11/17/2015 09:04 AM House BUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation of Final Reports Required under House Bill 278 Passed by the 28th Legislature | |
| Approval of Minutes | |
| Legislative Revised Programs (rpls) | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
LEGISLATIVE BUDGET AND AUDIT COMMITTEE
Anchorage, Alaska
November 17, 2015
9:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Hawker, Chair
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Steve Thompson (via teleconference)
Representative Sam Kito
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Vice Chair
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Cathy Giessel
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Mark Neuman (alternate)
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Pete Kelly (alternate)
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative David Guttenberg (via teleconference)
Representative Tammie Wilson (via teleconference)
Representative Harriet Drummond (via teleconference)
Representative Lynn Gattis (via teleconference)
Representative Chris Tuck (via teleconference)
Senator Mike Dunleavy (via teleconference)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION OF FINAL REPORTS REQUIRED UNDER HOUSE BILL 278
PASSED BY THE 28TH LEGISLATURE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
LEGISLATIVE REVISED PROGRAMS (RPLs)
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
ELIZABETH SWEENEY NUDELMAN, Director
School Finance and Facilities Section
Department of Education & Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the presentation of final
reports required under the Twenty-Eighth Alaska State
Legislature's House Bill 278.
PAUL BARIL, Principle/Vice President
Nvision Architecture, Inc.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the presentation of final
reports required under the Twenty-Eighth Alaska State
Legislature's House Bill 278.
LESLIE RIDLE, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Administration (DOA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the presentation of final
reports required under the Twenty-Eighth Alaska State
Legislature's House Bill 278.
DIANE HIRSHBERG, PhD, Director
Center for Alaska Education Policy Research (CAEPR)
Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER)
University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the presentation of final
reports required under the Twenty-Eighth Alaska State
Legislature's House Bill 278.
ALEXANDRA "LEXI" HILL, Associate Director
Finance and Administration
Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER)
University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the presentation of final
reports required under the Twenty-Eighth Alaska State
Legislature's House Bill 278.
HEIDI TESHNER, Director
Administrative Services
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented RPL 05-06-0111.
LACEY SANDERS, Fiscal Analyst
Legislative Finance Division
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed RPL 05-06-0111, RPL 05-06-0114,
and RPL 18-6-360.
SHANNON DAUT, Executive Director
Alaska State Council on the Arts (ASCA)
Department of Education and Early Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented RPL 05-06-0114.
TOM CHERIAN, Director
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented RPL 18-6-0360.
ACTION NARRATIVE
9:04:51 AM
CHAIR MIKE HAWKER called the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee meeting to order at 9:04 a.m. Representatives Hawker,
Kito, and Thompson (via teleconference), and Senators Giessel
and MacKinnon were present at the call to order. Representative
Pruitt and Senator Hoffman arrived as the meeting was in
progress. Also in attendance were Representatives Guttenberg
(via teleconference), Wilson (via teleconference), Drummond (via
teleconference), Gattis (via teleconference), and Tuck (via
teleconference), and Senator Dunleavy (via teleconference).
^PRESENTATION OF FINAL REPORTS REQUIRED UNDER HOUSE BILL 278
PASSED BY THE 28TH LEGISLATURE
PRESENTATION OF FINAL REPORTS REQUIRED UNDER HOUSE BILL 278
PASSED BY THE 28TH LEGISLATURE
9:05:55 AM
CHAIR HAWKER announced that the first order of business would be
the presentation of final reports required under the Twenty-
Eighth Alaska State Legislature's House Bill 278.
CHAIR HAWKER added that those reports would be made available on
the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee's web site.
9:07:42 AM
ELIZABETH SWEENEY NUDELMAN, Director, School Finance and
Facilities Section, Department of Education & Early Development
(EED), referring to a PowerPoint presentation, explained that
the Twenty-Eighth Alaska State Legislature's House Bill 278
directed [the EED] to submit a school design and construction
report to the legislature regarding the benefits and
disadvantages of using "prototypical" designs for school
construction in both the Railbelt and rural areas of Alaska.
She indicated that this report was produced for the EED by a
team composed of an Anchorage architectural firm, Nvision
Architecture, Inc., and an Ohio [research] firm, DeJong-Richter.
9:10:48 AM
PAUL BARIL, Principle/Vice President, Nvision Architecture,
Inc., Anchorage, Alaska, Participated in the presentation of
final reports required under the Twenty-Eighth Alaska State
Legislature's House Bill 278. referring to the aforementioned
PowerPoint presentation, noted that others who helped with the
studies necessary to produce the report required by House Bill
278's Section 53 included Kathy Christy, and the Anchorage firms
of CE2 Engineers, Inc.; BBFM Engineers Inc.; RSA Engineering;
and Watterson Construction. He explained that one report
reviewed by the team regarding research conducted at the
national level about prototype school-design and construction
was a study sponsored by the Council of Educational Facility
Planners International (CEFPI); this report summarized prior
studies conducted by other states' departments of education, was
useful in establishing context and understanding national and
statewide trends, and concluded that state-run prototype-school-
design programs are not practical and will not result in cost-
savings. This report also concluded, however, that prototype-
school-design programs in large school districts with ample
resources could ultimately result in significant savings - in
both time and money - in instances where many school facilities
are being constructed within a short timeframe; that a "kit of
parts" approach to prototype-school-design has been used
successfully; but that documentation of cost-savings related to
the use of prototype-school designs was lacking.
MR. BARIL, noting that the State of Alaska has previously
researched the issue of prototype-school design [several times],
relayed that the resulting research indicates that growth,
enrollment size, what he referred to as "homogeneity," and time
are common variables in predicting the viability of prototype-
school-design programs. However, variations in geology,
culture, climate, population, and educational needs can also
impact the viability of prototype-school-design programs, and
could therefore prove challenging in any such programs developed
for Alaska. [Questionnaires] developed by the team were
distributed to all [school districts in Alaska], but only 33
school districts responded. Eight of those school districts
reported that they'd previously used [prototype-school designs],
and school districts with significant student growth expressed
interest in [using prototype-school designs], whereas school
districts with low-to-moderate student growth did not. In
responding to the questionnaire, school districts provided
information regarding some of the design issues specific to
their facilities, such as information on energy sources and
alternative energy sources, and electrical, water, plumbing,
foundation, and construction systems.
9:21:44 AM
MR. BARIL ventured that rapid growth in enrollment is necessary
for prototype-school-design programs to be economically viable,
and that the success of any such program is dependent upon the
favorable alignment of a district's homogeneity, size, and
growth factors. Also, there are enough similarities with regard
to utilities and construction to explore the possibility of
having regionalized prototype-school-design programs for those
components, particularly if such programs can limit design
challenges while generating a consistent product. He explained
that regional conferences in Barrow, Bethel, Juneau, Anchorage,
Fairbanks, Kodiak, and the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Borough
were held, and each conference consisted of site visits to
schools, as well as presentations/discussions. Attendees were
[school] district personnel, representatives from the EED, what
he referred to as "the design community," and parents and other
citizens interested in the construction of schools.
Additionally, Mr. Baril relayed, the team hosted what he
referred to as a "statewide" conference in Anchorage, and
conducted follow-up conferences via teleconference. In response
to comments and a question, he agreed to provide the signup
sheets from the conferences to the committee, and mentioned that
the report itself documents conference attendance.
MR. BARIL - with regard to school district profiles and site
visits, specific details of which can be found in the report
itself - explained that the North Slope Borough School District
(NSBSD) has 12 schools, has a stable student population, has
never developed or utilized a prototype-school design, has
building systems unique to Arctic conditions, and has expressed
interest in the concept of prototype-school-design systems and
components. The Fairbanks North Star Borough School District
has 30 schools, has a student population that shifts
occasionally but is tending to decline, has no obvious
differences in building systems, and has indicated that seven of
its schools have successfully utilized a prototype-school design
and that such may be utilized again in the future. The
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District (MSBSD) has 37
schools, has experienced a steady growth in student population
since the 1980s - resulting in multiple schools being brought on
line in a short period of time - currently has a student
population that is increasing, and has indicated that prototype-
school designs have been used in 16 of its schools, though five
of those schools also utilized what he referred to as a "basis
of design" model wherein room size and configuration could vary.
The MSBSD has also indicated that it would continue to utilize
prototype-school designs and "basis-of-design" models, and has
expressed a desire to standardize as many systems and components
as is practical.
9:31:02 AM
MR. BARIL said that the Anchorage School District (ASD) has more
than 87 schools, has a student population that's declining
slightly, and has indicated that 18 of its schools have utilized
prototype-school designs developed from three to five different
floor plans. The ASD has also utilized prototype-school-design
components for gymnasiums and multipurpose rooms, and has
indicated that it would do so again in the future for purposes
of uniformity. The Lower Kuskokwim School District has 28
schools, has a modest increase in student population, has
indicated that eight of its schools have utilized prototype-
school-design, and has expressed a strong desire for prototype-
school-designs for components. Variations in sites and needs in
that school district, however, would still be important factors
in determining the viability of any future prototype-school-
design use. The Kodiak Island Borough School District has 14
schools, has a stable student population that includes students
from U.S. Coast Guard families, has indicated that three of its
schools were constructed in the 1970s utilizing a prototype-
school-design, and has expressed interest in having standardized
components. The Juneau Borough School District has 11 schools,
has a [stable] student population, has indicated that one of its
schools utilized a prototype-school-design, and has confirmed
the potential usefulness of standardized components.
MR. BARIL, with regard to school district profiles in summary,
said that school districts have individual approaches to
prototype-school-design development and implementation; that
each school district believes its approach works best to meet
its particular needs; and that a school district's philosophy
toward educational-program-delivery models can impact its
perception of how useful a prototype-school design will be.
Community involvement in the planning process can result in
modifications to a particular prototype-school design so as to
meet a school district's evolving needs, and such designs, when
so modified, have a greater success rate and generally provide
greater return on investment. Furthermore, the more a
particular prototype-school design is repeated, the lesser the
design fees, and the lesser the risk - which may also reduce
construction costs. Variations in site configuration,
geological characteristics, and climate, however, can limit the
usefulness and advantages of repeating a particular prototype-
school design.
9:37:09 AM
MR. BARIL indicated that rapid growth in student population and
the resulting high demand for additional classroom space might
warrant the use of prototype-school designs, and such are
perceived by the public as a good use of public funds. School
districts reported that whether prototype-school designs were
used made no difference with regard to delivering educational
services effectively, but variations in educational-program
requirements could limit the effectiveness of using prototype-
school designs. For example, across the state, elementary
school educational-program requirements are generally similar,
and thus the use of prototype-school designs for elementary
schools may be more warranted than for middle schools and high
schools, which generally have more variations in their
educational-program requirements.
MR. BARIL relayed that prototype-school designs are not
typically site specific, and thus adaptation of either the site
or the design is generally required; that most school districts
- with the exception of the MSBSD and the Lower Kuskokwim School
District - had either stable or declining student populations;
that in most school districts, education specifications vary per
school, though the ASD and the MSBSD have districtwide education
specifications; that six of the school districts visited had
used prototype-school designs in the past as a means of
addressing student-population growth and/or needs; that [most
conference attendees] were of the opinion that in the long run,
savings in operations- and maintenance-costs through the use of
prototype-school designs for many facilities and components
would exceed upfront costs; and that rural school districts have
indicated that the use of prototype-school designs for
components such as gymnasiums and kitchens could be a viable
option.
9:40:10 AM
MR. BARIL indicated that [Chapter 4] of the report addresses the
issue of developing urban schools versus rural schools. In
summary, differences between urban school districts and rural
school districts can impact how successful using prototype-
school designs will be, and certain other factors can also be
impacted, factors such as design approach; student populations;
[facility] functionality [and spacing]; building construction,
labor, and equipment, and materials procurement; and operations
and maintenance. Communities and school districts utilizing
prototype-school designs were typically the larger ones with
greater population bases, and since rural communities are
typically smaller, use of prototype-school designs tended to be
impractical. Furthermore, the communities and school districts
that utilized prototype-school designs typically did so in
response to rapid student-population growth so as to be able to
maintain desired student:teacher ratios. In response to
questions and comments, he confirmed that what was being
referred to as "single-site" school districts were included in
the report and were considered to be rural school districts; and
clarified that for purposes of compiling the statutorily-
required report, the team sought information from school
districts about the benefits and disadvantages of utilizing
prototype-school designs, but the team didn't analyze [school
districts' possible funding sources or specific project costs].
Again, though, one of the benefits of using prototype-school
designs is the potential to reduce costs.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO added that he has worked with the EED on
both urban and rural school projects, and found that there was a
lot of effort in rural school districts to contain costs -
regardless of funding sources - to the point where those school
districts made a significant sacrifice regarding much of the
exterior areas of the schools, such as playground amenities, in
order to ensure adequate classrooms and interior spaces for the
students. He predicted that future efforts to maintain and
support all of Alaska's schools would be challenging.
9:47:50 AM
MR. BARIL, returning to his presentation, explained that rural
communities with significant geographical variations typically
do not utilize prototype-school designs, and those with schools
with significant variations in student populations are less
likely to have success with prototype-school designs. On the
latter point, large urban school districts, in contrast, may be
able to equalize their student-population numbers by changing
[neighborhood] boundary lines. Chapter 5 of the report
addresses the issue of utilizing prototype-school-design systems
for components, providing detailed analyses of the benefits and
disadvantages, broken down by engineering type - civil,
structural, mechanical, and electrical - for each of Alaska's
climatic regions - the Arctic, the Interior, Southcentral,
Southwest, Southeast, and the Aleutians. The design, selection,
and implementation of prototype-school designs for components is
greatly affected by Alaska's diverse climate, geography,
geology, and other factors.
MR. BARIL said civil engineering systems in Alaska are greatly
influenced by climate, soil and site conditions, and the
difficulty and cost of bringing services such as water and sewer
to remote locations, and there can also be a wide range of
variables to address within a particular region or school
district. Also, rural communities located off the road system
have unique construction challenges, which impact civil
engineering systems greatly. Climate, soil conditions, water
supplies, and wastewater treatment systems vary greatly across
the state; many civil-engineering improvements for schools have
similarities, but there will always be exceptions within regions
and school districts, and thus prototype-school-design
components will always have to be modified to fit the particular
site. This can negate [any of the benefits of] using prototype-
school designs [for components], particularly when the goal is
to save on costs. However, there are alternatives to utilizing
such designs, in order to eliminate duplicate efforts, increase
construction and design reliability, and potentially reduce
costs, though in some instances, utilizing prototype-school
designs for water and wastewater treatment systems may still be
of benefit.
9:52:00 AM
MR. BARIL said structural engineering systems in Alaska are
greatly influenced by variations in climate, soil condition,
site topography, materials availability, and facility size, and
therefore structural-engineering designs must be highly
individualized and site-specific. And although this does not
preclude utilizing prototype-school designs for such systems
altogether, it does present unique challenges to using them.
Furthermore, due to variations in building-design-loads and
foundation types, there is little opportunity to create a true
prototype-school design that could be used throughout Alaska.
For example, to design a prototype with a structure capable of
withstanding seismic activity in Unalaska, high coastal winds in
Gamble, heavy snow loads in Valdez, and extreme cold in Barrow
would neither be practical nor cost-effective, whether for
components or for entire facilities.
MR. BARIL added that extreme conditions aside, it could still be
cost effective to have prototype-school designs that could be
modified to meet the specific conditions of particular site
types. And although this could increase design costs, such
expense could easily be offset by savings made later on, and
taking this approach has worked well for prototype-school
designs in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and the Mat-Su Borough, even
though each school district had to make modifications. With
regard to foundations, he pointed out that even if two schools
in the same district have essentially the same snow, wind, and
seismic load, the soil conditions could vary from site to site,
possibly requiring different foundation types. It may still be
possible, however, to create several prototype-school designs
with adaptable structural foundation systems that could be
modified on a per site basis, depending on the specifics of the
region, to serve as a basis of design.
9:54:17 AM
MR. BARIL said mechanical engineering systems in Alaska are
greatly influenced by climate, available energy sources,
building size, construction method, water supply, and the
availability of properly trained and skilled operations and
maintenance personnel. And although all these factors vary
throughout each region of the state and thus there is little
possibility of being able to create a prototype-school design
that could be applied across the state, for sites with similar
climates it could still be possible to limit variability in
prototype-school designs for mechanical engineering systems.
For such to work, however, the buildings must be of similar size
and use the same type of fuel. For example, several regions
have both larger schools in urban settings and smaller schools
in rural settings, and to the extent that the climate is the
same throughout the region, a prototype-school design for the
mechanical systems for each of those two types of schools could
be utilized. Also, schools generally have a classroom wing, a
gymnasium, a multipurpose room - usually used as a cafeteria - a
kitchen, and sometimes a vocational/technical area, and so the
more similarly schools can be configured, the closer particular
mechanical-system designs could be to becoming prototypes.
MR. BARIL said electrical engineering systems - power systems,
lighting, and specialty systems - are not as affected by
location as by the other engineering systems being used in a
particular building. Creating prototype-school designs for
electrical engineering systems will still be challenging,
however, because of continuing rapid advances in technology. In
response to comments and questions, he confirmed that what
source a school district's electrical power is generated from
won't result in differences in the interior designs of its
buildings, and that the team understands that the mechanical and
structural engineering systems do currently vary from school to
school across Alaska.
SENATOR MACKINNON noted that providing for such variations tends
to cost the state more money.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO pointed out that some of the existing
variations were the result of facilities having been built at
different points in time over the course of several decades, and
surmised that that would still be the case moving forward.
10:01:02 AM
MR. BARIL, returning to his presentation, indicated that the use
of prototype-school designs has the potential to provide short-
term capital gains and long-term operational and maintenance
efficiencies when initial designs are well thought out, tested,
evaluated, and modified to minimize deficiencies. Utilization
of prototype-school designs can also promote uniformity, both
districtwide and within the physical environs of the schools
themselves, and can contribute to efficiencies in maintenance
and operations - in turn leading to energy [savings] - and
results in no measurable difference in the [delivery] of
educational services. Growth in student populations can be
efficiently and quickly accommodated through the design,
development, and construction of schools utilizing such designs.
However, most school districts in Alaska are currently
experiencing static or declining student enrollments, negating
the need for new-school construction. Furthermore, most school
districts also have significant variation in geological soil
conditions, topography, climate, community populations, and
conventional and alternative energy sources, any of which can
negate the benefits of utilizing prototype-school designs.
MR. BARIL said that school districts also generally encourage
community involvement in the school-construction planning
process, and invite personalization of their schools, which can
in turn negate any benefits of using a prototype-school design.
Differing educational programs for elementary schools, middle
schools, high schools, and K-12 schools necessitates the use of
multiple prototype-school designs, and school districts with
extreme variations in the design of their schools have the
potential for creating inefficient and over-designed schools.
With regard to utilizing prototype-school designs for
components, he indicated that such could theoretically produce
long-term savings for school districts through having energy
efficient components, operations and maintenance efficiencies,
and bulk purchasing agreements [for construction materials].
The utilization of prototype-school designs for components is
currently encouraged and desired by many school districts across
the state, and there is the potential for sharing equipment
recommendations and maintenance techniques with other districts.
10:05:13 AM
MR. BARIL said that to realize any theoretical cost savings,
prototype-school designs for components would need to be able to
address specific environmental requirements and constraints, and
be able to be modified in order to accommodate a wide range of
building sizes. Furthermore, multiples of such components would
have to be designed and constructed within a short timeframe.
Aligning these three factors into an economical, prototype-
school-design program is unlikely. Furthermore, the rapid pace
of component innovation would require constant monitoring of
available products so as to be able to select those with the
best performance, efficiencies, and cost. With the minimal
growth in student enrollment currently projected for many school
districts, utilization of prototype-school designs for
components would most likely be relegated to retrofitting
existing facilities, and yet any such replacement components
would have to be compatible with existing systems. Careful
evaluation of existing systems within Alaska's school districts
would therefore be required. Specific components have the
potential to become proprietary, reduce competition, increase
costs, and require the amendment of state regulations. Also,
because Alaska's existing facilities come in various sizes,
prototype-school designs for components of various sizes would
have to be developed.
MR. BARIL, to summarize, indicated that nationwide, statewide
deployment of prototype-school designs was found to be
impractical due to the multitude of variables that had to be
contended with. Alaska's own set of unique variables only
increases the chances of that being the case in Alaska as well.
There is still the potential, however, for success to be
achieved at the district level through the use of prototype-
school designs, both for schools and for components, as long as
certain factors apply. And when variables can be minimized and
multiple schools and building systems are needed over a short
period of time, utilizing prototype-school designs at the
district level, and possibly at the regional level, could become
feasible, and such represents the greatest potential for
viability.
10:09:35 AM
MS. NUDELMAN, in response to comments and questions, indicated
that the EED is pleased with the amount of information that the
report has brought forth, and would be willing to research any
of the issues raised, such as that of cost, further.
SENATOR MACKINNON offered her understanding that a school in
Eagle River was constructed using a prototype-school design, and
that this resulted in savings of over $1 million.
MS. NUDELMAN observed that the report explains that there is
opportunity at the district level to achieve savings through the
use of prototype-school designs, and indicated that the EED
would be reviewing that information further, and is ready to do
everything it can to help the state save money [with regard to
school construction].
The committee took an at-ease from 10:19 a.m. to 10:21 a.m.
10:21:36 AM
LESLIE RIDLE, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Administration (DOA) - referring to a PowerPoint
presentation - explained that the Twenty-Eighth Alaska State
Legislature's House Bill 278 directed the DOA to present the
legislature with a written proposal for a salary and benefits
schedule for school districts, including an evaluation of, and
recommendations for, teacher tenure; and indicated that to
comply with that mandate, the DOA had the Center for Alaska
Education Policy Research (CAEPR), Institute of Economic
Research (ISER), conduct a study and compile a report of its
findings.
10:24:00 AM
DIANE HIRSHBERG, PhD, Director, Center for Alaska Education
Policy Research (CAEPR), Institute of Social and Economic
Research (ISER), University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) -
referring to Section 52 of the Twenty-Eighth Alaska State
Legislature's House Bill 278 - mentioned that in addition to the
brief report and the appendices that members currently have, a
longer, more technical report would be forthcoming; and
explained that both the aforementioned PowerPoint presentation
and the reports use the term, "community salary differential."
Calculations were used to determine how much teachers in
different school districts would need to be paid if salary were
the primary means of attracting and retaining them. However,
CAEPR/ISER won't be proposing a single-salary schedule for
Alaska's principals or superintendents because there wasn't a
way of making comparisons between those few positions in Alaska
and the national market, due to variations in the scope and
responsibilities of such positions in Alaska. For example, in
some schools the principal is also the superintendent, or a
teacher, or a special education coordinator, or is tasked with
fulfilling some other duties in addition to that of principal.
In response to a question, she confirmed that the aforementioned
appendices both detail community salary differentials and
describe the duties of superintendents and principals, and that
that information is also summarized in the aforementioned brief
report.
DR. HIRSHBERG, returning to her presentation, said that
nationwide literature and policies regarding teacher
compensation and tenure were reviewed, and that the tenure
policies of other states is contained in the appendices.
Interviews and focus groups were held with key personnel and
stakeholders, including school business officers,
superintendents, teachers, and representatives from the EED,
including the commissioner. A survey was also sent out, and
statistical analyses were conducted regarding school districts,
community characteristics, compensation terms, and the
employment records of certified personnel. There are a lot of
factors that affect teacher recruitment and retention, such as
community demographics; geographic characteristics - for
example, the distance from a hub community; cost of living
indicators - for example, other available employment within the
community; and student demographics. In other words, teachers
make their decisions about where to teach based on a number of
factors, with salary being only one such factor.
10:33:06 AM
DR. HIRSHBERG, with regard to salary, noted that the question
is, what must be paid in order to attract and retain teachers
without overpaying them and with consideration of the
aforementioned other factors. Using the salary schedule for the
Anchorage School District (ASD) as the base salary schedule, a
salary differential was calculated for each community, in order
to understand what would be needed to compensate teachers for
the factors that make that particular community either more or
less attractive than Anchorage. The results ranged broadly -
between 0.85 and 2.01, with numbers less than 1.0 reflecting
teachers' preferences for teaching in other communities compared
to teaching in the ASD. In Alaska there are some very large
school districts that have significant variations in their
communities, there are school districts that have both urban
hubs and remote communities, and there are school districts that
have only remote but distinctly different communities. Again,
such factors are amongst those considered by teachers when
deciding whether to work in a particular community.
DR. HIRSHBERG, in response to a question, relayed that although
the salary schedule of the ASD was not initially selected to
serve as the base, it was ultimately chosen because Anchorage is
often used for comparison purposes due to it being Alaska's
largest community. With regard to attracting [and retaining]
teachers, however, Anchorage does not have the fewest problems.
For example, the report illustrates that the ASD is underpaying
teachers by an estimated amount of about 10 percent.
SENATOR MACKINNON expressed dissatisfaction with CAEPR/ISER
having chosen to use the ASD's salary schedule as the base when
calculating community salary differentials.
10:38:33 AM
ALEXANDRA "LEXI" HILL, Associate Director, Finance and
Administration, Institute of Social and Economic Research
(ISER), University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA), indicated that
CAEPR/ISER initially used the Matanuska-Susitna Borough School
District's (MSBSD's) salary schedule as the base because of its
record of attracting and retaining teachers, but then
reformulated the calculation for purposes of using the ASD's
salary schedule for the aforementioned reason. She
acknowledged, though, that Anchorage doesn't have the lowest
costs. In response to a further question, she explained that
although cost-of-living "indicators" were used in the
calculations, the cost-of-living indices themselves were not,
because it was necessary for CAEPR/ISER to look at every Alaska
community individually, though standardized data was used when
possible for factors such as fuel prices and transportation
costs, for example.
DR. HIRSHBERG, returning to her presentation, referred to a
chart on page 16 of the aforementioned brief report listing the
community salary differentials by school district. With regard
to "Pay relative to proposed Anchorage pay schedule", the middle
left-hand column reflects the community salary differential for
school districts that had similar community salary differentials
across the district, and the two middle right-hand columns
reflect the range of community salary differentials for school
districts that had significant variations in their community
salary differentials across the district. The last column on
the chart reflects by what percent a school district's current
salaries would change if the listed salary differentials were
applied. In response to comments and questions, she explained
that the 1 percent change listed for the MSBSD is an average for
the entire school district, and takes into account turnover
rates and other factors in some of its outlying communities;
that Appendix F contains the community salary differentials of
each community within a given school district; and that when a
school district's community salary differential is above 1.0, it
indicates that because of certain factors in the community, and
if salary were the only means of attracting and retaining
teachers, that perhaps that community's teachers may have to be
paid more [to make working there as attractive as working in the
ASD].
10:48:10 AM
MS. HILL added that the community salary differentials listed in
Appendix F are similar to the teacher salary differentials used
when geographic cost differentials are calculated; and that for
the individual community salary differentials listed in
Appendix F, CAEPR/ISER used three different models in its
calculations, and so the column titled "Turnover" relates to
teachers staying in a particular community, the column titled
"Move" relates to teachers moving from one community to another,
and the column titled "HQ" relates to highly qualified teachers;
and that because there was no theoretical basis for favoring one
of those three models over the other, CAEPR/ISER averaged the
resulting figures to arrive at the community salary
differentials [that were used in the aforementioned chart on
page 16 of the brief report].
MS. HILL, in response to a question, indicated that for the
chart on page 16 of the brief report, the aforementioned three
middle columns reflect community salary differentials calculated
using the base salary schedules proposed [on page 15 of that
report], whereas the last column on the chart reflects instead
the percent a school district's current salaries would need to
change in order to meet those proposed base salaries.
DR. HIRSHBERG added that the figures used for the brief report
were from two years ago, and acknowledged that using more recent
figures could perhaps change the results, allowing them to
reflect things like existing teacher shortages. In response to
further questions and comments, she indicated that [the
country's] current teacher shortages can't as yet be quantified
via model; that although the national data is a couple of years
behind, Alaska's teacher pay is still amongst the highest in the
country but is no longer the highest; and that there are a lot
of factors that affect teacher recruitment and retention in
Alaska, some of them intangible and some of them the result of
changes occurring outside of Alaska. She indicated that
CAEPR/ISER would urge [lawmakers and other interested parties]
to continue discussions about all the things, in addition to
salary, that can be done in Alaska to encourage teacher
recruitment and retention. In response to a request, she
relayed that CAEPR/ISER would compile information on the average
teacher salary in other states, but cautioned that the data
obtained could be about three or four years old, and that the
focus should not be just on whether to increase teacher salary
in Alaska, because the state's budget couldn't support that as
the only solution, because having teachers who come to a
particular community solely because it paid the most may not be
the right solution, and because there are other factors that
affect teacher recruitment and retention in Alaska.
11:01:13 AM
SENATOR MACKINNON expressed dissatisfaction that CAEPR/ISER's
report doesn't address the issue of student outcomes.
DR. HIRSHBERG acknowledged that point. Continuing with her
presentation, she explained that the chart on page 15 of the
aforementioned brief report illustrating a proposed "base step-
and-lane salary" schedule for Alaska's teachers was calculated
using a proposed base salary that would allow the ASD to attract
and retain teachers without overpaying them. This proposed base
salary schedule gets multiplied by the community salary
differentials in order to arrive at the aforementioned
percentage-change amounts on page 16.
DR. HIRSHBERG, in response to a question, concurred that the
proposed base salary schedule on page 15 is simply being
provided for purposes of discussion; CAEPR/ISER is not
recommending implementing it. The cost to do so, particularly
in rural school districts, would be prohibitive, given the
state's current fiscal situation, and may not constitute the
right approach. For example, according to information gleaned
from a survey provided to teachers in rural communities, better
support by administrators and the community, rather than simply
a higher salary, might instead better address the issue of
teacher recruitment and retention. In response to comments and
further questions, she acknowledged that in general, obtaining
quantifiable information about student outcomes is difficult.
DR. HIRSHBERG, returning to her presentation, indicated that
there is therefore a lot of interest in the concept of utilizing
a merit/performance-based pay schedule for Alaska's teachers -
tying teacher compensation to student outcomes. There is not
much, however, in the way of national research that outlines how
such can be done successfully, but perhaps once Alaska's new
teacher-evaluation system and student-examination system are in
place for a couple of years, some new data might come forth that
will provide Alaskans with the opportunity to research the
issues involved more systematically. Referring to the proposed
base step-and-lane salary schedule on page 15 of the report, she
reiterated that CAEPR/ISER is not recommending its
implementation at this time, and concurred that it is not based
on student outcomes.
11:15:33 AM
MS. HILL, in response to comments and questions regarding
recruiting teachers from outside of Alaska, noted that that's
how many of the teaching positions in Alaska are currently being
filled, particularly in rural communities. Such indicates that
it is possible to make teaching jobs in Alaska attractive.
DR. HIRSHBERG, in response to further comments and questions,
reiterated that there are a lot of factors that affect teacher
recruitment and retention; the question becomes how to make the
factors other than salary more attractive, such that more
teachers can be recruited and retained without overpaying them.
For example, one long-term partial solution might be to create
conditions within the schools that will inspire students to
become teachers themselves. After referring to some of the
other [studies/reports] required by the Twenty-Eighth Alaska
State Legislature's House Bill 278, she again noted that
information gleaned from a survey provided to teachers indicated
that better support by administrators and the community, rather
than simply a higher salary, might instead better address the
issue of teacher recruitment and retention, particularly in
rural Alaska. Some good efforts to increase such support are
already being undertaken by certain entities, but nothing
statewide or systematically.
DR. HIRSHBERG - returning to her presentation, and referring to
superintendent duties and compensation - reiterated that in
Alaska there is enormous variation in superintendent roles and
the size of school districts; CAEPR/ISER did not see a
correlation between compensation for superintendents, the
magnitude of their responsibilities, and the community salary
differentials. Alaska's school boards set compensation rates
and do the hiring, and CAEPR/ISER wasn't able to make a solid
recommendation regarding a salary schedule for Alaska's
superintendents, whose salaries, statewide, are currently below
national averages, which also vary greatly. One of the
aforementioned appendices addresses this issue further, and it's
an issue that warrants future discussions, she noted.
11:30:58 AM
DR. HIRSHBERG explained that CAEPR/ISER considered the issue of
benefits, and found that benefit packages can make a difference
with regard to recruiting and retaining teachers, but currently
the only statewide benefit being provided is retirement -
through the State of Alaska. And although health care benefits
are also provided, there is not a single plan for educators, and
so what educators contribute for health care varies
considerably. There are also differences in leave benefits,
travel compensation, and tuition reimbursement, for example.
The various benefits are detailed in one of the appendices
provided, but unfortunately there is nothing consistent with
regard to those benefits that allowed CAEPR/ISER to draw
conclusions about what's been working, she emphasized.
DR. HIRSHBERG, on the issue of teacher tenure, relayed that
CAEPR/ISER surveyed teachers regarding what they would be
willing to receive in lieu of tenure, or in lieu of tenure being
granted after just three years of probation, and the results
clearly indicate that teachers value tenure highly. The
monetary value of tenure was found to be approximately $34,000
over the course of a career, or $16,000 if tenure is awarded at
the end of three years instead of at the end of five years. At
this point, she stated, CAEPR/ISER does not recommend changing
Alaska's existing tenure [policies/schedules], but does
recommend that further discussions regarding teacher tenure
occur in the future. She ventured that there are a lot of
misconceptions about tenure.
DR. HIRSHBERG, in response to questions and comments, confirmed
that the aforementioned forthcoming longer, more technical
report would provide more detailed information on teacher
tenure, and indicated that CAEPR/ISER conducted an extensive
review of national literature and practices regarding tenure, as
well as a detailed analysis of survey responses from parents,
teachers, and community members on that issue. Teachers in
particular consistently valued tenure, though school business
officers didn't have such a view, but this is understandable
given their fiscal and business perspective. She reiterated
that there are a lot of misconceptions about tenure. Tenure in
Alaska, she ventured, is really about due process; a person with
tenure cannot be fired at will, but that does not mean he/she
cannot be removed from his/her position so long as there is
documentation of improper or ineffective teaching practices, or
of a fiscal climate necessitating lay-offs, and such is
generally not difficult to document, according to many school
administrators.
11:36:48 AM
DR. HIRSHBERG, in response further to comments and questions,
said her perception is that the new teacher-evaluation system
will provide the necessary systematic data for everyone to
become involved in the process, thereby lessening the burdens
placed on the larger schools in particular. Continuing with her
presentation, she said there is a significant difference in
labor markets between certified personnel, such as teachers and
principals, and classified personnel, such as those performing
administrative, maintenance, and clerical duties, and thus
compiling salary schedules for all positions in the schools
would be problematic. Additionally, although the former can be
recruited from a national market, the latter are generally
recruited locally, particularly in rural communities, and thus
some schools can have difficulty filling such classified
positions with trained personnel because of local labor-market
conditions. Related service providers, such as those who work
with "special needs" children - speech pathologists,
occupational therapists, for example - can also be very
difficult to recruit and retain, she relayed, even on a
contractual basis from a national market or through a statewide
organization, and so offering a single salary schedule for such
positions [isn't feasible].
DR. HIRSHBERG said that CAEPR/ISER therefore doesn't recommend
providing for a single teacher-salary schedule, particularly
given that there could be some significant salary-cost increases
- about 15 percent across the state as a whole - and doesn't
recommend changing the state's tenure policy at this time.
However, CAEPR/ISER does recommend that a merit/performance-
based pay schedule be discussed. And once the new teacher-
evaluation and student-assessment systems become solidified,
valuable data will be obtained from them. The current system
isn't working well for many teachers and students in remote
communities, and this can be problematic in terms of teacher
retention, so changes must be made in order to improve what's
occurring in the schools, she concluded.
CHAIR HAWKER offered his belief that legislators are concerned
about student outcomes as well as how to achieve the [desired
ends] efficiently and effectively with the resources available,
and surmised that all the various studies conducted and reports
compiled will therefore be helpful to legislators as they
deliberate their next courses of action.
^APPROVAL OF MINUTES
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
11:46:28 AM
CHAIR HAWKER announced that the next order of business would be
approval of the minutes.
11:46:46 AM
SENATOR MACKINNON made a motion to approve the minutes of
October 21, 2015. There being no objection, the minutes from
the meeting of October 21, 2015, were approved.
^LEGISLATIVE REVISED PROGRAMS (RPLs)
LEGISLATIVE REVISED PROGRAMS (RPLs)
11:47:01 AM
CHAIR HAWKER announced that the final order of business would be
consideration of [RPL 05-06-0111, Child Nutrition Programs,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED); RPL 05-06-
0114, Alaska State Council on the Arts, Department of Education
and Early Development (EED); and RPL 18-6-0360, Tsunami Marine
Debris Cleanup, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)].
11:47:23 AM
HEIDI TESHNER, Director, Administrative Services, Department of
Education and Early Development (EED), with regard to RPL 05-06-
0111, explained that if approved, it would authorize an
additional $8.7 million in federal receipts for the Division of
Teaching and Learning Support, Child Nutrition Programs, for
fiscal year 2016 (FY 16). Currently the total authorization is
$52.3 million and approval of the RPL would bring that amount up
to $61 million. This additional grant funding from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) is intended to address large
increases in school-based programs, and it is anticipated that
there will be a 17 percent increase in funding amounts school
districts are eligible for and can claim.
11:48:51 AM
LACEY SANDERS, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Finance Division,
Alaska State Legislature, added that there aren't any technical
issues with RPL 05-06-0111.
11:49:44 AM
SHANNON DAUT, Executive Director, Alaska State Council on the
Arts (ASCA), Department of Education and Early Development, with
regard to RPL 05-6-0114, explained that if approved, it would
authorize an additional $800,000 in statutory designated program
receipts for the "current" fiscal year, for a Margaret A.
Cargill Foundation grant program. She indicated that this grant
program - involving a ten-year initiative - will help "teacher
preparedness" in the [Kodiak area], that last year an initial
grant of $120,000 for the first-year planning process was
received, and that additional grants to implement the resulting
plan would be forthcoming.
MS. SANDERS indicated that approval of the RPL would result in
$1,221,600 total statutory designated program receipts, and that
the $15,000 that has been allocated for personal services could
offset general funds (GF). The Legislative Finance Division can
research that latter issue further once the [operating] budget
is submitted in December. She added that there aren't any other
technical issues with RPL 05-06-0114.
MS. DAUT, in response to comments, clarified:
The state allocation that our agency receives needs to
be matched one-to-one with our federal award from the
National Endowment for the Arts, and we're getting ...
very close to that, that match point, so the [$15,000]
may have some bearing on that ability to meet our
match for the federal dollars.
11:52:50 AM
TOM CHERIAN, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), with regard to
RPL 18-6-0360, explained that if approved, it would authorize
$950,000 in federal receipts from the National Ocean &
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for tsunami marine-debris
cleanup pertaining to the March 2011 tsunami that struck Japan.
These funds will be used for cleanup activities on Kayak Island
and Montague Island, and for the disposal - in an approved
[landfill] facility - of the debris collected. It is
anticipated that these cleanup activities will take place
between May and September 2016. Approval of the RPL will have
no impact upon the GF nor are any [new] positions being
requested. Once [the RPL is] approved, all aspects of the
debris collection/removal/disposal/reporting will be completed
by October 1, 2016, he concluded.
MS. SANDERS ventured that given: the non-controversial nature
of the RPL; the facts that federal funds would be added to an
existing capital project and that no GF or new positions are
being requested; the anticipated funding-receipt date of
January 1, 2016; and the possibility of a delay in adjournment,
the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee may wish to consider
[approving this request at this time] in order to ensure that
resulting contracts can be in place before May 2016. She added
that there aren't any technical issues with RPL 18-6-0360.
CHAIR HAWKER acknowledged those points and expressed interest,
therefore, in approving the RPL at this time.
11:56:38 AM
SENATOR MACKINNON made a motion to approve RPL 05-06-0111, Child
Nutrition Programs, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED); RPL 05-06-0114, Alaska State Council on the
Arts, Department of Education and Early Development (EED); and
RPL 18-6-0360, Tsunami Marine Debris Cleanup, Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC).
CHAIR HAWKER stated that there was objection to the motion.
SENATOR GIESSEL, referring to RPL 05-6-0111, relayed that
constituents of hers have expressed concern about and objected
to the EED's Child Nutrition Programs. She expressed concern,
therefore, that [the state] would be taking more federal monies
to support a program which may not be needed in Anchorage.
SENATOR GIESSEL then made a motion to "divide the RPLs."
SENATOR MACKINNON instead made a motion to "withdraw the
previous motion."
CHAIR HAWKER ascertained that there were no objections.
12:00:08 PM
SENATOR MACKINNON then made a motion to approve RPL 05-6-0111,
Child Nutrition Programs, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED).
SENATOR GIESSEL objected.
12:00:48 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kito, Thompson,
Pruitt, and Hawker, and Senator MacKinnon voted in favor of
approving RPL 05-6-0111. Senator Giessel voted against it.
Therefore, RPL 05-6-0111 failed to be approved by a vote of 5-1.
[The Chair noted that a full affirmative vote of the majority of
the committee is required to pass an RPL.]
12:02:29 PM
SENATOR MACKINNON made a motion to approve RPL 05-06-0114,
Alaska State Council on the Arts, Department of Education and
Early Development (EED); and RPL 18-6-360, Tsunami Marine Debris
Cleanup, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). There
being no objection, RPL 05-6-0114 and RPL 18-6-0360 were
approved.
12:03:44 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee meeting was adjourned at
12:03 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|