Legislature(2007 - 2008)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/18/2008 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HCR13 | |
| HB320 | |
| HB65 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 320 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HCR 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 65 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
1:44:27 PM HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 13 Establishing and relating to the Education Funding District Cost Factor Commission. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, SPONSOR, explained that the resolution resulted from a long history of legislative contention regarding the district cost factor component of school district funding formula. He provided a brief history of the process, reiterating debates between Co-Chair Chenault and Co-Chair Meyer regarding school district cost funding formula. The dialogue resulted in the Legislature setting up a Task Force to review the funding cost formula in order to stabilize school funding across the State. The House Finance Committee has discussed and passed on those funding component recommendations. The Task Force recognized that there were issues beyond their ability to provide a single policy recommendation. Amongst those issues are cost factor components, a factor built into the district cost formula, which attempts to recognize the differing costs from operations in various statewide regional areas, recognizing it costs more to operate in the remote villages. Anchorage is viewed as the base community. Representative Hawker continued, in the existing school funding formula, there is a table, established in statute, providing a fixed number. The accuracy of the numbers has become a gradation issue before the Legislature since 1998. While the funding formula changes recommended in a previously considered bill were the result of a compromise and consensus which included dissenting opinions. The Task Force did acknowledge that the school differential numbers used in the recommendation are suspect and subject to query, question and debate. In order to break the deadlock forward funding, the Task Force opted to move forward with a phased-in implementation of cost factors recommended by the Legislative Budget and Audit Agency (LBA) hiring consultant. Representative Hawker expressed that the cost factors put in statute were no more or less precise than the numbers was being replaced. They represent a degree of change, which is a good thing. The five year phase in period for those cost factors was specifically included to allow the Legislature to implement another recommendation made by the Education Funding Task Force to continue the work with an additional approach bringing together legislators to help craft a durable mechanism for the recurring redetermination of the cost factors, which HCR 13 accomplishes. 1:49:50 PM Representative Hawker continued. HCR 13 creates the Education Funding District Cost Factor Task Force, which is tasked with examining school district cost differentials and determining a formula to adequately fund education throughout Alaska. Representative Hawker opined that the only way to achieve any harmony in the Legislature as well as achieving parity across the State is to create a calculation mechanism, acceptable to the Legislature in an open, public task force approach, bringing everyone together dedicated to the cause for redefining cost factors. He emphasized that the State has historically failed to recalculate the cost factors. Everything that went into the calculation was not acceptable to the body politics. He envisioned that the Task Force would develop a by-in and consensus along the way, proving a methodology that works. He urged the Committee's support of the resolution. 1:52:52 PM Representative Gara asked if the proposal was unanimously supported by the Task Force. Representative Hawker replied that there had been unanimous agreement that the district cost factor calculations are one of the biggest issues for the State. He hesitated to say that everyone supported the numbers. He recollected that the process did provide concurrence for establishing an approach to create a durable model. There is a strong difference of opinion as whether the process should be dominantly a legislative or administrative one. Representative Hawker concurred with the consensus recommendation of the Task Force, making it a legislative process, which he believed would be appropriate. He noted that by operating in a bicameral, bipartisan basis, a buy-in was achieved, necessary to carry the policy decisions forward. He reiterated his support for using the legislative approach. 1:55:30 PM Representative Gara asked about dissenting voices in the process. He understood that there had been disagreement regarding what the cost factors should be. He said he was sympathetic to the argument that the rural schools have been substantially underfunded and that the resolution provides an opportunity to look at those issues. Representative Hawker advised that the Task Force report contains an extensive response supporting the proposal & arguments for another perspective. The debate has been entered into the public record. 1:56:45 PM Representative Thomas pointed out that the University has not complained about the cost differentials and asked if there is a better formula used by them. Representative Hawker commented that cost differentials exist across the State in a number of business arenas. He believed that the University encounters similar issues. He hoped that the Legislative body could come up with a modeling system that provides sufficient buy-in support. Representative Kelly advised he had voted against the recommendations of the Task Force. He was concerned that the tasks of the study commission would fail. These issues have been more successfully addressed in the State. He noted concern that if the State is going to provide a cost study reflective of the issue, the concern should focus on how cost factors not harm the delivery of a first class education to rural areas, while significantly improving that delivery. He hoped it would be more inclusive. He mentioned offering an amendment later. Representative Kelly outlined his concerns: · The academic outcomes should be the chief driver · /schools with 10 students or less, should be a part of the debate regarding whether the system can st deliver 1 class education to them · An understanding regarding when schools help · Consideration of using delivery technology · Concerns of offering high salaries paid in certain parts of the State where at the same time, those areas have huge unemployment rates Representative Kelly encouraged that more rural students go through the teacher training programs so that they can return to teach in the village areas. He thought that could help address the high teacher turnover. It has not happened to date and many students seeking education do not return to the State, particularly the rural areas. He recommended that life success be addressed rather than creating more difficulties for the State. The Legislative Body should discuss first-class education in the rural areas and excellent outcomes. In order to make a model work, other items will be affected. He added that the Task Force should have been awarded more time to accomplish the vastness of these goals. 2:04:33 PM Representative Hawker maintained that points raised by Representative Kelly is the type of discussion that should take place in a properly managed task force. There is a fine line between rewriting the school district funding formula and fixing a broken component within the existing formula. There is nothing in the format of the Task Force that prohibits a new vision approach to school operations funding management. The Task Force concept recognizes that there is a funding mechanism in place and that there are real problems with the school district cost factors. He maintained that a managed task force approach could address many of the identified problems. He referenced the Moore decision, which had been addressed in the Alaska Court last summer [2007], a response to a lawsuit against the State of Alaska for not providing adequate funding for schools across the State. There was extensive discussion and the outcome of that decision determined that the Legislature is responsible for the outcome in the schools. He maintained, it is imperative to examine the true differentials between the urban and rural areas, a critical step addressing the comprehensive manner of the issues. 2:07:46 PM EDDY JEANS, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION SUPPORT SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, advised that the Department of Education and Early Development and the Office of the Governor support HCR 13. PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED 2:08:29 PM Representative Gara voiced confidence in the resolution, pointing out that that the argument has come forward every year with regards "who gets what money". The answer can only be determined once the needs of each school district are known. He maintained that more information is needed to determine the needs and that there must be further discussion within the statewide education system. Representative Nelson addressed disparaging comments regarding rural schools made by Representative Kelly. She pointed out that many rural schools, which hover around ten students, are doing well, making the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) 0 multiple years in a row. The larger schools are not doing that well. She pointed out that there are cases of small schools offering generational teachers. She listed school districts with Native success rates. There are Native teachers that went to University of Alaska- Fairbanks (UAF), returning to their village areas, who are now retiring out of the system. She maintained that there are advances being made in some of those small, fewer than ten student schools and noted that not every school hovering around ten should be considered to be closed because of low student enrollment. 2:12:02 PM Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 1. Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED for discussion purposes. Representative Hawker noted Amendment 1: · Page 2, Line 1, following "differentials", deleting "and" and inserting"," · Page 2, Line 2, following "providing education", inserting ", and contracting for research, consultants and experts, as the commission considers necessary, to create the model". 2:12:49 PM Representative Hawker explained that the amendment addresses a question raised in a previous committee. The amendment clarifies that it is expected that the Task Force process contracts with economists or other professionals to assist determining the intent to utilize outside consultant skills. The amendment language acknowledges that. Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, it was adopted. 2:14:30 PM Co-Chair Meyer referenced the fiscal note submitted by the Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA). Representative Hawker requested latitude to revise the fiscal note. He pointed out that fiscal notes often submitted in addition to the operating budget. It is envisioned that all the costs of the Task Force could be encompassed in existing legislative authority. He added that the Legislative Budget and Audit (LBA) Committee ran the two previous studies that never reached sufficient legislative buy-in to provide consensus. Co-Chair Meyer agreed. 2:15:48 PM Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to REPORT CS HCR 13 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. 2:16:22 PM CS HCR 13 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a new zero note by the House Finance Committee. 2:16:43 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|