Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
02/02/2015 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Role of the State Board of Education and Department of Education and Early Development Federal Grant Programs and Corresponding Mandates | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 2, 2015
8:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Wes Keller, Chair
Representative Lora Reinbold, Vice Chair
Representative Liz Vazquez
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative Jim Colver
Representative Paul Seaton
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: ROLE OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT FEDERAL GRANT
PROGRAMS AND CORRESPONDING MANDATES
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted in the EED presentation, and
responded to questions.
SUSAN MCCAULEY, PhD, Director
Teaching and Learning Support
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted in the EED presentation, and
responded to questions.
PAUL PRUSSING, Deputy Director
Teaching and Learning Support
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the EED
presentation.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:05:49 AM
CHAIR WES KELLER called the House Health and Social Services
Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. Present at the
call to order were Representatives Seaton, Vazquez, Colver,
Reinbold, Kreiss-Tomkins, and Keller. Representative Drummond
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
^PRESENTATION: ROLE OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT FEDERAL GRANT
PROGRAMS AND CORRESPONDING MANDATES
PRESENTATION: ROLE OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT FEDERAL GRANT
PROGRAMS AND CORRESPONDING MANDATES
8:07:05 AM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the only order of business today
would be a presentation from the Department of Education and
Early Childhood Development addressing the role of the State
Board of Education and Department of Education and Early
Development federal grant programs and corresponding mandates.
8:08:28 AM
CHAIR KELLER, following some housekeeping measures, asked each
committee members to introduce themselves and include the
district they represent, as well as personal interest in
education and to mention any history they may have of working
with the committee in past legislatures. [All members took
turns complying with Chair Keller's request, save Representative
Drummond, who arrived while the meeting was in progress. In
order of comment: Representative Seaton, Representative
Vazquez, Representative Reinbold, Representative Colver,
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, and Chair Keller finished.]
8:15:43 AM
CHAIR KELLER mentioned the Moore, et al. v. State of Alaska,
3AN-04-9756 CI, (2010), decision as the vehicle which
underscored the legislature's role of oversight for public
education in the State of Alaska. Federal money has a direct
effect on the state system, and it is important to understand
these effects when applied to the context of the budget, as well
as the classroom. He recalled that the federal government
provides two thirds of the departments funding, as recently
reported in an education sub-committee. The budgetary sources
are necessary to understand in order to ensure that the
legislature's intent, goals, and mission to provide and improve
the public education system can be appropriately met, he
stressed.
8:18:28 AM
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), described the structure of the Alaska
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), as unique
among state agencies by being subordinate to the governor
appointed State Board of Education. He clarified federal
receipts account for two thirds of the funding for the agency;
however, that does not translate to two thirds of the employee
costs, as many of the funds are directed to specific programs.
Returning to the uniqueness of the flow chart structure, he
pointed out that the commissioner is not the head of the
department; a position held by the State Board of Education and
Early Development. The board is comprised of seven members,
representing the four judicial districts. Three members are
appointed at large, with at least one representing a Rural
Education Attendance Area (REAA). No more than four of the
members can be of the same party as the governor. Board members
are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the legislature,
and serve at the pleasure of the governor. Directing attention
to the committee handout, titled: "House Education Committee,
Role of the State Board of Education & Department of Education &
Early Development Federal grant Programs and Corresponding
Mandates," he indicated the five EED divisions directly overseen
by the commissioner's office. Three additional divisions are
structured within the department; however, these specific
divisions operate with a level of autonomy as council to the
department under the oversight of separate boards. These
divisions are: the Professional Teaching Practices Commission,
charged with ensuring integrity within the teaching profession;
the Alaska State Council on the Arts; and the Alaska Commission
on Postsecondary Education, which oversees state sponsored
student loans and administers the performance scholarship
program.
8:21:35 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY spoke specifically on the role of the State
Board of Education and Early Development, and identified the
board's six major tasks. One: Appoint the Commissioner of
Education, who is then subject to approval by the governor.
Two: Promulgate regulations for implementation of statutes.
When a bill is signed into law, the commissioner's office works
with the State of Alaska Department of Law (DOL) to draft
regulations for submission to the board, following the public
comment period and review by the legislative regulatory review
committee. Three: Approve charter schools and state boarding
schools. Four: Compile and deliver an annual report to the
legislature. Five: Set graduation requirements. Six: Adopt
the bylaws for overall management of EED.
8:24:32 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY indicated that the duties of the
Commissioner of Education are established under AS14.07.145. He
restated that he is appointed by, and serves at the pleasure of,
the State Board of Education, and the governor. The duties of
commissioner include: oversight of all EED personnel;
establishment of vision and direction for state education, as
guided by the state board; representing the governor as a
cabinet member; and working with the legislature to promote the
governor's priorities and assist with legislative priorities.
Expanding on the topic of vision and direction, he said the goal
is to ensure that a student not only graduates, but crosses that
benchmark threshold prepared for the next stages of life.
Statutorily it is stated that the purpose of education is to
make sure that our students can be successful in their continued
education and work.
8:26:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether the three named
commissions, which act as council, also promulgate regulations,
and, if so, are the regulations also subject to approval by the
state board.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that any regulation, which might
be proposed by one of the councils, would be forwarded to the
commissioner's office and follow the previously stated
structural procedures.
8:26:43 AM
CHAIR KELLER acknowledged that the commission answers to two
bosses. Further, as stated, the commissioner establishes the
goals and directions for the department. He asked how the
governor influences the short term annual goals and purposes of
education, as opposed to the legislature and the state board.
Additionally, when the state board reports to the legislature,
it seems it will be the year in review, and he asked if an
aspect of the report will contain future goals and purposes in
the same context.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that the voluntary school board is
appointed by the governor. The board in turn hires the
commissioner to be the principle executive officer; an
individual who is relied upon to move forward with the vision
for the department. The appointed board members expect that the
commissioner will work closely with the legislature and the
governor. However, a level of autonomy is allowed the position
of the commissioner, as a fulltime employee. He provided
examples of how this is accomplished through the quarterly
meetings of the board, as well as occasional teleconferences.
Certainly, he assured, direction is sought from the board
whenever a questionable situation arises.
CHAIR KELLER asked whether the board and governor meet outside
of the quarterly meetings. He also asked the commissioner if,
anytime during his tenure, he has witnessed tension between the
board and the governor over pending issues or the process.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said he could not recall any significant
tension, although board members have exhibited some amount of
wrestling, no direct conflict has occurred between members and
the governor. The board meets annually with the governor, and
may choose to weigh in on regulatory questions at the quarterly
meetings.
CHAIR KELLER inquired how other states handle governance of
education. He observed that it appears the governor holds
primary sway in Alaska and questioned the amount of authority
held by that positon.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that the governor's opinion does
carry weight, and said it is up to the individual politician how
they choose to address and direct EED. Other states have
different structures. He estimated that about 50 percent of the
states elect a commissioner of education who then heads up the
state's educational agency.
8:35:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked how many are employed at EED.
COMMISSIOENR HANLEY said about 126 employees are required to
facilitate the direct, daily functions of the department;
however, overall, considering the number of division and
department structure components, a total of 360 administrative
employees exist. Just under 100 of these are members of the
Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education, 55 are employees
staffing the Mount Edgecumbe Boarding School, and a number also
work for Libraries, Archives, and Museums.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD followed up to state:
Well, on this slide it says that you set the direction
and vision for the department, but not for the entire
State of Alaska. Is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded, "That's correct."
8:36:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER inquired how many employees staff
postsecondary education.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY approximated 91-92.
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER asked whether postsecondary has seen
substantial growth.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY deferred to comment on the growth rate;
however, he said although it is a third of the size of the
entire department it does not utilize general funds but rather
operates under receipts.
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER expressed concern over the number of staff
in the commission versus the K-12 program, which represents the
second largest budget component in Alaska.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY agreed to provide further information
regarding the growth and functions of the commission.
8:37:48 AM
CHAIR KELLER stressed the importance to have a working
comprehension of the statute and regulation requirements, in
order to take the best approach for funding education. He said
legislators are striving to understand the effect of the money
being spent on the education system, as it now exists. The
federal government provides money to the state, however, the
funds are attached to goals, which are often dated. How the
money effects supervision of education and educational results,
requires exploration, he finished.
8:39:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired about the vision and direction
held by the commissioner position, and whether there is
alignment with those of the state board, as well as the
governor. He noted that independently established goals could
place the agency at odds.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY assured the committee that the goals of the
three entities are aligned and operating effectively. The
states that have elected commissioners may have not have the
same accord. He added that, on a personal level, he considers
it important, and effective to work together with the board,
governor, and legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed, and said that a divide of visions
would cause a disparity.
8:40:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked when he was appointed.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that the State Board of Education
put his name forward in 2010, and he was sworn in, by Governor
Sean Parnell, in February 2011. Most recently he was reapproved
by Governor Walker and will be sworn in later this month.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked what have been the two top
priorities, during his tenure, and how has the department
accomplished those goals.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY recalled that he conducted a statewide
assessment of the education situation, upon taking office. The
findings indicated that a large number of Alaskan high school
graduates required remedial classes when entering college;
employers were hiring outside of the state due to the lack of
qualified in-state workers; and potential armed forces
candidates were failing the qualification exam. Given this
information, he determined that status quo was not an option.
Removal of educational barriers, expansion of learning
opportunities, and an increase of the vision for student
learning were identified goals. In 2012, a new set of
educational standards were established. During the process, old
baggage was reviewed and some items eliminated. The TerraNova®
assessment was eliminated, while still retaining a means to
maintain important data on fifth and seventh graders. A model
for variable boarding school schedules was cultivated.
Expanding on that, he explained that boarding school schedules
generally require either a one or a four year commitment. The
variable model allows for shorter, intensive courses, which are
especially beneficial for small, rural schools to provide
students a means for gaining instruction that otherwise would
not be available. These two actions are good examples of what
the department has accomplished to better prepare students, and
remove obstacles for enhanced learning.
8:45:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked what occurs when local school
board agendas conflict with departmental directives; does the
commissioner's office have the authority to withhold funding in
order to constrict local control.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said that there are sometimes conflicts
among educational stakeholders, which the department follows
because, if a local school board were in violation of the law, a
state level reaction would be required. Withholding funding is
an option, but not the approach that the administration he
serves would choose to take. Improvement of education could not
be served by withholding financial support, he opined, but there
is a responsibility to ensure legal compliance. To a follow-up
question, he responded that he would not willingly allow the
department to operate outside of the law. Oversight of his
position, by the governor's office and state board, as well as
the legislature, ensures EED's adherence and appropriate
interpretation of the statutes.
8:48:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ inquired about the number of school
districts in Alaska.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY reported 53 districts; 54 with the inclusion
of Mount Edgecumbe.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ requested a list of the districts,
including attendance numbers.
CHAIR KELLER offered that the EED website is a good source of
basic information and pointed out that it includes the size of
each school.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY added that over 100 schools have less than
100 students.
8:49:03 AM
CHAIR KELLER underscored that the committee will be making
budgetary choices and must keep in mind the need to provide
appropriate, adequate funding to ensure the best education. He
reviewed how, after a law is passed, the regulation for
enactment is handled through the department. The legislators
are blind to the facet of the process in which the regulations
are drafted, reviewed by legal authority and approved by the
governor. He observed that the structural, department flowchart
does not include the governor.
8:51:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked what the general funds totaled for
EED in FY14.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY agreed to provide the information.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked what efficiencies the department
might take given the current fiscal outlook.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that the FY15 agency budget
represents a 6.6 percent reduction over FY14; the agency budget
has been decreased the last couple of years. Interestingly, he
pointed out, the balance that the agency carries represents only
about 5 percent of the total budget, which is also supported by
federal receipts. Further, 95 percent of the budget is
distributed via grants to the local districts, which are relied
upon to identify and comply with efficiency requirements. Thus,
the department identifies and implements internal efficiency
measures and school districts are called on to respond locally.
To a follow-up, he opined that, although a third eye can at
times be helpful, a view from a distance may not be well
informed or be in keeping with the context of a given situation.
With that, he declined to conjecture on how districts might
affect efficiencies.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked whether the department is routinely
audited, and inquired about federal receipts and distribution of
general funds.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY replied that EED undergoes and annual audit.
Further, districts have significant flexibility for expenditure
of funds, he explained; however, a primary restriction is for 70
percent of the funds to be designated for instruction purposes,
which could include teacher salaries and classroom supplies. To
a follow-up, he agreed to provide a more complete definition for
what is included under "instruction."
8:56:28 AM
CHAIR KELLER inquired whether anticipated legislation is pending
from the governor's office.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that he is not aware of any
governor sponsored bills, thus far.
8:57:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked how many districts hold waivers
for the 70 percent requirement.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY, on request of the chair, expanded on the 70
percent restriction, stating that it is in place to ensure that
funds are used for learning/instruction items that have a direct
impact on the student. He established that waivers are issued
to districts with small populations, where meeting the 70
percent requirement is difficult due to the local economy of
scale. He estimated that 15-25 districts operate under a waiver
to the 70:30 requirement. When a waiver application is
received, the EED staff work with the district's financial
advisors to review the efforts made towards, as well as to
elicit, compliance. Typically, he said, these districts have
fixed costs to meet, and, with perhaps only 10-20 students, it
is impossible to comply with the rule.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted that EED received $100 million in
extra funds for [the FY14-15] school year. In addition, the
number of reported positions for FY14 were 333, with a breakout
of 300 teachers and 30 EED staff. Today, she recalled, it has
been reported that EED counts 360 staff. She inquired why 27
employees needed to be hired and asked if this is a sustainable
number.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY offered to scrutinize the numbers, and
assured the committee that 30 positions were not added. He
agreed to provide the committee with further information.
9:01:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for a separate presentation to
consider the pros and cons for maintaining the 70:30
requirement. The practice is an area that represents a dated
classroom model and requires further discussion. The chair
agreed.
9:02:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ opined that agency efficiencies have not
been specifically stated, and she asked to have consideration be
given and that a few ideas be formulated and brought to the
committee.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY pointed out that, thus far, EED has cut $2.8
million from the agency as well as $32 million from the formula,
and asked if efficiencies in addition to the 6.6 percent,
previously mentioned, are being sought. The member affirmed
that additional efficiencies are expected and Commissioner
Hanley said the figures will be forthcoming and agreed to
provide further budget considerations.
9:04:58 AM
CHAIR KELLER suggested that EED may be the most challenged to
provide structural, money saving changes, due to the
multiplicity of the agency.
9:05:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked if the 6.6 percent reduction is
reflected in the proposed budget from Governor Walker, or a
holdover from the previous administration.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that it is a combination both
budgets. What is reflected in Governor Walker's budget is a 5
percent reduction from the work in progress budget, as submitted
by Governor Parnell, which represented a 1.6 percent reduction.
The combined total is a reduction of 6.6 percent for the next
fiscal year.
9:07:00 AM
CHAIR KELLER pointed out that only 5 percent of the EED budget
is directed to administration, which is highly acceptable. The
sticking point, he opined, is that two thirds of the budget is
derived from federal receipts, and, additionally, the waivers
related to NCLB pose a question. The impact of the federal
funds, and how that funding intermingles with the state effort
is difficult to grasp, he said.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY acknowledged the chair's statement as an
appropriate segue to the continuation of the presentation that
directly reports on how the federal funds, which are received
with specific requirements attached, impact the classroom and
represent a complex aspect of the education budget.
9:08:44 AM
SUSAN MCCAULLY, PhD, Director, Teaching and Learning Support,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED) said the law
of the land is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA), passed in 1965 as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson's
"War on Poverty." The ESEA was designed as supplementary funds
for elementary and secondary education. Quoting from the act,
she said the emphasis is "to provide each child with fair and
equal opportunities for academic achievement." Originally, the
intent was for the program to be reauthorized every five years;
however, the most recent reauthorization was in 2001, dubbed the
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), and that is the version which
continues today. The seven federal programs affiliated with
this act are: Title I, Title IIA, Title III, Title IVB, Title
VI, Title VIII, and Title XC.
9:11:35 AM
DR. MCCAULEY explored Title I, Improving the Academic
Achievement of the Disadvantaged. She said the purpose of this
act is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and
significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education.
Four programs are affiliated with Title I, which are Title IA,
another Title IA, Title IC, and Title ID. She said each program
would be presented in a four part outline to include the
purpose, eligibility, requirements and amount funded. "Title IA
- Improving Basic Programs" is also referred to as the "Basic
Title" program. The purpose is to provide financial assistance
to local educational agencies and schools with high numbers or
high percentages of children from low-income families. Each
Title program focuses on reaching a specific population, and
Title IA is directed to low income families. Funding
eligibility includes all State Education Agencies (SEAs) and
Local Education Agencies (LEAs). She pointed out that SEA
refers to EED and LEA relates to each district. The fund is
based on a complicated formula that utilizes census data
regarding income; however, once the funds are directed to a
district, the means in which money is disbursed to schools is
based on free and reduced lunch data. If for example, she said,
a school has 75 percent or more students, receiving a free or
reduced lunch, the district must be served with Title funds.
There is no possible discretion that would allow a state agency
to not provide Title I funding to such a school. Districts with
free and reduced lunches provided to 35 percent or less, of the
student population, are able to provide Title I funds, but at
the lower threshold, the distribution must be made at a higher
proportion. Between the 35 and 75 percent ranges, districts are
able to set the threshold and make the best use of the funds by
identifying what percentage of their schools will have free and
reduced lunch programs, to optimize the Title I benefits. She
said:
Even with the strict requirements ... that come with
it, districts do have some flexibility for how they
provide those funds. What a district and we must do,
is develop a plan that identifies strategies to
address the needs of low achieving students.
DR. MCCAULEY pointed out that low achieving students, from low
income families, are not the population of concern. She
stressed that low achieving students are the target and, once
identified, that is who will receive benefits regardless of
family income. The formula mechanism that generates the amount
of funding uses a separate set of criteria to identify who can
benefit from the funding. Fund disbursement, at the school
level, is to be used for low achieving students. Requirements
include a plan that identifies strategies to address the needs
of low-achieving students (tutoring, instructional materials,
small-group instruction, parent involvement, and professional
development for staff). The total funding disbursed to
districts under Title IA is 95 percent of the receipts and
approximates $38,150,000.
9:16:53 AM
DR. MCCAULEY continued with the second category, "Title IA
School Improvement Grants (SIG)," which is a specific grant
element targeted at LEAs for assistance with school improvement
for the lowest performing schools. Eligibility is the same as
the Basic Title with the additional requirement that the
district have schools designated as priority, or focus
facilities. The requirements are that an intervention model
must be implemented. The intervention models that are currently
in place include: turn around, transformation, restart as
charter, and closure. The federal government has three new
programs in draft form that will allow for a state defined model
an early learning model, and an evidence based whole school
reform approach. When the school applies for the funding, the
model being used and the means for implementation must be
stipulated. The annual funding is approximately $1.5 million.
9:18:34 AM
DR. MCCAULEY moved to "Title IC Education of Migratory
Children," focused funding to help students overcome the
challenges of mobility: frequent absences, late enrollment,
social isolation, and other difficulties associated with a
migratory life style. Eligibility are SEAs and LEAs based on
the number of students who are identified as migratory. The
requirement is for the development of programs and strategies
that address the identified needs of migratory children that
result from their lifestyle and which will permit these children
to participate effectively in school. Programs may include
tutoring, summer school, book distributions, credit recovery,
educational supplies, and health and safety education. The
annual funding is $6,875,000.
9:19:49 AM
DR. MCCAULEY said the last of the Title I programs is "Title ID
Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who
are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk," with the purpose of
providing education continuity for students in correctional
institutions. The funds are available to districts which have
youth correctional facilities within the district boundary.
Eligibility is extended to LEAs and is based on the number of
students served by an institutional facility. The requirements
are for the provision of supplementary education services and
transition services to students in correctional institutions and
may include counseling support, tutoring, and instructional
materials. Currently, she reported, eight districts receive
these funds, which total $250,000.
9:20:59 AM
DR. MCCAULEY said the next category, "Title IIA Teacher and
Principal Training and Recruiting," serves the purpose of
increasing student academic achievement through strategies that
may include improving teacher and principal quality and
increasing the number of highly qualified teachers in the
classroom and highly qualified principals on site. Eligibility
includes SEAs and LEAs for these formula-driven funds, which are
again based on census data. The requirements are programs and
strategies aimed at recruiting, retaining, and training highly
qualified teachers and principals. She reported that this is
used as the primary funding source, in many districts, for
professional development activities of staff. The goal is that
these activities will result in an increase of student
achievement. Total funds received is $10,870,000.
9:22:17 AM
DR. MCCAULEY directed attention to the subcategory "Title IIB
Mathematics and Science Partnerships," and said this is a
competitive grant program specifically purposed to increase
student academic achievement in the areas of mathematics and
science. Eligibility are SEAs through formula funds based on
the funding received under Title I (census data) and LEAs are
eligible to submit application for a competitive grant. She
explained that several Title programs begin with the basic
component and are then expanded using competitive grant
elements. The requirements are that there must be a partnership
between an institution of higher education, and a high-need
district. The partnership must reflect the purpose of creating
opportunities for enhanced and ongoing professional development
in the areas of mathematics and science through activities such
as summer workshops. The total funding of this grant is
$750,000.
9:23:37 AM
DR. MCCAULEY turned to "Title III Language Instruction for
Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students," which is
purposed to increase English proficiency and academic
achievement of limited English proficient children in the core
academic subjects. SEAs are eligible for formula-driven funds.
The LEAs must have a minimum number of limited English
proficient (LEP) students to qualify for funding. The
requirements are for schools to provide language instruction
educational programs and professional development to teachers,
principals, or other staff who work with LEP students. The
total amount of funding is $1.2 million.
9:24:46 AM
DR. MCCAULEY moved to "Title IVB 21st Century Community Learning
Centers," which provides for the establishment or expansion of
activities in community learning centers that host academic
enrichment opportunities during non-school hours for children,
particularly students who attend high-poverty and low-performing
schools. Eligibility is for LEAs and non-profit organizations
through a competitive grant process, i.e. a local boys and girls
club where a school partners with a non-profit to provide off
hour, or summer, activities. The requirements are restricted to
activities offered before or after school, or summer activities
to enhance academic performance. The total funding is $5.6
million; currently being distributed to 11 different entities in
Alaska.
9:26:13 AM
DR. MCCAULEY directed attention to "Title VI Flexibility and
Accountability," funding that is purposed to allow SEAs and LEAs
flexibility to target federal funds for existing federal
programs that most effectively address the unique needs of
states and localities. This category has three subcategories
beginning with "Title VIA - Improving Academic Achievement. The
purpose of this law is to pay the costs of the development and
implementation of state assessments and standards that are
required by ESEA. All states are eligible for $3 million of
funding with additional funding prorated based on the census
data that drives Title I. These funds require that plans be in
place to develop, implement, and disseminate information about
state assessments and standards. The annual funding is $3.5
million.
9:27:29 AM
DR. MCCAULEY explained that the next two categories are eligible
to LEAs; however a district may not receive both. "Title VI
B(1) Small, Rural School Achievement Program (SRSA) and Title VI
B(2) Rural and Low-Income School Program (RLIS) are programs
that are both purposed to address the unique needs of rural
school districts that frequently lack the personnel and
resources needed to compete effectively for federal competitive
grants and those receiving formula grant allocations in amounts
too small to be effective in meeting their intended purposes.
She said Alaska has nineteen eligible districts, as well as Mt.
Edgecumbe. Under Title VI B(1) an LEA is eligible if it meets a
definition of rural, as based on student count and population
density. The Unites States Department of Education provides
these funds directly to the LEAs. The requirement is to use
these funds, as authorized, in conjunction with funding from
other Title programs: Title IA, Title II, Title III, Title IV,
and Title V. She explained that the only reason this direct
funding appears in the EED budget is that Mt. Edgecumbe
qualifies, and the department administers that boarding school
program. The total funding is $20,000. The subcategory that
shares the same purpose, Title VIB(2), has eligibility for SEAs
which apply on behalf of LEAs with 20 percent or more children,
ages 5-17, with family incomes below the poverty line. Only one
district qualifies for this fund, namely Lower Kuskokwim. The
funding amount is $88,000.
9:31:41 AM
DR. MCCAULEY turned to "Title XC Homeless Education (McKinney-
Vento Homeless Education Assistance Act of 2001)." The purpose
is to ensure that children of homeless individuals, as well as
homeless youth, have equal access to the same free, appropriate
public education as provided to other children and youths.
Eligibility applies to SEAs based on the number of students
identified as homeless, and LEAs through a competitive grant
process. The requirements are that a district have a homeless
liaison/coordinator to assist with identification of homeless
students and the provision of services to that defined
population. She reported that four districts qualify for this
funding, that has an annual receipt of $170,000.
9:32:48 AM
DR. MCCAULEY said that ends the Title programs that are
affiliated with the SEA. Two other acts bring in funding to
specific populations. The first is the "Individuals with
Disabilities Act Title VI," also referred to as special
education. The purpose is to ensure that all children with
disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public
education. These funds are eligible to all SEAs based on the
average daily membership (ADM) of the LEAs; LEAs are eligible
based on the ADM and the number of students living in poverty.
The requirements for use of the funds is that districts provide
services for the identification and support of students with
disabilities, up to age 21, or for students from birth-2 years
with developmental delays. Allowable expenditures are for
staff, programs, equipment, and instructional supplies. The
annual funding for the general program is $36 million and for
the preschool element of the program $1.1 million.
DR. MCCAULEY introduced the final federal program, which is the
"Carl D. Perkins Vocation and Applied Technology Education Act
(VTE)." The purpose here is to develop the academic,
vocational, and technical skills of secondary students and
postsecondary students who elect to enroll in vocational and
technical education programs. Eligibility to SEAs is based on
the state's population in certain age groups and per-capita
income. The LEAs must have a sufficient number of students to
generate a minimum allocation of $15,000. The requirement is
for planned development aimed at strengthening the academic and
career/technical skills of CTE students. The funding is $4.2
million.
9:35:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER returned to Title I to ask whether the
funds are primarily used for staffing purposes, and how the
department handles the positions dependent on federal funding,
if the grant money is not received.
DR. MCCAULEY concurred that the majority of Title funding is
used at the district school level to support staff. The
department is permitted to retain a percentage for state
administration, and typically EED uses this allowance pay for
support staff, such as those approving applications for Title I
and the monitoring that is required, as well as professional
development activities. The funding allows the state to host
training conferences to instruct staff from around the state for
implementing the required elements of the programs.
Additionally, technical support is provided and webinars are
supported through this funding.
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER provided a scenario of a district refusing
to accept Title I funding. He asked:
[If the district] decided not to accept the federal
money, are we still on the hook to follow the federal
requirements, at the district level.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that specific programs would need
to be considered in that scenario, as legal obligations may be
in place. He stressed that obligations exist outside of the
federal funding mandates.
9:38:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to "Title IA-Improving Basic
Programs," and asked how many LEA schools participate.
DR. MCCAULEY answered that all schools qualify for Title I
funding and offered to provide a list indicating the specific
schools within each district that participate.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD stated her understanding that in several
schools it has been reported that the free/reduced lunch option
is offered to all students, and requested the list be provided
to the committee.
9:41:24 AM
CHAIR KELLER clarified program eligibility, stating:
The free and reduced lunch is a criteria for whether
or not they receive the funds, not the criteria for
whether or not they have free and reduced lunch. Is
that a correct statement?
DR. MCCAULEY concurred.
CHAIR KELLER pointed out that the EDC state budget spreadsheet
carries a nutrition increment, which, given the understanding of
how it ties in with the federal funding, could not simply be
eliminated, as a $38.150 million cost saving measure.
Additionally, he stated his understanding of how other Title
programs, such as science and math, are linked to the same
eligibility criteria using the free or reduced lunch data. He
asked if his belief is correct: 75 percent of the students, in
a given school, would need to qualify for a free or reduced
lunch in order to receive the science and math funding.
DR. MCCAULEY reviewed how a school, that has a population of 75
percent of the students qualifying for a free or reduced lunch,
must be served with Title I funding. Expanding on that point,
she explained:
A district would not be able to say, 'We have two
schools and one is 75 percent and one is 76 percent,
and we are going to serve the 76 percent, instead of
the 75 percent.' As soon as a school reaches a
percentage of students that is 75 percent or above, a
district must provide, through a formula that
considers how many students there are, they must
provide Title I funds to the school. Below that 75
percent the district does have autonomy for where they
set the floor. ... If a district decides to serve a
school that has lower than 35 percent of its students
receiving free and reduced lunch, they have to do that
in a way that provides the schools above 35 percent
with a higher proportion of the funds, 125 percent of
the funds. Basically, the federal government says,
between 35 percent and 75 percent, the schools with
populations between those percentages of students who
qualify for free and reduced lunch, you've some
autonomy. You can say we're not going to provide
Title funds to a school unless they have 50 percent or
more. ... And, if they want to dip down and serve
schools with lower than 35 percent, they can do it,
but they have to serve the ones above 35 percent at a
higher proportion; they have to give them 125 percent
of the funding, in terms of the formula. Those
percentages ... do not apply to the school improvement
grants. ... The basic funding formula is the same in
the manner that it considers census data, which is
income data, as how funding is generated. ... Those
funds have nothing to do with the 75 percent; that's
just Title IA.
CHAIR KELLER queried how that translates into actual application
for a child to be offered a free lunch; reportedly some children
are offered lunches when they are not eligible based on income.
He surmised that a district may choose to serve free or reduced
lunches to an entire school population, and asked whether that
type of action could be tracked to the $38 million [budgeted
nutrition increment].
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that it would be more accurate to
identify Title I funds as support for students of poverty,
qualifying them for free or reduced lunch. In a school of 100
or 500 students, perhaps only two are qualified, but they will
receive a free and reduced lunch. How the school districts
administer that program to the qualified students, is largely up
to the district. A school may choose to supplement the Title I
funds to cover additional lunches, beyond the qualifying
students.
CHAIR KELLER acknowledged the complexity of the Title funding.
9:47:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked whether a district is able to
receive direct federal grants for reduced or free lunch
programs.
DR. MCCAULEY allowed that the student nutrition program was not
detailed in this presentation, and offered to provide further
information.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ inquired, if a school district were to
decide to provide free lunch for 10 additional schools "no
questions asked," do those schools then qualify for Title I.
DR. MCCAULEY deferred.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY reiterated that the qualifying criteria is
generated from census data. Whether or not to provide free
lunch is not a decision made by a school.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ posited that a district, that decides to
provide a free, or reduced, lunch program no questions asked,
does not automatically receive Title I funds.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said the funds would not be allocated on an
automatic basis. The fact that a school district pays for
student lunches has no impact on whether they qualify for
federal funding; the school census data is the qualifying
factor.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ directed attention to page 8 of the
committee handout, titled "House Education Committee Role of the
State Board of Education & Department of Education & Early
Development Federal Grant Programs and Corresponding Mandates"
to clarify the eligibility bullet point which reads "funds based
on census data and free and reduced lunch data." She asked
whether the census data is the overriding criteria for granting
a free or reduced lunch program.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY deferred.
9:51:37 AM
PAUL PRUSSING, Deputy Director, Teaching and Learning Support,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED) explained
that the census data qualifies the district, and the district
uses free and reduced lunch data to determine school
eligibility. He approximated that, of the 500 schools in
Alaska, about 250 are Title I recipients.
9:52:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER commented that typically a local school
board, does not dive into the transportation and nutrition
budget, rather it allocates the base student allocation (BSA)
and the local contribution. The districts have latitude on how
the nutrition, transportation, and federal dollars are then
distributed.
9:53:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked for clarity on the number of
eligible schools, and further inquired if welfare recipients are
accounted for or are they receiving overlapping services.
MR. PRUSSING approximated that 250 out of 506 statewide schools
receive Title I funds. Once funds are received at the local
level, any identity falls away and the money is directed to
benefit students who are academically at risk; poverty is not
the identifier.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD reported having telephone contact from
the local school to ask if her children would like to have a
free lunch. She suggested that there may be disconnect in the
system, as her students are ranked high in their class and are
not poverty qualified.
9:55:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ tallied the federal funds accounted for
in the Title presentation, and noted a total of $110 million in
federal receipts. She asked what EED's budget totals.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that there are other federal
receipts; namely Impact Aide, and Child Nutrition Services. The
2015 total budget is approximately $1.7 billion.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ noted that the federal receipts represent
a small slice of the pie.
CHAIR KELLER restated that the department's cost for
administration requires only 5 percent of the budget; a small
increment.
9:58:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND interjected that the $1.6 billion
includes the foundation formula funding, as well as the
department's budget. She suggested further presentations to
detail how the total EED budget is put together.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY offered that the foundation formula overview
is typically presented separately.
9:59:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON returned to page 10, of the committee
handout, and asked whether the department reviews the required
program plans and strategies for migratory children, or is it
handled independently at the local level.
DR. MCCAULEY answered that the plans must be reviewed and
approved by EED and includes onsite monitoring, on a five year
cycle. The federal government requires the department to
maintain oversight.
10:01:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD returned to her comment regarding the
telephone call she received offering her children free lunch.
To her amazement, she was told that there were no financial
restrictions and the offer was being made to all students.
Additional confusion surrounds the academic challenge aspect of
the funding, and she asked for further clarification. An
analysis may be order, she suggested, if the state is helping
pay for food via welfare, and the federal government is also.
Additionally, share tables, or other means for redistribution,
could be established in cafeterias, to ensure food is not being
wasted, she opined.
10:02:35 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the House Education
Standing Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:03 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| House Education Committee Fed Programs 1 27 15 457pm.pdf |
HEDC 2/2/2015 8:00:00 AM |