02/05/2010 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB295 | |
| HB317 | |
| HB206 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 295 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 206 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 317 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 5, 2010
8:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Robert L. "Bob" Buch
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz, Vice Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Wes Keller
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 295
"An Act relating to the grant of certain state land to the
University of Alaska; relating to the duties of the Board of
Regents; relating to deposits made to the Alaska permanent fund
received from certain lands conveyed to the University of
Alaska; ratifying and reauthorizing certain prior conveyances of
land to the University of Alaska; making conforming amendments;
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 317
"An Act increasing the special needs funding and base student
allocation for public schools, and extending the adjustment for
student transportation funding; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 206
"An Act establishing a career assessment requirement in public
schools; and relating to postsecondary courses for secondary
school students."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 295
SHORT TITLE: UNIVERSITY LAND GRANT
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/19/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/10 (H) EDC, RES, FIN
01/27/10 (H) CRA REFERRAL ADDED AFTER EDC
01/29/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/29/10 (H) Heard & Held
01/29/10 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
02/05/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 317
SHORT TITLE: EDUC. FUNDING: BASIC/SPEC NEEDS/TRANSPORT
SPONSOR(s): EDUCATION
01/27/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/27/10 (H) EDC, FIN
02/01/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/01/10 (H) Heard & Held
02/01/10 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
02/05/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 206
SHORT TITLE: HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSM'T/POSTSECONDARY CLASS
SPONSOR(s): EDUCATION
03/25/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/25/09 (H) EDC, FIN
03/27/09 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/27/09 (H) Heard & Held
03/27/09 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/03/09 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/03/09 (H) Heard & Held
04/03/09 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/15/09 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/15/09 (H) Heard & Held
04/15/09 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
01/20/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/20/10 (H) Heard & Held
01/20/10 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
02/01/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/01/10 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/05/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
DEBBIE SPENCER, Owner
Shoreline Incorporated
Pelican, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 295.
TIM LYDEN
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 295, urged the
committee to remove the Sumdum parcel.
MARY IRVINE
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 295, urged the
committee to remove the Sumdum parcel.
DICK MYLIUS, Director
Division of Mining, Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions on HB 295.
MARI MONTGOMERY, Director
Office of Land Management
University of Alaska System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions, during the hearing
on HB 295.
NORM CARSON, President
Pelican Chamber of Commerce
Pelican, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 295.
CAROL CAIRNES, Representative
Tongass Conservation Society
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with concern on HB 295.
KATIE KOESTER, Staff
Representative Paul Seaton
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an amendment to HB 317, on behalf
of the House Education Standing Committee, sponsor by request,
chaired by Representative Seaton.
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards (AASB)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 317.
EDDY JEANS, Director
School Finance and Facilities Section
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During bill hearings, responded to
questions on HB 317, and HB 206.
LOUIE FLORA, Staff
Representative Paul Seaton
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the CS for HB 206, on behalf of
the House Education Standing Committee, sponsor by request,
chaired by Representative Seaton.
DARLEEN TRIPLETT, Superintendent
Dillingham City Schools
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with concern for HB 206.
WOODY WILSON, Superintendent
Wrangell Public School District
Wrangell, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 206.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:05:04 AM
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. Representatives Seaton, P.
Wilson, Buch, and Gardner, were present at the call to order.
HB 295-UNIVERSITY LAND GRANT
8:05:16 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 295 "An Act relating to the grant of certain
state land to the University of Alaska; relating to the duties
of the Board of Regents; relating to deposits made to the Alaska
permanent fund received from certain lands conveyed to the
University of Alaska; ratifying and reauthorizing certain prior
conveyances of land to the University of Alaska; making
conforming amendments; and providing for an effective date."
8:07:41 AM
DEBBIE SPENCER, Owner, Shoreline Incorporated, suggested that
the consternation surrounding the Mite Cove and Sumdum parcels
stems from having the land use designations, previously
determined via public process, being disrespected under the
University of Alaska (UA) land selections. The many years of
work, incorporating all of the stakeholders, were not mentioned
in a letter [not cited] from Commissioner Tom Irwin, Department
of Natural Resources (DNR), regarding the parcels, only that
land selections were the result of cooperation between the
department and the UA. She directed attention to the committee
packet report from DNR titled "University of Alaska Land Grant
List 2005," dated January 12, 2005, Revised 2010, and the tab
labeled "Parcel Descriptions," page 9 of 15, Approx. Area in
Acres column, to point out that Mite Cove is listed as a 320
acre parcel, but under the heading Description/Plan Designation
it is described as being nearly 200 acres. Elsewhere in the
document, it is identified as a 180 acre area; the document is
in conflict with itself. Neither does the written description
correspond with the land use plan developed through the public
process [Northern Southeast Area Plan (NSEAP), adopted 10/15/02
by DNR]. The final sentence in the description column states,
and she read, "Considered appropriate for remote residential or
commercial recreation marine services," and does not reflect the
NSEAP, which specifies the area for public recreation and
tourism, undeveloped; coded RU. Turning to page 11, of the same
document, she pointed out the description for the Sumdum parcel.
The designation reads "Public Recreation-Dispersed." Ms.
Spencer said the NSEAP indicates the same use designation for
Sumdum, as for Mite Cove, and further that they must be held in
the public domain. These two parcels will continue to be held
in contention due to the inconsistency of the list before the
committee and the land use plan developed through the public
process. Pelican passed a city resolution, in 2005, in
opposition to the bill previous to what is before the committee,
and will be passing a similar resolution to oppose HB 295.
8:14:20 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed the committee's attention to a letter
dated 2/2/10, from the witness, page 2, and the excerpt from the
NSEAP describing the intended use of Mite Cove and fully
defining the RU designation.
8:15:26 AM
TIM LYDEN, urged the committee to remove the Sumdum parcel,
indicating that it is central to Tracy Arm-Fords Terror
Wilderness, and serves as a vital public access area for
Endicott Arm. There is a safe anchorage and camp located on the
five acres, unique to the area that is primarily sheer cliffs.
Privatizing the area would have an effect on the public's
ability to utilize this remote locale. He stated his fears that
privatization would bring development to the area.
8:20:23 AM
MR. LYDEN referred to a document signed by 17 tour operators
that depend on use of the Sumdum area, and paraphrased the
statement, which read [original punctuation provided]:
The undersigned seventeen commercial tour companies
bring thousands of visitors to Southeast Alaska every
year. Our businesses provide guided hunting and
fishing kayak expeditions, and week-long excursions
aboard small and mid-size vessels. Our segment of
Alaska's tourism industry provides vital and unique
economic benefits to southeast Alaska, and many of us
are local business people. We stand out among other
segments of the tourism industry because many of us
provision our excursions locally, and a high number of
our clients dine and seek local accommodations before
and after their trips. University of Alaska research
shows businesses like ours pump millions of dollars
into the Southeast economy annually. Bringing clients
to wild Alaskan landscapes is the backbone of our
businesses, and it's the reason for our concern over
the Sumdum parcel. The Sumdum parcel is in Sanford
Cove, in the heart of the Tracy Arm-Fords Terror and
Chuck River Wilderness Areas. For each of us, the
area is a hi9ghlight of the services we provide. Many
of us use Sanford Cove as a safe and scenic anchorage.
With bears, wolves, salmon and cultural ruins, it is a
common location for walks ashore, fishing hunting and
camping; not only for our commercial clients, but for
many independent and local travelers, too.
Tracy Arm-Fords Terror Wilderness is especially unique
because it currently contains no lodges, private
cabins, or other developments. Some of us have
operated in southeast Alaska for several decades, long
enough to know that such undeveloped anchorages are
increasingly rare.
Privatization of the Sumdum parcel would displace many
of us from long-standing business activities. It
would also displace many independent and local
recreationists and mar an undeveloped landscape. But
removing the Sanford Cove parcel from the bill would
have only a minor impact on university funding, one
that could be compensated by other means.
Thank you for your consideration, and please help us
maintain current use of this important part of
Southeast Alaska.
8:23:25 AM
MARY IRVINE reminded the committee of her previous testimony
[1/29/10] and the request which Representative Munoz made for
DNR to provide further documentation of the archeological nature
of the site. She said that as a private individual she is
restricted from receiving archival information from the state
[Office of History & Archeology Alaska Historical Commission,
Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural
Resources], which is available to state agencies and
legislators. One 1946 report, titled HAA AANI, published by
Goldschmidt and Haas, is an anthropological report on Southeast
Alaska, which contains maps and historical information including
the Sumdum area. She described the history that has revolved
around this area dating from the 1800's, marking it as a multi
culturally layered historic area.
8:27:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked if there are archeological
remains at the site.
MS. IRVINE said that without access to the confidential
documents held by DNR she cannot answer that question. However,
photographs of the area compiled by the UA, and state libraries,
available for viewing via the internet at [vilda.alaska.edu],
are indicative of the industry and activity that once existed in
the thriving Sumdum community. She encouraged the excising of
this five acre parcel from the university land grant.
8:30:41 AM
DICK MYLIUS, Director, Division of Mining, Land and Water,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), explained that one of the
criteria used in the land selection was based on consideration
of land available to municipalities, under the municipal
entitlement act. The type of lands that municipalities can
select is specified in AS 29.65.130, which reads:
(10) "vacant, unappropriated, unreserved land" means
general grant land as defined in (3) of this section,
excluding minerals as required by Sec. 6(i) of the
Alaska Statehood Act, that
(C) is unclassified or, if classified under AS
38.05.300, is classified for agricultural, grazing,
material, public recreation, or settlement purposes,
or is classified in accordance with an agreement
between a municipality and the state providing for
state management of land of the municipality
MR. MYLIUS said that because of the allowance, by the
legislature, to transfer public recreation lands to
municipalities, the department surmised that it would also be
appropriate to transfer the same public recreation lands to the
university; hence the Mite Cove and Sumdum parcels were
selected.
8:32:04 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed out the conflicting use designations of the
Sumdum parcel: The University of Alaska Land Grant List 2010,
page 11 of 15, use description of "Public Recreation-Dispersed,"
versus the NSEAP stipulation for "Public Recreation and Tourism-
Undeveloped.
MR. MYLIUS replied:
In terms of the actual land classification that gets
applied to those, it's the same classification as the
public recreation classification. So that's why we
considered that one as appropriate for transfer. Even
though it says it's dispersed recreation, and tourism,
it still ends up ... classified as public recreation,
when you actually put the land classification on it.
8:33:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired about the public process that
occurred during the selection.
MR. MYLIUS said there was not a public process for the
selection, because it was based on the previous decisions made
in determining land use plans, which did incorporate the public
process. The selected parcels were reviewed, and public
testimony occurred, during the 2005 legislative hearings.
8:34:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER remembered that the governor, at that
time, stated a desire to have the list be accepted as presented
without change. She sympathized with the small communities who
may have felt up against the wall in the decision making
process.
MR. MYLIUS indicated that the legislature did remove nine
parcels, following the 2005 public testimony. The original
legislation, SB 7, introduced in 2007, put the onus on the UA
and DNR to sort out the details. The department expected there
to be some contention, and decided to bring it back to the
legislature to address the public concerns. He suggested that,
without exception, any of the high value parcels of land will be
objected to by the locals.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER summed up that there is general public
support for the university to have land, as long as it is not
"their land."
8:36:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether the land use code for
Mite Cove will be maintained under university ownership; what
uses can the university apply to the parcel.
MR. MYLIUS said once the transfer occurs the university can
utilize parcels for whatever purposes they choose.
8:37:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON opined that state land ownership is not
vast, given the federal holdings, and particularly in the
southeast region, due to the Tongass National Forest. She
suggested that land selections may be inappropriate in the
southeast region, but not as hard felt, and contentious,
elsewhere in the state.
MR. MYLIUS concurred that state land holdings are minimal in the
southeast region. The lands acquired were identified as
suitable for recreational development or private ownership,
which makes them valuable as well as contentious.
8:39:16 AM
CHAIR SEATON recognized that the southeast region doesn't want
to lose population; however, if there is not land available for
development, opportunities diminish. A value exists in having
undeveloped land, but it presents a dichotomy for supporting
population growth. The committee, and legislature, is charged
with striking the appropriate balance between competing
interests.
8:41:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON opined that because an area is
designated for community use, such as Mite Cove, it should not
be assumed that transferring it to the university would result
in the type of benefit that the town desires. She questioned
whether the legislature should allow this type of land
conveyance.
8:42:41 AM
CHAIR SEATON inquired whether the communities have suggested
alternative parcels for selection.
MR. MYLIUS said it depends on the parcel and the community. In
the case of Pelican, the city limits do not extend far enough to
include Mite Cove. Other communities, such as Wrangell, have
formed boroughs large enough to select some of the parcels under
municipal entitlement. The Ketchikan Gateway borough is a non-
issue as all of the entitlements have been received. These
represent the three categories of communities that are being
dealt with: no borough and no entitlement currently; borough
still working on entitlement; and entitlements satisfied.
8:44:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER underscored the importance of holding a
public process in selecting lands to address the competing
values represented and ensure that voices have been heard. She
then summarized the process described: a public process is used
to identify land use plans and classifications; the plans and
classifications were the basis of the selections made by the
department and university; a public process ensued through the
legislative process, allowing further testimony; and once the
land is transferred to the university it is no longer subject to
the land use plan that was initially developed.
MR. MYLIUS concurred.
8:45:42 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked what uses would be considered regarding
development of the Sumdum parcel, should ownership be conveyed
to the university. Further, he questioned the universities
regard for the historical and cultural concerns of the area.
MARI MONTGOMERY, Director, Office of Land Management, University
of Alaska System, said there are no specific development plans
for any of the parcels being conveyed. Lands considered
archeological resources are protected under state law. Sealaska
Corporation has indicated an interest in purchasing the Sumdum
parcel for cultural preservation reasons. Others would like to
acquire this property, but no decisions are being made pending
acquisition. The possibility exists for it to be preserved for
academic study.
8:49:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired about the annual cost of
managing the UA land office, and the annual average revenue that
is derived through the office, to benefit the university.
MS. MONTGOMERY reported that the office budget averages 2.5
million. She said the office has a mission which includes
managing and permitting academic research land, as well as land
acquisitions, disposals. The office generates revenues
averaging $10 million.
8:51:04 AM
NORM CARSON, President, Pelican Chamber of Commerce, said that
given the circumstances unique to Pelican, it would be
beneficial to the city to have land closer to the town conveyed
to the university. He pointed out that there is a DNR parcel
[C18], within 2 miles of Pelican, currently designated for
settlement, unlike Mite Cove, which is 13 miles away and
designated RU. For purposes of furthering community growth, the
city would welcome the conveyance of the C18 parcel.
CHAIR SEATON clarified that this is a request for a parcel
exchange and not opposition to conveyance.
MR. MYLIUS noted that the land cited was originally on the list
and could be reconsidered by DNR: ST 1002 Warm Springs Bay
[University of Alaska Land Grant List 2010 Parcel Descriptions,
page 10 of 15].
8:56:22 AM
CAROL CAIRNES, Representative, Tongass Conservation Society,
expressed concern with using this approach as a significant
funding support for the UA budget. The Ketchikan parcels
conveyed to the university have resulted in several issues. She
reported on property that was sold, without local advertisement,
adjacent to residences, for $1,200 per acre, and clear cut. The
existing residents had no opportunity to purchase the land. The
Moser Bay parcels are near existing settlements, but the
selections for Cleveland Peninsula, and Leask Cove, may prove
marginal for development. If the university were to develop the
parcels for academic purposes, it would be acceptable; however,
a law suit has been filed due to the concept of using the land
in this way for funding higher education. The program has only
contributed a small percentage to the university budget, and the
clear cutting has devalued neighboring property. She stressed
that any land sales should be well advertised, and she asked for
reconsideration for how the dispersals are handled.
[HB 295 was held over.]
9:00:46 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:00 a.m. to 9:02 a.m.
HB 317-EDUC. FUNDING: BASIC/SPEC NEEDS/TRANSPORT
9:01:48 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 317, "An Act increasing the special needs funding
and base student allocation for public schools, and extending
the adjustment for student transportation funding; and providing
for an effective date."
9:02:09 AM
KATIE KOESTER, Staff, Representative Paul Seaton, Alaska State
Legislature, introduced the amendment, stating:
What this amendment does is it replicates the 1.50
percent increase in block funding, for the fiscal year
2012 (FY 12). If you recall, in HB 317, we increase
funding for the base student allocation (BSA) by $125
dollars for the next three fiscal years, and also
increase for the first fiscal year the block grants.
This would ... take that increase and extend it by an
additional year that would make the first year be a
1.50 percent increase, and the second year a 3 percent
increase. ... The actual amendment inserts a section
3, on page 2, following line 9, that mimics the
section preceding it with a different factor ...
instead of 1.215, it's 1.23.
MS. KOESTER said the additional aspects of the amendment serve
to renumber the sections appropriately.
9:04:55 AM
CHAIR SEATON moved Amendment 1, labeled 26-LS1378\E.2, Mischel,
2/4/10, which read:
Page 2, following line 9:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 14.17.420(a), as amended by sec. 6,
ch. 9, SLA 2008, and by sec. 2 of this Act, is amended
to read:
(a) As a component of public school funding, a
district is eligible for special needs funding and may
be eligible for intensive services funding as follows:
(1) special needs funding is available to a
district to assist the district in providing special
education, gifted and talented education, vocational
education, and bilingual education services to its
students; a special needs funding factor of 1.23
[1.215] shall be applied as set out in
AS 14.17.410(b)(1);
(2) in addition to the special needs funding
for which a district is eligible under (1) of this
subsection, a district is eligible for intensive
services funding for each special education student
who needs and receives intensive services and is
enrolled on the last day of the count period; for each
such student, intensive services funding is equal to
the intensive student count multiplied by 13."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, line 13:
Delete "sec. 2"
Insert "sec. 4"
Page 2, line 16:
Delete "secs. 2 and 3"
Insert "secs. 4 and 5"
Page 2, line 22:
Delete "Sections 2 and 3"
Insert "Sections 2 and 4"
Page 2, line 23:
Delete "Section 4"
Insert "Sections 3 and 5"
Page 2, line 24:
Delete "Section 5"
Insert "Section 6"
CHAIR SEATON, hearing no objection, announced that Amendment 1,
to HB 317, was adopted.
9:06:19 AM
CHAIR SEATON offered Conceptual Amendment 2, removing the third
year of the forward funding.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER objected for discussion.
9:06:54 AM
CHAIR SEATON explained that Conceptual Amendment 2 would remove
the necessity for a new legislature to pass a continuation bill
in the first half of a session. Currently, a newly formed
education committee would need to come to terms with the funding
formula, and craft an appropriate continuation bill, which he
opined could prove difficult.
9:08:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that adding a fourth year
would serve the same purpose, relieving any urgency, and provide
more security for the school districts.
CHAIR SEATON stated reluctance to extending it as far as four
years, due to all of the variables involved in the funding
formula. He opined that it would be prudent to have a shorter
projection period, which would allow adequate time within the
legislature to understand the situation and continue the forward
funding. Further, the historical aspect of the intent, and
reasoning, used to develop forward funding has a better
opportunity to be passed on to the upcoming legislative members,
but may be lost two legislatures removed.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER recognized that modifications to the bill
could subsequently occur. However, she maintained that the
education committee has the opportunity to indicate definite
intent for forward funding, and said it is important to have a
plan in place.
9:11:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER offered Conceptual Amendment 1, to
Conceptual Amendment 2, increasing the forward funding by one
year.
CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion.
9:12:00 AM
CHAIR SEATON reiterated his concern for the difficulty it would
pose, in projecting appropriate funding formula figures, and
predicted that nebulous fiscal projections would hinder the
movement of the bill through the legislative process. He
expressed hope that the intent would not become altered, in the
future, and forward funding would be continued. He maintained
his objection.
9:13:14 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Wilson and Gardner
voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 1, to Conceptual
Amendment 2. Representatives Buch and Seaton voted against it.
Therefore, the amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2 failed by a
vote of 2-2.
CHAIR SEATON, hearing no further objection, announced that
Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted.
9:15:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH opined that HB 317 will be a bill which will
continue to evolve.
9:16:35 AM
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards (AASB), expressed support for the failed amendment, and
indicated interest in having the forward funding extended to ten
years. The idea for forward funding that came through the
education task force has been crafted in a suitable way and is
supported by the association, as amended.
9:19:11 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed the committee's attention to the handout
titled "The Department of Education and Early Development -
School Finance. Response to House Education Committee Questions
of 2/1/2010," and asked the department to explain the five page
document.
9:20:02 AM
EDDY JEANS, Director, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), said that
the document addresses four questions, beginning with funding
comparisons for the Alaska Military Youth Academy (AMYA) to the
other residential school programs. Page 2 provides a breakout
of dollars generated through the foundation funding, as well as
residential funding provided by the state. He reminded the
committee that the legislature passed a residential funding
program for Galena, Lower Kuskokwim, and Nenana. The Mt.
Edgecumbe residential program is funded through the department's
operating budget. Question two regards how AMYA schedules the
residential program. He reported that the academy runs two 22
week residential sessions each year. Funding is received on the
basis of seven times the base student allocation (BSA) via the
funding formula, and pays for the residential, as well as the
instructional, programs. AMYA has a second allocation, which is
an adjustment to provide follow-up mentorship to the graduates.
Question three addresses the pupil transportation contract
adjustments for ties to the CPI (Consumer Price Index). Many of
the contracts allow for upward or downward CPI adjustments.
Pupil transportation is covered by a grant based on the number
of students, and even if the number of students decline on a
particular route, it still must be run, but state support will
be less. He stated support for the [proposed language of CSHB
317, Version S] regarding the adjustment to student
transportation funding. The final question deals with the 1.50
percent adjustment, intended to provide additional support for
career and technical programs. He said he reviewed the history
of funding for these programs. In 1998, when categorical
funding was in place, 8.5 million was allocated for vocational
education, and the total foundation program was $795 million, or
1.08 percent categorically identified for vocational education.
He said, "Even back then, those dollars were intended for the
additional costs of vocational programs, not the base cost of
those programs." Directing attention to page 5, of the handout,
he explained that adding 1.215 percent will identify roughly
1.07 percent of the total, or $14.7 million out of a $1.4
billion dollar budget. Increasing it by the additional three
percent, 1.230, means nearly $30 million would be provided out
of a $1.4 billion dollar budget, or 2.14 percent. He opined
that this would be a good direction to take if it is clearly
understood that these are dollars to offset additional costs of
running vocational education programs, on top of what is already
in place.
9:25:01 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked concurrence from the committee to have a
letter of intent crafted to specify that the career technical
vocational component is not being supplanted in the block grant,
by the increase proposed in the bill. With no objection, a
letter of intent will accompany the bill.
9:25:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH returned to page 2, of the 5 page handout,
and clarified that Mt. Edgecombe is funded through the
department's operating budget.
MR. JEANS confirmed his understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH recalled concern for loss of federal
funding, and the ability for the state to maintain the
facilities. He asked whether the department expects the other
residential programs to be funded similarly in the future.
MR. JEANS said Mt. Edgecombe is unique, as a state owned and
operated school, which is why the residential component shows up
in the department's budget. However, if Galena requested to
contract with the state to operate another state school, an
amendments could be made to the department's budget to fund the
residential component. The legislature passed a funding
mechanism to provide the residential costs for Galena, Lower
Kuskokwim, and Nenana, as a separate component outside of the
foundation formula. These three schools are not funded through
the operating funds, but rather out of the department's grant
budget.
9:28:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH noted that the AMYA tracks the post
graduates, to know whether the young adults have continued as
productive citizens. He expressed an interest in seeing the
AMYA tracking model expanded to other programs, which may
require a minimal fiscal note, but will result in important
feedback that will validate the efforts being made by the
department.
MR. JEANS agreed that the AMYA fiscal component for post
graduate progress tracking/mentoring is not expensive. He
reported tracking, will be implemented through the cooperative
agreements that the department is entering into with the UA
system, and Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD),
especially if students remain in the state. A unique student
identifier is also under consideration, which will also be
helpful for tracking.
9:30:57 AM
CHAIR SEATON commented that a recent news article indicated how
another state has employed a unique identifier to track
students, and expanded its use to track students across other
states.
MR. JEANS added that participants in the K-12 pilot program were
required to utilize the EED student ID [identification] system.
The progress of these students will be tracked and analyzed to
enable the department to determine the benefits of the program.
9:32:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH indicated an interest in establishing a
means for tracking homeschooled children. He said that they
often come into the system later, perhaps through the AMYA, and
there should be a way to correct the information to reflect a
student's history.
CHAIR SEATON agreed that the information is valuable and the
committee is interested in supporting the department's efforts
to implement a meaningful tracking system. He requested that
the department provide the committee with information regarding
any statutes that may need amending to allow these actions to be
put into place.
9:34:07 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to page 2, of the departmental
handout, and stated that the funding formula applies a built in
base student allocation escalator, of seven, to be applied for
the AMYA program. With the formula increases, forward funding,
and other legislative actions that have occurred, the escalator
needs to be reviewed. An unintended consequence is being
recognized where the funding mechanism, the multiplier, may no
longer correspond with the needs of the AMYA program. He asked
Mr. Jeans whether HB 317 would be the appropriate vehicle for
changing that funding program.
MR. JEANS recommended that it be addressed in another bill, and
also to have the academy express their needs directly to the
committee.
CHAIR SEATON said the academy would be invited to address the
committee, and provide a full overview of the program.
9:40:54 AM
CHAIR SEATON solicited response to the revisions made to the
bill, and announced that HB 317 would be held for further
consideration.
HB 206-HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSM'T/POSTSECONDARY CLASS
9:41:41 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 206, "An Act establishing a career assessment
requirement in public schools; and relating to postsecondary
courses for secondary school students."
The committee took an at-ease from 9:42 a.m. to 9:47 a.m.
9:47:00 AM
CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt CSHB 206, 26-LS-765\P, Mischel,
2/2/10, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH objected for discussion.
9:47:21 AM
LOUIE FLORA, Staff, Representative Paul Seaton, Alaska State
Legislature, presented the committee substitute (CS), Version P,
directing attention to page 2, line 27, where a new Section 2
has been inserted. Language now extends the existing 20 day
student count period to 80 days, ending the second Friday in the
month of February. Page 3, line 22, Section 4, establishes that
the count from the preceding year will fund the present year.
Section 5, page 4, line 2, deals with the possibility of a count
increase, and provides districts the ability to request
additional funding, for current year adjustments. He directed
attention to Section 3 on page 3, line 17, and paraphrased the
language, which read [original punctuation provided]:
*Sec. 3. AS 14.17.600 is amended by adding new
subsections to read:
(c) The student count conducted for the immediately
preceding school year shall be used for calculating
state aid under AS 14.17.410.
(d) A student who is enrolled and graduates from
secondary school during the counting period shall be
included in the student count for the full counting
period.
9:50:26 AM
EDDY JEANS, Director, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), said the
suggestion to consider a continuous, 80 day, count period
originated with the commissioner.
9:51:20 AM
CHAIR SEATON noted that Version P clarifies how the basic
forward funding will be solidified, and a means for districts to
receive enrollment increase adjustments for the current year.
MR. JEANS concurred.
9:52:22 AM
CHAIR SEATON explained why the count time is being adjusted, and
how it is expected to provide financial encouragement for
schools to retain students. The reason for Section 3 is to
allow adjustment for mid-year graduation, which might otherwise
be discouraged.
9:54:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked for a further explanation of the
effects of extending the count period.
CHAIR SEATON said the mathematics appear to be streamlined by
having a single longer count period, versus two shorter periods,
which are averaged.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER opined that in order to identify an
accurate attrition number the most effective times to count
would be in October and again in April or May.
9:57:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON offered that one reason for the count
ending in February is that the school districts begin budget
deliberations, which includes issuance of pink slips to teaching
staff.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER argued that the two count periods theory
is to provide an attrition count, and to incentivize student
retention.
9:58:48 AM
MR. JEANS said the original intent will be accomplished by HB
206, as amended. He reported that having one continuous period
eliminates the averaging mechanism required for two separate
count periods, which proved to be a confusing feature.
Additionally, Version P still achieves the desired effect
providing BSA funding based on the prior year count, and
allowing adjustments for increases in current year enrollment.
At some point the count has to be stopped to allow the districts
time for budget reconciliation, and ending in February allows
for those financial adjustments to occur.
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that in the previous version, a
February count was included.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER maintained her concern that the original
intent is not being preserved.
CHAIR SEATON said the previous version also included a February
count period.
10:01:21 AM
MR. JEANS opined that the current language strengthens the
original intent, and the continuous count period eliminates any
"game playing."
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER argued that whatever happens on day 81 or
120 will never be known.
MR. JEANS responded that neither version would provide that
information, which would only be available by implementing a
full 180 day count period. A count of that length would hinder
districts ability to make adjustments for current enrollments,
throughout the year.
10:02:56 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that concerns have arisen for how a 180
day student count will affect small schools with enrollments of
10-11.
MR. JEANS indicated that the communities that have been playing
games with a minimum of 10 students, for a 20 day count period,
will need to maintain that enrollment for 80 days. If the small
school can show that they had 10 students for 180 days, in a
prior year, funds reflecting that number will be distributed in
the subsequent year. He explained that the funding does not go
directly to the school, but is directed to the district; where
it is determined how to allocate the resources. Funding for the
prior year count will be provided, even if the count decreases
in the current year.
CHAIR SEATON said that understanding should alleviate the
concerns of the smaller schools.
10:05:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH removed his objection.
CHAIR SEATON, hearing no further objection, announced that
Version P was before the committee. He then opened public
testimony.
10:05:41 AM
DARLEEN TRIPLETT, Superintendent, Dillingham City Schools, said
the record keeping can become involved, and small schools don't
have dedicated administrative staff to handle reporting
requirements. She suggested extending the date for when the
counts are due to the department, as the ten day requirement is
restrictive. The student count must be checked for accuracy and
adjusted for transfer students, prior to transmission, which can
be labor intensive.
10:08:08 AM
WOODY WILSON, Superintendent, Wrangell Public School District,
testified in opposition to HB 206, paraphrasing from a prepared
statement, which read [original punctuation provided]:
Alaska has one of the highest high-school drop-out
rates in the nation. HB 206 addresses this problem by
providing incentives for districts to keep students by
replacing the current 20-day student count period with
an 80-day count for purposes of determining student
numbers for school funding. HB 206 seeks to elevate
student engagement by allowing students who pass the
High School Graduation Qualifying Exam (HSGQE) to take
college or vocational education credits for free until
high-school graduation. Students who do not pass all
three sections of the HSGQE should not be disqualified
from taking college or vocational education credits.
Many very successful business people in this and other
states could not pass all three sections of the
qualifying exam. That should not penalize them or
hold them back.
It also adds a student's career preparedness scores to
their high-school transcript.
The career preparedness requirement attempts to ensure
that high school graduation is based on student
competency for real-world employment applications.
The Department of Education and Early Development
(DEED) currently requires that all 11th graders take a
career assessment test, in this case the WorkKeys
Assessment.
The above statement is incorrect. "The department
does "not" currently require ...." It is the opinion
of my School Board and the opinion I share that
WorkKeys should not become a requirement since it has
little, if any, value to most students in Wrangell.
Students who are college bound will find WorkKey test
documents useless for all practical purposes. Most
colleges and universities do not recognize WorkKeys
scores as having any value. Students entering a trade
or going on to technical schools may find more value
in the WorkKeys scores since they may find counselors,
teacher's and employers who understand what those
scores mean. One size does not fit all and we do not
believe in mandating something that will have no value
to a large number of our students.
HB 206 allows students who take and pass all three
sections of the HSGQE prior to graduation to take
college credits or vocational school credits until
graduation. This could allow students to advance
toward an associate degree or vocational education
certificate by the time they have graduated high
school. New studies indicate all students should
start college with at least six college credits to
improve college graduation rates. The HSGQE has been
identified as a contributing factor to the high school
drop-out rate. Students interpret that passing the
exam means they have met their high school qualifying
criteria leading to a lack of interest in school.
Incorporation of classes that are selected based on
relevance to the individual student will help maintain
interest and achievement.
Wrangell Public Schools currently offers 51 College
Credits to students in a wide variety of classes.
Will this bill help us defray the cost of these
courses? This current school year Wrangell Public
Schools is offering Math 105, Math 108, Math 200,
English 111, English 211, Early Childhood Development,
Emergency Trauma Technician (ETT), Emergency Medical
Technician I (EMT-I), Certified Nurse Assistant,
Advanced Woodworking, Welding I (metals fabrication)
and Welding II (metal fabrication). All these courses
are concurrent or dual enrollment college courses.
How will this bill benefit our students or our
district?
HB 206 requires school districts to conduct an
extended count period to determine school funding.
This provision increases the count period from 20-days
to 80-days and would provide a financial incentive for
schools to retain their students for the whole year.
School districts will be funded based on their prior
year's count. Current law holds districts harmless
for a decrease in student count, and HB 206 would
allow districts with an increase in student numbers
during the current year to receive an adjusted funding
level for that year. Students who graduate from high-
school in the middle of the 80-day count would be
included in the full count period.
It is my belief that the prolonged count period will
accomplish nothing but to perhaps cause more
frustration for school secretaries, administrators,
and IT [(information technology)] people who have to
compile these data. It is very possible that school
districts may lose funding.
Will there be a fiscal note attached to the bill?
Extending the count will not come without cost in each
district and DEED. Thickening the bureaucracy is not
always a good thing without knowing if positive
results can be gained. The assumption is that schools
have control over whether or not the student attends
and continue their education. Agreed, schools can
influence this decision but schools certainly do not
have control. Parents are the control in this
instance. I fear schools will be punished for
decisions made in the homes of their students.
Furthermore there are other reasons for school
populations to increase and decrease that have nothing
to do with drop outs. Drop out prevention seems to be
the primary purpose for this legislation. How does
the bill control for normal transience of school
populations. Transience is certainly not related to
school drop outs but would cause a district to either
gain or lose funds. For example:
Village A has a fire that burns several homes.
Families from Village A move to Village B. Village A
has a significant decrease in student population over
the count period and Village B has an increase. One
school will be penalized while the other will be
rewarded. Neither may have had an increase or
decrease based purely on drop outs.
Where will the money for tuition come from? Is it
supposed to come from the school district's foundation
formula? There is no fiscal note that I have seen yet
so I may not understand how this is intended to be
paid for.
What about districts that use their own staff to teach
the college courses through articulation agreements
with universities and colleges. Are they reimbursed
for the courses they are teaching since no university
staff is involved other than the registrar?
If the local district teaches these classes can they
be reimbursed through the Governor's Scholarship
Program?
There would seem to be models that achieve the same
result, like the current model used in Wrangell,
without any need for legislation, additional counts,
and additional bureaucracy. Why haven't these models
been reviewed?
10:13:45 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that HB 206 would be held, for further
consideration.
10:14:20 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:14 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 295 Background.pdf |
HEDC 1/29/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| HB 295 Fiscal Notes.pdf |
HEDC 1/29/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 295 |
| Alaska Historic Preservation Act.ppt |
HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 295 |
| University of Alaska Land Grant Booklet link.docx |
HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 295 |
| HB 206 material.pdf |
HEDC 4/15/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 206 |
| Briefing paper for high schoolers taking postsecondary courses HB206.doc |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM HEDC 2/1/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 206 Post Secondary courses for High School Students - HB 206 |
| HB 317 materials.pdf |
HEDC 2/1/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 317 |
| HB317_EED_ACYA_1-27-10.pdf |
HEDC 2/1/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| HB317_EED_ESS_1-27-10.pdf |
HEDC 2/1/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| House Education questions on HB 295 .doc |
HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 295 |
| HB 206 Version P February 4, 2010.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/10/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/19/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/8/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/17/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 206 |
| HB 206 version P Sponsor Statement February 4, 2010.docx |
HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/10/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/19/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/8/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/17/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 206 |
| HB 317 version S.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 317 |