03/02/2009 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB147 | |
| HB58 | |
| HB147 | |
| HB126 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 147 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 58 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 126 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 2, 2009
8:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz, Vice Chair
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Robert L. "Bob" Buch
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 147
"An Act repealing the minimum expenditure for instruction
requirements for public schools."
- MOVED HB 147 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 58
"An Act relating to a student loan repayment program for
specified occupations or fields in which a shortage of qualified
employees exists."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 126
"An Act relating to continuing the secondary public education of
a homeless student; relating to the purpose of certain laws as
they relate to children; relating to tuition waivers, loans, and
medical assistance for a child placed in out-of-home care by the
state; relating to foster care; relating to children in need of
aid; relating to foster care transition to independent living;
and relating to juvenile programs and institutions."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 147
SHORT TITLE: EDUCATION FUNDING FOR INSTRUCTION
SPONSOR(s): EDUCATION
02/23/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/23/09 (H) EDC, FIN
03/02/09 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 58
SHORT TITLE: EDUC LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) THOMAS, WILSON, MILLETT
01/20/09 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/09
01/20/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/09 (H) EDC, FIN
03/02/09 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 126
SHORT TITLE: FOSTER CARE/CINA/EDUCATION OF HOMELESS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GARA
02/11/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/11/09 (H) EDC, HSS, FIN
02/25/09 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/25/09 (H) Heard & Held
02/25/09 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/02/09 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
HANNAH HARRISON, Staff
to Representative Paul Seaton
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 147, on behalf of the House
Education Standing Committee, sponsor of the bill, which
Representative Seaton chairs.
RICHARD CARLSON, Superintendent
Klawock City School District
Klawock, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 147.
EUGENE S. AVEY, Superintendent
Annette Island School District
Annette Island, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 147.
JACK WALSH, Superintendent
Bristol Bay Borough School District
Naknek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 147 and, during
the same hearing, stated support for HB 58.
DAVID HERBERT, Superintendent
St. Mary's City School District
St. Mary's, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 147.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL THOMAS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 58, as prime sponsor.
KACI SCHROEDER, Staff
to Representative Bill Thomas
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions on HB 58, on behalf
of Representative Thomas, sponsor.
HANNAH HARRISON, Staff
to Representative Paul Seaton
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 58, responded to
questions.
DIANNE BARRANS, Executive Director
Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 58.
BRYNN KEITH, Research Chief
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 58.
EDDY JEANS, Director
School Finance and Facilities Section
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with official support for HB 147.
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions on HB 126, as prime
sponsor.
LAUREN RICE, Director of Public Affairs
Covenant House Alaska (CHA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 126.
CAROL COMEAU, Superintendent
Anchorage School District
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 126, with
specific concerns.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:03:14 AM
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:03 a.m. Representatives Seaton, Wilson,
Munoz, and Keller were present at the call to order.
Representatives Buch, and Gardner arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
8:03:37 AM
HB 147-EDUCATION FUNDING FOR INSTRUCTION
8:04:37 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 147, "An Act repealing the minimum expenditure
for instruction requirements for public schools."
8:05:19 AM
HANNAH HARRISON, Staff, to Representative Paul Seaton, Alaska
State Legislature, paraphrased from the sponsor statement, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
HB 147 repeals AS 14.17.520, a ten year old provision
in Alaska statutes requiring that 70% of a school
district's operating expenditures be dedicated to the
instructional component of the district budget,
regardless of their geographical location, student
population size, or any other factor. AS 14.17.520 is
considered an accountability measure to ensure school
districts are spending funds on instructional
programs.
The rising cost of education is affecting the way
school districts address their spending. Fuel,
electricity, and building maintenance expenses can
radically change from year to year.
There are two types of school districts that have been
chronically unable to meet the 70% requirement:
districts that have an operating budget of $3 million
or less and those that spend 20% or more of their
budget on operation and maintenance. Currently, if a
school district is unable to meet the 70% requirement,
they must file a waiver through the State Board of
Education & Early Development which can either be
approved or denied. Approval allows the district to
operate with their submitted budget, but requires
justification for their failure to comply with the 70%
requirement. Denial of a waiver can require the
district to revise its budget to meet the 70%.
AS 14.17.520, has become outdated. The current
statewide assessment system is a better accountability
program to determine if school districts are meeting
their student's needs through good instructional
practices. The state assessment system measures
student proficiency in reading, writing and
mathematics from one year to the next. In fact, with
the passage of SB 285 last year the department of
education has the authority and responsibility to
intervene in chronically low performing schools and
districts. SB 285 requires the Department of
Education to redirect school district resources to
improve instructional practice intended to increase
student proficiency. This accountability system
provides a better use of school district and state
resources to increase student achievement.
Repealing AS 14.17.520 will remove the 70% requirement
and waiver process, saving almost half of Alaska's
school districts, the State Board of Education and EED
staff a redundant yearly process that does not measure
the effectiveness or ability of a district to deliver
a quality educational program to its children.
8:08:59 AM
CHAIR SEATON opened public testimony
8:09:29 AM
RICHARD CARLSON, Superintendent, Klawock City School District,
stated support for HB 147, paraphrasing from a written
statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
While I represent the Klawock City School District, it
is worth noting that the State Board of Education, the
Alaska Association of School Boards, and the Alaska
Association of School Administrators have all been
vocally in opposition to the 70 percent rule.
Klawock is a small, single site school, of 125
students, located on Prince of Wales Island in
southeast Alaska. The student demographics include 74
percent Native Alaskan, and 66 percent are
impoverished. If you take a look at the educational
statistics, our school should not be a successful
school; based on what statistics say about minority
and impoverished students. However, our school
district has bucked that trend. We have always made
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), the drop-out rate is
consistently around 2 percent, attendance rate is 95
percent, and test scores are impressive. Most of our
students go on to postsecondary education. Recently
we were named as one of the top high schools in
America by U.S. News and World Report.
By every measure we are a successful school district,
and yet annually, I have to spend a good amount of
time and energy justifying how I expend our money.
Annually I have to write a waiver. And it's not just
the process of writing the waiver. During the coarse
of the year determinations must be made, for instance,
on how much of our time is spent transporting students
to swimming classes; that is considered counted
towards the 70 percent. Or how much our activity
director's time is dedicated towards activities that
would qualify for the 70 percent, for example academic
decathlon or music festival. It becomes extremely
time consuming and burdensome.
It's not so much the time it takes, I get paid to do
that, but it goes more to the core of local control
and who is in the best situation to determine how
money is to be allocated; whether it is an arbitrary
number set in statute, or whether it is people that
serve the school district - school board members and
community members. I would argue that it's the people
closer to the school district who would be the more
appropriate people to make that decision.
At the Klawock City School District we have a mission
statement that highly values providing a well rounded
educational program and educating the whole student.
In our mission statement there is an emphasis on
developing leadership skills, team work, strong work
ethics, and responsibility. Those are sorts of things
that are learned in and outside of the classroom, and
consequently, outside of the 70 percent criteria.
We believe that we are in the best situation to
determine what is in the best interest for our
children, not some arbitrary number set in statute.
On a more practical level, increasing energy costs,
the cost of facilities, and the cost of state and
federal unfunded mandates make it increasingly
difficult to reach the [70] percent.
Clearly we agree that accountability is critical, but
we feel that there are many, many better ways to
determine the success of a school district than to
place an arbitrary number in statute.
Therefore, we very much support HB 147 and the repeal
of the 70 percent rule.
8:16:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON pointed out that some districts provide
pay/benefits to school board members, and asked what the policy
is in Klawock.
MR. CARLSON reported that the members receive $75.00 per month,
which many of them donate back to the district. To a follow-up
question he stated that spouses do not receive travel benefits.
8:17:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER queried how heating cost for a classroom
is considered under the 70:30 rule, and whether those guidelines
are in statute.
MR. CARLSON answered that the guidelines are not in statute, and
that fuel counts against the 70 percent criteria. When the fuel
prices skyrocketed the situation became untenable.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER suggested that a regulation change could
be made to allow a portion of the heating costs to be included
as a cost of education; arguing that a warm classroom is
necessary for instruction.
MR. CARLSON maintained that the issue comes back to local
control and who is making appropriate determinations.
8:18:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ noted the districts declining enrollment
and asked the superintendent to address the topic.
MR. CARLSON stated his belief that southeast Alaska, and
certainly Prince of Wales Island, is experiencing declining
enrollment in general. The exiting senior class, and the
incoming kindergarten numbers, indicates a loss of about five
percent. The fixed costs of operating remain static, however,
and it becomes increasing difficult to meet the 70 percent
requirement. To a further question, he reported that Klawock
has a staff comprised of 3 administrators and 14 certified
teachers.
8:21:02 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to the committee packet and the
waiver requests from the various school districts. He pointed
out that these forms contain pertinent information regarding
each schools budget.
8:22:19 AM
EUGENE S. AVEY, Superintendent, Annette Island School District,
stated support for HB 147, and opined that the existing statute
has become a burden on small school districts. Annette Island
School represents the southern most district of the state. He
credited the dedicated teaching staff as the reason that the
school has met AYP. The 70 percent regulation was originally
placed in statute to raise the level of instruction, however, it
has become overshadowed by the requirements of the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB). It is now an unnecessary mandate that places
undue burdens on school districts that cannot possibly be met
given the rising costs for energy, maintenance, shipping, and
other operational expenses. Creative ideas are cultivated, by
small school districts, in an attempt to meet this unrealistic
requirement. At the Annette Island School District, outside
assistance is employed to ensure that the minimum expenditure
requirement is being met. As a past superintendent of another
rural district, he reported that similar difficulties occurred
and the requirement could not be met. The one-site Rural
Education Attendance Area (REAA) and high impact AYP have been
instrumental for Annette Island School District to achieve the
mandate. He added that many schools cannot send teams to
competitions, due to these expenditure requirements. At the
recent Academic Decathlon competition a low turnout was
experienced. This may possibly be schools cutting these
activities to meet the minimum expenditure requirement and he
posed the question, "But at what cost?" Students miss out when
they are unable to benefit from participating in intramural
events. The NCLB requirement has raised the bar and imposes
standards that parallel the state statute under repeal. Reduce
government bureaucracy, allow local officials to provide
oversight, and trust that the schools have the best interest of
the students in mind, he finished, and urged passage of HB 147.
8:28:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON reiterated her previous question regarding
payment/benefits for members of the Annette Island school board.
MR. AVEY said he believes it is a monthly stipend of $109, the
spouses are not allowed travel privileges. Given the hours they
work, and the activities that they contribute personal money to,
he opined, "I don't think they're really paid .... ... Most
likely it's a wash." To a question from Representative Munoz,
he said that Annette Island is a single site district, with 275
students. The staff includes 30 certified teachers and 3
administrators. The high school has been recognized as a blue
ribbon school, which applies efforts to not only meet AYP, but
to focus on each child and their needs.
8:30:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER inquired if school board members receive
health coverage or other benefits, including travel.
MR. AVEY reported that the members attend one national
conference per year, and participate in state fly-ins once or
twice per year. He opined that the travel money is not lavish,
but well spent. Further, health coverage benefits can be
purchased, however, none of the members take advantage of that
option.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON qualified her line of questioning as a
means to locate the districts which reportedly pay their board
members several thousand dollars.
MR. AVEY noted that higher pay could be an attractive incentive.
8:33:38 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that the retirement system rewrite has
been changed to exclude from Public Employees' Retirement
System/Teacher's Retirement System (PERS/TRS) a school board
member who makes less than $24,000 per year; rectifying a loop
hole that has existed to the detriment of some school districts.
However, there are school districts that pay board members as
much as $2,100 per month, but it does not count towards the 70
percent requirement.
8:35:33 AM
JACK WALSH, Superintendent, Bristol Bay Borough School District,
stated support for HB 147. Bristol Bay is a small district,
serving Naknek, South Naknek, and King Salmon, with a
significantly declining enrollment; currently 144 students. In
the history of Bristol Bay the population trend is cyclical,
thus the decline may take an upward turn in the near future.
The 70:30 issue has been a challenge for many districts, he
opined. The Bristol Bay schools have met their AYP requirements
under NCLB; however, with the NCLB bar rising, and enrollments
declining, the margin of error is reduced, and meeting AYP may
become more difficult in the future. He said it is important to
understand that AYP does not directly relate to this
legislation, and may or may not be impacted as a result of
repealing the 70:30 statute. Student success and progress is a
greater indicator of a district's accountability than anything
else, he opined. Every year Bristol Bay requests a waiver,
although the budget is above the $3 million dollar mark;
approximately $3.5 million. The district employs fifteen
teachers, four support staff, along with one full-time
administrator and one part-time administrator, both of whom are
certified teachers. Operational costs consume 10 percent of the
budget; despite the decline in enrollment, the 90,000 square
foot building must be maintained. Neither the transportation
costs [nor maintenance costs] are reduced when enrollment
declines. He opined that passage of HB 147 may be the best step
towards helping the rural school scenario.
8:41:20 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether a new school would reflect a savings
in operating costs.
MR. WALSH responded that, although the school is an older
building, it is well maintained. Some costs may be saved, but
measures have been taken to minimize heating costs by utilizing
recovered waste heat from the electric company; no diesel is
used and the building has no furnace/boiler. However, as the
utility company upgrades to more efficient equipment, waste heat
is being minimized, and he acknowledged that he may be looking
for capital improvement money in the future to secure a
different heat source.
CHAIR SEATON indicated interest regarding how operational costs
at new schools compare with older facilities and how these
expenditures effect the 70:30 requirements.
8:43:45 AM
MR. WALSH responded to the question from Representative Wilson,
stating that Bristol Bay has a five member school board, which
meets locally on a regular basis and participates in state fly-
ins once or twice per year. Each member is allowed $50.00 per
meeting, including per diem. A policy allows them to qualify
for health insurance, although none of them subscribe. He said
that there is no indication that board privileges are ever
abused.
8:45:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if the administrative office is in
Naknek.
MR. WALSH said, yes. The nearest administrative office is 12
miles down the road, however.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired about the districts ability to
attract and retain teaching staff.
MR. WALSH indicated that, despite the lack of infrastructure
amenities, the staff continues to be stable, and locating good
teachers has not been an issue. The district does provide a
$1,500 moving allowance for teachers, and the new hire starting
wage is $40,000 per year, he reported. The turnover is about 20
percent, but is primarily experienced in the administrative
staff.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if the local young people are
encouraged to become teachers.
MR. WALSH responded that many of the students have taken that
path, and the staff includes several lifelong Alaskans as
teachers. A Future Teacher's of America (FTA) program is being
developed to encourage interest in the teaching profession.
8:48:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER queried if the 70 percent law has changed
how district funds are distributed.
MR. WALSH answered that fund distribution is effected, in order
to maintain compliance. Whenever a new program and a
maintenance project are considered, the 70 percent rule must be
weighed against the need. Also, budget line items are often
amended.
8:49:53 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked what adjustments are made.
MR. WALSH said that primarily maintenance has been set aside.
The reading and writing performance for students, along with
math, could use some academic specialists, however, it is a
struggle to accomplish this goal.
8:50:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON noted that transportation for student
activities appears to be an issue, and asked how that is
accomplished.
MR. WALSH indicated that $40,000 is included for student travel,
and funds are raised in the community to help students attend
activities.
8:52:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER suggested that employing a reading
specialist would improve the schools instructional component to
meet the 70:30.
MR. WALSH agreed, and also concurred with Chair Seaton that the
stimulus for such action is consideration for the students, but
the measurement tool is AYP.
8:53:42 AM
MR. WALSH, prior to his departure, stated support for HB 58 that
will be subsequently addressed by the committee today.
8:54:04 AM
DAVID HERBERT, Superintendent, St. Mary's City School District,
stated support for HB 147, and reported that his district has
met the optimal zero level for AYP. St. Mary's services 185
students, employing 14 certified teachers, and 3 administrative
staff; two full-time and one half-time. Fuel costs are a major
factor for meeting the 70:30 requirement, as the fuel barge
makes delivery once per year, and whatever the cost is at that
time will effect the year's budget, including the allotment for
transportation. Additionally, this is a single site school
district, serving a first class city, and has a budget just
under $3,000.000. During the four years he has served as an
administrator, he said that each year a waiver has been
requested. The school board reviews all budget expenditures,
along with an outside financial auditing firm. Each year effort
must be expended on generating the documentation to submit a
waiver. Students are being well educated, but the 70:30
requirement cannot be met, despite frugal practices. The
department does not tend to deny waivers, although this year
there were additional questions to be considered. He stressed
that the funds are well spent and this regulation is no longer
necessary. Finally, he said the board members attend the Alaska
Association of School Board fly-ins and on occasion attend job
fairs to hire teachers.
8:59:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked whether the superintendent would
consider the additional questions indicative of harassment on
the part of the department.
MR. HERBERT explained that the waiver request format was changed
this year, and upon approval, EED required additional questions
regarding expenditure activity. He declined to conjecture why
these questions were put forward by the department.
9:01:06 AM
CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony and set the bill aside for
further consideration following the subsequent agenda item.
HB 58-EDUC LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM
9:01:26 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 58, "An Act relating to a student loan repayment
program for specified occupations or fields in which a shortage
of qualified employees exists."
9:02:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BILL THOMAS, Alaska State Legislature, presented
the CS for HB 58, to the committee.
9:02:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ moved to adopt CSHB 58, 26-LS0307\P,
Mischel, 2/25/09.
CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion.
9:02:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS introduced the proposed CS changes,
paraphrasing from a prepared statement , which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Section 1:
Findings and Purpose: remains the same.
Establishes that the purpose of the bill is to provide
financial incentives to students who return to Alaska
to work.
Section 2:
Remains the same. Allows Alaska Student Loan
Commission to perform duties assigned by the Alaska
qualified employee recruitment loan repayment program.
(Technical conforming language.)
Section 3:
Remains the same. Allows the Executive Director
of the Alaska Student Loan Commission to administer
the Alaska qualified recruitment loan repayment
program. (Technical conforming language.)
Section 4:
Remains the same. Allows unrestricted capital
monies made available to Alaska Student Loan
Corporation to be appropriated to the loan repayment
program.
Section 5:
Changed Eligibility Criteria
HB 58 [reads] - In order to be eligible for the
program the student must:
1.) Be a resident of the state when applying
2.) Be employed in a specified field:
a. Biologist
b. Education
c. Dentist
d. Nursing
Changed in CS - In order to be eligible for the
program the student must:
1.) Be a resident at the time of applying
for the program
2.) Is working full time in a field
determined by the Department of Labor to be in a
shortage in the state.
3.) Applicant began working in the
designated field in Alaska within four years of
attaining his/her degree
4.) Student received a loan from the Alaska
Student Loan Corporation
Changed Conditions and Limitations on Loan Repayment
Clarified that the loan repayment will only be
for the outstanding loan amount at the time of the
application to the program. Therefore if a student
elects to pay some of the loan on their own, the state
will not be reimbursing them for payments already
made.
9:04:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked for clarity on how qualification for
the program works, and what will occur if the critical workforce
areas change in the four years that a student is Outside
attaining their degree.
KACI SCHROEDER, Staff, to Representative Bill Thomas, Alaska
State Legislature, responded that reimbursement occurs when the
student returns to the state and takes up employment. Further,
she said that the Department of Labor & Workforce Development
(DLWD) does not anticipate changes to occur rapidly in deficit
employment areas.
9:05:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER inquired whether the CS affects the fiscal
note.
MS. SCHROEDER said the available fiscal note does not reflect
the CS.
CHAIR SEATON interjected that a fiscal note will be tailored for
the CS, if it is adopted.
9:06:17 AM
CHAIR SEATON removed his objection and CSHB 58, Version P, was
before the committee.
9:06:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS explained how the reported lack of
professional biologists and nursing field employees has been the
impetus for this bill. He identified the problem as being an
exodus of students, attending universities Outside, and not
returning to Alaska to fulfill their careers. The loan
forgiveness incentive applies to working in rural and urban
Alaska, and requires the employee to make a work commitment of
four to six years. Further, he pointed out that the gas
pipeline will require a large workforce, and college training
should be encouraged for this effort. A repayment program
incentive has been in existence, however, he opined, it is in
need of revitalization. Although the fiscal note is high, the
need for this program is high, also.
9:12:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ referred to Sec. 4, and asked about the
dividend repayment to the Alaska Student Loan Corporation
(ASLC).
MS. SCHROEDER explained that current statute allows ASLC to pay
any excess money to the state, and the new language allows the
money to be made available to the proposed program.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked for clarity on the funding source for
the program.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that it will be capitalized and consist
of appropriations made by the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ queried what the recommended amount is for
the capitalization.
MS. SCHROEDER indicated that, without a CS fiscal note to refer
to, she would defer to EED for an answer.
CHAIR SEATON clarified that this capitalization is from the
general fund.
9:14:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked if this program applies to Alaska
residents only, and whether any loan repayments would be made
outside of the state.
MS. SCHROEDER directed attention to page 3, lines 25-28, to
respond to the residency question. She paraphrased the bill
language, which reads: "... the applicant is a resident of the
state at the time of submitting the application and during the
loan repayment period;" and Page 4 language establishes that the
recipient is required to be a resident during the repayment
period. However, she pointed out, the proposed amendment
removes the residency requirement. If residency is required
prior to the assistance being available, it creates an
unintended penalty phase where a student returning to the state
cannot benefit until residency is once again established.
9:16:06 AM
CHAIR SEATON referred to page 3, line 6, to read: "repayment of
education loans from the corporation under the program ...", and
pointed out that any loans being paid back must have originated
with ASLC and excludes loans from other states, agencies, or
private funding.
MS. SCHROEDER said, "Correct."
9:17:09 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to the CS and asked for
justification on the changes of the eligibility criteria.
MS. SCHROEDER indicted that the eligibility criteria begins on
page 3. The recipient is required to be a resident but is
allowed a four year grace period to begin work in their chosen
field. The intent is to ensure that the student does not remain
ten years out of state before deciding to return to Alaska. The
four year period will serve as an allowance time to attain any
required license to practice. Further, the recipient must
remain employed in Alaska, the loan must have originated with
the ASLC, and it is the purview of DLWD to determine the
workforce shortages that are covered. The conditions and
limitations on the payback schedule have also been clarified in
the CS to indicate that any payments a student may have
previously made on the loan, will not be reimbursable.
9:19:27 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked about the repayment rates for rural versus
urban work.
MS. SCHROEDER described the repayment for rural work as four
years, or 25 percent, and six years, or 16.67 percent per year
in urban areas. To a follow up question from Chair Seaton, she
explained that the basis for the difference is to attract
professionals to rural areas, where there is a deficiency; loan
repayment is expected to be an attractive incentive. Further,
the expectation is that a professional, such as a teacher,
having become established over a four year period, may choose to
stay.
9:21:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH referred to page 4, line 11, and commented
on the vagueness of the language authorizing DLWD to specify
occupational shortages. He asked what means will be used to
identify applicants for this program.
MS. SCHROEDER said that DLWD tracks the employment trends across
the state, publishing an informative analysis every two years,
as well as providing a monthly magazine "Economic Trends."
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH maintained that [subsection (b)] seems
vague, despite the other specifics requirements contained in the
bill.
9:23:32 AM
HANNAH HARRISON, Staff, to Representative Paul Seaton, Alaska
State Legislature, offered that the bill originally addressed
specific occupations. However, during the drafting of the bill
it was decided that DLWD would be the fundamental source for
identifying which occupations indicate a 15 percent or higher
vacancy, or are otherwise experiencing a shortage.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH upheld the need to have clarity imbedded in
the bill; additional criteria, and identified jobs.
9:26:09 AM
CHAIR SEATON made a request that DLWD provide the committee a
list of the university majors that apply to this aspect of the
bill. Further, he conjectured that a student could take a loan
under this program, attend a four year university, and return to
Alaska to find that their major is no longer considered a
deficient category. Given the scenario of a job dropping off
the list, how will reimbursement be handled, he asked.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that once an applicant is accepted into
the program, the reimbursement will be made, whether or not the
degree they hold has dropped off of the DLWD list.
CHAIR SEATON underscored that statute must be clear, regarding
these qualifications.
9:28:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ agreed with the need for clarity, and also
suggested that flexibility is important to reflect the changing
needs of the state.
MS. SCHROEDER explained that the entire list would be expansive,
and was intentionally omitted so as to avoid a Christmas tree
bill.
9:29:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked for a description of the process
used to qualify a job and specify it as eligible for the
program.
MS. SCHROEDER indicated that it is a complex process and
deferred to DLWD.
9:30:27 AM
DIANNE BARRANS, Executive Director, Alaska Commission on
Postsecondary Education, said it is important to have a clear
intent in a bill, so as to not put an agency in a compromising
position. Unless full funding is received, administrative
decisions will need to be made regarding which occupations will
receive benefits and the state regions that require focused
effort. An example is the teaching profession. In some
regions, such as Southcentral, the teaching profession would not
be identified as experiencing a shortage, but in other regions
this is a high priority deficit occupation. She suggested that
the bill language allow the commission to impose certain
principles related to public interest emphasis or emergency
workforce decisions. This would also facilitate regulation
drafting and program implementation.
9:32:22 AM
CHAIR SEATON requested that Ms. Barrans work with the sponsor on
improving the bill language, and she agreed.
9:32:48 AM
BRYNN KEITH, Research Chief, Division of Administrative
Services, Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD),
said, "Regrettably, the [DLWD] doesn't have a handy list of
shortage occupations." Assessing a shortage requires many
considerations, but it is basically a supply and demand
situation. The department has an abundance of information
regarding the demand for specific workforce positions, however,
the knowledge of how many skilled workers are available, and
residing in Alaska is elusive. Thus, establishing the shortage
figure is difficult. Proxy measures are utilized, one being to
chart, by occupation, the percentage of non-residents employed.
Although there are many reasons that an employer hires a non-
resident, the policy assumption is that the hire was made based
on the lack of available local talent. The non-resident report
is produced annually, as well as a projection for future demand
by occupation. Every two years, the department releases a
forecast of future occupational demands. The 2009 forecast
projects through 2016, she said, and expressed confidence in the
report as a potential shortage indicator. Shortages occur due
to growth/expansion in a particular field, as well as the
retirement factor, and the data reflects these variables, she
said. A definitive answer does not exist, however, these
measures are helpful.
9:35:22 AM
CHAIR SEATON requested that Ms. Keith join the afore mentioned
work group, including the bill sponsor, to identify fields of
study that this bill could incorporate, and mechanisms that
could be employed to ascertain appropriate loan reimbursements.
9:36:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER confirmed that DLWD identifies potential
shortage areas but does not prioritize vocations.
MS. KEITH stated that the research and analysis section does not
prioritize occupations, it produces data on which policy
decisions can be made. The Alaska Workforce Investment Board
does prioritize occupations for various reasons; largely to
funnel training dollars.
9:37:29 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated that the bill would be held.
9:37:53 AM
HB 147-EDUCATION FUNDING FOR INSTRUCTION
9:38:30 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 147, "An Act repealing the minimum expenditure
for instruction requirements for public schools."
9:38:57 AM
EDDY JEANS, Director, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), stated
official support for HB 147. He explained that the 70 percent
requirement rule was passed in 1978, when the state first
implemented an accountability system. At the same time an
assessment system was also implemented. With the enactment of
the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), new assessment levels have
been established, which is proving to be a better measurement of
student achievement than the original effort established by the
state. To expect that every district can meet the 70 percent
requirement is now unreasonable. He identified two specific
areas that are primarily affected: schools with a budget of
$3,000,000 or less, and districts with operation/maintenance
costs that require 20 percent of their budgeted funds.
9:41:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER inquired how the 30 percent instructional
component is defined and reviewed.
MR. JEANS responded that the definition is in regulation. It
specifies the categories of expenditure requirements:
instruction, special education, support services, and school
operations. These are the areas that the department has
understood as instructional expenditures.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked if it would be possible to review
the inclusive elements and add fuel costs; could that be
considered a valid waiver item.
MR. JEANS said fuel costs are a reason that a district would
make a request, however, the department has already identified a
pattern, via the economy of scale, and know which schools will
routinely be requesting a waiver.
9:44:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER referred to today's previous testimony,
which indicates that a significant amount of work is involved in
attaining a waiver. He asked whether the zero fiscal note
implies that the department's workload to process waivers is
insignificant.
MR. JEANS affirmed that the department is providing a zero
fiscal note, however, the scrutiny of district budget reviews
will continue to be of a high level, and require substantial
amounts of time. The overall reduction of departmental effort
surrounding the waiver request is minimal. However, he allowed,
the districts do expend considerable effort preparing the
requests. Mr. Jeans cited the St. Mary's district, as an
example. The districts students perform at a high level, which
should be the performance measure rather than identifying
whether an appropriate percentage of funds were used for
instruction. Following a comment from Chair Seaton, he
confirmed that the 2008 passage of SB 285 provided the
department the authority, as well as a directive, to work with
low performing schools/districts.
9:47:06 AM
CHAIR SEATON referred to the previous questions of funding
school board member travel and spousal privileges. He asked if
this bill preserves the department's ability to provide
oversight and appropriate determination of activities that may
not promote student achievement.
MR. JEANS opined that the existing legislation is straight
forward; either a district meets the 70 percent rule or not.
Flexibility is not built in to the regulation, and a report may
be received that a district has misappropriated funds. However,
he stressed, this is not the mechanism to address school
districts possible abuse of funds. When a district has low
student performance, the miss direction of funding is clear, and
the department can then take action, as allowed under SB 285.
Additionally, he recalled that the department has recommended to
the state board to not grant a waiver; perhaps two or three
instances. When this occurs the superintendants are able to
appeal before the board to have the waiver granted. The
department takes the waiver responsibility seriously, he
stressed.
9:50:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked what alterations would be necessary
to make a waiver acceptable, if it is initially denied.
MR. JEANS explained that the waiver must match what the
districts budget indicates. Exchange between the department and
district also occurs when identical waiver request letters are
received, in which only the date has been altered. This is not
a rubber stamp process, he stressed.
9:51:34 AM
CHAIR SEATON named the entities supporting HB 147, including
EED, school board association administrators, and school
superintendents.
9:52:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER stated that he is not able to support HB
147, and requested that it be held for an amendment to refine
the instructional definition component, rather than repeal the
law.
CHAIR SEATON called for further discussion and suggested that a
conceptual amendment be offered.
9:55:07 AM
MR. JEANS clarified that the previously mentioned instructional
component categories are listed in regulation, not statute. He
cited the enumerated items, under regulation 4 AAC 09.115, which
reads:
4 AAC 09.115. Minimum expenditure for instruction
The department will calculate each district's required
minimum expenditure for instruction under AS 14.17.520
based upon the district's school operating fund
expenditures reported under the uniform chart of
accounts required under 4 AAC 06.120. The
instructional component of a district's budget
consists of expenditures in the following functional
uniform chart of accounts categories:
(1) 100 - Instruction;
(2) 200 - Special Education Instruction;
(3) 220 - Special Education Support Services -
Student;
(4) 300 - Support Services - Students;
(5) 350 - Support Services - Instruction.; and
(6) 400 - School Administration.
MR. JEANS pointed out that item (6), School Administration,
includes principals but not secretarial staff.
9:55:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER withdrew his request to hold the bill for
amendment, but maintained his objection to passing the repeal.
9:56:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ moved to report HB 147 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected.
9:56:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER expounded on the role of the public school
system in the community, particularly rural or small
communities, which, although important and good, are not aspects
of education. There is nothing in statute that delineates
between these roles. He maintained that the existing statute
provides a useful tool that has helped to ensure the direction,
and accountability of funding use for educational purposes. The
school facilities/transportation are often the best and most
vital in a community; perhaps even offering a nutritional
program, and a place to stay overnight. Local school boards are
under pressure to divert core funding from classroom instruction
and have it sidelined to these other uses and needs of adults in
the system. Although the existing law may be a crude tool, he
insisted it is working, and he reviewed points of the day's
testimony. The laws cannot define what is best for a student.
The funding formula does not incentivize proficiency, it has
been left to the accountability system imposed on the state. He
recalled Mr. Jeans's statement regarding the dialogue with the
districts, generated by waiver requests that will be lost with
this repeal. Finally, he argued that SB 285 does not afford the
legislature the same control or involvement.
10:01:32 AM
CHAIR SEATON countered that better, modern instruments now exist
to measure progress and accountability; outdating the means that
this original legislation set forth. Every school should be
seen for its individual needs, and be scrutinized by the local
school board, rather than having a blunt tool with blanket
requirements wielded. Maintaining the 70 percent rule would
require allowing some of the categories to be re-directed, "just
to fudge the numbers," he opined. Additionally, there is a huge
discrepancy between schools and the maintenance required
depending on the age of the building and the funding that has
been provided to upgrade a communities facilities. "I think the
tool is blunter than it should be," he finished.
10:04:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said that, regarding the construction and
facilities costs, it is because of the existing statute that the
committee is aware of the situation. Further, the zero fiscal
note indicates that it does not cost to continue this
regulation. He agreed that the school districts resent the
paperwork involved, although the actual time spent writing the
waiver is not lengthy. He pointed out that the tough part of
requesting a waiver is making decisions and scrutinizing how to
spend the money. That is precisely what makes this a valuable
tool, he opined.
10:05:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON stated her support for the bill, and
offered that if a school is making AYP, it is obvious that the
funds are being well utilized. The majority of school boards
want the best for their students, thus this is not a rural
versus urban concern. She voiced support for local control in
the districts, and opined that the sideboards are in place to
deal with a school that does not perform.
10:07:38 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Munoz, Wilson,
Buch, and Seaton voted in favor of reporting HB 147 from
committee. Representatives Keller and Gardner voted against it.
Therefore, HB 147 was reported out of the House Education
Standing Committee by a vote of 4-2.
10:08:20 AM
HB 126-FOSTER CARE/CINA/EDUCATION OF HOMELESS
10:08:46 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 126, "An Act relating to continuing the secondary
public education of a homeless student; relating to the purpose
of certain laws as they relate to children; relating to tuition
waivers, loans, and medical assistance for a child placed in
out-of-home care by the state; relating to foster care; relating
to children in need of aid; relating to foster care transition
to independent living; and relating to juvenile programs and
institutions."
10:09:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, availed
himself to the committee.
10:09:42 AM
CHAIR SEATON opened public testimony.
10:09:50 AM
LAUREN RICE, Director of Public Affairs, Covenant House Alaska
(CHA), stated support for HB 126 paraphrasing from a prepared
statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Nearly 50% of CHA youth have been involved with the
foster care system at some point in their lives. They
arrive on our door step with a plastic bag full of a
few belongings. Many of these youth survive for a few
months after being released from care, but find at the
young age of 18 they don't have the resources and life
skills required to live completely independently on
their own. After living traumatized lives, they are
faced with a new trauma and a new set of dangers that
homelessness presents.
We know more today about what our foster care youth
need than we have ever known in the past. Some of
this is research based, some learned from hard, tragic
lessons, but the vast majority of this information
comes directly from the graduates of the foster care
system. They've come back to us, as advocates for the
new generation, telling us exactly what they needed,
exactly what did not work and exactly how we can help
fix the system. To fail to hear their crystal clear
voices would be huge disservice to them as well as the
little ones who are still navigating and coping with
the foster care system.
We know we can lesson trauma by ensuring our children
may attend their home school despite foster care
placement changes. Allowing youth to have consistency
with their teachers and schoolmates when every other
aspect of their life is uncertain is essential. We
know monthly visits increase the likelihood that abuse
and neglect do not go undetected. This is absolutely
essential to keeping our kids safe. We know that our
older youth, just like any other teen, need
transitional assistance to make it safely to
adulthood.
This legislation is fundamentally about providing to
our foster care youth the resources we would naturally
provide to our own children. Few of us cut the cord
when our kids turn 18 and refuse to assist with
educational, occupational and housing needs. This
bill ensures that while we cannot completely erase the
trauma endured by foster care children, we can lesson
it. We can actively take steps to help them in a
responsible, reasonable fashion.
CHA supports this bill and supports the ongoing
conversation about improving the lives of Alaska's
foster care youth.
10:14:25 AM
CAROL COMEAU, Superintendent, Anchorage School District, stated
support for the bill, with two areas of concern. First, she
said, transportation may not be adequately addressed, and
requires further definition. Then, directing attention to HB
126 [Version S], page 2, subsection (b), paragraph (2), she
read:
the superintendent of the school district makes a
written finding that a waiver of the requirements is
in the student's best academic interest and the
finding is mailed to the school board and to the
person in charge of children's services for the
Department of Health and Social Services.
MS. COMEAU rhetorically asked what the criteria will be and how
the decision will be made. She offered to work with the bill
sponsor on these concerns.
10:17:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she shared the same concern,
regarding paragraph (2), and pointed out that it has been
addressed in an amendment before the committee. If adopted, the
amendment will serve to delete that language.
10:18:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that the two amendments allay both
of superintendant Comeau's concerns. Amendment 1 addresses the
question, "What is [the] new process we're going to come up with
to allow an exception if we think the child should move to a new
school?" During the school year a foster child may change
residences 5-15 times, and the effort is primarily to keep them
in the same school. A measure should exist to allow the
appropriate decision to be made. The McKinney-Vento [Homeless
Education Assistance Improvement Act of 2001] is being
incorporated into HB 126, and it provides the necessary
standards. McKinney-Vento allows transportation support for a
student to remain in the school of origin throughout the school
year. The procedures under this act stipulate that the youth
should be kept in the school of origin unless the youth,
guardian, or parents represent the need to change. The Alaskan
school system has already been using this procedure for the
class of students who are covered; homeless, and those awaiting
foster care.
10:20:18 AM
CHAIR SEATON interjected a word of caution when incorporating
federal law into state statute, and asked for further details.
10:20:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA directed attention to HB 126 page 1, section
1, which incorporates the McKinney-Vento Act [lines 12-13], and
said the goal of the section is this:
Right now there's federal funding to keep children in
the same school, with the exceptions that are in the
federal statute .... There's a federal law that says,
for children who are homeless, and ... foster children
in emergency care, or awaiting foster care, ... there
is federal funding to provide transportation to ...
the ... school [of origin]. There has been a national
movement in the foster care field to ... allow all
foster youth, as they get bounced between placements,
to stay in the same school, under the same standards.
This legislation would ... provide funding to allow
school districts to keep all foster youth, not just
those awaiting foster care, but those also in foster
care who get bounced between homes, in the same
school. Rather than come up with a different state
standard ... we're going to ... incorporate the
standards that the school districts have already been
using with McKinney-Vento, for those [children] who
are already covered.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that this eliminates the need to
generate new standards. It also eliminates the conflict of
standards for determining eligibility of children awaiting,
versus already in, foster care. He pointed out that there has
been no indication that McKinney-Vento doesn't work.
10:22:41 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated his concern for the scope of the McKinney-
Vento Act, and asked what aspects would be adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA agreed that the Act is expansive, however,
the bill only incorporates the language "that says funding
available to keep children in the same school where
appropriate." Section 1 expands the class of foster children,
to include all foster children, who are eligible for
transportation services.
10:23:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER offered her understanding of the federal
aspect being adopted. She said, currently, a student awaiting
foster care placement is covered under McKinney-Vento, but once
placed, they are no longer eligible and lose the transportation
benefit; possibly necessitating a change of school.
10:24:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked about the recovery of transportation
costs, and whether HB 126, incorporating McKinney-Vento, is the
vehicle required to recuperate the $175,000, deficit that the
Anchorage school district experienced.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that the foster youth
transportation program experienced a shortfall of $175,000; a
deficit paid by the Anchorage school district.
MS. COMEAU interjected that the district used $175,000 from the
district's general fund allocation. Although the youth met the
federal criteria, additional funding was not received. The bill
represents an expansion, and should be valid to recoup this
year's deficit, she opined.
10:26:43 AM
CHAIR SEATON recalled a competitive grant of $170,000 received
by the state, and asked for comment.
MS. COMEAU clarified that the district exceeded the general fund
appropriation by $175,000, to pay transportation costs for these
youth. She deferred to Mr. Jeans to explain the receipt and
disbursement of the Title I funding, under which McKinney-Vento
is allotted.
CHAIR SEATON said this question would be reviewed at a future
meeting. He then requested information on Amendment 2.
10:28:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that Amendment 2 funds the two
non-state entity requirements established in HB 126. The first
is the provision to keep children in the school of origin, as
they are bounced between foster homes, and the second is a
request for the university to provide financial assistance. The
requirements of these provisions are contingent on receipt of
legislative funding. If the legislature provides funding then
the university and school districts must comply, but if not
funded, the mandate ceases.
CHAIR SEATON made a request for further information regarding
financing procedures.
10:30:07 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated that public testimony would remain open.
Further, he noted that the amendments are extensive and said
time will be allowed at the next hearing to consider the
content.
10:30:14 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 126 amendment.pdf |
HEDC 3/2/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 126 |
| HB 126 amendment II.pdf |
HEDC 3/2/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 126 |
| hb 126 materials.pdf |
HEDC 2/25/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/2/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/9/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 126 |
| workdraft HB 126.pdf |
HEDC 2/25/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/2/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/9/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 126 |
| HB 147 material.pdf |
HEDC 3/2/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 147 |
| HB 58 material.pdf |
HEDC 3/2/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 58 |
| new HB 126 material including new fiscal notes.pdf |
HEDC 3/2/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 126 |
| HB 58 fiscal note.pdf |
HEDC 3/2/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 amendment.pdf |
HEDC 3/2/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 58 |