Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 106
04/01/2008 03:00 PM House HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB285 | |
| HB266 | |
| HB403 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 266 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 28 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 285 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 403 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 285 - STATE INTERVENTION IN SCHOOL DISTRICT 3:06:30 PM CHAIR WILSON announced that the first order of business would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 285(FIN), "An Act relating to the power and duties of the Department of Education and Early Development for improving instructional practices in school districts; and providing for an effective date." 3:07:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH moved to adopt the proposed House committee substitute (HCS) for SB 285, Version 25-LS1522\O, Mischel, 4/1/08, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version O was before the committee. 3:08:20 PM TIM LAMKIN, Staff to Senator Gary Stevens, Alaska State Legislature, reviewed the changes incorporated into Version O. On page 3, line 12, the phrase, "based on low student performance," was added to provide a clear and bright line as to when the Department of Education and Early Development shall begin the process of stepping into the district. On page 3, line 13, the words, "as necessary," were struck because they were deemed unnecessary. On page 3, line 14, the words, "as described in AS 14.07.030(14) or (15);" were added at the request of the department. He said this clarifies that this intervention is only the state's accountability system intervention and is unrelated to No Child Left Behind (NCLB). On page 5, line 21, the phrase, "material, and student management tools" was added. However, he pointed out, the drafter omitted the word "learning", as the sponsor had intended the added phrase to read, "material, and student learning management tools". He requested that the committee consider a conceptual amendment to add the word "learning". CHAIR WILSON pointed out an additional change that was made on page 3 [line 28] where the word "redirecting" was substituted for the word "withhold". MR. LAMKIN confirmed that this substitution fixed a technical error identified by the prior committee. 3:11:38 PM EDDY JEANS, Director, School Finance and Facilities Section, Department of Education and Early Development (EED), stated that the [EED] supports the amendments. REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said he believes the concerns he had expressed last time were addressed by the desk audit regulations that were just passed by the school board. The regulations referenced how notice for intervention would be given, provided an end date to the intervention - the same as the bill does - and delineated the process that would occur. He asked whether Mr. Jeans is comfortable that these regulations satisfy the committee's concerns. MR. JEANS responded the regulations do not include the end date that is included in statute; it is in the bill itself. He said [EED] asked for and received latitude from the state board to make any necessary conforming amendments to the regulations based on the final passage of SB 285. Some adjustments will probably be needed and [EED] will do that once session is over, he advised. 3:13:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES reviewed the concerns he had expressed at the last meeting. One concern was in regard to the petitioning by the districts as to when they would continue or discontinue the department intervention. He said Version O satisfies his concern about giving adequate notice to the districts that an intervention is going to be done. The other concern he had had was with targeting a district, or three schools out of twelve, or six schools out of twelve, and going in with an intervention that required all schools to participate. He said it appears to him that, under Version O, the audits are very specific and would go to a school and not a district. He inquired whether Mr. Jeans is comfortable the committee has addressed that adequately. MR. JEANS replied the statutory language before the committee does refer to school or district, but the intent of this is to do school-level intervention before having to get to district- level intervention under adequate yearly progress (AYP). Under NCLB, the department is required to intervene when districts fail AYP for multiple years. Judge Gleason's issue was that that is too long for the state to sit back. The state needs to be looking at individual schools and helping those schools improve earlier. [The department] has the data to do that and it just so happens to be the same data that [the department] is collecting under NCLB. REPRESENTATIVE ROSES related his understanding that it is EED's intent to do interventions on a school-by-school basis and not a districtwide basis. The districtwide basis comes into play when there are requirements and mandates under NCLB. MR. JEANS stated he agreement. REPRESENTATIVE ROSES noted that [Version O] references AS 14.17 regarding the redirection of funds. He said his understanding is that the redirection of funds would occur from the [federal] Title I funds and, in particular, it would be that same 20 percent offset that is required under NCLB - when a school is non-compliant the requirement is that 20 percent be set aside for remediation. Is it the intent of the department that that is where the redirected funds would come from, he asked. MR. JEANS answered the [federal] Title I funds currently apply to the NCLB interventions where the department is requiring districts to hire a district coach and utilize their school improvement grants. The school improvement grants are in addition to the regular Title I funds. So, under NCLB, districts are receiving additional support for school interventions, and to have the department direct those funds absolutely seems appropriate, he said. The department's concern in this particular statute was whether those district coaches or school coaches would be a school district employee or a department employee. There is approximately $220,000 in the department's fiscal note under contractual expenses, he explained, and it is the department's intent to use that money to hire the school coaches or district coaches where they are required. If additional funding is required, the department will come back and ask for a supplemental, but if the legislature does not give that request, this would allow the department to utilize some foundation funds to hire those contract employees. 3:17:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES offered his understanding it would be the department's intent to take some of the foundation funds if the 20 percent of Title I funds had not yet been impacted under NCLB or if there were additional grants given through NCLB for implementation of remediation programs. The department's intent would be to only take the Title I funds if it did not have the money or the foundation grants. MR. JEANS concurred. REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said as long as that intent is clearly in the record he has no problem supporting the language of this bill. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER characterized SB 285 as a good bill, and stated his support, particularly given that it is tied directly to the proficiency of the student. 3:19:01 PM MR. JEANS, in response to Representative Seaton, confirmed that the department supports adding the word "learning" on page 5, line 21, between the words "student" and "management". REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved that the committee adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, as follows: Page 5, line 21, following "and student"; Insert "learning" There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH inquired as to whether EED has received some "push back" from the school districts when the department has tried to intervene. MR. JEANS said yes. REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH declared her support for the bill because it clarifies the roles and the reach that EED has in making sure students achieve the educational goals that have been set. She asked Mr. Jeans whether he believes, as she does, that the state has always had that authority to intervene in school districts. MR. JEANS concurred that the bill does clarify those issues, and that the department believes it has that authority, and relayed that the department's attorneys would argue that such is the case. REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH said she would be voting to move Version O out of committee in order to show her support for EED and its authority to make sure Alaskans receive the quality education they are entitled to through the Alaska State Constitution. REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated that the intent is for the department to continue updating the legislature through its annual report as to what interventions have taken place and what the status of those schools is. This will ensure that the legislature is coordinated with the department in terms of the legislature's responsibility. MR. LAMKIN drew attention to page 4, lines 30-31. He suggested that the words "as necessary" be deleted in order to conform to the words being struck from page 3, line 13. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved that the committee adopt Conceptual Amendment 2, as follows: Page 4, lines 30-31, Delete "as necessary" There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the fiscal note is still current given the changes that have been made to the bill. MR. LAMKIN responded yes. 3:24:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to report the proposed HCS for SB 285, Version 25-LS1522\O, Mischel, 4/1/08, as amended, out of committee with the attached letter of intent, individual recommendations, and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCS CSSB 285(HES) was reported from the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|