Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/25/2013 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB17 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 17 | ||
SENATE BILL NO. 17
"An Act extending the special education service
agency; and providing for an effective date."
9:10:10 AM
TIM LAMKIN, STAFF, SENATOR STEVENS, discussed the bill,
which would extend the Special Education Service Agency
(SESA). He presented the bill with a summary of actions
taken in the Senate Education Committee. The bill extended
SESA with three separate issues. One issue was whether or
not to extend the sunset date of the agency, which set to
expire on June 30, 2013. The second issue addressed
considerations pointed out in the audit including the
structure of SESA's governance. The third issue was
funding. He mentioned recommendations to increase the
funding for SESA. A fourth issue presented itself upon
consideration of the bill, which included extraneous
language regarding the Division of Retirement and Benefits.
The recommendation from Legislative Budget and Audit (LB&A)
was to extend the sunset date. The LB&A committee
determined that the program was worthy without services
duplicated elsewhere.
Mr. Lamkin explained that SESA was governed as a non-profit
agency with its own board of directors through the
Governor's Council on Disabilities and Special Education.
The majority of SESA's board sat on the governor's council.
The members had a vested interest in the issues addressed
by SESA. He added that the non-profit organization was
funded by the Department of Education and Early Development
(DEED). The structure, while unorthodox, functions well. No
recommendations were made to change the methods of funding
and governing SESA. The LB&A audit recommendations included
suggestions that the legislature review its funding. The
Senate Education Committee chose not to review the issue of
funding. He agreed that SESA had been flat and underfunded
for 15 years. Due to inflation, a 36 percent decrease was
suffered in operating funds. He encouraged the Senate
Finance Committee to consider funding increased for SESA.
9:13:39 AM
Mr. Lamkin discussed the Senate Education Committee CS,
which removed language that indicated that the amount
allocated to the agency should be reduced each fiscal year
by the amount contributed by DEED to the Public Employees'
Retirement System (PERS) and the Teachers Retirement System
(TRS). However, DEED allocated the full appropriation to
SESA annually and then SESA paid directly to the retirement
system. He provided a statement from the department that
the language was extraneous and that all parties agreed to
remove it from the books. He offered to provide the
statement to committee members.
9:14:42 AM
Co-Chair Meyer asked for further details about the
statement.
Mr. Lamkin replied that the statement from Mr. Neil
Slotnick from the Department of Law (LAW) and Ms. Elizabeth
Nudelman from DEED was available in the committee's packet.
Senator Olson agreed that SESA was an important program. He
asked about services that would be omitted if the funding
was not increased.
Mr. Lamkin replied that school districts had varying
resources for special education that depended on the size
of the district. Most school districts had their own
special education teachers. He noted that SESA served a
niche of people with low-incident disabilities that
standard special education teachers were not trained to
handle.
9:16:59 AM
KRIS CURTIS, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, LEGISLATIVE BUDGET AND
AUDIT, explained that the purpose of the audit was to
determine that SESA provided an essential service. She
stated that LB&A conducted a sunset audit of SESA, with the
goal of determining if the agency was operating in the
public's interest and whether its termination date should
be extended. The conclusion was that SESA served a public
need and was essential in meeting the federal law requiring
the state to insure that all children with disabilities had
a free and appropriate public education that met their
unique needs. She added that SESA served over 200 students
located mostly in non-urban locations. She recommended the
extension of SESA's termination date until June 30, 2021,
which was the maximum 8 year extension.
Ms. Curtis noted that the recommendation for extension was
accompanied by the recommendation to improve collaboration
and oversight. The largest issue facing SESA was the flat
funding of its low-incidence disabilities program. The
funding level was set in statute and had not been increased
in 14 years, thereby decreasing the real value of its
budget by 36 percent. The funding issue made it difficult
to hire qualified staff. The funding for SESA was
identified in the public school funding statutes and
administered by DEED. She added that DEED could request an
increase as part of its annual budgetary process, but chose
not to since SESA organizationally reports to the
Governor's Council on Disabilities and Special Education,
which is located in the Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS).
Ms. Curtis continued that the governor's council did
support unsuccessful legislation during the past session to
increase SESA's budget. Since DEED was the entity that was
obligated to meet the federal requirement, the audit
determined that DEED should take a more active role in
monitoring SESA. The audit recommended that both DEED and
SESA management collaborate to ensure that SESA was
operated and funded as intended by the legislature. She
stated that DEED did not agree with the recommendation. The
funding for SESA was historically a legislative process and
DEED opined that there was no need to change the method.
She understood the viewpoint of DEED, since the oversight
responsibility for SESA was fragmented and confusing. She
pointed out a section of the audit report addressing SESA's
organizational structure and highlighting the need for
legislative clarification regarding monitoring SESA. The
audit contained a second recommendation addressed to SESA's
board president to revise the board policy to improve
oversight. She stated that the board initiated changes to
improve oversight.
9:20:47 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked about page 18 of the LB&A
audit. She asked if the board president was the previous
board president overseeing the executive director.
Ms. Curtis pointed out a recent change in the executive
director position, but was unsure about the board.
Vice-Chair Fairclough clarified that SESA had a new
executive director.
Ms. Curtis replied in the affirmative.
Vice-chair Fairclough asked about the board's history of
difficulty reaching a quorum.
Ms. Curtis replied that the issue of reaching a quorum was
not a problem for the SESA board.
9:22:16 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked about recommendation number two of
the audit. He believed that a certified teacher fell under
the professional teaching ethics code. He asked if SESA's
teachers were certified.
Ms. Curtis replied that the audit cited that "SESA has
procedures for potential ethics violations of teachers, but
does not have procedures for addressing potential ethics
violations involving administration and management."
Senator Dunleavy stated that if "they have a type A or type
B they would still fall under the professional teaching
practices commission."
Ms. Curtis replied that question was best suited for the
executive director.
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked about different boards and
commissions and their maximum extensions.
Ms. Curtis replied that the statute provided for a maximum
extension of eight years. An audit usually contained a
recommendation not to exceed eight years.
Vice-Chair Fairclough compared the suicide prevention
council's six year extension, which she believed was the
maximum allowable. She opined that the extension of the
Suicide Prevention Council when audited had less concerns
than SESA's audit. She asked how the extension for the
Suicide Prevention Council was determined.
Mr. Curtis responded that the main issue that drove the
Suicide Prevention Council's extension date was the lack of
agreement ensuring that effective oversight would continue
in the future. The importance of the recommendation drove
the six year extension.
9:24:38 AM
Co-Chair Meyer asked about concerns regarding a shorter
extension for SESA.
Ms. Curtis responded that the recommendation was based on
audit findings and the different criterion used to
determine the extension recommendations. She admitted that
the audit recommendations were an "inexact science." She
explained that considerations such as types of findings,
controversies, and the nature of work accomplished by the
board were reviewed when determining extensions. Workload
for the auditors and the legislators was also considered
when determining potential extensions, although workload
did not impact this year's recommendations. Current
recommendations were based on the findings in LB&A's audit.
9:25:51 AM
PATRICK PILLAI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SPECIAL EDUCATION
SERVICE AGENCY (SESA), showed a brief video about the
agency.
9:32:36 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked if Mr. Pillai was the executive
director in FY 10.
Mr. Pillai responded that changes occurred in the executive
director position, the board president, and the entire
board. He stated the board president was PJ Ford Slack, a
principal in Sitka.
9:34:17 AM
Mr. Pillai responded to an earlier question by Senator
Dunleavy regarding the "type A" teaching certificates. He
stated that all specialists for SESA had a type a
certificate and administrators had "type B" certificates.
He stated that SESA reviewed the entire board policy under
the leadership of Joseph Reeves with the Alaska Association
of School Boards to address issues brought up by the audit.
Senator Dunleavy responded that teachers with type A or
"type B" certificates fell under Professional Teaching
Practices Commission (PTPC) and were subject to sanction in
the event of an ethics violation.
9:35:32 AM
Mr. Pillai introduced slide 1 of his PowerPoint
presentation (copy on file): "Special Education Service."
SESA provides consultation and training to support the
unique educational needs of individuals and the
Alaskan communities that serve them.
Mr. Pillai discussed slide 2: "Background."
· Created in 1986; formed as a not-for-profit
Corporation;
· Governed by the Alaska Governor's Council on
Disabilities and Special Education;
· Receive Low Incidence Disabilities funding through
DOEED based on prior years statewide total enrollment;
· Receives grant funding from State and Federal sources,
(DHHS and DOEED)
9:37:03 AM
Mr. Pillai discussed slide 3 depicting a picture of SESA's
vision specialist working with a student in rural Alaska.
The specialist had been working with the agency for 15
years.
Mr. Pillai detailed slide 4: "A.S. 14.30.630(b) (1)
requires SESA to provide the following special education
services:"
A. Itinerant outreach services to students who are deaf,
deaf-blind, mentally retarded, hearing impaired, blind
and visually impaired, orthopedically disabled,
health-impaired in other ways, and severely disturbed,
and to students with multiple disabilities;
B. Special education instructional support and training
of local school district special education personnel;
and
C. Other services appropriate to special education needs.
9:38:40 AM
Mr. Pillai discussed slide 5, a map depicting SESA's
presence in rural areas across Alaska along with the number
of students served in each of the areas. The number of
students depended on the size of the village, how far
villages were from urban areas, and the need for the
different disabilities. Many of the areas were inhabited by
Coast Guard and cannery workers leading to years with more
or less students.
Mr. Pillai detailed slide 6, a picture of a multiple
disabilities specialist working with a child in rural
Alaska. The specialist had worked with the agency for over
one and one half years.
9:39:38 AM
Mr. Pillai explained slide 7: "SESA Services."
· On-side consultation - Observation/Modeling/Evidence
Based Strategies
· In-service training (professional development)
· Alaska State Special Education Conference (ASSEC)
· Specific courses designed and offered for university
credit
· Alaska Deaf Education Advisory Board
· Governor's Council/Education/Rural Education
· DEED-Specific Grants- AARC/BTKH/DSI
· Other Non-profits-Stone Soup/Center for Human
9:42:26 AM
Mr. Pillai discussed slide 8, a picture of the SESA
website. He pointed out the different disabilities
highlighted by the options presented on the homepage of the
website. He added that district administrators could
download paperwork to make referrals for services needed by
the agency. The website was a resource for parents and
school districts.
Mr. Pillai detailed slide 9: "SESA FY 12 Student
Consultation by District." The graph detailed the districts
served. He stated that the data compiled included on-site
visitation, calls from teachers seeking information from
the SESA library. He added that SESA allowed districts to
borrow materials that they considered purchasing. The slide
detailed 39 different districts when SESA worked with 45 in
2013.
Mr. Pillai discussed slide 10, a picture of Andrea Story, a
vision specialist, who worked for SESA for approximately 23
years. Ms. Story was pictured working with a child with
vision loss in rural Alaska.
9:44:01 AM
Mr. Pillai discussed slide 11: "Impact on Students and
Teachers." He provided an example of a syndrome that caused
a person to sleep all day and stay awake at night. After a
SESA specialist spent eight months of working with the
family, the child displayed significant improvement. He
added that he himself was the deaf and hard of hearing
teacher with the agency for 19 years, so he understood the
challenges faced by the teachers.
1. Reduced ability to promote evidenced based practices.
2. Fewer on-site visits to provide targeted
interventions.
3. Shorter visits to maximize travel dollars to include
more sites.
4. Less time for classroom observation and program
enhancement.
5. Loss of guidance to new special education teachers and
to classroom teachers encountering unique
disabilities.
6. Loss of child specific educational intervention
strategies modeled on-site to teachers.
7. Reduced ability to recruit quality specialists to
Alaska.
9:45:48 AM
Mr. Pillai detailed slide 12: "2004 Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)."
The State is required to meet the 2004 IDEA to "ensure
that all children with disabilities have available to
them a free appropriate public education that
emphasizes special education and related services
designated to meet their unique needs."
The Legislature intended for SESA to help DEED fulfill
this requirement by assisting schools with providing
special education children affected by LID.
9:46:19 AM
Mr. Pillai discussed slide 13: "Legislative Audit Report
June 2, 2012."
Recommendation 1: Reiterating from the prior report
that the Legislature should review SESA funding; and
"Over the past 14 years, school districts have
received increases in their funding formula, yet
SESA's funding formula has not increased. …the
historical process for evaluating and increasing SESA
funding has been a legislative process…"
9:46:47 AM
Mr. Pillai detailed slide 14: "Legislative Audit Report,
June 22, 2012."
"Due to inflation, the real value of SESA's LID
budget, as established 14 years ago, has decreased 36
percent. Accounting for inflation since 1998, SESA's
funding formula in today's dollars would be
approximately $21.50 per student rather than the
current funding formula amount of $15.75. As a result,
SESA is experiencing challenges with recruiting and
retaining education specialists with specialized
disability endorsements and meeting schools' need for
itinerant outreach services."
9:47:31 AM
Mr. Pillai detailed slide 15: "Senate Bill 17 Conclusion."
1. Alaska Statute Funding Calculation for SESA should be
changed to $21.50.
2. SESA needs these funds to:
a. fulfill the intent of the Legislature, and the
mandate of the 2004 IDEA;
b. provide competitive salaries to attract and
retain qualified specialists;
c. continue providing quality services for LID
children;
d. maintain consistent infrastructure despite short
term or discontinued grant funding cycles.
9:49:20 AM
Mr. Pillai detailed the graph on slide 16: "ADM (i.e.
SESA's Funding) vs. SESA LID Student Count FY 2001 - FY
2013." The graph illustrated the declining Average Daily
Membership (ADM) in red and the increasing Low-Incidence
Disabilities (LID) during the same time frame. Between 2004
and 2013, SESA lost over $200 thousand in revenue based on
declining ADM. During the same period, the LID students
served by SESA increased. The graph depicted 260 students,
but SESA served 270 students at the time of the hearing.
Mr. Pillai discussed slide 17: "A Review of SESA's Low
Incidence Disabilities Funding Over the Past 10 Years."
Mr. Pillai discussed slide 18: "CPI and BSA Increase vs.
SESA Funding."
This chart shows the increase in the Consumer Price
Index and Base Student Allocation, with SESA's funding
remaining flat.
9:50:18 AM
Mr. Pillai detailed slide 19: "SESA's Actual Funding vs.
Funding if Equivalent to BSA vs. Student Count."
This graph shows how LID student count has increased
while SESA's overall funding has decreased due to
decreased ADM.
9:50:39 AM
Mr. Pillai discussed slide 20: "LID Cost of Operations,
Fund Balances and Grant Expenditures FY 2005 - FY 2013 (9
years).
9:51:52 AM
Mr. Pillai discussed slide 21: "How SESA's Funding Should
be Structured VERSUS How it is Currently Structured." He
explained that the graph on the right exhibited the current
structure. The resources were shared by LID and grant
funding. He stated that grant funding fluctuated. The graph
on the left illustrated a solid infrastructure that could
be used to assist the state with grant-writing. He noted
the difficulty in recruiting with one or two-year grants.
The sunset clause coupled with the limits of grant funding
added to the complications.
9:53:20 AM
Mr. Pillai detailed slide 22: "Impact of Continued Under-
Funding:"
1. Reduced ability to promote evidenced based practices.
2. Fewer on-site visits to provide targeted
interventions.
3. Shorter visits to maximize travel dollars to include
more sites.
4. Less time for classroom observation and program
enhancement.
5. Loss of guidance to new special education teachers and
to classroom teachers encountering unique
disabilities.
6. Loss of child specific educational intervention
strategies modeled on-site to teachers.
7. Reduced ability to recruit and retain quality
specialists.
9:54:03 AM
Co-Chair Meyer asked about slide 9. He asked about the
acronym BSSD listed on the school districts served.
Mr. Pillai responded Bering Strait School District was
shortened to BSSD.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if school districts contributed to the
funding for SESA.
Mr. Pillai replied that SESA was a free service for school
districts. He shared a letter of support from one school
district testifying that the free services helped meet the
district's needs to provide assistance in remote rural
schools.
Co-Chair Meyer asked about how long a specialist would
remain in the rural schools.
Mr. Pillai responded that the typical length of stay was
one week.
9:56:09 AM
Co-Chair Meyer asked about specialist worked with the
school's special education teachers.
Mr. Pillai responded that the challenges determined the
strategy regarding the child and the inclusion of the staff
in the classroom. He mentioned that some children were in
mainstream classrooms, so the specialist worked with those
teachers too.
Co-Chair Meyer pointed out that very few specialists worked
in the Anchorage area. He asked why that was the case.
9:57:13 AM
Mr. Pillai responded that the Anchorage school districts
had their own specialists as well as trainings offered to
the communities. He credited the small number of SESA
specialists in Anchorage to the needs of deaf and blind
students, which were deemed high-need and required
additional support. He mentioned examples of other high
need disabilities that benefit from the support of SESA's
specialists.
9:58:25 AM
Co-Chair Kelly asked if Alaska met the federal requirement
to provide supported education without SESA.
Mr. Pillai replied that the federal requirements would not
be met without SESA. He added that SESA was listed as a
resource on the department's website and in the state
handbook as a resource for the various needs of the staff.
If there was a teacher in a school district that lacked the
expertise needed to help with a certain child, a parent may
choose to take the school district to court. Many potential
situations of litigation were prevented by SESA's
intervention as a neutral party.
Senator Olson commented on slide 9. He pointed out that
BSSD documented an abundance of SESA student consultations
as compared with other districts on the chart. He wondered
why the consultations in his district were so numerous.
Mr. Pillai responded that the villages were spread out and
crisis intervention calls were received from various
communities in the district. He stated that SESA co-wrote a
grant with BSSA called "Mesh Alaska," which included
organizing a training led by a national presenter. The
training led to a heightened awareness about the services
provided and as a result, individual villages were
requesting more services.
Senator Olson asked about the fiscal note. He asked if the
note increased or maintained current funding.
Mr. Pillai responded that the fiscal note retained the
current operation's funding. An increase of 36 percent
would yield an extra $700 thousand to the agency, which
would be necessary to sustain operations.
Senator Olson wondered which services would not be provided
without the increase.
Mr. Pillai responded that the outreach model would not
provide services in individual areas without SESA. Without
funding, the specialized evaluations on-sight professional
development for teachers would not exist. He provided an
example of SESA's value. The commissioner had a specialist
in Hoonah after the shooting that addressed multiple issues
for students and staff. The lack of funding would impact
students' achievement because teachers would not be able to
implement plans for high-need students.
10:02:09 AM
Co-Chair Kelly asked about the grants for non-profits that
were carrying out the mission directed by the federal
government. He spoke about the difference in operations for
the non-profit organizations and the state. He pointed out
that grant restrictions limited the hiring capabilities of
non-profit organizations. With state government, employee
compensation grew within statutory structure and contracts.
He added that SESA could find difficulty obtaining money
from the state to increase or even continue operations
because of restricted budgets. He wanted organizations like
SESA to do a job that the state was not suited to do. He
hoped to look carefully at the possibility of increasing
SESA's budget.
10:04:20 AM
Senator Dunleavy opined that the program was needed and
ought to be funded by the legislature. He noted that a
school district could make a choice to appeal to an
organization like SESA for help with an exceptional child,
or the district could hire the help directly with their
resources. He opined that SESA saved the state money, by
providing options for assistance with some rare and
exceptional children's educational needs. He spoke to the
expertise of SESA's staff. He agreed with Co-Chair Kelly
and would vote to increase SESA's funding.
Co-Chair Meyer wondered how the state would address the
federal mandate for the education of those children with
special needs without SESA.
10:06:47 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough discussed the fiscal note. She asked
about the positions and wondered if all employees were
contracted.
Mr. Pillai responded that SESA employed 11 specialists.
10:07:25 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough requested a corrected fiscal note
illustrating the full time personnel working for SESA.
Mr. Pillai responded that the all of the specialists worked
full-time with yearly contracts.
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked how many members served on
SESA's board of directors.
Mr. Pillai responded ten.
10:08:25 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked if the board meeting attendance
was good.
Mr. Pillai responded that attendance was good. He commented
on the representation's diversity.
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked if the board travelled for
meetings.
Mr. Pillai responded that the board members travelled to
Anchorage for the four annual meetings.
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked if all meetings were in
Anchorage.
Mr. Pillai responded in the affirmative.
10:08:51 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked about the staff. He wondered if
services were contracted.
Mr. Pillai responded that the agreement was negotiated and
the employees were classified as full-time.
Senator Dunleavy asked if members belonged to the National
Education Association (NEA).
Mr. Pillai responded in the affirmative. He added that
employees contributed to TRS.
Vice-Chair Fairclough reported to the committee that DEED
confirmed that since the SESA's employees were not state
employees, thus the Full-Time Employee (FTE) portion of the
fiscal note was irrelevant. She imagined that the fact that
employees paid into the TRS would somehow violate the
definition of FTE. She believed that SESA was incorrect in
their method of classifying employees.
Mr. Pillai responded that even though employees sign an
annual contract, they were in-fact considered full time
employees.
Vice-Chair Fairclough stated that DEED was classifying the
employees differently. She emphasized the need for clarity
regarding the state's classification of employees.
Co-Chair Meyer stated that the administration would help
the committee to better understand the fiscal note.
10:10:55 AM
MILLIE RYAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, REACH INC., explained that
REACH provided services to approximately 400 children and
adults with disabilities. She stated that prior to her work
with REACH; she was the executive director of the
Governor's Council on Disabilities and Special Education.
She then served as an ex officio member of SESA. She
addressed common questions, such as why the council served
as the governing board for SESA. She was instructed by her
predecessor at the council that the arrangement existed
because the council served as the special education
advisory panel and SESA was a special education program.
The council, located in DHSS ended up as the special
education advisory panel because the legislature and DEED
did not want another small board with a narrow purpose, so
instead sought a board with a common interest.
Ms. Ryan pointed out another common question regarding SESA
regarding the duplication of funding for intensive needs or
for students with severe disabilities. She stressed that
having a low-incidence disability did not mean that a
student was eligible for intensive needs funding. She
mentioned that DEED required that seven specific criterion
be met to determine eligibility for intensive needs
funding. She added that school districts utilized intensive
needs funding to provide the full-time aide, to purchase
specialized materials and technology required for the
intensive needs student. She stated that if SESA was
involved, the specialist worked with the district to assess
the students and identify which instructional materials
were best suited for the needs, and would teach staff how
to use the materials and technology. She strongly supported
the passage of SB 17.
10:13:52 AM
GENEVIEVE HOLLINS, FINANCE DIRECTOR, SESA (via
teleconference), addressed the question about employees of
SESA being state employees. She clarified that SESA
employees were not state employees, but employees of the
political subdivision of the state.
Co-Chair Meyer requested further clarification.
Ms. Hollins replied that the fiscal note did not reflect
FTEs for SESA because its employees were those of the
political subdivision of the state.
Co-Chair Meyer relayed that he would have the
administration further explain the classification of SESA's
employees as documented in the fiscal note.
10:15:29 AM
Co-Chair Kelly thought that the full time employees were
not listed on the fiscal note because the budget was not
increased and a request for new positions was not active.
10:15:54 AM
MARGARET KAVANAUGH, TEACHER, KODIAK (via teleconference),
testified in support of SB 17. She worked as both a regular
and special education teacher and with the infant learning
program. She stated that SESA was the most valuable
resource she had encountered because of its support of
teachers. Without the support of SESA's specialists,
teachers often felt unable to meet all students' needs. She
discussed the burn-out that resulted from the lack of
support. The support of a SESA specialist with their unique
knowledge and training with low incidence disabilities
enabled success for students and teachers. She added that
parents also benefitted from SESA's services. She shared a
story about her own son who was diagnosed with low
incidence disabilities. She concluded that SESA had
benefitted her life personally and professionally.
10:20:46 AM
JENNIFER EUBANK, TEACHER, KODIAK (via teleconference),
testified in support of the legislation. She announced that
she was a certified special education teacher in Kodiak.
She taught in the life-skills program for grades 6-8. Prior
to teaching, she worked as a specialist for Assistive
Technology of Alaska (ATLA), which was a federal program
used to introduce and support assistive technology for
students. During her time with ATLA, she worked with SESA
to help provide materials needed in rural villages and she
realized that SESA produced impressive specialists. She
requested the services from SESA currently in her special
education class room.
10:27:00 AM
Co-Chair Meyer closed public testimony.
10:27:22 AM
Co-Chair Meyer intended to hold the bill in committee to
discuss the fiscal note. He wanted to discuss amending the
bill to increase the funding. He wanted to talk about the
fiscal note.
10:28:11 AM
Senator Olson asked about line six of the CS. He assumed
that the amount should be changed to $21.50 to align the
bill with the fiscal note.
10:29:07 AM
AT EASE
10:29:36 AM
RECONVENED
LES MORSE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
EARLY DEVELOPMENT clarified that SESA's employees were not
considered state servants based on statute, but they were
considered employees to the non-profit agency. The fiscal
note was built as a grant to that agency, just as the state
granted Base Student Allocation (BSA) money to a school
district, without accounting for staff. He added that SESA
contributed to the retirement system in the same way that
school districts and municipalities did.
Co-Chair Meyer stated that SB 17 renewed the current
program. An increase, as suggested by a committee member,
would require a change to the fiscal note.
10:31:23 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough pointed out that SESA also utilized
grant funds. She wished to better understand the funding
structure in relation to grants and general funds.
Mr. Morse responded that SESA did receive grant money,
which was not reflected in the fiscal note. He understood
that additional state dollars were received as grants under
some circumstances.
10:32:28 AM
Co-Chair Meyer asked how the state would meet federal
requirements without SESA.
Mr. Morse replied that school districts and the state would
be greatly challenged by a lack of the services provided by
SESA. He added that if a district could not provide
services required within an Individualized Education
Program (IEP), a family could seek legal recourse against
the school district and the state. He added that if SESA
did not exist, districts would require a similar
organization to provide support for low incidence
disabilities. He credited the efficiency of SESA for
Alaskan school districts.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if the administration supported the
bill.
Mr. Morse stated that the administration was very
supportive of the sunset extension for SESA. The department
would allocate the funds appropriated by the legislature.
He opined that the legislature ought to review the evidence
and consider options like increasing funding.
10:35:02 AM
Senator Dunleavy understood that SESA had not seen a
funding increase for 15 years.
Mr. Morse concurred.
Senator Dunleavy asked if the increases given to school
districts were for legislative intent, although SESA was
not provided the same increases.
Mr. Morse replied that a formula approach was employed for
funding SESA and the school districts. He stated that SESA
did not fall under the BSA addressed, so their funding was
not increased.
Senator Dunleavy asked if the separation between funding
increases for SESA and other districts was determined by
the department.
Mr. Morse responded that the statutory approach employed by
the legislature determined the structure.
10:36:06 AM
Senator Olson asked about a comparison with other states
and their approach to the federal mandates.
Mr. Morse replied that all states handled the federal
requirements differently. He explained that some states
provided a wider array of services. He imagined that some
rural states had created solutions or programs that
mirrored SESA's.
10:37:50 AM
SB 17 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|