04/11/2001 08:07 AM House EDU
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
April 11, 2001
8:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Con Bunde, Chair
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Joe Green
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Gretchen Guess
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Bettye Davis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 71
"An Act relating to the education of children with disabilities
and of gifted children; relating to the Governor's Council on
Disabilities and Special Education; making conforming
amendments; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 71(EDU) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 85
"An Act relating to conduct directed at a school employee as an
aggravating factor for criminal sentencing purposes."
- MOVED HB 85 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 211
"An Act requiring an annual inflation adjustment of the base
student allocation used in the formula for state funding of
public education; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 71
SHORT TITLE:EDUC. OF DISABLED OR GIFTED CHILDREN
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/17/01 0112 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/17/01 0112 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
01/17/01 0112 (H) FN 1: ZERO(EED)
01/17/01 0112 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/07/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/07/01 (H) Heard & Held
02/07/01 (H) MINUTE(EDU)
03/14/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/14/01 (H) Heard & Held
03/14/01 (H) MINUTE(EDU)
04/04/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
04/04/01 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/11/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 85
SHORT TITLE:AGGRAVATING FACTORS IN SENTENCING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)COGHILL
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/22/01 0143 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/22/01 0143 (H) EDU, HES, JUD
02/14/01 0328 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
04/11/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 211
SHORT TITLE:FOUNDATION FORMULA INCREASE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)GUESS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/26/01 0729 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/26/01 0729 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
03/26/01 0729 (H) REFERRED TO EDU
04/11/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
BRUCE JOHNSON, Deputy Commissioner of Education
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
801 West 10th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 71.
GREG MALONEY, Director
Special Education
Department of Education and Early Development
801 West 10th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 71.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 85.
RICHARD KRONBERG, President
National Education Association-Alaska
3511 Chiniak Bay Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 85.
EDDIE JEANS, Manager
School Finance and Facilities Section
Education Support Services
Department of Education and Early Development
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 211.
HARRIET DRUMMOND, Member
Anchorage School Board
2139 Hillcrest Place
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 211.
DAVE JONES, Director of Finance
Kenai Island Borough School District
722 Mill Bay Road
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 211.
JOHN HOLST, Superintendent
Sitka School District
PO Box 179
Sitka, Alaska 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 211.
DARRELL HARGRAVES, Executive Director
Alaska Council of School Administrators
326 4th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 211.
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards
316 West 11th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 211.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-24, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR CON BUNDE called the House Special Committee on Education
meeting to order at 8:07 a.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives Bunde, Porter, Green, Stevens, and
Guess. Representatives Wilson and Joule joined the meeting as
it was in progress.
HB 71-EDUC. OF DISABLED OR GIFTED CHILDREN
CHAIR BUNDE announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 71, "An Act relating to the education of children
with disabilities and of gifted children; relating to the
Governor's Council on Disabilities and Special Education; making
conforming amendments; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0127
BRUCE JOHNSON, Deputy Commissioner of Education, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development
(EED), came forward and stated that [the EED] held a statewide
teleconference on March 14 with several GT (gifted and talented)
constituents, including parents, advocates, teachers, and
directors. After some significant discussion on what was before
the legislature, [the EED] has offered three amendments. He
explained that the first [amendment] has to do with least
restrictive environment. People had been concerned that GT
students could not be grouped together without age-appropriate
peers. [The EED's] intent previously was that the least
restrictive environment language in the bill did not preclude
that; however, since there has been concern, [the EED] believes
it makes sense to delete that section.
MR. JOHNSON explained that the second [amendment] has to do with
reimbursement for the transportation of gifted children.
[Alaska] has been providing transportation for GT students for a
long period of time. He stated that the only reason [the EED]
has left [this language] out is to bring this issue before the
public for discussion. There is a lot of concern about the
increased cost for student transportation; however, he explained
that this [provision] is very discretionary in terms of how the
state deals with it. Clearly, he said, GT parents and advocates
of GT feel that this is a very important piece for them to
continue in order to serve GT students.
MR. JOHNSON, said, the last [amendment] has to do with due
process hearings. [The EED] does not have federal dollars;
therefore, there is not an incremental approach to settling
disputes involving GT. He added that in discussions on March
14, individuals felt that they would like to have mediation
built in, since all complaint remedy is at the district's
expense anyway. [The EED] has added mandatory mediation, which
is a more positive and proactive approach. Therefore, if a
parent of a GT student requests a due process hearing, it would
automatically "kick in" to a mandatory mediation. If it wasn't
resolved there, he stated, the parents could continue to pursue
it through the due process.
MR. JOHNSON added that one other amendment [the EED] is
suggesting is on page 11, line 24, which talks about the
identification of various categories of children with
disabilities. He stated that there was "speech impairment" and
now [the EED] has agreed to bring that to "speech or language
impairment".
Number 0507
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, which
read [original punctuation and capitalization included]:
Page 15, 4-9
Delete: [SEC. 14.30.355. LEAST RESTRICTIVE
ENVIRONMENT. EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT SHALL ENSURE THAT
TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT APPROPRIATE, GIFTED CHILDREN ARE
EDUCATED WITH CHILDREN WHO ARE NOT GIFTED AND THAT
SPECIAL CLASSES, SEPARATE SCHOOLING, OR OTHER REMOVAL
OF GIFTED CHILDREN FROM THE REGULAR EDUCATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT OCCURS ONLY WHEN EDUCATION IN REGULAR
CLASSES WITH THE USE OF SUPPLEMENTARY AIDS AND
SERVICES CANNOT BE ACHIEVED SATISFACTORILY.]
Insert: Sec. 14.30.355. Reimbursement for
transportation of gifted children. State
reimbursement for transportation of gifted children
shall be provided as for transportation of all other
pupils except that eligibility for reimbursement is
not limited to transportation to and from the child's
residence to the school but shal [sic] also include
transportation between schools and other locations of
instruction as required by the child's individualized
gifted education program.
This amendment removes all "least restrictive
environment" language as it pertains to
gifted/talented students, and adds in a provision for
the transportation of gifted/talented students. This
transportation is currently reimbursed, so to not add
it back in means taking away a service that is
currently provided for those students. This amendment
does not affect the fiscal note.
CHAIR BUNDE objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE stated that in public testimony [the
committee] heard from parents who feel that their gifted and
talented children really benefit from the ability to have the
"pullouts." He remarked that Allison Brumner (ph), a [student],
he wanted to testify on this point that she wished to continue
to have this environment. This amendment, he explained, would
delete that language and then insert in its place the language
on transportation.
CHAIR DYSON stated that he sees some irony in this. There was
the thrust for mainstreaming special-education kids, but now
"we" want to make sure that gifted kids aren't like the
mainstream. He asked Mr. Johnson if he sees the same irony.
Number 0646
MR. JOHNSON responded that these are two different populations.
Role modeling that can occur in a regular classroom makes a huge
difference in the lives of children with disabilities. He
stated that there are people who feel that the right way to
serve GT kids is in a pullout environment with like students.
Whether that is full-day or partial-day varies all over the
state. For example, in Anchorage there is a full-day program
for the brightest students, as measured by their IQs, and there
are several other layers of programs. Some children are served
at their neighborhood schools in a pullout program. He added
that it is not widespread across the state for kids to be served
without their age-appropriate peers since most communities are
not large enough to do this.
CHAIR BUNDE stated that if students were pulled out on a full-
time basis, it would deprive the average student of that same
leadership role modeling that is so valuable for special-
education kids. He pointed out that when all of the gifted
students are together there is a "pecking order."
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER remarked that he could speak for
a half an hour about why he doesn't like this
amendment. However, he said once these folks figure
out how to fund these programs of "extra special
treatment" he will support it.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE noted that he has five children on both
ends of the spectrum: special education and GT. There were
pullouts [for the special-education kids] to address the areas
in which they needed help. These were not all day long. On the
gifted and talented spectrum, he said, it was basically the same
thing. He shared that the experience the children in gifted and
talented had was structured in such a way that they had the
benefit of the regular classroom for most of the day at school,
as well as time with other individuals who were pulled out of
class. Overall, he said, he thinks it served a very good
purpose.
CHAIR BUNDE suggested that his comments are just a caution that
there should be minimum pullout.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE added that there is another bill that may
be used as a vehicle for gifted students within charter schools.
He suggested that if that moves forward that might take care of
some of these issues.
Number 0980
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Stevens, Joule,
Guess, and Bunde voted in favor of Amendment 1. Representatives
Porter and Green voted against it. [Representative Wilson was
absent.] Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 4-2.
Number 0991
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, which
read [original punctuation and capitalization included]:
Page 15, line 31, through page 16, line 6:
Delete current text and replace with the following:
(b) If a due process hearing is requested by
either a parent or the school district, the district
shall appoint a trained, impartial mediator to
administer a mediation process in an attempt to
resolve the disputes between the parents and the
district. The mediator may not be an employee of the
district and must not have a personal or professional
conflict of interest in the matter in dispute. The
district shall bear the costs of the mediation
process.
(c) If the mediation process required in (b) of
this section does not resolve all of the issues raised
in the request for a due process hearing provided
under (a) of this subsection, the school district
shall contact the department to request appointment of
an available hearing officer. The department shall
select a hearing officer through a random selection
process, from a list maintained by the department.
Within five working days after receipt of the request
for appointment of a hearing officer, the department
shall provide to the district and the parent a notice
of appointment, including the name, and a statement of
qualifications, of the hearing officer that the
department determines is available to conduct the
hearing.
Page 16, line 7: Change "(c)" to "(d)"
Page 16, line 16: Change "(d)" to "(e)"
Page 16, line 26: Change "(e)" to "(f)"
This amendment adds in a requirement of mediation
prior to a dispute going to a hearing officer.
Medication is far less expensive, and is often a more
positive route for resolution of conflicts. The cost
of settling disputes is handled by the district
currently, so this does not impose an unfunded
mandate. In fact, changing the bill lowers the cost
of handling disputes for gifted/talented children, for
districts.
CHAIR BUNDE objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE explained that this addresses the issue of
due process.
CHAIR BUNDE stated that he thinks the idea of mediation being
required is something that could strengthen the process. He
removed his objection. He announced that there being no further
objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 1040
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE made a motion to adopt Amendment 3, which
read [original punctuation and capitalization included]:
Page 11, line 24
Change to:
(I) speech or language impairment;
This is an amendment requested by the Department and
pertains to identification of Special Education
students.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN objected. He asked how impaired a
"language impairment" is. For example, if someone hasn't been
in the country very long and understands what's going on but may
not be able to communicate freely, would that be language
impairment?
CHAIR BUNDE stated that this is not a second language but how [a
student] is doing in the English language. He said there are
age-appropriate parameters. He added that the dichotomy of
speech is, "How do you pronounce the words?" Language is, "How
do you use the words to achieve your needs?"
GREG MALONEY, Director, Special Education, Department of
Education and Early Development, came forth and stated that the
assessment process is designed to exclude language [problems]
related to bilingual issues or other languages used that may
mask a real language deficit. He explained that it is more of
an internal process of how a person processes language. He
added that many people have interpreted speech impairment to
primarily mean articulation; however, language is a broader
category of how somebody expresses language as well as receives
language. He clarified that this is in line with IDEA
(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) 97s, federal
language regarding speech or language impairments, but it does
specifically talk to excluding other languages.
Number 1184
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that it is not a [language] issue if
a person has trouble pronouncing, but if a person can't put a
sentence together to get his or her idea across or interpret
what is said, it is. He asked, if he were a second-language
person, whether the interpreting would be a problem.
MR. MALONEY responded that it would be more the person's
ability. Primarily the assessment in English is where the
special education would come in. He explained that if a person
is having trouble enunciating and the assessment indicates that
it is not an accent problem, then that would not be an
impediment. If somebody has an articulation problem whereby he
or she may slur some of the letters or have a structural problem
with pronouncing certain letters, that can be remediated through
therapy; that could be a disability. He added that it is not a
science but that the assessment is designed to exclude non-
disability types of situations.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if this would include speech
[impairment].
MR. MALONEY answered yes. He clarified that [with the
amendment] the services would be the same; it's more of a
technical change to make sure everybody knows that it covers
both speech and language.
CHAIR BUNDE stated that the (indisc.) authority of speech
therapy includes a list; however, there isn't a bright line that
says, "This is just a speech problem; this is a language
problem." There are people who have language problems who can
also have articulation problems. However, he said, the language
problem is much more global and far more debilitating than, for
example, someone having a lisp.
MR. MALONEY added that frequently language [impairment] is also
tied in to someone having a learning disability. Therefore, it
is a more global kind of processing deficit.
Number 1308
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN removed his objection.
CHAIR BUNDE remarked that he is sure that there are many people
who would strongly object to being placed under an IEP simply
because English was their second language. He announced that
there being no further objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
MR. JOHNSON asked if, when [the committee] adopted Amendment 1,
which deleted the least restrictive environment language, the
reimbursement for transportation [language] was inserted.
CHAIR BUNDE answered yes. He asked what the fiscal impact of
Amendment 1 would be.
MR. JOHNSON responded that [the EED] is currently doing this;
therefore, it is not included as a fiscal note.
Number 1367
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that he hopes [the House Finance
Committee] takes a serious look at that particular inclusion,
which he said he would categorize as a "black hole."
CHAIR BUNDE stated that he has mixed feelings about the bill;
however, there is testimony from [the EED] that it is not
something that has to be done right away.
Number 1450
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE made a motion to move HB 71, as amended,
from committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 71(EDU) was moved
from the House Special Committee on Education.
HB 85-AGGRAVATING FACTORS IN SENTENCING
CHAIR BUNDE announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 85, "An Act relating to conduct directed at a
school employee as an aggravating factor for criminal sentencing
purposes."
Number 1500
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, Alaska State Legislature, came
forth as sponsor of HB 85. He stated that HB 85 brings an
aggravating factor to violence against a person who is a school
employee. He said, unfortunately, violence has not waned, and
this shows employees that they are being supported. He said he
doesn't anticipate that this is going to be used a lot; however,
there are many [students] in the schools who are not well
disciplined. He noted that NEA (National Education Association)
came to him with the idea. He remarked:
One of the things that is of particular interest to me
is that many of the things that we do here in this
education committee and the HES Committee [Health,
Education and Social Services Standing Committee] is
pass a lot of issues that kind of land in the
teacher's lap. I'm always interested in how to make
life a little better for the teachers, for those who
work within the school building, but I think
especially in the classroom. A lot of our issues,
just like the special education or the gifted and
talented, end up right in the classroom, and we have
quite a mix of issues. ... Teachers then find
themselves in the awkward position of not only being
managers of time and the much paper work we give them
to do, but of students who are not well disciplined.
I think HB 85 backs that up a little bit - gives them
some confidence that we're going to do that.
CHAIR BUNDE shared that a parent, who was a "giant of a man,"
had visited someone in a local school and said, "I've been to
jail and I'm not afraid of going back. Now let's talk about my
son's grades." He stated that it isn't just bullies that are in
the classroom on a regular basis; they may come in all kinds of
shapes and forms. He referred to Representative Coghill's
comment that he doesn't anticipate using this a lot and asked at
what point any assault becomes a felony.
Number 1061
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded that [it depends on] the degree
of actual or potential physical danger and injury.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if this would be used only when the assault
was a felony or to raise the assault to a felony.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied that this is under the felony
assault issue.
CHAIR BUNDE stated that pushing and shoving probably would not
be included, but threatening with a baseball bat would be. He
said that if a person is in a felony situation, this would
probably not be used a great deal because it is already a felony
charge. But the notion, at least for young people, that this
might increase the potential of a felony charge may be a
deterrent.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that once a person gets into a
school building and a felony occurs, this "ups" the limit.
Judges will be given discretionary power to say, "There's an
aggravator here, and we'll use it to the fullest extent."
Number 1735
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked about a case in which a defendant
knowingly directs the conduct. For instance, a father who is
irritated with someone in the school district, whom his child
comes in contact with, rants and raves at home about how [the
school worker] ought to be "horsewhipped," and then the child
goes into the school and makes some sort of a threat but claims
that his father directed him. The parent may not have knowingly
directed the child to go threaten [the person], but [the
father's] conduct resulted in that. Representative Green asked
if that is stretching too far.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded that he doesn't think that an
intermediary between the threat and the victim would constitute
this.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that [the bill] is kept within the
exercise of official duties, so it wouldn't be something that
happens as a course of activity [outside of the school].
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN remarked that he was just concerned about
some liberal judge deciding that there was some tie [between the
threat and the victim].
Number 1848
RICHARD KRONBERG, President, National Education Association-
Alaska (NEA-Alaska), came forth and stated:
It is always tragic when we have violence in our
communities, but it's especially problematic when that
violence is brought into schools. We don't view HB 85
as a silver bullet that's going to end that violence.
It's one more tool that can be in the tool kit for
schools and communities to deal with the issue of
violence. We brought it to Representative Coghill as
a result of actions by our delegate assembly asking us
to do this. And we appreciate not just the
introducing [of] the legislation, but the words that
the Representative just used, as one way for all of us
to [support] those [folks] in the schools who are on
the front lines making sure that our kids have every
opportunity to succeed.
CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Kronberg if [NEA-Alaska] provides
information regarding violence in schools.
MR. KRONBERG responded that NEA-Alaska has committed significant
resources to dealing with the issues of violence, and that
prepared materials are distributed to members and other folks in
the community that outline ways to deal with the issue. He
added that, personally, he doesn't think there is such a thing
as school violence; there is violence in the community that
comes in to schools. Therefore, schools by themselves can't
solve the problems of violence in the community but can be part
of the solution. He noted that [NEA-Alaska], in conjunction
with [the Department of Education and Early Development], runs
workshops and training sessions on this issue. He added that
[NEA-Alaska] thanks the legislature for actions that have
already been taken, such as Representative Dyson's bill, which
requires a reporting of violence and has caused districts to
move forward and develop plans.
Number 1988
CHAIR BUNDE, in regard to Representative Dyson's bill, asked
what the incident rate in Alaska is now.
MR. KRONBERG answered that he does not have the data yet. He
said he thinks the reporting requirements are going to "kick in"
pretty soon and [the legislature] should get the data relatively
soon in order to make an assessment.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if [that data] would include the "group fight
club" that took place at Service High School.
MR. KRONBERG responded that he does not know. He stated that he
imagines that since the Anchorage School District treated that
as an incident that began in school, it would probably be
reported.
Number 2070
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN remarked that he was very interested in Mr.
Kronberg's statement, "There isn't violence in the schools;
there's violence in the community that's brought into the
school." He stated:
We get these interviews back from violence like [at]
Columbine and other schools where there's shootings,
and invariably they say, "Well, John was really acting
strange for the last week and then on Thursday he came
in and blasted."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Kronberg if he feels there is
anything that the schools either should or can do in a situation
like that. He said that wasn't "violence in the community"
because few people knew he was going to do that.
MR. KRONBERG replied that he thinks one of the things that is
dealt with in the documents [provided in the committee member's
packets] is how personnel can clearly identify students who are
troubled and have the potential to engage in those sorts of
activities. He stated that school personnel need training to be
able to do that and they need the resources. He added that one
piece of training he thinks is needed is for people not to just
ignore it. It is necessary to be able to identify the
difference between having a bad day and being ready to "break."
Number 2147
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to move HB 85 from committee
with individual recommendations and the attached zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, HB 85 moved from the House
Special Committee on Education.
HB 211-FOUNDATION FORMULA INCREASE
CHAIR BUNDE announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 211, "An Act requiring an annual inflation
adjustment of the base student allocation used in the formula
for state funding of public education; and providing for an
effective date."
Number 2220
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE made a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 211, version 22-LS0799\C, Ford,
4/10/01, as a work draft. There being no objection Version C
was before the committee.
TAPE 01-24, SIDE B
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS, speaking as the sponsor of HB 211,
explained that the proposed CS has two changes. The first draft
stated, "the preceding fiscal year", whereas the proposed CS
states, "the second preceding calendar year". She explained
that CPIs [consumer price indexes] are not calculated on a
fiscal-year basis but on a calendar year basis. She stated that
after discussions with [the Department of Education and Early
Development], it was decided, for planning purposes, that it
would be best to use the CPI from the second preceding year.
That way, people could estimate what the foundation formula
would look like under inflation-proofing. She remarked that
this is the major change, and because of this, "January 1999" on
the last line of page 10 replaced "January 2000" [from the
original bill].
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS continued, stating that this is a simple
bill but a complex policy issue. It fundamentally shifts how
schools are funded by saying the base student allocation of the
foundation formula is going to be inflation-proofed every year.
She explained that the CPI would evaluate every year what a
bundle of goods costs in Anchorage. This is everything from
bread and milk to some services; it is what the standard norm is
for determining inflation. She stated that Anchorage is
actually the only area in Alaska that is large enough to have a
CPI. The reason she said she is using the Anchorage CPI is
because the cost differential is in the formula that takes into
consideration the credentials for the different areas. This
bill would allow that every year the base student allocation
would go up for what inflation was two years preceding it. She
said, in her mind, this would ensure the buying powers for the
school districts and ensure that they remain constant.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS remarked that funding went up 5 percent in
the 1990s, but inflation went up 30 percent and enrollment went
up 25 percent. She explained that decisions are made on
inflation-proofing. For example, the permanent fund is an
investment that needs to be kept steady; therefore, every year
it is inflation-proofed. She said by inflation-proofing the
foundation formula, the investment would be kept constant.
Number 2067
CHAIR BUNDE asked if the $7.8 million fiscal note would be for
inflation-proofing for just the last year.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS responded that he is correct. She said it
would be based on the annual CPI for 1999, which was 1 percent.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if it would be safe to assume that would be
the inflation-proofing for the following year.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS answered that the following year would use
the base of $2,000, which would be 1.7 percent. Therefore, the
fiscal note next year would be $14 million, which would include
[this year's $7.8 million].
CHAIR BUNDE stated that there is a bill in the House Finance
Committee regarding a study of area cost differentials and it
was discussed that there is a difference between the cost of
doing business in a community and the cost of providing
education in a community. He asked if there is some parallel
here, that the inflation index for education might possibly be
different than for general business.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS responded that he is correct. If this were
to be done accurately, there would be an education price index,
which looked at the cost of goods that a school district has to
buy. Given that the nation and economists have yet to figure
out how to do that, the next best "proxy" is the CPI. It is the
best proxy, but it is not accurate. She said most likely an EPI
(education price index), especially with the low labor rate
right now, would go up at a higher rate than a CPI. However,
there isn't a good source for that.
Number 1924
EDDIE JEANS, Manager, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Education Support Services, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), came forth and stated that the EED supports
this bill. He clarified that the 1 percent increase would
affect fiscal year 2002; therefore, it would be an increase in
next year's budget. He explained that this was done
specifically so [the EED] would know what the price index
increase was in order to build it into the budget. The previous
bill version required the 2000 price index to be used, but that
just came out in February; therefore, the EED would not have
been able to build that into the budget on an ongoing basis. He
explained that now that the price index for 2000 is available,
the budget for fiscal year 2003 would be based on a 1.7 percent
inflation increase, which is estimated to be a $14 million
increase. He added that he would have to amend the fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that he is confused with the
sponsor's statement concerning the 30 percent increase over the
last decade. He said he is concerned that if there were another
decade like this past one, and had this been done a decade ago,
the school budget would be over $900 million.
MR. JEANS remarked that Representative Green is correct with the
increase in the inflation over the last ten years. However,
districts' purchasing power has decreased by approximately that
30 percent. Therefore, it may be that a $900 million budget for
K-12 [kindergarten through 12th grade] education would be more
appropriate than what today's is.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN responded that he is more worried that the
fiscal note may be on the low side.
Number 1794
CHAIR BUNDE stated:
Whenever we do this, I am a little concerned that we
take the spending level that we had in the early '80s,
when we had to hurry up and spend money because it
might get bad. So we did all we could to convert
dollars to concrete at some record rate, but that
would have been a normal or even necessary spending
level. And we're judging from that. It is very
possible in some areas - and I don't know if education
is one of them - that we were spending way too much.
And much of what the public has expressed in
frustration as far as asking for reductions in state
spending, I think, is based on [the fact] that we may
well have been spending too much at one point.
MR. JEANS responded that he understands Chair Bunde's point and
his concerns that there was a lot of money in the late '70s and
early '80s that was thrown at education. He stated:
But the fact is, over the last ten years, inflation
has increased 30 percent and the funding increase has
only gone up 5 percent. So at some point we have to
recognize that we've compensated for that perceived
overfunding in the '80s, and we need to get back on
track with where we really should be funding school in
this state. I'd hate to see it go so far to the other
side that we can't recruit good, qualified teachers.
I think we're already starting to see that.
Districts have to make the hard choices - where they
spend their money - and this legislature is holding
districts very accountable for the money they get. A
couple of years ago the legislature passed [a bill]
requiring districts to demonstrate that they have
preventative maintenance programs before they are
eligible for school construction funding. I'm not
saying that districts were [not] doing that, it's just
that they didn't document it very well. So now they
have added expenses there of providing that added
documentation. ... Teachers' salaries go up every
year.
My friends in Kenai tell me a million dollars of their
budget on an annual basis has to be shifted from some
other source over to teacher salaries. ... I think the
Kenai School District is a good example of a district
that has really held the line. At one point during
the '80s they had a two-tiered contract. In other
words, their new teachers coming in were being paid on
a different salary schedule than their long-time
teachers.
I think the districts in this state have stepped to
the table and have heard the direction from the
legislature. The other thing is, I understand the
legislature's reluctance with inflation-proofing the
base student allocation because people would see that
as an automatic increase. As Representative Guess
said, "There's always an opportunity to make
adjustments." I know that's hard for the legislature.
But the department believes strongly that we need to
do something to get us back on track.
The State of Alaska's per-pupil expenditures compared
to the nation have been dropping at quite an
accelerated rate. Ten years ago we spent more than
any state in the nation per-pupil basis, on education.
And we're dropping down below number ten in the nation
now. I would suggest to you all that we have greater
difficulties in providing our educational system in
the great state of Alaska than most other states
because of the remoteness of many of our communities.
CHAIR BUNDE remarked that Mr. Jeans had hit on something that a
number of [legislators] are concerned about. With the demanded
increased accountability, for example, with the High School
Qualifying Exam, more resources and money should be rewarded for
a job well done. Human nature being what it is, he said, a
person gets a guaranteed raise every year but doesn't always
work as hard as he or she would under some kind of merit or
bonus [system]. This [inflation-proofing] would take more than
the available money the state might want to invest in education,
and would preclude providing merit pay for schools and school
districts since everybody is going to get an automatic increase.
Number 1569
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the school system has looked at
getting "outside the box." For example, in rural areas where it
is more expensive, there could be someone in the classrooms who
is a disciplinarian while the children are taught over monitors,
since they are already watching television. He added that this
has done extremely well in adult education.
MR. JEANS responded that the education task force did make a
recommendation for such a program, for approximately $2 million
to be appropriated to the state correspondence program. There
are teachers on staff who could provide the expertise in fields
such as mathematics. The teacher on site, he said, would then
become the mentor.
CHAIR BUNDE noted that also going through the legislature was
legislation that would encourage rural districts to make a local
contribution. If the state contribution goes up every year,
that could perhaps reduce that incentive as well.
Number 1456
HARRIET DRUMMOND, Member, Anchorage School Board (ASB),
testified via teleconference. She stated that the ASB had
passed a resolution in support of in-state funding for K-12
education. She read the resolution to the committee:
WHEREAS during the last ten years budget of the
Anchorage School District has been [impacted] by
approximately a 30 percent increase in the cost of
index while the same funding formula has only
increased by 5 percent;
WHEREAS during the last 10 years Anchorage School
District's general fund revenue from state sources has
decreased from 73.37 percent to 62.56 percent while
general fund revenues from local taxes has increased
from 23.7 percent to 31.33 percent of annual budgets;
WHEREAS the Anchorage School District is no longer
able to be competitive in employee salaries and has
seen marked increases in unfilled positions and
decreases in its ability to attract proficient
qualified staff;
WHEREAS both federal and state governments continue to
require more and more services including the Quality
Schools Initiative and the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act without providing
commensurate funding;
WHEREAS for the upcoming year the Anchorage School
Board has to deal with approximately a $12 million
deficit just to maintain current levels of service to
our students;
WHEREAS the Governor's non-partisan task force on
education funding examined how best to focus on
student achievement and recommended a $45 million
increase in state funding for next year;
WHEREAS the Governor has announced that 15 million
additional dollars are available from increases in
school trust earnings, and local and federal aid are
requiring the state to put fewer general fund dollars
into next year's funding formula;
WHEREAS (indisc.) being considered by wealthy Alaska
Senate and House are significantly less than the
amount authorized for last year's take home education
expenditure;
Now therefore be it resolved, the Anchorage School
Board supports legislation that significantly
increases the amount of state funding appropriated for
K-12 education.
Number 1282
DAVE JONES, Director of Finance, Kodiak Island Borough School
District, testified via teleconference. He stated:
The lack of inflation-proofing in the foundation
formula is causing serious burdens across the state.
I will try and relate to you the specific effects it
has had on Kodiak schools. From 1989 through 2000,
state revenue per student has actually decreased by
2.5 percent in Kodiak. During this same time period,
the Anchorage consumer price index has risen 32.9
percent. The combined result has been a serious
decline in purchasing power for the school district.
Our borough has increased their support by 109 percent
in that same time period. This support has partially
shielded us from the effects of inflation, but we have
still been forced to make program cuts in recent
years. In FY [fiscal year] 2000, we cut $242,000 from
our budget and used the remaining $350,000 of
available fund balance. In FY 2001, we were forced to
cut $824,000 from our budget. These were serious cuts
that directly affected our ability to provide adequate
instruction to our students.
In FY '02, without adding any programs, we are looking
at a $523,000 deficit. When we look at the reason for
the deficit, inflation is the clear culprit. Our fuel
costs have increased by $109,000. This is a 28.9
percent increase. Our electricity costs have
increased by $134,000, which is an increase of 16.6
percent. These are only two examples of one-year
inflation increases that are not addressed in the
current foundation formula. Without additional
funding to address these inflationary costs, we will
again be forced to make further cuts to our
educational programs. After making over one million
dollars' worth of cuts in the last ten years, there is
clearly no fat or excess in our budget. The $523,000
deficit we are facing will result in the elimination
of approximately eight teaching positions. This will
have devastating effects on our ability to provide an
adequate education to the students in Kodiak.
The effects of inflation are not isolated to the
island of Kodiak alone. The examples I gave you are
being faced by school districts across the state.
Based on these facts, the Alaska Association of School
Business Officials (ALASBO) included the need to
inflation-proof the foundation formula as one of only
three items on our legislative agenda for this year.
The costs of inflation have resulted in serious cuts
to our educational programs; at the same time, we have
been given higher performance standards. House Bill
211 would eliminate future educational cuts caused by
inflation, and I urge you to support this bill.
Number 1132
JOHN HOLST, Superintendent, Sitka School District, testified via
teleconference. He stated that he would like to echo what the
previous two speakers have said. Clearly, he said, inflation is
eating "us" alive. He stated that the Sitka School District is
budgeting about $85,000 more in its fixed cost this year just
for fuel, and textbooks have gone up about 200 percent in the
past five years. He stressed that it is absolutely mandatory
for the legislature, as soon as possible, to eliminate the
impacts of inflation and go beyond that. To just say inflation-
proof is not going to make up for the cuts that have been made
over the five to ten years that have started to seriously
cripple districts in retaining teachers and implementing the
legislative requirements in terms of improving school
performance. He added that [the Sitka School District] is in
support of student performance; however, it is desperately in
need of assistance.
Number 1035
DARRELL HARGRAVES, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School
Administrators (ACSA), came forth and stated that [Mr. Jeans]
gave an excellent lesson about that ravaging effects of
inflation. He stated that inflation is a word "we've" been
cautioned not to use, but this "eroding purchasing power" has
caused great stress on school districts. He said he thinks
school districts have tried heroically to comply with all of the
accountability measures that have been put in place in recent
years. However, there is a problem in schools across the state
today, and much of it comes from inflation that has cut the
purchasing power.
MR. HARGRAVES remarked that Mr. Jeans had mentioned the fact
that there are maintenance reporting requirements, which the
legislature mandated because it didn't think schools were being
kept up at the level they should be. However, he said, he was
in a district when that compliance requirement occurred; the
districtwide maintenance staff there was reduced from four to
one. That happened, he said, as a result of some huge
inflationary problems with no increase in foundation funding.
He stated that school districts have been preparing graphs
showing the loss of purchasing power over the past decade. The
last one he did was in 1995 or 1996. He said he went back to
1986 and found, for that decade, a very distinct 35 percent
decrease in purchasing power of that school district's income
from the revenues from the state. With those significant
factors, he remarked, that he thinks it has to be accepted that
schools are having a terrible time making do with what they
have. The truth is, he said, districts that used to have
assistant superintendents to work with the compliance factors
that the legislature put in place have disappeared. There are
school districts today where the current employees don't
remember when the district had a curriculum director.
MR. HARGRAVES added that the school administrators, through
[testimony on] legislation, have indicated that they support a
$200 increase this year in the per-student allocation, and that
they felt that it would have to take place each year for the
next five years in order to get up to the levels of a decade
ago.
Number 0800
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards [AASB], came forth and stated that he concurs with much
that has been said. He said he thinks there are three areas to
be concerned about, and inflation-proofing is one of them. When
[AASB] looked at what the needs are of the system, two areas
were driving [them]: student achievement and accountability.
"We" also identified that capturing the actual needs in terms of
cost was one way of going about addressing what needed to be
done. However, [AASB] did not want to talk about the impact of
inflation outright, but wanted to recognize what had happened
over a period of ten years. Second, he said, [AASB] wanted to
address the appropriateness of its distribution, which resulted
in the cost model study. He added that he also thinks a real
solution would be for the money to be distributed more
appropriately. The third issue is maintaining the buying power.
MR. ROSE stated that one thing that has come up when talking
about education is the idea that if [the budget] had kept pace
with inflation, there would have been in the area of $900
million and no need for this discussion today. Instead, there'd
be discussions on how to deal with the capacity and the pressure
of making sure that the pace was kept. He remarked that as he
understands it, [the state] has four years with which to work to
try to project into the future without running out of reserves.
He stated, "My concern is not for where we should have been; my
concern is how we move forward now." He said there are costs
that need to be recovered, and rather than talk about the lost
buying power, "we" need to talk about what we need as a system
to make good on a promise that all kids can take and
successfully pass these exams. He suggested taking a look at
the basic need in the state; how the dollars are distributed,
based on a more accurate cost model; and the buying power
components for the future.
Number 0602
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE, in reference to the job fair last week,
asked what the number of people who showed up was versus the
numbers of vacancies.
MR. KRONBERG responded that there were about 350 people who
attended the job fair, which is about one third of the number
five or six years ago. He stated the he does not know the
number of vacancies.
CHAIR BUNDE stated that from the information he has, far fewer
people attended than there were vacancies. One of the ongoing
challenges in education is that it is "heavy" in personnel. He
said perhaps, like Representative Green's idea, there will be
more "mechanical" delivery. However, he remarked that from
research he has seen the one consistent factor that impacts
education the most is a dedicated teacher. He asked Mr. Jeans
if he was aware of an increase in performance when $20 million
was added to the foundation formula in 1997.
MR. JEANS responded that the stated assessment system that was
passed along with that legislation has just been implemented in
the past couple of years. Therefore, the results are just now
coming back. He added that the legislature increased the
funding formula, but at the same time the required local effort
went up as well as the support from the federal government
through the "impact aid" program. As a result, that $20 million
that went in has been redirected to other sources in the last
couple of years.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if that amount of money is still there, but
just coming from a different source.
MR. JEANS answered that he was correct. He added that the
legislature does deserve some kudos for fully funding the
foundation program for enrollment increases during the past ten
years. He said during the same time that inflation went up 30
percent and the foundation formula went up only 5 percent,
enrollment in [Alaska] increased 25 percent. He stated that
[the EED] recognizes that it put additional burden and pressure
on the legislature in terms of funding the foundation program.
Number 0327
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that there is one statistic that
has not been mentioned. He said:
During the same period of time, what has happened to
the state's ability to pay? For the record, somewhere
around 50 percent of the general fund income over that
period of time has been reduced. ... Two years ago the
legislature was somewhat shocked when, after
determining that every recognizable group in the state
favored the fiscal plan that we had developed, we were
brought up short by the fact that 84 percent of the
population didn't agree with all those groups and the
legislature. That still has resulted in some
confusion among legislators on exactly which track to
take. My suggestion to educators and teachers and
administrators and parents groups is to recognize that
a revenue plan has to be in place before these kinds
of approaches can be considered, and to orchestrate
one big effort to convince their individual
legislators of this particular fact so we can get one
in place. But our revenue is bleak, bleaker than what
we've been able to do with less in funding budgets.
CHAIR BUNDE remarked that Mr. Rose had said something about if
[the budget] was at $900 million for schools instead of $700
million, the CBR (constitutional budget reserve) would be
further eroded. Maybe, he said, the people could reach into
their pockets to pay the state a personal tax and the education
community could have this discussion with their neighbors rather
than with [the legislature].
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS remarked that she thinks Representative
Bunde is acutely accurate with his comments. She stated to
Representative Green that he makes a good point and that it was
not her intention to have a small fiscal note; she said she is
trying to get an accurate one for next year. She said he is
right that as the discussion moves forward it is necessary to be
aware of what inflation may be in a year and how that would
impact the state. In response to Chair Bunde's comments, she
said she has worked most of her adult life in the private sector
and found it interesting that when raises and evaluations came
along, the rule of thumb was always, "If you got a raise that's
the same as inflation, you should just look for another job
because they were just keeping you constant. And if you got a
raise over inflation, that means they wanted you to stay there."
She stated that she agrees with Chair Bunde's comment that "we"
would automatically be giving districts money every year and
that in some ways it is just keeping [their funding] constant.
TAPE 01-25, SIDE A
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS continued, stating that this would be a
fundamental shift in how education is funded next year if [the
legislature] thinks about education and a long-term fiscal plan.
This allows for [the funding] to be kept constant with
inflation, whether inflation goes up or down. She said this
then shifts the conversation to the base student allocation and
whether or not [the legislature] has the political will.
[HB 211 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Education meeting was adjourned at 9:37
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|