Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
03/01/2006 01:30 PM Senate HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB281 | |
| SB199 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 281 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 162 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 199 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 281-SCHOOL DIST. ENROLLMENT SHARING/CORRESPONDENCE
CHAIR DYSON announced SB 281 to be up for consideration. As the
sponsor, he invited Mr. Keller to present the bill.
1:44:11 PM
WES KELLER, Staff to Senator Fred Dyson, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that SB 281 authorizes school districts
to design, promote and administer statewide distance-learning
programs; it makes explicit what is implied, since no existing
law prohibits a school district from enrolling students from any
area of Alaska; it allows contractual agreements - already
allowed in statute - between school districts; and it adds a new
definition of correspondence programs, currently defined in
regulation only, by defining a program in terms of whether it
takes on the daily, routine care of children.
He requested that the Senate Finance Committee deal with
financial implications, noting he'd asked the Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED) to assist with wording.
Mr. Keller said state funding would follow the student to the
new district, as would federal impact aid; however, local
contributions would not, maintaining the status quo.
CHAIR DYSON moved to adopt the proposed CS, Version F[24-
LS1430\F, Mischel, 2/15/06] as the working document. Without
objection, Version F was before the committee.
MR. KELLER pointed out that SB 281 presses one question: How
will district costs be factored into the funding formula for
non-correspondence students that enroll in another district if
it happens more often because of this legislation? Suggesting
it's an issue for the Senate Finance Committee, he added, "I
think answering this question in open discussion will clarify
things and be helpful to us as far as legislative intent." He
said SB 281 doesn't propose or promote any particular program,
doesn't impose mandates and introduces no new legislative
intent. He asserted that it elevates the importance of district
boundary lines because it's a statement of confidence in local
school districts.
He informed members that technology - which makes the impacts of
distance disappear - drives SB 281. Relating personal
background, Mr. Keller said he has new hope for Alaska's K-12
education. He discussed a "virtual box" designed for a child,
based on the child's needs and current level, an individual
learning plan, state standards and so forth; this would
facilitate personal teacher-student and teacher-teacher
communication never before available. Mr. Keller elaborated,
suggesting security measures already exist, for example, and
saying small communities can take advantage of expertise from
people outside the community.
He expressed enthusiasm for education technology and highlighted
the following myths: technology removes teachers from the
equation; technology usage only occurs between teachers and
students, not among students; distance technology is primarily
for correspondence schools or home schooling; teachers need deep
technological knowledge to be effective; kids don't have the
ability to take care of technological hardware such as laptops;
technology for education is expensive, with no cost savings; and
accurate predictions can not be made about future technology and
software. Mr. Keller concluded by citing a 2003 census that
found three out of four Alaskan families have computers - which
puts Alaska near the top - and that 68.5 percent of Alaskans use
the Internet.
2:00:11 PM
SENATOR ELTON asked whether protections should be included to
keep one school district from losing students to another,
causing the school to fall below the minimum number of students.
MR. KELLER suggested that was for legislators to answer. He
offered his opinion, however, that if a local school district
had the best situation to attract its own students with its own
programs, then nothing had to be done.
SENATOR ELTON asked whether Section 1 allowed something new to
happen so one district could create a charter school in another
district.
MR. KELLER agreed it wasn't happening already, but said he
wasn't sure it was illegal.
SENATOR ELTON expressed interest in having the committee discuss
it, since it would be a significant shift and he didn't
understand all the ramifications.
SENATOR OLSON asked about the difference between Version G, the
original bill, and Version F.
2:02:32 PM
MR. KELLER explained that the first version didn't specify that
districts could make contractual agreements with each other. In
many remote locations, the school building is the center for
culture in the community. A school that wasn't happy with its
teachers that come and go from the community might be eager to
participate in a program offered by another district and yet
still use the building. This would allow such agreements.
CHAIR DYSON added an example: Hope, a small community south of
his district, has just 10 students, but a nice school built for
60. If the number fell below the threshold of 10, the local
district or school could contract with the Anchorage or Kenai
school district to have a distance-delivery charter school
there, using the building and providing a teacher's aide as a
monitor and proctor in the classroom and/or providing support
for students with disabilities. Some districts conduct their
administration from Anchorage already, and Chair Dyson suggested
this would allow small schools and districts to take advantage
of another district's economies of scale or to work
collaboratively.
He highlighted the problem of a small high school trying to
provide a variety of classes and experiences to students. A
virtual school could combine three students in one village who
wanted to learn Russian, aviation or medical technology, for
example, with dozens of other students in schools throughout the
area or the state; it would be taught by highly qualified
teachers from another locale. Chair Dyson related his
understanding that all the bill's language is permissive.
MR. KELLER requested that the legislation be moved forward
unless some questions couldn't be answered. Regarding Senator
Elton's earlier question, he said charter schools have another
"layer": the state board, which can approve or disapprove a
decision that has been made at the local district level.
CHAIR DYSON opened public testimony.
2:07:57 PM
EDDY JEANS, Director, School Finance, Department of Education
and Early Development, informed members that DEED hadn't taken a
position on the bill yet, mainly because of lack of opportunity
for feedback from the state Board of Education and Early
Development. Concurring that many items in the bill are in
statute, he noted, for example, that AS 14.14.110 has the title
"Cooperation with other districts."
He conjectured that some concerns of the state board might
relate to Section 1, which allows a district to create a charter
school to operate in another school district, and to Section 3,
which allows a local school board to establish a school in
another district. Mr. Jeans pointed out that children cross
boundaries now, with funding going to the district where the
children actually attend school. He gave examples. In response
to Chair Dyson, he clarified that under Section 1, subsection
(d), it appears a local school board could establish a charter
school outside the district boundaries with approval of the
state board, but without consent of the other school board - a
substantial change. He surmised, at minimum, that the state
board would want both local school boards to be a party to such
a charter.
2:12:20 PM
MR. JEANS, in further response, said he believes the state board
will meet March 17; he covers current legislation during such
meetings and will ensure this is before the board. In response
to Senator Olson regarding the bill's necessity, Mr. Jeans
mentioned that at least the existing cooperation component
between districts is clearly allowed by statute. In further
response, he explained that he would present the bill to the
state board to receive feedback, but would also point out that,
for this particular section, current statute already addresses
the cooperative nature between districts.
2:14:41 PM
CHAIR DYSON asked Mr. Jeans whether he believes the present law
allows a district "on invitation, with agreement" to establish a
new charter school in another district.
MR. JEANS answered that it hadn't happened yet, other than with
the Delta Cyber School, which was approved as a charter school,
serves students statewide via the Internet and is funded as a
correspondence program.
CHAIR DYSON indicated Version F differs from current law in
allowing a charter school to operate specifically within another
district. He proposed getting a legal opinion as to whether
additional authorization is needed beyond existing statute.
MR. JEANS, in response to Senator Elton, said he reads
Section 3, paragraph (1), to say a district can establish a
brick-and-mortar school in another district without the second
district's approval.
CHAIR DYSON surmised the drafter thought the approval of the
state board provided a safeguard. He asked about options if a
recalcitrant school district at some point isn't doing what is
necessary.
SENATOR ELTON remarked that it's an interesting point, but said
he reads Section 1 as being different from Section 3. Section 1
provides that the state board would be involved in decisions,
but Section 3 is just a local response.
MR. JEANS noted that Section 1 amends the charter school
legislation, which already has a state board approval component.
Section 3 amends AS 14.14, adding a new subsection that deals
with operations of districts.
MR. KELLER added that he couldn't imagine a school district
going out and building a school in a rural area. He reported
that one big concern he has heard from districts is
administration. Although he could see safeguards so students
aren't viewed as revenue sources, he suggested this is more of
an opportunity to "put sizes and needs together, rather than
trying to take over another district."
2:21:49 PM
CHAIR DYSON asked about financial implications.
MR. JEANS answered that DEED hadn't analyzed it for financial
impact. Regarding the issue raised by Mr. Keller about cost
differentials and the dollars following the students, Mr. Jeans
offered the belief that it's being achieved already by providing
funding to the schools and districts that are serving the
children. In further response, he said there may not be any
cost implications.
2:23:56 PM
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards (AASB), testified that AASB has no formal position on the
bill because all the implications aren't known. Addressing
possibilities, he pointed out that those wanting to do a charter
school might seek other sponsors; thus the bill could be far-
reaching. Mr. Rose offered his understanding that the bill
intends to restate the latitude already possessed by districts.
As for financial implications, he pondered whether going to a
district with another cost differential might affect costs.
2:27:08 PM
LEE YOUNG, Principal, Connections, Kenai Peninsula Borough
Schools, informed members that Connections is a home school
program. He requested clarification as to whether the bill's
focus is distance delivery, for remote students especially, or
is to perhaps shape core school districts. He predicted
financial benefits if school districts can go outside their
boundaries; he also believes his program is better off because
of the competition. Mr. Young suggested if there were a way to
rate districts for doing a good job, then perhaps charter
schools wouldn't be allowed to set up new brick-and-mortar
schools. He asked about ways to craft the legislation to avoid
having new brick-and-mortar schools draw students from the old
school programs, thereby watering them down. He asked members
to continue to analyze this and do good work.
CHAIR DYSON asked whether anyone else wished to testify.
2:30:23 PM
CHAIR DYSON announced SB 281 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|