to page 1, line 14,
subparagraph (E) and asked whether the proposed language, "other
related educational and programmatic costs ...", is articulate
enough to assure that the costs would only be
associated/affiliated with a dual credit program.
MR. MORSE opined that "programmatic costs" refers to the program
in which a student is participating, and provides the necessary
clarity.
7:43:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked for a further explanation of
Amendment 24.
MR. MORSE said a business could contribute to the non-profit
which operates the programs mentioned, or other similar
programs. The tax credit applies to the businesses which are
specifically contributing to these programs.
7:44:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to page 1, line 12, to
query whether the language restricts student participation to
schools located in Alaska or the United States, considering that
the transportation costs are funded.
MR. MORSE reviewed the language page 1, line 10, which states,
"(D) transportation costs to and from a residential school
approved by the Department ...", and said that would clearly be
in-state. He opined that the intent is for the facility to be
located in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested an amendment to include language
restricting transportation costs to in-state travel.
CHAIR GATTIS expressed concern for programs that are operated
virtually and centered out-of-state.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON opined that transportation costs would not
apply to a virtual classroom or on-line study. He agreed that
the intent is for enrollment in a state facility that offers
dual credit. Other dual credit facilities may exist, in other
parts of the world, and he maintained the importance to ensure
intent.
MR. MORSE reiterated that the intent is for in-state travel and
agreed that an amendment would add clarity.
7:47:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked, "Can we exempt on-line."
MR. MORSE pointed out that on-line courses do not enter under
this component, as the language is restricted to transportation
costs.
7:47:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III stated support for including "in-state",
and said it would be appropriate.
7:48:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment
24, as follows:
Page 1, line 12:
Following: "school"
Insert: "in the state"
7:48:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected for discussion. She referred
to [page 1, lines 8-9, subparagraph] (C) and pointed out that it
would be important to include "in the state", in this paragraph
also, to clarify the reference regarding room and board at a
postsecondary institution. She stressed that this should also
be restricted to Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed to incorporate the member's
suggestion.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON removed her objection.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reworded Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 24, as follows:
Page 1, line 9:
Following: "institution"
Insert: "in the state"
Page 1, line 12:
Following: "school"
Insert: "in the state"
7:49:48 PM
COMMISSIONER RODELL stated her understanding that the language
would be drafted throughout the five page amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON assured that it will be duplicated as
necessary throughout the amendment.
CHAIR GATTIS hearing no further objection announced Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 24 was adopted.
7:51:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER directed attention to page 1, line 10,
subparagraph (D) and conjectured on the need for language to
limit transportation costs and suggested inserting a term to the
effect of reasonable or lowest practicable rate.
CHAIR GATTIS opined that the term reasonable is a qualifying
term and subjective.
7:52:42 PM
COMMISSIONER RODELL explained that the intent is to establish a
scholarship and the administrator of the fund would determine
reasonableness costs, as well as applicability to the sponsor's
tax credit requirements.
7:53:08 PM
CHAIR GATTIS agreed with the intent of Amendment 24, and stated
that it would be difficult to insert a non-subjective term.
7:53:40 PM
[A brief conversation ensued to provide clarity regarding the
comprehensive placement of Conceptual Amendment 1 throughout
Amendment 24; requested by a member.]
The committee took an at-ease from 7:56 p.m. to 7:59 p.m.
7:59:17 PM
CHAIR GATTIS maintained her objection to Amendment 24, as
amended.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives LeDoux, Saddler,
Reinbold, Seaton, P. Wilson, Kito III (Alternate), and Gattis
voted in favor of Amendment 24, as amended. Therefore,
Amendment 24, as amended, was adopted by a vote of 7-0.
8:00:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved Amendment 13, labeled 28-
GH2716\U.12, Mischel, 3/10/14 [text provided at the end of this
document].
CHAIR GATTIS objected for discussion.
8:01:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD proposed Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 13, which would amend Amendment 13 such that the
language being inserted would be: "department, up to four
percent." Therefore, Amendment 13, as amended, would read as
follows:
Page 7, line 11:
Delete "Department of Education and Early Development"
Insert "department, up to four percent."
8:02:15 PM
MR. MORSE stated departmental agreement for Conceptual Amendment
1 to Amendment 13.
8:02:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that the four charter schools in his
district work well together and stated concern for imposing this
restriction without further clarity regarding the scope of what
indirect costs cover. He noted that this cap could be
experienced significantly different depending on the size of the
district. The limitation may put districts and charter schools
at odds with each other and said he could not support Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 13.
8:03:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD reminded members of prior testimony from
successful charter schools which consider this an important
measure for budgeting purposes. The intent of the bill is to
encourage charter school success, she opined, and stressed the
importance to provide a stable budget for that end.
8:04:27 PM
CHAIR GATTIS indicated concern for the financial situation of
the charter schools and stated support for Conceptual Amendment
1 to Amendment 13.
8:05:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III agreed with the need for predictable
budgets, which should prove helpful to the charter schools, and
stated support for Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 13.
8:05:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON cautioned that the measure may impact
districts differently depending on size and, echoing
Representative Seaton's concerns, said she could not support
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 13.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:07 p.m. to 8:10 p.m.
8:12:05 PM
CHAIR GATTIS maintained her objection to Conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendment 13.
8:11:45 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives LeDoux, Saddler,
Reinbold, Seaton, P. Wilson, Kito III (Alternate), and Gattis
voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 13.
Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 13 was adopted by
a vote of 7-0.
CHAIR GATTIS maintained her objection to Amendment 13, as
amended.
8:13:28 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Saddler, Reinbold,
Kito III (Alternate), and Gattis voted in favor of Amendment 13,
as amended. Representatives Seaton, P. Wilson, and LeDoux voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 13, as amended, was adopted by
a vote of 4-3.
8:13:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to report CSHB 278, Version 28-
GH2716\U, Mischel, 3/8/14, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
8:14:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected and, noting the comprehensive
amendments and pointing out the regularly scheduled meeting
pending for the morning, requested a clean CS be provided to the
committee for final consideration.
CHAIR GATTIS expressed her intent to move the bill from
committee at this hour.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON withdrew his objection.
8:15:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III requested an opportunity to comment on
passage of the bill.
CHAIR GATTIS cited the late hour and asked members to hold
comments.
8:16:09 PM
CHAIR GATTIS, hearing no further objection, announced CSHB
278(EDC) was moved from the House Education Standing Committee.
Following is the text for Amendments 12-24:
Amendment 12, labeled 28-GH2716\U.29, Mischel, 3/11/14:
Page 14, line 17:
Delete "and"
Page 14, line 20, following "AS 14.16.200":
Insert "; and
(10) childhood early learning and development programs
and educational support to childhood early learning
and development programs provided by a nonprofit
corporation organized under AS 10.20, a tribal entity,
or a school district in the state, by the Department
of Education and Early Development, or through a state
grant"
Page 15, line 6:
Delete "and"
Page 15, line 9, following "AS 14.16.200":
Insert "; and
(7) for childhood early learning and development
programs and educational support to childhood early
learning and development programs provided by a
nonprofit corporation organized under AS 10.20, a
tribal entity, or a school district in the state, by
the Department of Education and Early Development, or
through a state grant"
Page 16, line 8:
Delete "and"
Page 16, line 11, following "AS 14.16.200":
Insert "; and
(10) childhood early learning and development programs
and educational support to childhood early learning
and development programs provided by a nonprofit
corporation organized under AS 10.20, a tribal entity,
or a school district in the state, by the Department
of Education and Early Development, or through a state
grant"
Page 16, line 28:
Delete "and"
Page 16, line 31, following "AS 14.16.200":
Insert "; and
(7) for childhood early learning and development
programs and educational support to childhood early
learning and development programs provided by a
nonprofit corporation organized under AS 10.20, a
tribal entity, or a school district in the state, by
the Department of Education and Early Development, or
through a state grant"
Page 17, line 30:
Delete "and"
Page 18, line 2, following "AS 14.16.200":
Insert "; and
(10) childhood early learning and development programs
and educational support to childhood early learning
and development programs provided by a nonprofit
corporation organized under AS 10.20, a tribal entity,
or a school district in the state, by the Department
of Education and Early Development, or through a state
grant"
Page 18, line 19:
Delete "and"
Page 18, line 22, following "AS 14.16.200":
Insert "; and
(7) for childhood early learning and development
programs and educational support to childhood early
learning and development programs provided by a
nonprofit corporation organized under AS 10.20, a
tribal entity, or a school district in the state, by
the Department of Education and Early Development, or
through a state grant"
Page 19, line 22:
Delete "and"
Page 19, line 25, following "AS 14.16.200":
Insert "; and
(10) childhood early learning and development programs
and educational support to childhood early learning
and development programs provided by a nonprofit
corporation organized under AS 10.20, a tribal entity,
or a school district in the state, by the Department
of Education and Early Development, or through a state
grant"
Page 20, line 12:
Delete "and"
Page 20, line 15, following "AS 14.16.200":
Insert "; and
(7) for childhood early learning and development
programs and educational support to childhood early
learning and development programs provided by a
nonprofit corporation organized under AS 10.20, a
tribal entity, or a school district in the state, by
the Department of Education and Early Development"
Amendment 13 labeled 28-GH2716\U.12, Mischel, 3/10/14:
Page 7, line 11:
Delete "Department of Education and Early Development"
Insert "department. The indirect cost rate may not
exceed four percent of the unadjusted base student
allocation under AS 14.17.470 for each student
enrolled in the charter school [DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT]."
Amendment 14 labeled 28-GH2716\U.13, Mischel, 3/10/14:
Page 1, line 5:
Delete "school application appeals and program
budgets"
Insert "schools"
Page 7, following line 5:
Insert a new bill section to read:
* Sec. 9. AS 14.03.255(d) is amended to read:
"(d) A school district shall offer to a charter
school the right of first refusal for a lease of space
[CHARTER SCHOOL MAY BE OPERATED] in an existing school
district facility or in a facility within the school
district that is not currently being used as a public
school, if the chief school administrator determines
the facility meets requirements for health and safety
applicable to public buildings or other public schools
in the district. The school district may negotiate a
lease agreement with the charter school for the true
operational costs calculated on a square foot basis
for space leased under this subsection."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 11, line 25:
Delete "sec. 17"
Insert "sec. 18"
Page 11, line 28:
Delete "secs. 17 and 18"
Insert "secs. 18 and 19"
Page 21, line 10:
Delete "Sections 20 and 38"
Insert "Sections 21 and 39"
Page 21, line 11:
Delete "Sections 15, 16, and 17"
Insert "Sections 16, 17, and 18"
Page 21, line 12:
Delete "18, and 21 - 23"
Insert "19, and 22 - 24"
Page 21, line 13:
Delete "Section 19"
Insert "Section 20"
Page 21, line 14:
Delete "Sections 25, 28, 31, and 34"
Insert "Sections 26, 29, 32, and 35"
Page 21, line 15:
Delete "secs. 39 - 43"
Insert "secs. 40 - 44"
Amendment 15 labeled 28-GH2716\U.14, Mischel, 3/10/14:
Page 20, following line 21:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 36. Section 3, ch. 91, SLA 2010, is
repealed."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 21, line 10:
Delete "Sections 20 and 38"
Insert "Sections 20 and 39"
Page 21, line 15:
Delete "secs. 39 - 43"
Insert "secs. 40 - 44"
Amendment 16 labeled 28-GH2716\U.15, Mischel, 3/10/14:
Page 1, lines 3 - 4:
Delete "relating to a college and career readiness
assessment for secondary students;"
Page 2, lines 13 - 25:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 8, line 20, through page 9, line 8:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 11, line 25:
Delete "sec. 17"
Insert "sec. 15"
Page 11, line 28:
Delete "secs. 17 and 18"
Insert "secs. 15 and 16"
Page 20, following line 21:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 34. AS 14.03.075 and AS 14.07.165(5) are
repealed."
Page 20, line 31:
Delete "Sections 6 and 7"
Insert "Sections 5 and 6"
Page 21, line 10:
Delete "Sections 20 and 38"
Insert "Sections 18 and 37"
Page 21, line 11:
Delete "Sections 15, 16, and 17"
Insert "Sections 13, 14, 15, and 34"
Page 21, line 12:
Delete "Section 18, and 21 - 23"
Insert "16, and 19 - 21"
Page 21, line 13:
Delete "Section 19"
Insert "Section 17"
Page 21, line 14:
Delete "Sections 25, 28, 31, and 34"
Insert "Sections 23, 26, 29, and 32"
Page 21, line 15:
Delete "secs. 39 - 43"
Insert "secs. 38 - 42"
Amendment 17 labeled 28-GH2716\U.16, Luckhaupt/Mischel, 3/10/14:
Page 1, line 7:
Delete "extending"
Insert "relating to"
Page 11, line 31, through page 12, line 16:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 20. AS 23.15.835(d) is amended to read:
(d) Notwithstanding AS 23.15.840(a), for the fiscal
years ending June 30, 2015 [2009], through June 30,
2024 [2014], the money collected under this section or
otherwise appropriated to the Alaska Workforce
Investment Board, formerly known as the Alaska Human
Resource Investment Council, shall be allocated
directly in the following percentages to the following
institutions for programs consistent with AS 23.15.820
- 23.15.850 and capital improvements:
University of Alaska 42 [45] percent
University of Alaska Southeast 5 percent
Galena Project Education Vocational Training
Center 4 percent
Kotzebue Technical Center 9 percent
Alaska Vocational Technical Center 17 percent
Northwestern Alaska Career and Technical Center
3 percent
Southwest Alaska Vocational and Education Center
3 percent
Yuut Elitnaurviat, Inc. People's Learning Center
9 percent
Delta Career Advancement Center 3 percent
New Frontier Vocational Technical Center 2
percent
Southern Southeast Alaska Technical Education
Center 3 percent."
Amendment 18 labeled 28-GH2716\U.17, Martin/Mischel, 3/10/14:
Page 1, line 5:
Delete "school application appeals and program
budgets"
Insert "schools"
Page 7, following line 20:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 10. AS 14.03 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 14.03.263. Charter school grant program. (a) A
charter school that is established on or after the
effective date of this section may receive a one-time
grant from the department equal to the amount of $500
for each student enrolled in the school on October 1
of the first year in which the school applies for the
grant. The charter school shall use a grant received
under this section to provide educational services. In
this subsection, "educational services" includes
curriculum development, program development, and
special education services.
(b) The department shall establish by regulation
procedures for the application for and expenditure of
grant funds under (a) of this section.
(c) If the amount appropriated in a fiscal year for
the charter school grant program is insufficient to
meet the amounts authorized under (a) of this section,
the department shall reduce pro rata the per pupil
grant amount by the necessary percentage as determined
by the department. If a charter school grant is
reduced under this subsection, the charter school may
apply to the department in a subsequent fiscal year
for the balance of the grant amount."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 11, line 25:
Delete "sec. 17"
Insert "sec. 18"
Page 11, line 28:
Delete "secs. 17 and 18"
Insert "secs. 18 and 19"
Page 21, line 10:
Delete "Sections 20 and 38"
Insert "Sections 21 and 39"
Page 21, line 11:
Delete "Sections 15, 16, and 17"
Insert "Section 16, 17, and 18"
Page 21, line 12:
Delete "18, and 21 - 23"
Insert "19, and 22 - 24"
Page 21, line 13:
Delete "Section 19"
Insert "Section 20"
Page 21, line 14:
Delete "Sections 25, 28, 31, and 34"
Insert "Sections 26, 29, 32, and 35"
Page 21, line 15:
Delete "secs. 39 - 43"
Insert "secs. 40 - 44"
Amendment 19 labeled 28-GH2716\U.23, Martin/Mischel, 3/10/14:
Page 1, line 5:
Delete "school application appeals and program
budgets"
Insert "schools"
Page 7, following line 5:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 9. AS 14.03.255(d) is amended to read:
(d) A school district shall provide for the operation
of an approved charter school [MAY BE OPERATED] in an
existing school district facility or in a facility
within the school district that is not currently being
used as a public school, if the chief school
administrator determines the facility meets
requirements for health and safety applicable to
public buildings or other public schools in the
district."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 11, line 25:
Delete "sec. 17"
Insert "sec. 18"
Page 11, line 28:
Delete "secs. 17 and 18"
Insert "secs. 18 and 19"
Page 21, line 10:
Delete "Sections 20 and 38"
Insert "Sections 21 and 39"
Page 21, line 11:
Delete "Sections 15, 16, and 17"
Insert "Sections 16, 17, and 18"
Page 21, line 12:
Delete "18, and 21 - 23"
Insert "19, and 22 - 24"
Page 21, line 13:
Delete "Section 19"
Insert "Section 20"
Page 21, line 14:
Delete "Sections 25, 28, 31, and 34"
Insert "Sections 26, 29, 32, and 35"
Page 21, line 15:
Delete "secs. 39 - 43"
Insert "secs. 40 - 44"
Amendment 20 labeled 28-GH2716\U.26, Martin/Mischel, 3/10/14:
Page 7, line 15, following "AS 14.17.420(a)(3),":
Insert "in proportion to the number of students
enrolled in the grades in which the vocational and
technical instruction is provided,"
Amendment 21 labeled 28-GH2716\U.27, Mischel, 3/11/14:
Page 1, line 4:
Delete "college and career readiness"
Insert "standards-based"
Following "students;":
Insert "relating to reporting by the Department of
Education and Early Development;"
Page 2, lines 13 - 25:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 2. AS 14.03.075 is repealed and reenacted
to read:
Sec. 14.03.075. High school graduation; standards-
based assessment. (a) A school may not issue a
secondary school diploma to a student unless the
student passes standards-based assessments
demonstrating mastery of language arts and Algebra I
at the 10th grade level or receives a waiver from the
local school board under (b) of this section.
(b) The school board of a school district may grant a
waiver of the standards-based assessments required
under (a) of this section to
(1) a student who is a child with a disability and
who does not achieve a passing score on the standards-
based assessments required under (a) of this section,
with or without accommodation if the student
successfully completes an alternative assessment
program required by the student's individualized
education program or required in the education plan
developed for the student under 29 U.S.C. 794; the
alternative assessment program must, to the maximum
extent possible, conform to state performance
standards established for the standards-based
assessments required under (a) of this section; this
paragraph does not apply to a student unless the
department determines that the student has taken and
failed to pass the standards-based assessments with or
without accommodation and the department approves the
student's alternative assessment program described
under this paragraph; or
(2) a student who transfers into a public high school
in this state who
(A) meets graduation requirements imposed by the
school board and the state; and
(B) has passed standards-based assessments
demonstrating mastery of the subjects listed in (a) of
this section at the 10th grade level in the state from
which the student transferred.
(c) The department shall provide sufficient funding
to each school district for a single administration of
the assessments required under (a) of this section for
each student. The department shall by regulation
establish uniform standards and procedures for the
assessments required under (a) of this section and for
alternative assessments under (b)(1) of this section
that demonstrate mastery at the 10th grade level in
the areas of language arts and Algebra I.
(d) In this section, "child with a disability" has
the meaning given in AS 14.30.350."
Page 3, line 20:
Delete "[;"
Insert ";
(8) the number and overall percentage of students who
(A) received high school diplomas and waivers issued
under AS 14.03.075;
(B) met annual grade level progress expectations
based on standards-based tests;
(C) required additional support to meet annual
progress expectations and the type of support the
students are provided;
(D) failed to meet grade level expectation in
reading, writing, and mathematics for each school or
district that receive a low performance designation
under AS 14.03.123 ["
Page 5, lines 9 - 12:
Delete all material and insert:
"(A) measures of student performance on standards-
based assessments in language arts [READING, WRITING,]
and mathematics, [AND] including assessments
[COMPETENCY TESTS] required under AS 14.03.075;"
Page 8, line 29, through page 9, line 8:
Delete all material and insert:
"(5) regulations implementing the [SECONDARY SCHOOL
STUDENT COMPETENCY EXAMINATION] provisions of
AS 14.03.075 [, INCLUDING THE CRITERIA AND PROCEDURE
UNDER WHICH A GOVERNING BODY USES A WAIVER TO GRANT A
DIPLOMA TO A STUDENT; CRITERIA REGARDING GRANTING A
WAIVER MUST INCLUDE PROVISIONS THAT A WAIVER MAY ONLY
BE GRANTED FOR STUDENTS WHO ENTER THE SYSTEM LATE OR
HAVE RARE OR UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES MERITING A
WAIVER]."
Amendment 22 labeled 28-GH2716\U.20, Mischel, 3/10/14:
Page 1, line 5:
Delete "school application appeals and program
budgets"
Insert "schools"
Page 11, following line 21:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 17. AS 14.17.450(d) is amended to read:
(d) If a charter school has a student count of more
than 74 [120] but less than 150 for the current year
and is in the first three years [YEAR] of operation or
had a student count of at least 75 [150 OR MORE] in
the previous year of operation,
(1) the adjusted student count for the school shall
be calculated by multiplying the student count by [95
PERCENT OF] the student rate for a school that has a
student count of 150; and
(2) not later than February 15, the charter school
shall submit for approval of the governing board of
the district a plan for the following school year that
includes a statement about whether the school will
continue to operate if the student count remains the
same that year and, if so, a projection of the funding
anticipated from the state and other sources, a
proposed budget, and a description of anticipated
changes to the school staff, program, and curriculum;
if the school intends to close if the student count
remains the same the following year, the plan must
describe transfer plans for students, staff,
facilities, and materials."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 11, line 25:
Delete "sec. 17"
Insert "sec. 18"
Page 11, line 28:
Delete "secs. 17 and 18"
Insert "secs. 18 and 19"
Page 21, line 10:
Delete "Sections 20 and 38"
Insert "Sections 21 and 39"
Page 21, line 11:
Delete "17"
Insert "18"
Page 21, line 12:
Delete "18, and 21 - 23"
Insert "19, and 22 - 24"
Page 21, line 13:
Delete "Section 19"
Insert "Section 20"
Page 21, line 14:
Delete "Sections 25, 28, 31, and 34"
Insert "Sections 26, 29, 32, and 35"
Page 21, line 15:
Delete "secs. 39 - 43"
Insert "secs. 40 - 44"
Amendment 23 labeled 28-GH2716\U.24, Nauman/Mischel, 3/10/14:
Page 14, line 17:
Delete "and"
Page 14, line 20, following "AS 14.16.200":
Insert "; and
(10) the operations of a nonprofit organization
dedicated to providing educational opportunities that
promote the legacy of public service contributions to
the state and perpetuate ongoing educational programs
that foster public service leadership for future
generations of residents of the state"
Page 15, line 6:
Delete "and"
Page 15, line 9, following "AS 14.16.200":
Insert "; and
(7) for the operations of a nonprofit organization
dedicated to providing educational opportunities that
promote the legacy of public service contributions to
the state and perpetuate ongoing educational programs
that foster public service leadership for future
generations of residents of the state"
Page 16, line 8:
Delete "and"
Page 16, line 11, following "AS 14. 16. 200":
Insert "; and
(10) the operations of a nonprofit organization
dedicated to providing educational opportunities that
promote the legacy of public service contributions to
the state and perpetuate ongoing educational programs
that foster public service leadership for future
generations of residents of the state"
Page 16, line 28:
Delete "and"
Page 16, line 31, following "AS 14.16.200":
Insert "; and
(7) for the operations of a nonprofit organization
dedicated to providing educational opportunities that
promote the legacy of public service contributions to
the state and perpetuate ongoing educational programs
that foster public service leadership for future
generations of residents of the state"
Page 17, line 30:
Delete "and"
Page 18, line 2, following "AS 14.16.200":
Insert "; and
(10) the operations of a nonprofit organization
dedicated to providing educational opportunities that
promote the legacy of public service contributions to
the state and perpetuate ongoing educational programs
that foster public service leadership for future
generations of residents of the state"
Page 18, line 19:
Delete "and"
Page 18, line 22, following "AS 14.16.200":
Insert "; and"
(7) for the operations of a nonprofit organization
dedicated to providing educational opportunities that
promote the legacy of public service contributions to
the state and perpetuate ongoing educational programs
that foster public service leadership for future
generations of residents of the state"
Page 19, line 22:
Delete "and"
Page 19, line 25, following "AS 14.16.200":
Insert "; and
(10) the operations of a nonprofit organization
dedicated to providing educational opportunities that
promote the legacy of public service contributions to
the state and perpetuate ongoing educational programs
that foster public service leadership for future
generations of residents of the state"
Page 20, line 12:
Delete "and"
Page 20, line 15, following "AS 14.16.200":
Insert "; and
(7) for the operations of a nonprofit organization
dedicated to providing educational opportunities that
promote the legacy of public service contributions to
the state and perpetuate ongoing educational programs
that foster public service leadership for future
generations of residents of the state"
Amendment 24 labeled 28-GH2716\U.25, Nauman/Mischel, 3/10/14:
Page 14, lines 15 - 17:
Delete all material and insert:
"(8) funding a scholarship awarded by a nonprofit
organization to a dual-credit student to defray the
cost of a dual-credit course, including the cost of
(A) tuition and textbooks;
(B) registration, course, and programmatic student
fees;
(C) on-campus room and board at the postsecondary
institution that provides the dual-credit course;
(D) transportation costs to and from a residential
school approved by the Department of Education and
Early Development under AS 14.16.200 or the
postsecondary school that provides the dual-credit
course; and
(E) other related educational and programmatic costs;
and"
Page 15, lines 4 - 6:
Delete all material and insert:
"(5) for funding a scholarship awarded by a nonprofit
organization to a dual-credit student to defray the
cost of a dual-credit course, including the cost of
(A) tuition and textbooks;
(B) registration, course, and programmatic student
fees;
(C) on-campus room and board at the postsecondary
institution that provides the dual-credit course;
(D) transportation costs to and from a residential
school approved by the Department of Education and
Early Development under AS 14.16.200 or the
postsecondary school that provides the dual-credit
course; and
(E) other related educational and programmatic costs;
and"
Page 16, lines 6 - 8:
Delete all material and insert:
"(8) funding a scholarship awarded by a nonprofit
organization to a dual-credit student to defray the
cost of a dual-credit course, including the cost of
(A) tuition and textbooks;
(B) registration, course, and programmatic student
fees;
(C) on-campus room and board at the postsecondary
institution that provides the dual-credit course;
(D) transportation costs to and from a residential
school approved by the Department of Education and
Early Development under AS 14.16.200 or the
postsecondary school that provides the dual-credit
course; and
(E) other related educational and programmatic costs;
and"
Page 16, lines 26 - 28:
Delete all material and insert:
"(5) for funding a scholarship awarded by a nonprofit
organization to a dual-credit student to defray the
cost of a dual-credit course, including the cost of
(A) tuition and textbooks;
(B) registration, course, and programmatic student
fees;
(C) on-campus room and board at the postsecondary
institution that provides the dual-credit course;
(D) transportation costs to and from a residential
school approved by the Department of Education and
Early Development under AS 14.16.200 or the
postsecondary school that provides the dual-credit
course; and
(E) other related educational and programmatic costs;
and"
Page 17, lines 28 - 30:
Delete all material and insert:
"(8) funding a scholarship awarded by a nonprofit
organization to a dual-credit student to defray the
cost of a dual-credit course, including the cost of
(A) tuition and textbooks;
(B) registration, course, and programmatic student
fees;
(C) on-campus room and board at the postsecondary
institution that provides the dual-credit course;
(D) transportation costs to and from a residential
school approved by the Department of Education and
Early Development under AS 14.16.200 or the
postsecondary school that provides the dual-credit
course; and
(E) other related educational and programmatic costs;
and"
Page 18, lines 17 - 19:
Delete all material and insert:
"(5) for funding a scholarship awarded by a nonprofit
organization to a dual-credit student to defray the
cost of a dual-credit course, including the cost of
(A) tuition and textbooks;
(B) registration, course, and programmatic student
fees;
(C) on-campus room and board at the postsecondary
institution that provides the dual-credit course;
(D) transportation costs to and from a residential
school approved by the Department of Education and
Early Development under AS 14.16.200 or the
postsecondary school that provides the dual-credit
course; and
(E) other related educational and programmatic costs;
and"
Page 19, lines 20 - 22:
Delete all material and insert:
"(8) funding a scholarship awarded by a nonprofit
organization to a dual-credit student to defray the
cost of a dual-credit course, including the cost of
(A) tuition and textbooks;
(B) registration, course, and programmatic student
fees;
(C) on-campus room and board at the postsecondary
institution that provides the dual-credit course;
(D) transportation costs to and from a residential
school approved by the Department of Education and
Early Development under AS 14.16.200 or the
postsecondary school that provides the dual-credit
course; and
(E) other related educational and programmatic costs;
and"
Page 20, lines 10 - 12:
Delete all material and insert:
"(5) for funding a scholarship awarded by a nonprofit
organization to a dual-credit student to defray the
cost of a dual-credit course, including the cost of
(A) tuition and textbooks;
(B) registration, course, and programmatic student
fees;
(C) on-campus room and board at the postsecondary
institution that provides the dual-credit course;
(D) transportation costs to and from a residential
school approved by the Department of Education and
Early Development under AS 14.16.200 or the
postsecondary school that provides the dual-credit
course; and
(E) other related educational and programmatic costs;
and"
[HB 278 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CS HB278 version U.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2014 5:00:00 PM |
HB 278 |
| Seaton Amendment U.8.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2014 5:00:00 PM |
CSHB278 |
| Seaton Amendment U.10.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2014 5:00:00 PM |
CSHB278 |
| Kito amendment HB278.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2014 5:00:00 PM |
HB 278 |
| U 29 - Seaton - tax credit.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2014 5:00:00 PM |
CSHB278 |
| Reinbold, U.13.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2014 5:00:00 PM |
CSHB278 |
| Reinbold, U.15.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2014 5:00:00 PM |
CSHB278 |
| Wilson, U.16.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2014 5:00:00 PM |
CSHB278 |
| Kito, U.17.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2014 5:00:00 PM |
CSHB278 |
| Seaton, U.26.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2014 5:00:00 PM |
CSHB278 |
| Gattis U.20.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2014 5:00:00 PM |
CSHB278 |
| Reinbold, U.12.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2014 5:00:00 PM |
CSHB278 |
| Gattis Amendment - U 25.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2014 5:00:00 PM |
CSHB278 |
| Public testimony - Assoc. of Village Council Presidents.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2014 5:00:00 PM |
HB 278 |