Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 106
03/15/2010 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB350 | |
| HB413 | |
| HB393 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 413 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 393 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 350 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 15, 2010
8:03 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. 350
"An Act relating to the local contribution to public school
funding; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 350 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 413
"An Act relating to the Alaska Challenge Youth Academy."
- MOVED HB 413 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 393
"An Act relating to charter school approval and funding."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 350
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDING: LOCAL CONTRIBUTION
SPONSOR(s): EDUCATION
02/17/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/17/10 (H) EDC, FIN
02/17/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/17/10 (H) <Bill Hearing Rescheduled to 02/19/10>
02/19/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/19/10 (H) Heard & Held
02/19/10 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
02/22/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/22/10 (H) <Bill Hearing Rescheduled to 02/26/10>
02/26/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/26/10 (H) Heard & Held
02/26/10 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/03/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/03/10 (H) Heard & Held
03/03/10 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/10/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/10/10 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/12/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/12/10 (H) Heard & Held
03/12/10 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/15/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 413
SHORT TITLE: YOUTH ACADEMY FUNDING/REPORT
SPONSOR(s): EDUCATION
03/10/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/10/10 (H) EDC, FIN
03/12/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/12/10 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/15/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 393
SHORT TITLE: CHARTER/ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL FUNDING
SPONSOR(s): KELLER
02/23/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/23/10 (H) EDC, FIN
03/12/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/12/10 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/15/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
EDDY JEANS, Director
School Finance and Facilities Section
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 350 and HB 413.
KATIE KOESTER, Staff
Representative Paul Seaton
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 413 on behalf of the prime
sponsor, Representative Seaton, Chair of the House Education
Committee.
MCHUGH PIERRE, Deputy Commissioner
Chief of Staff
Office of the Commissioner/Adjutant General
Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs (DMVA)
Ft. Richardson, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 413.
JIM POUND, Staff
Representative Wes Keller
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 393, on behalf prime sponsor,
Representative Wes Keller,.
SAM KITO, III, Engineer
School, Finance, and Facilities Section
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 393.
KIKI ABRAHAMSON
Lead Teacher
Fireweed Academy Charter School
Anchor Point, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 393.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:03:40 AM
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:03 a.m. Present at the call to order were
Representatives Munoz, Keller, Edgmon, Gardner and Seaton.
Representatives Buch and P. Wilson arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
8:03:59 AM
HB 350-PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDING: LOCAL CONTRIBUTION
8:04:07 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 350, "An Act relating to the local contribution
to public school funding; and providing for an effective date."
8:05:04 AM
CHAIR SEATON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 350.
8:05:38 AM
CHAIR SEATON refreshed members on the purpose of HB 350. This
bill would address the local contribution to the "basic need
component," which is funded under the foundation formula for
school funding. Under the bill, the amount of the "basic need
component" does not change, but the amount of state and local
effort will change. He stated that the bill effectively would
provide differential tax relief to various school districts
across the state. Thus, funds are removed from the school
education fund and used for differential tax relief for
municipalities. The goal of HB 350 is to apply an even method
of taxation, one that is proportionally fair and economically
sustainable by setting a uniform mill rate at the lowest current
rate. The result will be that a municipality will not have to
pay more than its current local tax mill rate. He paraphrased
from a portion of the sponsor statement, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Legislation enacted in 2001 changed the funding
formula to require that only half of the increased
current year's property value over the base year's
value be counted. However it added this to a fixed
year (FY 99) to determine the property value for the
purposes of calculating required local effort for
education. Use of a fixed base year instead of the
previous year to calculate full and true value and
local effort contribution has lead to a growing
disparity between districts.
HB 350 will address this problem by requiring the
local contribution of a city or borough school
district to be derived from a uniform rate of a 2.7
mill tax levy on the full and true value of the
taxable property in the district as of January 1 of
the second preceding fiscal year plus 50% of the
increase in value to the following year.
Under the current formula, areas with growing
populations are given an ever greater tax break than
stable areas. Districts containing older communities
are therefore required to pay higher taxes than
expanding districts. HB 350 will apply an even method
of taxation, one that is proportionally fair and
economically sustainable. It has set a uniform mill
rate at the lowest current rate so no municipality
will have to pay more than its current local tax mill
rate
CHAIR SEATON referred to a chart in members' packets, stating
that currently the state transfers $77 million a year out of
available money for education to municipalities as tax relief.
This does not change the districts' funding, but funds are
transferred differentially to districts. The continuously
mounting increase in education costs will result in limiting the
base student allocation (BSA) increases. Most school districts
support "fixing" this system before it consumes a major portion
of the state's education funds.
8:09:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER pointed out that the "differential tax
relief" has been perceived as an unfair allocation to districts
but was intended to provide additional funds to school districts
that are growing in size. He referred to a graph in members'
packets titled "Percent Change is Assessed Valuation of Taxable
Property in the Mat-Su Borough." He explained that the costs
increase with additional students in the Mat-Su Borough. He
agreed that "something may need to be fixed" but the problem is
not an "across the board" difference in taxes needed from the
local communities. The tax burden on landowners is "out of
sight." To address this issue, the state provided general fund
(GF) dollars to local districts that are increasing in size. He
said he will oppose the bill since he does not agree with the
approach taken in HB 350 to address the problem.
8:11:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON pointed out that school bonds are being
voted down. She remarked that many students are using temporary
school facilities yet the communities have voted down school
bonds for new schools.
8:11:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER requested further information on whether
the Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District has not approved
school bonds.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON related it has done so in the past, but
she was unsure what has currently happened.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER maintained that his district faces
challenges, noting it is not just the lack of facilities since
expanding at the rate it has costs money for teachers and to
provide start up costs for schools.
8:12:34 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated HB 350 was constructed to accommodate the
growth in the various communities. This bill would not directly
affect the mill rate that is assessed on each home or business.
This bill does not create a direct tax. Additionally,
communities also have the option to find other funding sources
for education. Some districts, such as the Kenai Peninsula
Borough, have adopted a sales tax dedicated to education. This
bill provides a method of calculation based on valuation, he
stated.
8:13:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ referred to the handout in members' packets
titled "Mill Equivalent Change"and noted that the City of Juneau
has participated at 4 mills. She asked for the effect of HB
350, and if it would lower the mill rate to 2.7 mills.
CHAIR SEATON agreed it would lower the mill rate. He explained
it would treat all districts across the state at the same mill
rate. He referenced a table in members' packets titled "Mill
Equivalent Change" to indicate the mill differences. He further
explained that if a community grew substantially since 1999,
that the millage rate would be at a much less valuation. He
referred to Craig, which is still paying 4 mills on its
valuation, whereas Saint Marys increased its tax base and is
paying 2.7 mills. He interpreted that communities that are not
growing will contribute a higher portion of the basic need. He
pointed out the impact on several districts, including his
district, the Kenai Peninsula Borough, which is set at 3 mills.
8:16:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked for clarification on whether
communities have a choice.
CHAIR SEATON answered no. He elaborated that the basic need for
education is calculated in the foundation formula. The original
calculation for local contribution was calculated at 4 mills
times the assessed valuation. In 2000, the statute was changed.
Initially, that legislation had a "rolling look back" but the
bill was amended to establish a "given year" to use as the
inception year. He offered his belief that since the change
happened late in the session an unintended consequence happened.
This bill is to ensure adequate state funding for education.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER noted that if the committee takes the
position that this should be equitable across the state, has the
impact for unincorporated boroughs shall be considered. He also
asked if the bill should contain a requirement for local payment
since the legislature acts as the school board for
unincorporated boroughs.
8:19:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON stated that the overall costs are affected
by how schools are constructed and heated, such as whether
diesel fuel is used to heat the school versus natural gas. He
offered to provide the "numbers" for his district.
CHAIR SEATON asked members to focus on the specific issue the
bill addresses.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER commented that the struggle is with the
growth or the differential costs for operation and not the
diesel costs.
8:20:34 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked the department to explain how the local
contribution occurs in the unorganized boroughs.
8:21:11 AM
EDDY JEANS, Director, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), explained
that the Regional Education Attendance Areas (REAAs) do not have
a required local contribution based on property values. The
REAAs' local contribution is through the form of the "impact aid
contribution." Thus, the impact aid is in lieu of property
taxes paid by the federal government for people who reside on
federal lands that are not subject to taxes. He offered that he
would consider the impact aid as the local contribution for the
REAAs. He pointed out that some REAA's have more federal land
than others and those with a smaller or larger tax base
contribute more or less, accordingly. He noted some
municipalities have a larger tax base than others, and are
required to contribute more to support education. Those
municipalities with a smaller tax base would also contribute
less. The change that is before the committee today is to
achieve uniformity on the mill levy in the required local
effort. As Chair Seaton noted, the basic education foundation
formula calculates the basic need, which is the adjusted ADM
multiplied by the base student allocation (BSA). Once the basic
need is established, "we determine who is going to pay." Three
components are considered: required local contribution, impact
aid, and state aid. The required local contribution ranges from
2.7 mills to 4 mills on real and personal property values, using
the schedule previously referred to by Chair Seaton. This bill
would level the required local contribution from the current
mill rate to 2.7 mills across the board. It does not increase
the amount of funding for the foundation formula program but it
simply shifts it from who is paying, local versus state.
CHAIR SEATON asked for clarification on the statement that the
amount of funding to a school district would not change.
MR, JEANS responded that he is referring to the amount of
funding to a school district via the funding formula.
8:23:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON related her understanding that the
impact aid from the REAAs would not be affected.
MR. JEANS responded that the REAAs are required to contribute 90
percent of the impact aid that they receive.
8:24:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked whether the committee has used a
property valuation to assess how the impact aid compares to the
2.7 mill rate under consideration.
MR. JEANS answered that property values do not exist in the
unorganized areas. He offered that the closest comparison would
be the per pupil valuation on the impact aid compared to local
effort. He recalled comparisons that showed a number of REAAs
at the top of the scale that contribute more money on a per
student basis, through impact aid, than many municipalities. He
noted some REAAs at the bottom of the scale are not contributing
much since not many people live on federal lands. The range
varies considerably, he stated.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER stated that if the committee's goal is
statewide uniformity the committee will need to broaden its
scope.
8:25:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether the impact aid is based on
economic activity on federal lands.
MR. JEANS answered no, that it is based on the land being non-
taxable land.
8:25:46 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if the people living on federal, non-taxable
land are not taxed by the state.
MR. JEANS related that the impact aid is for lands that have
been moved from state tax rolls due to some type of federal
intervention. Thus, lands conveyed under the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) are non-taxable lands until
developed and the people living on those lands generate federal
impact aid. Additionally, people living on military bases are
not taxed and also generate federal impact aid.
8:26:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ moved to report HB 350 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected.
8:27:34 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Seaton, Munoz,
Gardner, Buch, Edgmon, and Wilson voted in favor of HB 350.
Representative Keller voted against it. Therefore, HB 350 was
reported out of the House Education Standing Committee by a vote
of 6-1.
8:28:27 AM
HB 413-YOUTH ACADEMY FUNDING/REPORT
8:28:34 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 413, "An Act relating to the Alaska Challenge
Youth Academy."
8:28:49 AM
KATIE KOESTER, Staff, Representative Paul Seaton, Alaska State
Legislature, paraphrasing from a prepared sponsor statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
The Alaska Challenge Youth Academy is a residential
high school for students who have dropped out of
regular school. The Academy is highly successful with
a 70% graduation rate and works closely with the
National Guard following a strict model that gives
students structure, challenge, and discipline. The
Academy is located in Anchorage and has two sessions a
year where students live on campus for 5 months while
going through the rigorous program. After they
graduate from the program, staff continues to track
their behavior through a mentorship program. Students
are considered a success if a year after graduation
they are enrolled in a postsecondary program, the
military, or in full time employment.
Funding for the Academy is based the following
formula: 7 times the Base Student Allocation (BSA)
times all residential students plus .6 times the BSA
times all non-residential students. When this formula
was constructed in 2002 it reflected the dollars they
needed to operate. However, as the BSA has grown over
the years to cover retirement costs and other
increases in education this has resulted in a windfall
and is no longer reflective of the true cost of the
program.
HB 413 would set a per child amount for state dollars
in statute, $11,990 and multiply that by the number of
residential and non-residential students enrolled.
The Academy and the Department of Education and Early
Development both agree this would give them sufficient
dollars to run the program. Under HB 413 the
projected total state dollars they would receive in
fiscal year 2011 would be approximately $5.2 million,
within $300 of the amount they would get under the
current formula. Alaska Military Youth Academy also
receives separate federal funds that supplement this
amount ($2.7 million for FY2011).
The Academy is a valuable alternative that requires
higher funding as a residential program for at-risk
youth than other boarding schools. HB 413 identifies
an appropriate and transparent way to fund this
important educational institution.
8:30:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether the allocation for the Alaska
Military Youth Academy (Academy) would be adjusted if the BSA is
adjusted in the future.
MS. KOESTER answered that the legislature would need to change
statute if the BSA rate is adjusted.
8:31:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER recalled the legislature has been trying
to avoid "locking in" rates in other bills and works to allow
flexibility for funding changes. She asked how the figure of
$11,990 was determined.
MS. KOESTER responded that the figure was based on seven times
the BSA for FY 11 and divided by the number of students at the
Academy.
8:32:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ for the reason that statute change is
necessary if the $11,990 is close to the BSA amount.
MS. KOESTER replied that establishing a fixed number is statute
is more reflective of the actual services received, but
maintains the allocation through the foundation formula, which
allows for automatic contributions from the department.
8:33:25 AM
CHAIR SEATON added that the question which has arisen is that
the base student allocation increases and the academy receives a
seven times multiplier to calculate the state's contribution.
Additionally, the program receives a substantial amount of
federal funding. He explained the desire to keep the program in
the realm of education instead of moving it to the Department of
Military & Veterans' Affairs. This maintains the program in the
Department of Education and Early Development.
8:35:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked how many times funding adjustments
have been requested for this program.
MS. KOESTER answered that since the inception of the program in
2002, that this is the first request for a funding adjustment to
the program.
8:36:14 AM
CHAIR SEATON opened public testimony on HB 413.
8:36:20 AM
MCHUGH PIERRE, Deputy Commissioner, Chief of Staff, Office of
the Commissioner/Adjutant General, Department of Military &
Veterans' Affairs (DMVA), said HB 413 is a priority of the DMVA
and the department supports this bill. The AMYA was established
in 1996 and the formula for the current funding structure, seven
times the BSA, was established in 2002. He reported that
previously 40 to 50 cadets graduated per class and with the
funding formula increase the number of cadets increased to about
100 cadets per class. Due to the $2500 increase in the BSA the
DMVA received a substantial increase and it has become evident
that the amount received from the state was in excess of the
need. He stated the department supports the change the bill
makes. The bill would "freeze" the $11,990 per student figure.
He offered his belief that if the AMYA needs additional funding
the legislature will respond appropriately. He stated that the
BSA was increased to cover some of the Teacher Retirement System
(TRS) obligation. The DMVA decided to offset some of the Public
Employee Retirement System (PERS) costs. While the DMVA has
used the funding appropriately, sufficient funding has been
received to meet cadet needs. He explained that the federal
funding is provided based on benchmarks. He anticipated federal
funding will continue to increase as the program expands. He
reported that the AMYA is one of the best programs in the
nation, in part, due to the state contributions to the program.
8:39:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked for the number of times between 1996
and 2002 that the DMVA has asked for funding increases for the
AMYA.
MR. PIERRE indicated that he was not certain. He stated that
any department requests for additional funding have been made
based on an increase the number of cadets in the program.
MR. JEANS clarified that HB 413 would remove the direct link to
the BSA and place a "per student" amount in statute in the
amount of $11,990. He said that the AMYA will need to justify
further increase requests.
8:41:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked how the funding for the AMYA compares
to other residential programs, such as Mount Edgecumbe High
School.
MR. JEANS responded that it is comparable overall. He offered
that the AMYA has a component that other residential programs do
not currently have, which is the "student tracking" for an
additional year.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether he was indicating the state funding
or the federal funding for the AMYA.
MR. JEANS clarified that the state funding is comparable to what
is provided for Mt. Edgecumbe, Nenana Academy of Higher Learning
(NAHL) and Galena Interior Learning Academy (GILA).
8:42:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked for clarification on whether Nenana
and Galena also receive federal funding.
MR. JEANS answered no, they do not. He explained that Nenana's
NAHL and Galena's GILA obtain their educational funding from the
foundation program. Several years ago, the legislature passed
"boarding school funding" so the schools receive some
residential funding. Mt. Edgecumbe High School is operated by
the state and receives instructional funding through the
foundation program and their residential component is within the
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED).
8:42:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked for the rationale for funding the
AMYA differently than the other programs in the state.
MR. JEANS explained that the AMYA is not part of the public
school system, but is operated by the DMVA. In 2002, the DMVA
asked for a funding formula to support them in a fashion similar
to public schools, including the residential facilities. At
that time the DEED developed the formula and increases to the
BSA were targeted for specific reasons. The big increases came
from the increases to the PERS and Teachers Retirement System
(TRS) contributions. The TRS increased at a rate much higher
than the PERS rate. Thus, increases in the BSA were made to
help districts offset the additional costs. The DMVA employees
are PERS employees so their rate of contribution was increasing
at a smaller rate. This did not necessarily equate to needing
seven times BSA multiplier each time the BSA was increased.. He
noted that the AMYA funding has been highlighted for a number of
years during the budget process and the funding for the program
contained in HB 413 is a "little simpler" method.
8:44:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH inquired as to whether the tracking
mechanism of students is a useful tool for the DMVA.
MR. JEANS answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH related that post-graduation information has
been identified as valuable information. He asked whether the
legislature might consider expanding the tracking to other
student programs in the future.
8:45:38 AM
MR. JEANS stated that the unique student identifier in K-12
education will become a means for tracking throughout a
student's career, including trend analysis. He stated that it
may also apply to pre-Kindergarten programs, as well.
8:46:42 AM
CHAIR SEATON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 413.
8:47:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ moved to report HB 413 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 413 was reported from the
House Education Standing Committee.
HB 393-CHARTER/ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL FUNDING
8:47:37 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 393, "An Act relating to charter school approval
and funding."
8:48:16 AM
JIM POUND, Staff, Representative Wes Keller, Alaska State
Legislature, paraphrasing from a prepared sponsor statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Over the years, this legislature has continually
searched for answers to improve the quality of the
education our children receive. We have promoted both
verbally and financially many ideas. Some of those
have worked while others have failed.
One area that continues to show promise in a
traditional classroom scenario are charter schools.
Charter Schools succeed because of efforts by the
school district, principals, teachers, and especially
parents. This team effort has proven to be extremely
effective.
House Bill 393 will continue to show our support for
these successful education programs by creating a
grant program within the Department of Education for
charter school construction, leases or major
maintenance. The Department will create a five year
program of grants based on existing per pupil
formulas. The legislature will be able to gage the
success of the program annually by reviewing and
providing the necessary funding.
HB 393 rewards the success of the program by allowing
more school districts to open and maintain charter
schools. Your support will ensure that one of the
successful education programs we have approved of in
the past will continue to prosper.
MR. POUND indicated that HB 393 would assist charter
schools in obtaining federal grants, by ending the
restriction on the number of charter schools. It would
provide for a Supplemental Charter School Facilities
Program, through a combination of federal and state grants,
charter schools would be able to apply for state grants.
8:50:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked for clarification. She asked for the
specific cite in HB 393 that removes the limit on the number of
charter schools.
MR. POUND referred to page 1, lines 6-9, of Section 1 of HB 393.
8:50:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ referred to the percentage of funding
allowances for federal funding and asked if the intent is that
the local district be required to fund the balance.
MR. POUND related that HB 393 would set up a program in which
the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) would
apply to the federal grant program, which would be cultivated,
and the local district would apply for grant funds.
8:51:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ noted the school would be eligible for a
percentage of allowable costs. She asked which entity would pay
the additional percentage of costs to make the project viable.
MR. POUND related his understanding that the local school
district would pick up the additional costs.
8:51:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER remarked that the intent is to establish a
policy that demonstrates the state has a vested interest in
obtaining facilities for charter schools. The cap seems
insignificant to him, he stated. The Alaska Charter School
Association (ACSA) asked the state to make a contribution of
state funds to charter schools in order to meet federal grant
eligibility requirements. If the charter schools receive $1.00
per student per year, it would cost approximately $1,000 per
year. That amount represents minimal state funding with the
balance to be picked up by the local school district.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ expressed concern that there would be no
guarantee that a charter school would receive local support.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER agreed. He commented that there is a
companion bill in the other body. Additionally, charter schools
are public schools with an option for local bonding. He agreed
that funding is difficult in some districts.
8:54:21 AM
CHAIR SEATON read from page 2, line 2, which read as follows:
(b) The department shall apply for available federal
funding and award federal funding made available under
the grant program established under (a) of this
section for not more than five years for approved
projects for charter school facilities construction,
lease, or major maintenance as follows:
CHAIR SEATON also referred to page 2, line 10, which read,
"(3) 60 percent of the allowable costs for the third fiscal
year for the approved project;." He said that in the third
year, 60 percent of the allowable costs would be absorbed
by the community. He then referred to page 2, lines 19-22,
which read:
(d) A school district or regional educational attendance
area that submits an application for a proposed project
under AS 14.11.011 for funding under this section that is
approved for funding by the department shall provide a
participating share that is equal to the difference between
available federal funding and the state aid provided under
AS 14.11.126.
CHAIR SEATON interpreted that to mean the school district would
absorb 40 percent of the cost and the next year would absorb 60
percent of the cost. He clarified that the funds would come
from the school district for construction project, which would
"bypass the vote of the people in the district." Thus, a
municipality could take on a significant funding liability for
building new schools and the voters would not decide if they
want to assume the bonding authority. He asked for an
explanation.
8:56:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER stated that the assumption is that
construction project would be happening. The link to the local
voters is "very real." He pointed out that the school board
would approve any construction project. He interpreted that the
intent of the language is not to obligate a district, community,
or a borough to pay for a construction project. He stated that
if the community decides to build a charter school, this bill
would provide the structure. The intent is to "leave the state
harmless: and ensure that the state general fund is not the
funding source, unless the legislature decides to do so." He
related that in every district the participation will vary. He
offered his view that his district would be very supportive of
building charter schools; in fact, his district has already done
so since as a "nice facility" exists in Palmer.
8:57:58 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he understood the bill's intent, but in
reviewing page 2, lines 19-23, he related that it stipulates
that the school district or the REAA will provide a
participating share that is equal to the difference between
available federal funding and the state aid provided. Under the
bill, the school district would be 100 percent liable for the
project and in the third year would be liable for 60 percent of
the cost; and in the fourth year would be liable for 80 percent
of the cost. He stated that this bill provides a mechanism for
the school district to circumvent the will of the people, since
it will not require a vote. He remarked that this may not be
the sponsor's intent.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered that HB 393 applies to charter
schools, which operate on a contract with the local school
district, but are also public schools. Charter schools exist in
the "good graces" of the school district, he stated.
MR. POUND offered that essentially the intent is to "get them
going."
8:59:58 AM
CHAIR SEATON emphasized that he is not speaking about the
intention, which is understood. However, the bill may require
amendments to clarify who will own the building and will be
responsible for the funding to build the charter school. He
underscored that the bill's language must support the intent.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER responded that the community would be
liable for a building that it agrees to build.
CHAIR SEATON maintained that under the structure of HB 393 the
municipality is not required to vote to adopt bonds to build a
school facility. He referred to page 2, line 2, which
stipulates that the department "shall" apply for available
federal funding. He surmised that the district is liable for
the funds, but the building would be owned by the municipality.
He suggested that perhaps there is another way to analyze this
language.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered to examine the provisions more
closely and try to provide a more definitive answer.
9:02:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked what would happen if a federal grant
covered 100 per cent of the cost. She thought the current
language seems to be limiting.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered his belief that the program is a
statewide program, so if one charter school is fortunate to
receive 100 percent federal funding, funds would be distributed
among other districts.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ suggested insertion of "pursuant to local
support" somewhere in the paragraphs that pertain to local
participation.
9:03:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER referred to page 2, line 4, and read:
(b) The department shall apply for available federal
funding and award federal funding made available under
the grant program established under (a) of this
section for not more than five years for approved
projects for charter school facilities construction,
lease, or major maintenance ..."
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked what mechanism would be used to
approve the projects.
9:04:04 AM
MR. POUND answered that "approved projects" would be a local
decision. However, a local school district or REAA would
determine the approval requirements for a charter school. The
state does not normally establish the requirements for charter
schools, he stated.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether an automatic application
would be made for a building to house a charter school that is
approved by the local district.
MR. POUND responded that there is no requirement for an
automatic application from the district, since only the
department is required to apply for federal funding. He said it
is up to the school district to decide whether to make an
application. He said, "We're not forcing the districts to apply
for this."
9:04:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked for the mechanism that a local
community or a school district would use to determine which
charter schools would apply for the funding.
MR. POUND answered that no rules would apply as to the
disbursement of funds. He surmised that it may be covered in
the grant. It said, "It's strictly up to the local district how
and which charter schools they want to apply money to."
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related that some charter schools have
satisfactory buildings, some do not, and there must be a
mechanism to make that decision.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER related that typically a charter school
operates under a contract with the local school district,
including for its facilities. Many charter schools may
experience minimal space issues. The decision would be made via
the local decisions in the community at the local school board
level.
9:07:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ recalled having helped form a charter
school and said it is an arduous process. She agreed it is a
contract between the charter school and the school district and
must also be approved by the Board of Education. She said that
the federal awards are not limited by a percentage of the
project. Thus, she asked why the bill limits the granting of
the awards.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER replied that he has had a similar
question. He related that he has been working to mirror the
language in the companion bill. He also had questions on the
fiscal note since the bill requires $1.00 contribution per
student per year, yet it translates to $150,000 in the fiscal
note. He deferred to the department to answer her question.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ stated that based on her experience in the
past, the charter schools' facilities have been paid for using
the BSA. She pointed out the difficulty it poses for charter
schools to pay for the facility in addition to the curriculum
strictly using the BSA. She said, "I really support this
legislation. I think you are on the right track, but I do think
there are some opportunities to make it even better."
9:09:24 AM
CHAIR SEATON referred to page 2, line 21. The language on lines
19-25 read, as follows:
(d) A school district or regional educational attendance
area that submits an application for a proposed project
under AS 14.11.011 for funding under this section that is
approved for funding by the department shall provide a
participating share that is equal to the difference between
available federal funding and the state aid provided under
AS 14.11.126. Allowable costs for a project approved under
this section shall be based on the adjusted student count
for a charter school calculated under AS 14.17.450(a) and
(c), as determined by the commissioner.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER again deferred to the department. He
interpreted that the department makes its decisions on where to
distribute the funds in the program, but that the DEED is not
providing approval for a construction project. The DEED's
decision is whether the department is "sending the money" to the
district.
9:10:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to page 2, line 30, which read
as follows, "...amount that is not less than one dollar for each
pupil enrolled in the charter school." She asked if that
language is to obtain the federal grant.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER answered yes. He stated that the
eligibility requires that the local school district have a
specific statute that establishes a charter school program. The
intent of this bill is to provide access to federal funds. The
Alaska Charter School Association determined that its charter
schools are not eligible for federal funds since the program is
not established by statute. This bill would address that
matter.
9:12:05 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether the state needs to set up a BSA
formula for charter school students or if the school districts
are allowed to have a separate allocation for charter school
students within their districts.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER related his understanding that the federal
requirement is for a state program to support charter schools,
in statute, but is not connected to the BSA. He restated that
the state statute must have a program for assisting charter
schools to obtain facilities.
CHAIR SEATON said that this would establish a new per student
allocation specifically for every charter school student, which
is basically a BSA. He pointed out the amount could be $500 per
student or any amount. He offered his view that the $1.00 is
merely a place holder. The intent of the federal requirement is
to direct more funding to charter school students, he stated.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER responded that is it is "per student" in
the sense of what the state contributes, and not a guarantee.
The funding is designated to a program that would provide
facilities for charter schools. The dollar figure is per
student, but is a merely a means to achieve the funding. He was
not certain if the requirement is based on federal regulations.
CHAIR SEATON suggested the questions are merely placed on the
table for consideration. He understood this bill is based on
language contained in a companion bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he appreciated the questions.
9:15:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related her understanding that charter
schools often struggle to stay open. She asked what would
happen if a charter school received funding, built a building,
and then the charter school was dismantled. In that scenario,
the respective school district would have a building that it may
not have be able to use since the charter school was dissolved.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered his belief those issues would be
part of the contract and the district would own the building as
an asset.
9:16:19 AM
SAM KITO, III, Engineer, School, Finance, and Facilities
Section, Department of Education and Early Development, stated
that the EED has done some research on charter schools. He
reported that that federal legislation passed several years ago,
which was funded at a small level for charter schools. Indiana
and California applied and received funding. The past two years
the program was not funded, but there has been renewed interest
with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to
encourage development of facilities for charter schools, which
has resulted in renewed interest in the program. The process is
that states apply to the federal government for participation
and based on the competitive responses, the schools are granted
funding. The Congress has not currently appropriated any
additional funding for this program. However, the applications
are handled in a competitive manner. One scoring criteria is
the level of per student funding related to facilities. While
per student funding in HB 393 would meet the federal
requirement, it does not necessarily meet the intent. Thus,
since Alaska would compete with other states, the $1.00 per
student may not help the application score particularly high.
Once the federal application is granted, a "stair-step" process
is used, beginning with a 90 percent level of funding for the
first year. The intent is for the federal government to help
stair-step a facilities funding program for charter schools, but
funding is uncertain, he stated.
9:20:15 AM
CHAIR SEATON related the intended purpose of the federal funds
is to "ramp up" a state facilities program based on a "per
student" cost and other factors, including a per student funding
for charter schools. It is likely that the administration would
need to demonstrate the state is initiating a program for
charter school facilities. The state needs federal funding to
establish the state's program.
MR. KITO agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER clarified that the federal intent is to
"ramp up" a facilities program for the states. He related his
understanding of the federal intent was to provide start-up
costs for schools.
9:21:46 AM
MR. KITO responded that it is for "ramping up" a state
facilities program. He explained that the state has not scored
well on the two components the state uses to obtain operating
funds for charter schools. This is not addressed in the bill.
The department expresses concern on whether these items can be
effectively implemented in the state. First, the charter
schools are administered under the local education agencies.
The competitive process requires that the charter schools have a
statewide appeals process if the local education agency is
responsible for establishing charter schools; or that the
charter schools are administered through a statewide program and
not through the local education agencies.
9:23:19 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether the reason that some states are not
eligible for operating costs is that their charter schools are
administered by the local school district.
MR. KITO answered that is correct. He explained that Alaska has
been applying for federal funding through the federal charter
school program for operational funding. Alaska has not scored
well enough to receive those funds, but the state does apply
each year.
CHAIR SEATON stated that the federal government is attempting to
leverage state regulation and state operation of charter schools
via grant qualifications as opposed to having charter schools
under local control.
MR. KITO agreed.
9:24:17 AM
CHAIR SEATON recapped that the federal program requires a state
appeals process be in place to conduct appeals in the event that
a local district turns down a local charter school application.
MR. KITO replied that is correct. In further response to Chair
Seaton, he agreed to provide the application criteria for the
committee to review.
MR. JEANS responded that the specific criteria will not be
outlined in the scoring rubric. However, in the federal
comments it is quite apparent that a state will score very low
unless it has a separate appeals board to allow charter schools
to appeal the local education agency decisions. Additionally,
this is not limited to state charter schools, but charter
schools could operate independent of local school districts. He
reported that Alaska has a cap of 60 in our state, and due to
that cap, the state scores low. These three areas are ways the
federal government asserts its agenda via the application
process for charter school funding. In further response to
Chair Seaton, he offered to provide copies to the committee.
9:27:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered his belief that there is some
confusion. He explained that the criteria that "we don't live
up to" in our charter school statutes does not relate directly
to the facilities being built. The operating grants have not
been granted to Alaska and the applications are scored low
because the federal government does not view the structure as
appropriate for "a good charter school." He viewed this as
"mixing apples and oranges". He said he supports having an
appeal process for approval for initiating a charter school but
it is not a requirement for the facilities grant.
MR. KITO offered his understanding that some overlap exists, but
to be competitive the state must meet the criteria for charter
school operations.
CHAIR SEATON suggested that it will be helpful for the committee
to receive the information.
9:29:59 AM
MR. KITO, in response to P. Wilson, answered that it is not that
the charter schools must be stand alone facilities, but charter
schools must exercise financial independence and control their
own curriculum.
9:30:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ offered her belief that the topic is
broader since the federal law touches on hiring and other
things.
MR. JEANS cautioned the committee that these requirements will
not be indicated in the federal regulations or law, but rather
it is a policy issue. These policy requests come via the
evaluation of the state applications of the federal grant
program for charter schools. Thus, these items appear in the
evaluator's scoring sheets and Alaska receives very low scores
due to the lack of components the federal government would like
to see in charter school legislation. This equates to the
federal policy asserted via the grant process, he stated.
9:31:56 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if the process is similar to "Race to the
Top."
MR. JEANS agreed the process is similar.
9:32:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER commented that the issues on evaluation of
charter schools began some time ago. The reason for the
requirements is the success of the charter school students. He
acknowledged that Alaska does score low in the federal review of
states' charter school governance. However, he offered his
belief that the standards arise from the associations and not
the federal government. He asked for further clarification of
the $150,000 appropriation request.
9:33:53 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified that a fiscal note does not appear in the
packet.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked why there is not a fiscal note from
the DEED.
MR. KITO responded that a fiscal note was prepared as an
identical fiscal note to the one provided for the companion
bill.
CHAIR SEATON related the fiscal note will be distributed.
MR. KITO explained that the fiscal note for HB 393 is identical
to the one prepared for the companion bill. The fiscal impact
is based on the actual cost of administering the program. The
federal funding is based on the state's program being approved.
The state's program would need to take into consideration all of
the items in the bill, but would also need to be a
prioritization program. Thus, currently the state has a grant
program and a funding program for debt. If the state receives
applications from charter schools for facilities the state would
need to establish a program for prioritizing those projects. He
said it is not anticipated that the state will receive enough
federal, state, or local funding for all the projects. Thus,
the state would need to develop a program to prioritize
applications for facilities projects.
9:36:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER pointed out that the fiscal note indicates
$150,000 but the Charter School Association is not anticipating
receiving this much. He said he thought that 1.5 employees
seemed high. When the original charter school enabling
legislation passed, there was a fulltime position approved to
work in EED as an advocate for charter schools. That person has
had performed duties beyond the charter school responsibilities.
MR. KITO explained that he reviewed the current program to
manage debt projects, which he thought was over $100 million in
grant projects annually. This grant program and grant debt
function is administered by 3 of 4 of the DEED's staff. He
anticipated that based on the anticipated number of charter
school applications by the DEED, the cost would be about $20
million for one project. He discussed the prior administration
of federal grants with other staff and determined at least a
fulltime person would be needed to administer the program, plus
clerical work, and arrived at 1.5 positions. He pointed out the
necessity to meet reporting requirements to the federal
government. He wanted to ensure appropriate staff was available
to administer the state's grant program, he stated.
Additionally, after the program terminates in five years, the
grants are active and the length of time included "the wind down
process" to close out the grants. However, staff would be
required for one to two years beyond the program completion.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER requested a report on the fulltime person
that has been functioning as the charter school advocate. He
recalled the person had other duties. An accounting of the
positions function would be helpful for the committee. He
expressed disappointment that the position may be performing
other projects.
CHAIR SEATON appreciated his comments. He clarified the intent
of the new grant program delineated in HB 393. He suggested
that this relates back to the fiscal note, but he wanted to stay
on track.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER related his intent is to "reason with the
department" and negotiate a smaller fiscal impact.
9:42:29 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated it is a reasonable and relevant question.
It is useful to know the time the DEED spends on prioritizing
maintenance of its grants. Additionally, this bill would
require a priority list for statewide grant applicants and for
leasing, which would need to be discussed. He did not recall
the DEED currently having a grant leasing program in place. He
suggested that the duties of the new position might be "rolled
into" the existing position, although he acknowledged the
position might be totally different.
MR. KITO offered to provide a report on the charter school
position.
9:44:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to an article in members'
packets that indicated some objections from the home school
community. She asked for input from that segment.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked for a position from the Department
of Education and Early Development (DEED).
MR. KITO stated the DEED does not currently have a position on
the bill.
9:45:18 AM
MR. KITO explained that if the legislature decides to move
forward with this bill, the goal would be to craft a program
that will work throughout the state. Additionally, the program
should be stable, since this program is only effective for five
years and is contingent on the federal program participation.
9:45:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked how many students are being served
in the 25 charter schools in Alaska and whether introducing
additional schools to compete for scare educational dollars
would result.
MR. KITO answered at this time there are 2,500 charter school
students and are housed in 24 independent facilities.
CHAIR SEATON suggested a summary report on the existing charter
schools.
MR. KITO agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked the report to also include the
number of charter schools that were created but are not longer
operational.
9:47:23 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked how the facilities will be owned and
operated, such as by the school district or the municipalities.
He asked whether this would establish a new classification of
ownership.
9:48:18 AM
MR. KITO answered that the charter school facilities would
operate in a fashion similar to the current charter school
operation. The DEED currently requires that a school district
must have adequate interest in a facility to receive public
funding. He described a scenario in which a leased facility
would be improved by public dollars and the lease lapsed. Thus,
a greatly improved building would be returned to the owner.
Additionally, use of federal funds could require an agreement to
grant assurances, which require the facility be operated for the
public's interest for a certain period of time. He expressed
concern that if a charter school was built and no longer used,
that the facility would need to be used or maintained by the
school district until the grant assurance expired. He recalled
a similar experience in rural Alaska on a school facility.
MR. KITO, in response to Chair Seaton, explained that twenty
years has been the norm for grant assurances.
CHAIR SEATON related that in the Homer district, the charter
school is not in a school facility. He asked whether it would
be the school district and not the municipality that would be
affected.
MR. KITO explained that the school district receives adequate
title interest, but it can be a facility that is owned by a
municipality, although an agreement must exist between the two.
The DEED considers ownership by the municipality as adequate
title interest, he stated.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether HB 393 would allow for the
construction of a school, including assuming liability, without
a vote of the people. He inquired as to whether this would
violate the requirements for incurring general obligation bonds.
MR. KITO said he was unsure. He offered his belief that by
submitting an application, the school district is obligating
itself to the future expense. However, he further understood
that subject to the regulation process, the application would
need to indicate the support of the local Board of Education.
This is similar to how the Board of Education approves the six
year plan for the DEED's grant program. Thus, the Board of
Education would acknowledge it is applying for charter school
funding. He stated the application would be clear and indicate
the potential school district's liability in regard to the
program.
9:52:55 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if the facilities are owned by the
municipality, does HB 393 allow for the school district to make
application, without being subject to voter approval. He asked
whether the DEED has considered this issue.
MR. KITO stated that he has not evaluated that issue and was
unsure of how to approach that issue. He said that he would
"take a look" at it.
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that is an area of the bill that
requires clarification from the Legislative Legal Services, or
Department of Law. He said he knew it was not the sponsor's
intention to disenfranchise voters. He said he did not want to
have an unintended consequence. He related that school
districts want bonds but the voters do not always approve them.
He stated that the application would initiate several "shalls"
on the DEED and indicate an obligation that is unclear.
9:54:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked for clarification on the $1,000 per
year, based on the 2,500 students in charter schools.
MR. KITO estimated that 40 percent of the schools would
participate in the program based on his own intuition.
9:56:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER highlighted that the advocates for HB 393
consider this to be a modest request.
9:56:35 AM
KIKI ABRAHAMSON, Lead Teacher, Fireweed Academy Charter School,
stated she is also a former president of the Alaska Charter
School Association. She indicated her understanding that only
three charter schools have closed their doors in the past 14
years. She said she did not think that more than 40 percent of
schools would apply for this funding. Many existing schools
have already established support in their communities, including
adequate facilities, through their school boards. She thought
that the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and Anchorage may not have
adequate facilities and would likely apply for the funds. She
recalled an evaluation of charter school law that outlined
criteria. She reported that Alaska has been "at the bottom" but
she disagreed that the federal government is pushing its agenda
via the grant program. However, she did think that the state
scores so low that it indicates the state does not support
charter schools at a level acceptable to the federal government.
She related that charter schools must meet or exceed the test
scores and academic progress of all schools in the state, but
have the handicap of lacking funding and access to facilities.
She offered to provide further information to the committee.
10:00:28 AM
CHAIR SEATON welcomed further submission of information. [HB
393 was held over.]
10:00:50 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:00 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 393 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/24/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/29/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/31/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 393 |
| HB 393 Charter School statutes.pdf |
HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/24/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 393 |
| back up AMYA.pdf |
HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 413 |
| HB413-EED-ESS-3-10-10.pdf |
HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 413 |
| sponsor statment HB413.docx |
HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 413 |
| HB 393 Charter School Background.pdf |
HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/24/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 393 |
| Support ltr fed dir.pdf |
HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 393 |
| Per pupil fac aid.pdf |
HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 393 |
| Fed Funding.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 393 |
| Discret Grants.pdf |
HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 393 |
| AK Grade 10.pdf |
HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/29/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 393 |
| Support public.pdf |
HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/31/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 393 |
| FY02-11LocalEffortAssessed&educationWithMills-2Pager_10-22-09.xlsx |
HEDC 2/19/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/3/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 350 |
| HB350-EED-ESS-2-18-10.pdf |
HEDC 2/19/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/3/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 350 |
| current program flow chart.docx |
HEDC 3/3/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 350 |
| Sponsor Statement HB 350.doc |
HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 350 |