04/08/2009 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB59 | |
| SB57 | |
| HB215 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 215 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 59 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
April 8, 2009
8:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz, Vice Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Robert L. "Bob" Buch
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 59
"An Act providing for the establishment of a statewide early
childhood education plan and guidelines."
- MOVED HB 59 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 57(FIN)
"An Act relating to charter and alternative school funding."
- MOVED CSSB 57 (FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 215
"An Act relating to student counts for school funding purposes;
and repealing school experience for salary scales provisions."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 59
SHORT TITLE: PRE-ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROGRAMS/PLANS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KAWASAKI, GARA, TUCK, PETERSEN
01/20/09 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/09
01/20/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/09 (H) EDC, FIN
04/06/09 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/06/09 (H) Heard & Held
04/06/09 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/08/09 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: SB 57
SHORT TITLE: CHARTER SCHOOL FUNDING
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) THOMAS
01/21/09 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/16/09
01/21/09 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/09 (S) EDC, FIN
01/29/09 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
01/29/09 (S) Heard & Held
01/29/09 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
02/02/09 (S) EDC RPT 4DP
02/02/09 (S) DP: ELTON, OLSON, DAVIS, HUGGINS
02/02/09 (S) EDC AT 8:00 AM BELTZ 211
02/02/09 (S) Moved SB 57 Out of Committee
02/02/09 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
02/04/09 (S) EDC AT 8:00 AM BELTZ 211
02/04/09 (S) If Necessary
02/06/09 (S) EDC AT 8:00 AM BELTZ 211
02/06/09 (S) If Necessary
02/27/09 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
02/27/09 (S) Heard & Held
02/27/09 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/01/09 (S) FIN RPT CS 6DP NEW TITLE
04/01/09 (S) DP: HOFFMAN, STEDMAN, HUGGINS, THOMAS,
OLSON, ELLIS
04/01/09 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/01/09 (S) Moved CSSB 57(FIN) Out of Committee
04/01/09 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/03/09 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/03/09 (S) VERSION: CSSB 57(FIN)
04/06/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/06/09 (H) EDC, FIN
04/08/09 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 215
SHORT TITLE: STUDENT COUNTS/TEACHERS' SALARIES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) WILSON
04/03/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/03/09 (H) EDC
04/08/09 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT KAWASAKI
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as one of the prime sponsors of HB
59.
EDDIE JEANS, Director
School Finance and Facilities Section
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 59, answered
questions.
LAURY SCANDLING, Assistant Superintendent
Juneau School District
City & Borough of Juneau
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on SB 57.
BRAD FAULKNER, Member
Academic Policy Committee
Fireweed Academy
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSSB 57(FIN).
JEFF FRIEDMAN, President
Anchorage School Board
Municipality of Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 57.
TODD HINDMAN, Lead Teacher
Anvil City Science Academy
Nome, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of the Nome Public Schools Board
of Education and the Academic Policy Committee of the Anvil City
Science Academy, testified in support of SB 57.
NANCY WAGNER, Superintendent
Fairbanks North Star School District
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 57.
JOHN WEETMAN, Assistant Superintendent
Mat-Su Borough School District
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support for SB 57.
BRENDA TAYLOR, President
Academic Policy Committee
Juneau Community Charter School
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committee to work on SB 57 in as
expeditious a manner as possible.
EDDIE JEANS, Director
School Finance and Facilities Section
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of CSSB 57(FIN), answered
questions.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the prime sponsor of HB 215.
DANIEL DISTEFANO, Staff
Representative Peggy Wilson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 215 on behalf of the prime
sponsor, Representative Wilson.
EDDIE JEANS, Director
School Finance and Facilities Section
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 215, answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:01:11 AM
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:01 a.m. Representatives Seaton, Wilson,
Edgmon, Keller, Munoz, Gardner, and Buch were present at the
call to order.
HB 59-PRE-ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROGRAMS/PLANS
8:01:31 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 59 "An Act providing for the establishment of a
statewide early childhood education plan and guidelines."
8:02:51 AM
CHAIR SEATON reminded the committee that public testimony had
been closed at the prior hearing.
8:03:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved that the committee adopt Amendment
1, labeled 26-LS0329\E.2, Mischel, 4/6/09, which read:
Page 4, line 24, following "a":
Insert "progress"
8:03:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT KAWASAKI, Alaska State Legislature,
explained that Amendment 1 is in recognition that the department
may not be able to complete the report on a specific deadline,
and therefore Amendment 1 provides a progress report in terms of
what this committee desires with Pre-Kindergarten (Pre-K)
programs.
8:04:02 AM
CHAIR SEATON objected to Amendment 1 for purposes of discussion.
8:04:55 AM
CHAIR SEATON removed his objection. There being no further
objections, Amendment 1 was adopted.
8:05:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved that the committee adopt Amendment
2, labeled 26-LS0329\E.1, Mischel, 4/6/09, which read:
Page 3, line 27:
Delete "three and four years of age"
CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion purposes.
8:05:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI explained that Amendment 2 removes the
age stipulation so that all students can be involved and the
department can decide how best to stipulate the age for Pre-K.
He noted his understanding that the department's intent is to
proceed with three to four years of age. Representative
Kawasaki pointed out that there's a forthcoming amendment that
dovetails with Amendment 2.
8:06:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER requested that Amendment 1 be withdrawn
and the forthcoming amendment, which is broader in scope, be
considered.
CHAIR SEATON withdrew his objection to Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON withdrew her motion to adopt Amendment 2.
8:07:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 3, as follows:
Page 3, lines 26-27, following "plan for"
Delete "students three and four years of age"
Insert "families with preschool children"
CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion purposes.
8:08:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked if there is a specific reason to use
the term "families."
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER clarified that the intent is to change the
focus from students to families because parents have
jurisdiction over their children from birth to school. He
opined that parents are uniquely designed to know the
individuality of each child more than anyone else. Therefore,
it makes more sense to work with the parents in the education
program. He said he's more comfortable with giving parents the
resources to work with their children, which has been successful
in Hoonah.
8:10:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON inquired as to how the three- and four-
year-olds who do not live in a traditional family structure but
rather have a guardian ad litem or foster parents would fit into
Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER specified that the term "family" is not
defined and doesn't presume a traditional family structure. He
said that he hadn't felt being explicit with the definition of
"family" was necessary.
8:11:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that this is a significant
shift in the thinking about preschool education. She opined
that working with families is an appropriate approach because
not every child needs to attend preschool.
8:11:58 AM
CHAIR SEATON expressed concern that HB 59, which is about
education, is now asking the department to write a plan for
families. Is that the intent, he asked.
8:12:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER pointed out that Amendment 3 maintains the
language "devise a statewide early childhood education plan".
Furthermore, the legislation specifies that the early childhood
education plan is optional. He said he envisions a resource
center from which families can obtain resources to prepare their
children for education.
8:13:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON indicated that she liked Amendment 3 as it
addresses the entire family.
8:14:22 AM
CHAIR SEATON offered a friendly amendment to include the
language "students and family" to allow the early education plan
to focus on an individual child while involving the entire
family.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER opposed the aforementioned suggestion
because when a child is taken out of the home, the state
struggles with the parental role. The Office of Children's
Services (OCS) holds the responsibility for the child and in a
sense becomes the family for a child taken from his/her home.
Representative Keller opined that using the language "student"
may imply that the Department of Education and Early Development
(EED) takes the jurisdiction and responsibility for the child,
which he wasn't sure is the desire.
8:16:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ stated support for the amendment [to
Amendment 3], but pointed out that there seems to be a semantics
issue with the language as it seems to indicate a student could
have a child in preschool.
8:17:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked if Chair Seaton's concern would be
addressed by inserting the language "who will become students"
following "children".
8:17:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI said that he wasn't sure how the policy
would be impacted in those instances in which a student doesn't
have a family. Furthermore, he questioned having EED write
policy to families. Representative Kawasaki opined that
students have to be referenced in the language. He related that
he would be more comfortable with the mention of students and
families.
8:18:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that the language refers to
early childhood education and that those children who aren't yet
school age and don't have a family and not in a foster home are
generally in a residential setting, which has intensive wrap-
around services. Therefore, she said she didn't believe the
language is excluding anyone.
CHAIR SEATON clarified that he wasn't speaking about children
who have been taken from their home, but rather his concern is
for the diversity of families that exist across the state. He
reiterated his concern that EED is being asked to write a plan
for families.
8:20:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ disagreed, and opined that the language
"devise a statewide early childhood education plan for families
with preschool children" is clear and very inclusive.
Furthermore, Representative Munoz opined that it doesn't
diminish the intent, but rather strengthens it.
8:21:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON expressed concern that the amendment
proposes eliminating the term "students" that is defined in
statute to the term "families" that is not defined.
8:21:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER clarified that the law, with or without
the amendments, says nothing about a family plan and doesn't
imply it. In response to Representative Edgmon, Representative
Keller offered his belief that there isn't a legal definition of
"student." With regard to including a definition of "family,"
he opined that it would prove to be a slippery slope.
8:22:40 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if the language "preschool students and their
families" would result in an inclusive situation. Would such be
a friendly amendment, he asked.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER replied no. He explained, "It's a plan
for families and it's for the children who will become students,
but the focus can be either or the way you described it. And
mine's narrower ... it applies only to the families and I'd like
to stick with that."
8:23:44 AM
CHAIR SEATON inquired as to how the department would handle
Conceptual Amendment 3.
8:25:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked if there is a statutory definition
of "student" or "families."
8:25:22 AM
EDDIE JEANS, Director, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), responded
that he couldn't answer right away, but would have to look up
the answer. However, he highlighted that there is clearly a
definition for "school age children" that's used for funding
purposes.
CHAIR SEATON asked if the term "student" is applicable in this
case when the language refers to preschool age children.
8:26:17 AM
MR. JEANS related his understanding that this legislation
directs EED to develop a preschool funding model that is
voluntary. He said that he would interpret the language
"families with preschool children" as the same as [using the
terms "student"] He further said that there would be a family
component in the plan [regardless of the language used].
Therefore, Mr. Jeans said he didn't see a problem with the
proposed language.
8:26:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON interjected the need to be sure that the
grandparents aren't excluded because they aren't considered part
of the family.
MR. JEANS assured the committee that the extended family won't
be excluded. He informed the committee that statute refers to
"custodian of the children," which would include various family
structures.
8:27:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH related his understanding [per the language
in the legislation and per the language in Conceptual Amendment
3] that the department is being asked to formulate a plan for
preschool children. The language appears to provide fairly
broad language to develop the plan, he remarked.
8:29:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON recalled that Mr. Jeans testified that
regardless of the language the families would be included [in
the plan].
MR. JEANS said he didn't know how a Pre-K program could be
developed without including the families. Even with statewide
correspondence, there has been focus on individualized learning
plans. The aforementioned will be part of the Pre-K program.
He noted that the constitution of the program will vary between
communities. The department is focusing on developing a program
that allows flexibility to meet individual student and community
needs, which includes the parents.
8:30:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON maintained his concern regarding how
"family" would be defined. He noted that some family structures
in rural villages are non-traditional.
8:31:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER commented that this is a valid concern,
and suggested that the use of the term "custodian of the
children" might resolve the issue. He stated his intent is not
to limit the number of children that would be involved.
8:31:37 AM
MR. JEANS responded that he would prefer to not include that
language. He said he believes the definition of "family" is
contained in regulation, and that definition could be referenced
when addressing this issue.
8:32:05 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he would be comfortable with Conceptual
Amendment 3 if Mr. Jeans would confirm for the record that the
intent of the department is to involve families and not to write
a family plan that must be followed.
MR. JEANS responded that that is his understanding of the
department's intentions.
8:33:35 AM
CHAIR SEATON removed his objection to Conceptual Amendment 3.
There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 3 was
adopted.
8:33:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 4, as follows:
Page 3, line 31:
Delete "or expansion of"
CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion.
8:34:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER indicated that Conceptual Amendment 4
would offer the department the freedom to expand and encourage
valid programs.
8:35:12 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Mr. Jeans to confirm that the proposed
amendment would not constrain the department.
MR. JEANS answered that it would not.
8:35:42 AM
CHAIR SEATON removed his objection to Conceptual Amendment 4.
There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 4 was
adopted.
8:35:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved that the committee adopt
[Conceptual] Amendment 5, as follows:
Page 4, lines 18-19, following "cost-efficient":
Insert "family based"
8:35:57 AM
CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion purposes.
8:36:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER, in response to Representative Wilson,
confirmed that all the amendments being offered to HB 59 are
conceptual.
8:36:57 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there are any efficient and optional pre-
elementary programs that are not family based.
MR. JEANS offered his belief that the department has already
developed the early learning guidelines that would be included
under this new statute. He stated, "As long as we understand
that ... adding 'family based' doesn't limit us to family-based
programs, then I'm fine with the language."
8:37:50 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked the bill sponsor if he thinks Conceptual
Amendment 5 would restrict the department's guidelines.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER answered no.
8:38:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH interjected that he cannot see how it would
not. He expressed concern that Conceptual Amendment 5 is
exclusive and would limit the department's ability to determine
the effectiveness of guidelines. He clarified that he does not
have a problem with the concept of involving families when it is
appropriate to do so; however, he said there may be
circumstances within the development of the program when "it is
outside of that purview." He added, "So, my concern would be
that we don't make it exclusionary in the development of this
particular process."
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER indicated that without examples in which a
family would not be engaged, he supports being restrictive. He
explained that he wants whoever is the custodian of the child to
have some engagement.
8:40:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH deferred to the department.
8:40:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER questioned whether this language would
prevent a child from attending if his/her parents did not want
to be involved in the program.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER answered no.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked Chair Seaton if it would be
sufficient to note for the record that the proposed amendment is
conceptual and is not intended to exclude children whose parents
want their children to participate but do not, themselves, want
to participate in the program.
[AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER] said, "Absolutely."
MR. JEANS, referring to page 4, lines 18-20, opined that it's a
fairly broad definition. He further opined that it doesn't
restrict it only to family-based programs.
8:41:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON, referring to page 4, lines 18-20,
highlighted the language, in the context of the legislation,
specifying that the board shall adopt:
(6) early learning guidelines that support an
effective, cost-efficient, and optional pre-elementary
program provided under a statewide early childhood
education plan approved by the department.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON questioned whether the aforementioned
would require the department to change some of its guidelines or
regulations.
8:42:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH removed his objection to Amendment 4.
8:43:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if the "family-based" programs imply
a certain type of program.
MR. JEANS answered that the term "family based" does imply
programs such as Parents as Teachers. However, there isn't a
specific listing of those programs that fall under the family-
based program designation. Mr. Jeans related his belief that
the early learning guidelines that have already been adopted by
the State Board of Education address all the components
currently required in this section.
8:44:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI said he didn't have a problem with
Conceptual Amendment 5 and would work with Representatives
Keller and Edgmon to ensure that the definition "is rigid and
somewhere in code."
8:44:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON, referring to page 4, lines 5-6, asked if
there is alignment between the references to "local needs" and
"family based".
MR. JEANS reiterated that the department finds the language to
be in line with where EED is already heading, programs that
target individual students based on community need. The
department wants to maintain broad language in order that it has
the flexibility to develop different programs based on community
and parental needs. In further response to Representative
Edgmon, Mr. Jeans said that the term "family based" won't
restrict or encourage the department to go in any other
direction than it is already heading.
8:47:26 AM
CHAIR SEATON removed his objection to Conceptual Amendment 5.
There being no further objections, Conceptual Amendment 5 was
adopted.
8:48:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ moved to report CSHB 59, Version LS0329\E,
Mischel, 3/9/09, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There
being no objection, CSHB 59(EDC) was reported from the House
Education Standing Committee.
8:49:37 AM
The committee took a brief at ease from 8:49 a.m. to 8:52 a.m.
SB 57-CHARTER SCHOOL FUNDING
8:52:18 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 57, "An Act relating to charter school funding."
8:52:29 AM
SENATOR JOE THOMAS, Alaska State Legislature, presented the CS
for SB 57, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
SB 57 is about supporting school choice and doing away
with the charter school penalty.
Current law results in charter schools with under 150
students receiving 30% to 45% less state funding than
neighborhood schools of their same size.
The colored chart in your packet graphically
demonstrates the effect of the current law.
This legislation solves the funding problem in an
equitable, fiscally responsible manner.
CSSB 57 states that charter schools with fewer than
150 students will have their student count adjusted by
the same per-student rate as neighborhood schools with
400 students.
CSSB 57 also addresses the problem created for school
districts when their charter and alternative schools
unexpectedly enroll fewer students than the number
required for the state to fund them as separate
schools.
Today, the minimum number of students a charter school
must have to be funded as a school is 150, and the
enrollment an alternative school must have is 200.
When these schools fall just one student below those
thresholds in the October count period, the state cuts
funding by $500,000 - $700,000. This is a disaster
for the school and its district.
CSSB 57 contains a one-year, hold-harmless provision
for charter schools and alternative schools that
unexpectedly fall below the threshold, and are either
in their first year of operation or were above the
threshold the previous year. For one year, these
schools will receive 95% of the per-student rate they
would have received at the threshold.
Charter schools in their hold harmless year must
submit a budget to their local school boards, laying
out the plan for the following year if their
enrollment does not rise.
Finally, SB 57 lowers the separate-school threshold
for alternative schools from 200 to 175.
Alaska has a serious problem with school achievement
and high school graduation. One type of school is not
best for all students.
Charter schools and alternative schools offer parents
choice within the public school system.
This legislation has received strong support from
around the state. We have been contacted by parents
from Ketchikan to Nome. The Alaska Association of
School Boards, and representatives of the Fairbanks,
Nome, Juneau, Anchorage, Lower Kuskokwim, Ketchikan
and Mat-Su school districts have testified in favor of
SB 57.
Our school funding system has limited communities'
ability to create and sustain innovative programs. It
is essential that the legislature take action this
session, and I would appreciate your support.
8:55:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if there is a minimum enrollment for
charter schools. She recalled that charter schools were funded
the same as public schools so long as enrollment was 150
students or more. The aforementioned provided the state
protection against having numerous low enrollment charter
schools that would receive a disproportionate amount of funding.
SENATOR THOMAS answered that the minimum enrollment for charter
schools is the same as for public schools, which is 10 students.
8:56:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON surmised then that a charter school with
10 students would receive the same amount of funding as a school
of 400 students.
SENATOR THOMAS directed attention to the chart entitled
"Adjusted Student Count for Charter Schools vs. Neighborhood
Schools," which illustrates how the count is adjusted. He
acknowledged that the funding is for a neighborhood school,
which is a school of 400 students. In further response to
Representative Wilson, Senator Thomas confirmed that the left
axis represents the count adjustment per student.
8:58:09 AM
CHAIR SEATON noted that the aforementioned chart has been
previously viewed without the projection of SB 57. He said:
The problem is the blue bars [neighborhood schools] is
you get smaller and smaller as a single site school.
It's showing that if it's a noncharter school, the per
child amount goes up and up and up because you don't
have the economy of scale. The purpose of this
legislation is so that it doesn't drop so far that
it's uneconomic to have a charter school under 150.
But, it doesn't give the same advantage as a small
school would. So, it just caps it at a level.
There's actually a decreased amount because you're not
funded at the higher per student that you would get at
a 150 or above; it jumps up to the 400 student level.
So, that's not going to encourage an explosion, I
don't think, of small charter schools. But, the big
problem has been that if a school drops below 150, the
regular school district has to take out of its budget
a large amount of money to offset because the formula,
then, doesn't work even to hold the school district
harmless.
8:59:37 AM
SENATOR THOMAS mentioned that the committee should also have a
document entitled "Example Adjusted Student Count Calculations,"
which supports the aforementioned chart.
9:00:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER expressed some confusion with regard to
how this legislation treats charter and alternative schools,
particularly since both charter schools and alternative schools
offer alternative programs to the standard schools. She related
her understanding that charter schools tend to have more
involved and engaged families than the alternative schools. The
alternative schools sometimes serve the needs of students who
haven't been successful in other schools. In terms of funding
and that they tend to be smaller schools, she inquired as to why
alternative schools may need to be handled differently than
charter schools.
SENATOR THOMAS related that there are some basic differences,
including that the school district is in charge of how
alternative schools are run and there is more parental
involvement in the operation of a charter school.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if SB 57 proposes to make the same
changes for charter schools and alternative schools.
SENATOR THOMAS replied that the changes proposed in the
legislation are the same for charter schools and alternative
schools, except for the change to the threshold.
CHAIR SEATON clarified that the threshold refers to the size.
The size before the 95 percent would come into play would be 175
students for alternative schools and 150 for charter schools.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether there could be a good
argument for treating alternative schools in the same way as
charter schools, in terms of funding.
SENATOR THOMAS acknowledged that there could be. He explained
that the desire was to keep the fiscal note down, and the
thought was that in the future there may be more adjustment.
The legislation presents what is acceptable with which to move
forward [in fiscal terms].
9:03:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said that although she didn't want to
damage the prospects of SB 57 moving forward, she expressed
concern with protecting the charter school students but not
doing the same for the alternative schools students with the
same needs.
SENATOR THOMAS related that most of the comments he has received
have been in regard to concerns with charter schools. The main
concern has been to reduce the count to 175.
9:04:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER questioned whether the reason the
majority of the comments were regarding charter schools was
because those folks tend to be more involved. Perhaps, the
alternative schools have the same needs just not the same
involvement, she suggested.
SENATOR THOMAS acknowledged that may be the case, but noted that
folks were contacted to provide comments on alternative schools.
The school districts did comment, he related.
9:04:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER clarified that an alternative school is
not defined in statute, but rather is defined in regulation as
school that's designed for the specific needs of particular
students. Therefore, any district can create an alternative
school. Furthermore, the alternative school regulation
specifies that a charter school is a type of alternative school.
He reminded the committee that when he had similar legislation,
he found the drafters being hesitant due to the vague
definitions of schools.
9:05:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ pledged that during the interim she would
help craft language that would lower the threshold for
alternative schools. There is also the need to address the need
for state compliant language in order for the state to receive
the federal funding available for charter school facilities.
Regarding the facilities issue, charter schools have the
responsibility of paying for their facilities out of their per
student allocation, while the facilities for alternative schools
are provided by the school district at no extra cost to the
program.
9:09:08 AM
LAURY SCANDLING, Assistant Superintendent, Juneau School
District, City & Borough of Juneau, said that she would
specifically speak about alternative schools as she has spent 11
years as a manager of an alternative program within a high
school as well as a separate alternative high school in Juneau.
She highlighted that the alternative school students are funded
at the rate of the largest school in the district, using the .84
multiplier. The aforementioned assumes there are economies of
scale at an alternative school that might be achieved at a large
high school. However, Ms. Scandling said that's simply not the
case because from her experience, those students in alternative
programs are there for a reason and bring a host of issues that
require intensive academic and social support. She then
mentioned that there is often a concentration of secondary
students in alternative programs whereas there tends to be a
concentration of elementary students in charter programs.
Therefore, she recommended the committee consider dropping the
level at which students can be funded at a more equitable level
from 200 to 175 or 150. She related that her research regarding
the effectiveness of organizations that operate at the tipping
point of 150 has resulted in her preference for 150.
9:12:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked if Ms. Scandling supports CSSB
57(FIN).
MS. SCANDLING declined to make a statement since she has not
read the entire legislation.
9:12:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked if Ms. Scandling would anticipate
action to obtain more students if the legislature were to lower
the threshold for alternative schools down to 175 students.
MS. SCANDLING expressed her pride with Juneau's alternative
program, which has been nationally recognized as a model
program. Drawing upon her experience as the principal of
Juneau's alternative school, recalled that its annual average
attendance was around 190 students. However, the quarterly
admissions system causes there to be a rollover of students each
quarter. The challenge [were the threshold lowered], she
opined, would be to ensure that a greater number of students was
enrolled by the count date. She further opined that an
enrollment threshold of 150 is more manageable and better for
students because effectiveness is lost at an enrollment level
over 150. However, she recalled that she worked with Juneau's
alternative school on a long-range plan with a three- to five-
year implementation period and an enrollment of up to 200
students as that's the current level of funding. Still, there
was concern with the size of the alternative school because
smaller class sizes make a difference. In answer to
Representative Keller, Ms. Scandling responded that she would
anticipate the alternative school seeking more students if the
threshold is increased. She reminded the committee that the
funding is provided to the district that hosts the alternative
school, and therefore the funding is a general revenue source
and the allocation of the funds is up to each school board. She
mentioned that the Juneau School District has generally
supported Juneau's alternative programs over time with the
necessary resources.
9:15:07 AM
BRAD FAULKNER, Member, Academic Policy Committee, Fireweed
Academy, stated support for CSSB 57(FIN). Mr. Faulkner
mentioned to the committee that since Standard Base Assessments
(SBAs) are being administered today, most teachers are unable to
testify. Mr. Faulkner opined that from a charter school
perspective, SB 57 isn't perfect. He informed the committee
that the Fireweed Academy has a student count of 90, but will be
funded as a school with 400 students. Still, those in the
Fireweed Academy will share the facility with other students and
receive substantially less funds than other students in the
facility. However, the legislation is a good start that
everyone in the charter school community supports. Mr. Faulkner
then highlighted some differences between alternative schools
and charter schools. A major difference is that an alternative
school receives local funding while a charter school does not.
For example, none of the Kenai property taxes are used to fund
the charter school, and therefore the funding for the charter
school starts at about 30 percent less than for other students.
Furthermore, the charter school is funded at 26-30 percent less
from the state. Moreover, charter schools don't receive any
funding for the facility. In the past, charter schools have
experienced up to 90 percent of bonding for facilities of state
reimbursement. Currently, it's around 60 percent. However, out
of those state funds, the charter school has to pay for its
facilities funding. Mr. Faulkner then turned to the common
misconception that charter schools attract the best students.
In Homer, the charter school has a good reputation and receives
more needs-intensive students than is its share. In conclusion,
Mr. Faulkner reiterated that CSSB 57(FIN) is a good start that
charter schools support.
9:18:11 AM
JEFF FRIEDMAN, President, Anchorage School Board, Municipality
of Anchorage, paraphrased from the following written statement,
[original punctuation provided]:
Our board has discussed this charter school funding
several times in the past and I believe the board and
the administration are fully supportive of SB 57.
The 150 student cut off has caused problems with two
Anchorage charter schools since I have been on the
board and at least one charter school before that.
Two of those schools ended up closing. The other
struggled for a year, but has since been very
successful.
The changes in SB 57 will provide a safety net for
schools that drop slightly below the 150 student
level, and will provide a more equitable funding
method for alternative schools and charter schools.
Charter schools and other alternative schools provide
choice for those students who don't fit well into
traditional neighborhood schools. They are a vital
part of our district. I urge you to support SB 57.
9:20:02 AM
TODD HINDMAN, Lead Teacher, Anvil City Science Academy, speaking
on behalf of the Nome Public Schools Board of Education and the
Academic Policy Committee of the Anvil City Science Academy,
related support for SB 57. He said that in a small community
such as Nome, a charter school with a student population of 150
is highly unlikely. Furthermore, if a charter school with such
a population were achieved, it would likely have an adverse
impact on the other public schools. The small size of Anvil
City Science Academy (ACSA) is one of its strengths as it allows
for flexibility in its daily operations to provide unique
opportunities to its students. Therefore, students are able to
go out into the community and use it as a resource in their
education, which provides a more meaningful learning experience.
The ACSA's small size also creates a culture around family
value, which ensures student success through daily engagement
with the parents. Mr. Hindman thanked the committee for its
efforts in providing support for small charter schools, which
are identifying and meeting specific needs in the communities
they serve.
9:21:39 AM
NANCY WAGNER, Superintendent, Fairbanks North Star School
District, paraphrased from the following prepared statement
[original punctuation provided]:
I am representing the Fairbanks North Star Borough
School District and want to express our support for
Senate Bill 57.
I would like to thank the House Education Committee
for scheduling SB 57. This Bill is extremely
important to Charter schools which provide choice and
alternative educational programs for our students.
We currently have three charter schools and a new one
coming on-line next year. Two of our current charter
schools and our new charter school have target
enrollments at about 155 students, so struggling to
meet the 150 funding threshold is not uncommon.
This year, one of our charter schools just missed the
150 student "average daily membership" threshold
during the count period, even though they had over 150
students by the end of the count. Falling short of
the current enrollment threshold cost our district
about $680k. All because of a small timing difference
related to student enrollments.
While we expect that all our existing charter schools
will be larger than 150 students next year, this bill
helps addresses the catastrophic impact should a
school fail to meet that 150 student threshold, even
if by the thinnest of margins. It is a fair
compromise for funding of existing charter schools.
We also expect our new charter school to exceed 150
students next year. But this bill also provides a
fair funding compromise should their startup
enrollments fall a little short. It would still be
difficult to offer the curriculum as originally
envisioned, but it would not be impossible, as is
currently the case. It provides a great incentive for
schools to get to their targeted enrollments.
SB 57 fixes the funding problem in an equitable,
fiscally responsible manner.
I encourage you to pass this Bill. Providing
alternative educational programs is important for the
public school system. We are charged with the
responsibility of meeting the needs of EVERY child
enrolled in our district. Alternative and Charter
Schools provide the opportunity for Alaska families to
choose the program that best meets their child's
needs. Without the previsions outlined in SB 57, at
least one of our charter schools could be in danger of
having to close.
9:25:12 AM
JOHN WEETMAN, Assistant Superintendent, Mat-Su Borough School
District, paraphrased from the following prepared statement
[original punctuation provided]:
The Mat-Su Borough School District supports Senate
Bill 57 and is supportive of school choice and
currently hosts 4 charter schools and 3 alternative
schools, which enroll approximately 1500 students.
I do believe that Senate Bill 57 will correct the
funding problem in an impartial and fiscally
dependable manner.
By lowering the threshold for alternative schools from
200 to 175 Senate Bill 57 will address a financial
setback that occurred this year for MSBSD, one of our
alternative schools unexpectedly dropped below the
required 200 number by 6 students, resulting in a
$780K deficit to the school district.
The one-year, hold-harmless provision for charter
schools and alternative schools that unexpectedly fall
below the threshold, allows charter and alternative
schools to focus student education and not financial
deficit created by the current funding.
Charter schools and alternative schools offer parents
choice within the public school system that provides
smaller learning communities, dropout prevention and
increased graduation rates.
In conclusion Senate Bill 57 creates a sustainable
funding system for innovative programs. I thank you
for your time and effort that all of you put in for
the students of Alaska.
9:27:39 AM
BRENDA TAYLOR, President, Academic Policy Committee, Juneau
Community Charter School, informed the committee that at a
recent charter school conference she was impressed with the
variety of charter schools. The one thing that the
representatives at the aforementioned conference could agree
upon was the importance of choice for students, teachers, and
parents. That choice lends itself to students, teachers, and
parents having more passion and involvement in the schools.
Therefore, it's not just that more involved parents choose
charter schools, it's that once parents are able to choose the
type of education for their child they become more involved in
their child's education. Ms. Taylor opined that the
aforementioned choice and passion are the reasons that charter
schools survive. As has been mentioned, charter schools have
more expenses than neighborhood schools. For example, charter
schools have to pay for space. As much as is possible, charter
schools try to reduce costs by using the passion of the
teachers, parents, and students. Therefore, those groups
perform much of the custodial services, supervision during
playground time, and office/administrative support. She pointed
out that charter schools have to pay the same [as other public
schools] for the teachers' salaries and office staff. The
aforementioned has resulted in having to make some difficult
choices, such as not having a counselor in the Juneau Community
Charter School. Ms. Taylor urged the committee to work on SB 57
in as expeditious a manner as possible. In conclusion, she
acknowledged that the committee has a difficult decision in
terms of how deeply to review the alternative schools. Still,
alternative schools do have the [advantage] of the district,
which directly supervises and runs alternative schools. The
districts have more flexibility in terms of the use of funding
while the charter schools receive funds that come directly from
the state and no outside sources of funds in the way that
alternative schools do.
9:32:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER expressed interest in the idea that
funding could be used to provide a bus in order to increase
enrollment since there are children who cannot attend due to
transportation issues. Therefore, she questioned whether
providing transportation would be a large factor in charter
schools maintaining their student populations or even growing.
MS. TAYLOR said that she believes transportation would be a
larger factor, even knowing that school districts throughout the
state run differently. For example, in Ketchikan the bus system
works such that it can transport children to the various
schools. However, the Juneau School District is more spread out
and is unable to transport children to all the various schools.
She opined that this legislation will help districts in regard
to how to think about choice.
9:34:20 AM
CHAIR SEATON, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
9:35:19 AM
CHAIR SEATON inquired as to the function of the 95 percent per
student.
9:35:28 AM
EDDIE JEANS, Director, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), explained
that basically there are two hold harmless measures in this
legislation. One of those measures addresses the charter
schools that have more than 150 students, but have less than 150
students in a subsequent year. The hold harmless causes a
charter school in such a situation to be funded at 95 percent of
what 150 students would generate. The legislation requires a
charter school in such a situation to develop and submit a plan
for the upcoming year to the local school board. There is also
a hold harmless provision for alternative schools such that when
it has a student count of more than 175 one year, but falls
below that the next year. Again, the alternative school in such
a situation would be funded at 95 percent of 175 students in the
subsequent year. Therefore, the hold harmless clause allows the
school to plan for reduced funding or recruiting more children.
CHAIR SEATON asked if EED views the aforementioned as an
equitable manner in which to do long-range planning.
MR. JEANS answered that it's an appropriate response.
9:37:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER, drawing from the fiscal note, related his
understanding that the Mat-Su Borough School District may be a
big winner with the passage of this legislation. He explained
that in the Mat-Su Borough School District there are two
alternative schools that are near the 200 student count
threshold and one that has dropped below the 200 student count
threshold. Therefore, the potential impact to the Mat-Su
Borough School District is high. He then related his belief
that an alternative school better serves students at the lower
student count of 175. He asked if his assessment is correct.
MR. JEANS replied yes, and then directed attention to page 3 of
the fiscal note where it references the projected student counts
of Mid Valley Alternative High School, which would qualify them
for the hold harmless funding in fiscal year 2010 unless the
enrollment exceeds the current projections.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER, in response to Representative Buch,
specified that the alternative schools in the Mat-Su Valley are
listed on page 3 of the fiscal note.
9:40:23 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if the committee members had any amendments;
there were none offered. He then asked whether the committee
would like to hold the legislation for a second hearing. He
noted that although the committee has had one hearing on SB 57,
it has held multiple discussions on the topics it encompasses.
No request was made to hold the legislation for a second
hearing.
9:40:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said that although he is willing to make
the motion to forward the legislation from committee, he related
a sense of loss in that money is being distributed without an
attachment or incentive related to academic excellence.
9:41:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON mentioned that she has changed her view of
charter schools in the system.
9:42:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to report CSSB 57(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
9:43:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, referring to surveys regarding why
students drop out of school, highlighted that many of the
reasons given for why students dropping out are addressed by
charter schools. Therefore, she suggested that members review
those ways in which charter schools support the efforts to
improve graduation rates.
HB 215-STUDENT COUNTS/TEACHERS' SALARIES
9:44:24 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 215, "An Act relating to student counts for
school funding purposes; and repealing school experience for
salary scales provisions."
9:44:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as the
prime sponsor of HB 215, paraphrased from the following prepared
statement [original punctuation provided]:
I have introduced HB 215 because we need to give
schools additional tools to provide the best education
possible.
Repealing salary scale limitations for out of state
teachers will make it easier to recruit teachers for
hard to fill positions.
This bill will also make sure schools are doing what's
best for kids. I want to combat high drop out rates
and I think averaging student counts between the fall
and the spring will help. I know this may cause some
grumbling from school districts, and I understand
where they are coming from. But this is the right
thing to do for the kids, and we have to make their
long term education needs our first priority.
CHAIR SEATON reminded the committee that this is the first
hearing of HB 215, and therefore he has no intention of moving
it from committee today.
9:45:53 AM
DANIEL DISTEFANO, Staff, Representative Peggy Wilson, Alaska
State Legislature, paraphrased from the following prepared
statement [original punctuation provided]:
HB 215 will repeal salary scale limitations for hiring
new out of state teachers. Additionally it will
average student counts in the spring and fall to
determine school funding numbers for the following
school year. We believe this will help address
multiple problems facing Alaska's education system.
Specialty positions, such as therapists and special
needs teachers are in high demand in school districts
across the country and Alaska is facing a shortage.
By allowing school districts to negotiate salaries on
a case by case basis for out of state hires, Alaska
schools will be more competitive when vying for needed
educational professionals.
Left over from territorial days, the statute limiting
years of out of state experience that can be applied
to a new hire's salary scale has become an obstacle
that is hurting our schools.
A bigger issue we are hoping to help with HB 215 is
the extremely high drop out rates across the state.
Testimony on other bills the education committee has
heard this year describes how unmotivated or problem
students can be "pushed out" rather than encouraged to
stay in school. By averaging the student counts that
are used to determine school funding, we hope to
create a financial incentive for school districts to
keep students in the classroom past the annual fall
count.
Current statutes provide for one student count to be
held in October of each year. Funding for the same
year is dependent on that count. HB 215 will
establish counts in October and in February. These
counts will be averaged and then used to determine
funding for the following year. There will be an
additional count in October of the current year that
will be averaged with the previous February's count.
In the event that this average is higher, funding will
then be increased for the current year.
We hope that by providing this added financial
motivation, school districts will work towards higher
student retention rates. Drop-out rates are a big
problem that this bill won't solve on its own, but we
believe it needs to be attacked from multiple angles.
This bill has the additional benefit of determining a
solid funding level for the upcoming school year; this
gives school districts the ability to work with
concrete numbers when they plan their budget.
To better serve Alaska's youth we need to proactively
address the issues of high drop out rates and teacher
recruitment and HB 215 does that. I'd like to thank
the committee for taking the time to hear this bill.
9:48:23 AM
CHAIR SEATON, referring to the new language on page 2, asked if
the last Friday in February corresponds with any holidays or
routine school breaks that would affect enrollments.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON explained that the aforementioned date was
chosen because the decision whether teachers will receive pink
slips occurs by March 15. Furthermore, having the count prior
to March 15 allows schools to know the counts for the next year.
CHAIR SEATON requested that the date be scrutinized in order to
ensure that the last Friday in February doesn't conflict with
known or routine scheduled events.
MR. DISTEFANO interjected that March 15 is the end date by which
the count must be complete; the date should allow adequate time
for students to be in class.
9:51:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, referring to the sponsor statement,
asked if the current statutes regarding the salary scale were
actually from territorial days.
MR. DISTEFANO replied yes, adding that Mr. Jeans has the exact
timeline when the state took over funding schools.
9:51:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON remarked that HB 215 seems that it could
be two pieces of legislation since it addresses the following
two separate subjects: the student count for school funding for
enrollment and repealing school experience for salary scale
provisions.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said that the two subjects were combined
in order that she didn't have two pieces of legislation. In
response to Chair Seaton, Representative Wilson related that
Legislative Legal and Research Services had no problem with the
legislation having the two subjects because it falls under the
topic of school funding purposes and salary scale provisions.
9:53:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON surmised that since this is the first
hearing of HB 215, no fiscal note is available.
CHAIR SEATON indicated that to be the case.
9:53:43 AM
CHAIR SEATON requested review of the chart entitled "Funding For
2011 School Year 335*BSA."
9:54:03 AM
MR. DISTEFANO explained that the chart relates information
regarding the 2011 school year and omits the 2012 school year.
The graph is a way in which to conceptualize the student counts
and illustrate how the averaging occurs.
9:55:32 AM
EDDIE JEANS, Director, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), referring
to the aforementioned chart, explained that the October 2010 and
February 2011 student counts encompass fiscal year and school
year 2011. The average of the two counts is 335, which is the
number upon which the 2012 budget would be based because that
would be the guaranteed level of funding the district would
receive. When the school enters the 2012 school year, the
February 2011 student count would be used again and a new count
would be performed in October 2011. If the student count
increases over the prior count, the district would receive the
benefit of the higher count, but if not the district would
receive the count calculated in the prior year. Mr. Jeans
characterized the aforementioned as a good planning tool that
provides the district with the knowledge of its minimum funding
level six months in advance.
9:57:09 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if the aforementioned is because of the hold
harmless provision regarding declining enrollment.
MR. JEANS replied no, and clarified that it's based on the new
provision that would require two counts from which an average is
taken. He then explained further that under this provision,
another count would be performed in February 2012 and it would
be averaged with the October 2011 count in order to establish
the 2013 minimum.
9:57:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if the new count system would
impact funding for intensive needs students. She then inquired
as to the impact this proposed count system would have on rural
schools. She surmised that those rural students who come into
the urban hubs in the winter and then return to and re-enroll in
the rural schools in the spring would be advantageous for the
funding level of rural schools while disadvantageous for the
urban hubs.
9:58:39 AM
MR. JEANS explained that currently the count occurs in October
as that's typically the peak of enrollment in the school
districts throughout the state. He related his belief that an
average would result in fewer students being funded through the
foundation program. February was chosen in order to place some
distance between the count date and the holidays without having
too much distance and allowing for time to analyze the data and
recalculate each district's state aid. He said he wasn't sure
that the count would quite cover those students who return to
the rural areas in the spring. Clearly, the average attempts to
provide better insight into the overall school year population
as opposed to "pick and repeat." The count would include
intensive needs students as it's an entire student count.
9:59:55 AM
CHAIR SEATON surmised then that this student count system would
more reasonably direct the funds to the location where the
students are actually attending.
MR. JEANS said he believes that would be the case. In further
response to the earlier question regarding intensive needs
students, he related that the department has reviewed the
movement of intensive needs students from year to year and
determined the movement is minimal. In fact, of the 1,900
intensive needs students in Alaska, about 25-30 students move
after the current count date.
10:01:14 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that HB 215 would be held over.
10:01:20 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:01 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 59 background I.pdf |
HEDC 4/6/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 59 |
| HB 215 material.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/10/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 215 |
| HB 59 workdraft version E and original version R.pdf |
HEDC 4/6/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 59 |
| HB 59 background II.pdf |
HEDC 4/6/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 59 |
| HB59-ESS-EED-4-2-09.pdf |
HEDC 4/6/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 59 |
| SB 57 material I.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2009 8:00:00 AM |
SB 57 |
| SB 57 material II.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2009 8:00:00 AM |
SB 57 |