02/17/2004 11:03 AM House EDU
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
February 17, 2004
11:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Carl Gatto, Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Vice Chair
Representative Dan Ogg
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Kelly Wolf
Representative Les Gara
Representative Mary Kapsner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 471
"An Act relating to the funding of public education; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 338
"An Act relating to attendance at public school; and providing
for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 338 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 353
"An Act relating to jury duty; and amending Rule 15(k), Alaska
Rules of Administration."
- MOVED HB 353 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 390
"An Act relating to the required number of days in a school
year."
- MOVED HB 390(EDU) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 437
"An Act requiring the Department of Education and Early
Development to gather and report information about the school
attendance status of every child who is a resident of the state
who has been admitted to kindergarten or is of school age."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED
HOUSE BILL NO. 405
"An Act relating to reports on school and school district
performance; and relating to accountability of public schools
and school districts; and providing for an effective date."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 471
SHORT TITLE: INCREASE AMT OF BASE STUDENT ALLOCATION
REPRESENTATIVE(S): EDUCATION
02/16/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/16/04 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
02/17/04 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 338
SHORT TITLE: ENTRY INTO SCHOOL
REPRESENTATIVE(S): MCGUIRE
01/12/04 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/2/04
01/12/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/12/04 (H) EDU, HES
02/17/04 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 353
SHORT TITLE: JURY DUTY EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN TEACHERS
REPRESENTATIVE(S): KAPSNER
01/12/04 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/2/04
01/12/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/12/04 (H) EDU, HES, JUD
02/17/04 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 390
SHORT TITLE: LENGTH OF SCHOOL TERM
REPRESENTATIVE(S): GATTO
01/20/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/04 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
02/17/04 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
EDDIE JEANS, Finance Manager
School Finance and Facilities Section
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 471 and answered questions
from the committee.
JOHN ALCANTRA, Government Relations Director
NEA Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 471.
RON RUCKER, President
Classified Employees Association
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 471.
KRIS MOORE
Valley Voices for Children
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 471.
JENNIE HAMMOND
Nikiski, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 471.
MELODY DOUGLAS, Chief Financial Officer
Kenai Peninsula School District
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 471.
ANDI STORY, Board Member
Juneau School District
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 471.
REPRESENTATIVE LESIL McGUIRE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor of HB 338.
HEATH HILYARD, Staff
to Representative Lesil McGuire
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions from the members on HB
338.
KEVIN SWEENEY, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions from the members on HB
338.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-10, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR CARL GATTO called the House Special Committee on Education
meeting to order at 11:03 a.m. Representatives Gatto, Wilson,
Gara, Kapsner, Seaton, and Ogg were present at the call to
order. Representative Wolf arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 471-INCREASE AMT OF BASE STUDENT ALLOCATION
Number 0070
CHAIR GATTO announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 471, "An Act relating to the funding of public
education; and providing for an effective date." He asked if
Representative Ogg, Chair of the Subcommittee on Education
Funding, would provide the committee with the subcommittee's
recommendations.
Number 0099
REPRESENTATIVE OGG told the members that it was an honor to
serve on the subcommittee with Representatives Seaton and Gara.
They did an excellent job in working with this complex and
difficult subject, he said. Representative Ogg commented that
the subcommittee listened to public testimony during two
meetings. The testimony of school districts around the state
was expressing how the districts' needs had not been met was
very persuasive, he said.
Number 0212
REPRESENTATIVE OGG explained that after taking testimony the
subcommittee spent time discussing how to address education
funding. He reminded the members that in the last
[subcommittee] meeting a bill that dealt with Public Employees'
Retirement System (PERS) and Teachers' Retirement System (TRS)
increases was referred to the [full committee of the] House
Special Committee on Education. Representative Ogg said that it
was the consensus of the subcommittee to deal with PERS and TRS
[funding] as a separate issue. At one point it was believed
that PERS and TRS should be included in the formula funding
[bill]; however, in looking at the numbers it became a
differentiation [issue] between the actual costs under the TRS
and PERS programs and formula funding. The subcommittee decided
to deal only with formula funding, he clarified.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked the members to look at HB 471 which is
the vehicle the subcommittee believes best addresses [education]
funding for FY 05. The number in the bill reflects an increase
of $95. He added that the subcommittee does not recommend that
number based on testimony taken and a lot of discussion.
Representative Ogg told the members that the amount the
subcommittee recommends is an increase of $210, to the total of
$4,379. The subcommittee recommends an amendment be made to
reflect those figures, he said.
Number 0317
REPRESENTATIVE OGG recommended another amendment which would
change the wording on page 1, line 6, where the words "beginning
on July 1, 2005," would be inserted after the words "on July 1
of each year," he said.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG explained that the subcommittee came up with
the $210 figure based on testimony given [during subcommittee
hearings]. The subcommittee used the figure provided by the
Superintendent of the Anchorage School District who offered that
a $388 increase would make the Anchorage School District whole.
The testimony from around the state came in very close to that
figure, he added. Some a little less, and very few were a
little more, but nothing over $400. The amount each school
district will get is based on their actual costs, he said. The
way the subcommittee arrived at the $210 increase was by funding
the PER [and TRS] requirement through a separate bill. The
amount given to the subcommittee by the Department of Education
and Early Development for [TRS and PERS] funding was
$35,000,000, which would equal $178 from that $388 [figure
provided by the Anchorage School District], giving the amount
for education funding of $210. Representative Ogg thanked the
other members of the subcommittee saying that it was not an easy
task.
Number 0460
CHAIR GATTO told the members that there will be amendments to
the bill which will require a new fiscal note from the
department. It will be provided by next Thursday's meeting, he
said.
Number 0523
REPRESENTATIVE OGG moved to have HB 471, 23-LS1645\D, before the
committee as the working document. There being no objection, HB
471, version D, was before the House Special Committee on
Education.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG moved to amend HB 471 as follows [adopted as
Amendment 1]:
On page 1, line 6
Delete "$4,263"
Insert "$4,379"
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
CHAIR GATTO reiterated Representative Ogg's comments that this
bill reflects a $210 increase [in education funding]. He told
the members it is important to note that this bill does not
address the TRS and PERS shortfall, so another bill will come
before the committee to deal with that issue. He said that it
is his understanding that [the figure for education funding]
plus the bill that will handle the PERS and TRS increase is the
figure which was given to [the committee] as that which was
spent on education in FY 04. He told the members that most of
the school districts are saying that if funding is provided at
this level it would be satisfactory and the districts will not
be faced with the drastic cuts that have been proposed.
Number 0702
REPRESENTATIVE OGG moved Amendment 2 as follows:
On page 1, line 6
After the word "year,"
Insert the words "beginning July 1, 2005,"
CHAIR GATTO pointed out that the budget being proposed is the
2005 budget. If this amendment were effective July 1, 2005,
then there would be an increase in the formula plus the
percentage increase. He asked Mr. Jeans to clarify [the impact
of Amendment 2].
Number 0764
EDDIE JEANS, Finance Manager, School Finance and Facilities
Section, Department of Education and Early Development,
testified on HB 471 and answered questions from the committee.
He explained that by changing the date to July 1, 2005 [the
legislation] would effect the 2006 school year.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG commented that the date he is inserting is
not the effective date [of the law]. He clarified that this
change would mean that the 2 percent increase would not take
effect until the 2006 budget.
Number 0819
CHAIR GATTO asked if there were any objections to Amendment 2.
There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA advised the members that a third amendment
is being copied for the committee's consideration. He added
that he will provide the minority's report on the subcommittee
at the same time [that he presents his amendment].
Number 0893
JOHN ALCANTRA, Government Relations Director, NEA-Alaska,
testified on HB 471. He told the members that he represents
almost 13,000 members on NEA-Alaska. Mr. Alcantra thanked the
committee for their efforts, particularly for those amendments
that brought education funding up to $4,379. He told the
committee it is important to note that revenue sources that were
published two months ago for the Constitutional Budget Reserve
(CBR) draw for the current fiscal year was less than half that
which was forecasted. It came in at $195.7 million, leaving
$204.3 million in abeyance of the $400 million that had been
discussed for a CBR draw, he said. Mr. Alcantra stated that he
understands that the $35.8 million in TRS and PERS shortfall
will be dealt with in a different bill. He reiterated his
appreciation to the committee for their efforts, but added that
he concurs with other legislators' statements that this
[funding] does not address the past losses through inflation and
it will not address the adequate funding issues in the future.
Number 1180
RON RUCKER, President, Classified Employees Association,
testified on HB 471. He explained that the Classified Employees
Association's members are the support staff for the Matanuska-
Susitna School District. When he looked at the original version
of HB 471 he believed it to be totally inadequate. The
[amendments] are a step in the right direction; however, it is
important to note that this increase still does not make the
district whole, he said. Mr. Rucker commented that he's come up
with some quick numbers which reflects that the district will
have a $2 million shortfall. He said he believes that will be
the case even with separate funding for the PERS/TRS shortfall.
At this rate the public school system will not be around very
long, he commented. He said that the district is no longer
cutting fat or meat; it is cutting the bone that supports public
education. Mr. Rucker summarized his comments by saying that
education needs to be funded adequately because education [of
the youth] is the future of this state.
Number 1167
CHAIR GATTO asked Mr. Rucker to provide him with a name of an
individual who can confirm that the Matanuska-Susitna School
District will have a $2 million shortfall.
MR. RUCKER responded that he did a rough estimate; based on the
$8 million in cuts Mr. Doyle [Chief School Administrator,
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District] said there would be.
He said that if [there were originally] $8 million in cuts, of
that $8 million, $3 million is for PERS and TRS, that leaves $5
million [in cuts] on the table. Roughly 14,000 students times a
$210 increase [in base student allocations] would mean an
increase of approximately $2.9 million. That leaves [the
district] approximately $2 million short of the $5 million
shortfall, he said. The increase does not make this district
whole, he stated. He pointed out that the district does not
have the option of contributing additional local money that
Anchorage or other communities have because the borough assembly
is currently funding to the maximum amount [allowable by law].
He commented that this has been the case for a number of years.
There is nowhere else to go but to cut programs and raise fees
to residents and students.
CHAIR GATTO asked Mr. Rucker if he is aware of the funding
formula and how that works with the base student allocation. He
asked Mr. Jeans to comment on the impact of the base student
allocation.
Number 1293
MR. JEANS responded that as Chair Gatto pointed out, there are a
number of adjustments that occur in the foundation program.
There is an adjustment for school size, district cost factors,
and 20 percent [additional] funding for special needs
[students]. The numbers will be higher than a straight per
student times a dollar amount. He summarized that there will be
a different number on the fiscal note going to Matanuska-Susitna
Borough School District than the number Mr. Rucker mentioned.
Number 1340
KRIS MOORE, Valley Voices for Children (VVFC), testified on HB
471. She offered her thanks for the work the committee is
doing. She said she believes the amendments show that the state
is moving in the right direction. She told the members that
VVFC would be happy to help in seeing that this legislation
passes. She said that she understands that [a separate bill
addressing] the TRS and PERS funding issue will be coming to the
committee; however, she does not see this as an education
funding issue, but a revenue issue.
Number 1453
CHAIR GATTO announced for the record that Representative Wolf
joined the meeting some time ago.
Number 1474
JENNIE HAMMOND testified in support of the amendments to HB 471.
She told the committee that last night she attended a work
session on the budget by the Kenai Peninsula School District.
She warned that this increase will still not fully fund
education in the Kenai Peninsula School District. The district
is looking at reducing special education, she said. Ms. Hammond
asked if the committee would create a task force for special
education to look at the issue. She also asked the members to
look at the idea of giving tax cuts on gas to companies that
deal with the district. That might ensure that the companies do
not pass the additional costs to the district, she said.
Number 1565
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Ms. Hammond if she recalls what base
student allocation figure was used at those meetings.
MS. HAMMOND responded that the figure used in the meeting to
adequately fund education was $4,570 for FY 04.
Number 1605
REPRESENTATIVE GARA noted that both Kenai and Matanuska-Susitna
testifiers have said that roughly $4,570 would be necessary to
adequately fund to FY 04 [level], and ensure that no additional
teachers would be fired. It is important to note that [the
increased] funding does not make up for all the teachers who
were fired the year before. Representative Gara noted that
Kenai said that going into this year it was necessary to layoff
10 percent of their teachers. The $4,570 would [still] leave
Kenai at the point where it has lost 10 percent of the teachers.
He said the point is well taken that this increase does not make
districts whole.
Number 1666
MELODY DOUGLAS, Chief Financial Officer, Kenai Peninsula School
District, testified in support of HB 471. She echoed the
appreciation expressed by others in amending HB 471 to include
increases in education funding. Ms. Douglas said that this is
movement in the right direction. She said she realizes that the
PERS and TRS funding is not included, but the way she calculates
this, the figure will come in around $4,557, which would [still]
leave the district $13 off the base unit for what would hold the
district to the FY 04 standards. Ms. Douglas commented that she
really appreciates the language for the 2 percent increase in
funding for next year; however, she said she is very concerned
that the cost of inflation may exceed that [amount]. She
concluded her testimony by offering to assist the members in any
way possible as the bill proceeds through the legislative
process.
Number 1744
ANDI STORY, Board Member, Juneau School District, testified in
support of HB 471. She told the members that she is the parent
of three children in the Juneau School District. Ms. Story told
the members that her family has been in Alaska for 17 years, but
when her daughter was small, they lived in San Diego and had the
opportunity to move back to Juneau to work on their business.
When her first daughter started kindergarten in 1990, she was
one of 21 students in the class; when her second daughter
started, she was in a class of 29. It is important to
understand that as the education system fails to provide a
quality education, it is more difficult to attract people to
Alaska. She said she does appreciate the work of the committee.
Ms. Story commented that in the work session she is attending
tonight there will be discussions which will focus on what to
cut.
Number 1877
CHAIR GATTO announced that HB 471 would be held until Thursday's
meeting.
The committee took an at-ease from 11:36 a.m. to 11:37 a.m.
HB 471-INCREASE AMT OF BASE STUDENT ALLOCATION
[Contains discussion of HB 477]
CHAIR GATTO announced that the committee would return to
discussions about HB 471. He told the members that
Representative Gara would provide a minority report on the
subcommittee on education funding.
Number 1907
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked if the chair wishes to take up
Amendment 3 today.
CHAIR GATTO responded that he would like to hold off on
Amendment 3 until Thursday.
Number 1977
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that he appreciates all the efforts of
the subcommittee members and those who took the time to testify.
The bill before the members goes a long way to repair the damage
to the schools over the last many years, he said. Comments that
were heard today from the Matanuska-Susitna Borough School
District and testimony heard in subcommittee actually went
further than what the bill offers. For example, Kenai Peninsula
School District indicated that it would need a base student
allocation of $4,570, if the PER and TRS was rolled into the
[base student allocation], just to be held harmless to last
year's level, he said. Matanuska-Susitna Borough School
District needed the same amount of money to be at the same level
as last year, he added. Representative Gara reminded the
members that the school districts were very clear that last year
education funding was cut and the funding fell behind on
inflation [proofing]. These actions caused severe impacts which
required the districts to layoff substantial numbers of
teachers. Representative Gara pointed out that HB 471 only
mitigates this year's damage and does nothing to repair the
damage from last year's [budget cuts].
Number 2010
REPRESENTATIVE GARA told the members that he and Representative
Kapsner have filed HB 477 in an attempt to go the second step in
repairing some of last year's damage. As the members will
recall, he said, last year the legislature eliminated community
schools funding, cut what goes into pupil transportation, cut
the program that helped school districts pay for the extra costs
of educating foster children, and cut the kindergarten program
for four-year olds. Representative Gara said he believes it is
time to start repairing the damage. He explained that his plan
would include an increase in the base student allocation to
$4,600 per student, which would include rolling the PERS and TRS
amount [into the bill]. The reason that is important is that
the amount then becomes part of the base student allocation and
it will not be necessary to go over the PERS and TRS issue again
next year. The numbers are not that far off, he commented, the
number in HB 477 recommends is $4,600, while the number the
subcommittee is recommending is the equivalent of $4,557 per
student. Representative Gara pointed out that the difference is
$8 million and 160 teachers. He summarized that for not a lot
more money [the legislature] could go a long way to solve this
problem. Representative Gara applauded the subcommittee's
action in addressing inflation by increasing the base student
allocation into the future by 2 percent annually. He pointed
out that inflation may exceed 2 percent so a better way of
addressing this issue would be to acknowledge the damage that
has taken place over the last decade, and to repair that damage
into the future by increases to the base student allocation with
inflation [proofing], plus another 2 percent until class sizes
come down to a level that is acceptable. Representative Gara
reiterated his appreciation for the work the committee did and
acknowledged that [HB 471] is a good bill, but noted that there
is much to be done to repair past damage [to public education].
Number 2162
CHAIR GATTO commented that Representative Gara's reference to
the funding being "not that far off" is music to his ears,
because there have been many times that the members have been
very far apart.
[HB 471 was held in committee.]
HB 338-ENTRY INTO SCHOOL
Number 2175
CHAIR GATTO announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 338, "An Act relating to attendance at public
school; and providing for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE LESIL McGUIRE, Alaska State Legislature,
testified as the sponsor of HB 338. She told the members that
HB 338 is a simple bill which is being introduced to help
address a problem a constituent brought to her attention and the
Department of Education and Early Development with a minor
technical change. The bill does two things, she said.
Currently state law stipulates that a child under school age may
be admitted only by a vote of the entire school board. This law
makes the process of admitting an under age child cumbersome.
She explained that this bill would not change anything in the
statutes of standards by which admittance into school is
permitted. The law would still require that a child can
demonstrate "minimum standards prescribed by the board
evidencing that the child has the mental, physical, and
emotional capacity...", she added. This bill would provide that
the chief school administrator can make that decision, thereby
relieving the administrative burden.
Number 2267
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE explained that the next change the bill
would implement is the date by which children may enter
kindergarten. This bill provides that children who reach the
age of five years old before September 1st may be enrolled in
kindergarten. Currently the law provides an August 15 cutoff
date. Representative McGuire commented that what this change
does is provide for Alaska to keep pace with changes occurring
in the rest of the United States. There are 19 other states
that use September 1st as the cutoff date. Part of the reason
for this change is that there are a lot of military families who
have come into Alaska and the different cutoff date is confusing
for them. Representative McGuire pointed out that the fiscal
note is indeterminant because it is impossible for the
Department of Education and Early Development to predict [the
change in the number of] students. There may be a little bit of
a fiscal note, she added.
Number 2354
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked the members to consider whether or
not Alaska should join eight other states in having the
compulsory age be five years old. She suggested it is something
to think about, but does not want it to be an issue that would
hold up the bill's [movement from committee]. She said she
thought this would be particularly helpful to lower income
families [who have day care issues].
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE shared a personal experience where her
brother, who is a traumatic brain injury survivor, has two
children with someone with whom he is not married. These are
two beautiful children, she stated. One of the children, Zoë,
turned five years of age, and the mentality in some low-income
families, is that it is not important to take your children to
school until it is required by state law. They live in Russian
Jack and her brother spent a lot time driving [his daughter]
across town to get her to school when he could. However, the
child's mother did not feel compelled [to get her to school].
Now she is six years old and in school every day. There are
checks and balances once school attendance becomes compulsory,
she said. A child growing up in a middle to upper class family
[is in an environment where] the impetus is to be educated.
There is a pressure that is built in. These are the people who
want the start date to be pushed forward so that when their
child turns five [years of age] on August 17, they can start
school and get going, so there is no need to be concerned for
those kids, she said. Representative McGuire pondered whether
it might be helpful to create more of an impetus for other
families that might not have that built in emphasis.
Number 2477
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO responded that he has some concerns about
[requiring] a five-year old [to attend school]. He said that
his comments may be viewed as a sexist, but he does not believe
boys should start school earlier than six [years old]. He told
the members that there are good reasons for that opinion because
the biological rate of maturity [for boys is different than
girls]. It may be okay for girls, and there may be individual
differences. Chair Gatto stated that he has a problem with the
word "compulsory." To provide that it be an elective option
would be tolerable, he said. He told the committee he would
like to look at the states that have compulsory attendance at
five years of age and see what the end result is.
Number 2535
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked the members to look at Patricia
McRae's letter. She is the Executive Director of Elementary
Education and supports the idea of changing the entry date of
children starting kindergarten to September 1st. Representative
McGuire summarized her comments by saying that there has not
been any opposition to this bill.
Number 2575
CHAIR GATTO asked if superintendents are considered a subsection
under school administrators.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE responded that it is her understanding
that the language is interchangeable.
CHAIR GATTO commented that there is a letter of support for HB
338 from Robert Doyle, the Chief School Administrator from the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District.
CHAIR GATTO asked for [definitive] clarification on the language
[related to superintendents and school administrators].
Number 2617
HEATH HILYARD, Staff to Representative Lesil McGuire, Alaska
State Legislature, answered questions from the members on HB
338. Mr. Hilyard responded that Legislative Legal and Research
Services drafted the language and it is his understanding that
this is the existing statutory language. He emphasized that the
sponsor did not ask for any specific change in the language.
Number 2629
REPRESENTATIVE OGG said for the record that it is important to
note that there is a spectrum of [cutoff] dates. Alaska has an
August 15th date, while some schools in other states have its
[cutoff] at October 16th. Other than conformity to other
states' cutoff dates, he asked if there is a specific reason for
selecting September 1st.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE replied that the main reason for
selecting September 1st is to comply with the mid-range of
states. A few states do have October 16th as the cutoff date,
she commented, but not that many [states]. Representative
McGuire told members that she believes the September 1st date as
the least controversial and most predominant date [used by
states]. However, she said, she would be amenable to an
amendment to change the date. She emphasized that her primary
purpose in introducing this bill is to get kids into school as
soon as possible.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG commented that he has no problem with the
date. He agreed with Representative McGuire that the earlier
that children get into school the better.
Number 2697
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON shared that her daughter's birthday is
September 30th and the state that she lived in [at the time of
her entry into kindergarten] required children to be five years
old by September 30th, so she just made it in. There was the
consideration that if her daughter was in school there would not
be the expense of day care. To this day, she said, she wishes
that she had held her out another year because she was the very
youngest person in her class. Representative Wilson said her
daughter experienced problems along the way and she believes
that if she had been held out another year [those problems might
have been avoided].
Number 2759
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON summarized that while she understands
Representative McGuire's purpose in sponsoring the bill, she has
mixed feelings about it because of those experiences. She
stated that she will not vote against the bill.
CHAIR GATTO pointed out that the language does say, "may"
[rather than shall].
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE told the committee that she appreciates
Representative Wilson's comments. She reiterated Chair Gatto's
point that the language in the bill is clearly a "may" [option],
not a "shall" [requirement].
Number 2806
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF agreed that the language which keeps the age
of entrance into school as an option [not a requirement] is
good. He shared that both of his children were kept out of
school until the age of six because he and his wife felt it was
most appropriate for their children. He said that while he will
not vote against the bill, he will be giving no recommendation
[on the bill].
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE commented that there are some states that
do not have a compulsory start date until the age of eight years
old. There is an interesting balance between the two
[requirements], she added.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF said that this choice should be a personal
one. He shared that he has a special needs child that is now 23
years old, who started school at the age of three.
Representative Wolf told the committee that he also has two
small children who went through Head Start. One daughter is an
"A" student who is reading at 4th grade level while in 2nd
grade. He reiterated that both of the younger children did not
start school until six years of age.
Number 2897
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked what is the compulsory start [age] for
first grade.
Number 2933
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE replied that she believes [the compulsory
start age] is six years of age.
MR. HILYARD confirmed that the members are looking at version H
of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA responded that he is looking at version D.
MR. HILYARD pointed to version H that makes a change for a
compulsory date for [entrance] to first grade, which now says
August 15th for the year the child turns six [years old], but
will change to September 1st.
[While no motion was made to adopt version H, it was treated as
the working document.]
TAPE 04-10, SIDE B
Number 2955
REPRESENTATIVE GARA followed up on a comment made by
Representative Ogg that the date chosen should be the "ideal
date." He said that perhaps September 1st is the ideal date, or
maybe it should be October 16th, which would allow for as many
[children] as possible to enter school early. He asked what
Representative McGuire's views are on putting the date back to
October 16th. It would still be an option for people to wait an
extra year if they chose to.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE responded that she looked at materials
from National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and
something from Dr. Deborah Stipek from Stanford University. She
said she does not have any problem changing the date to October
16th because there is still a "may" option in the bill. She
said that Representative Wilson's comment about the high cost of
child care being an issue, leads her to consider that moving the
date back might benefit financially strapped families.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA told the members that he would not offer an
amendment, but asked Representative McGuire to think about this
question as the bill goes through the process. Representative
Gara said that the earlier admission date is attractive to him
because the funds are not available to fully fund Head Start,
and maybe this bill would help a months worth of kids get into
school when it may not be otherwise possible.
Number 2815
CHAIR GATTO pointed out that a great reference on this issue
would be school nurses who have screened kids over and over
again. Often times a parent will believe that their child is
gifted and should be entered into school at the age of 4;
however, once the nurse has screened the child, it will be found
that the child really does not qualify for early entrance into
school.
Number 2777
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE told the members, in follow-up to
Representative Gara's comment, that she will contact a couple of
kindergarten teachers in her district to get their views on the
issue.
Number 2757
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER posed a hypothetical example where the
cutoff date is October 16th, and a child's birthday is on
[October] 14th. If that child is in a low-income family which
qualifies for a federal subsidy for day care, if the family
decides not to place the child in kindergarten would this change
[in law] disqualify the family from getting the federal subsidy
[for day care assistance], she asked.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE responded that she does not know.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON told the member that at this time [the
federal government] does not look at that issue [with respect to
federally subsidized day care]. She commented that the idea of
pushing the date back too far should be viewed with caution
because the reality is that teachers have more students in their
classrooms than in the past. The more immature the children in
the classroom are, the more difficult for the other children to
learn, and the teachers' to teach, she said.
CHAIR GATTO commented that it would be especially difficult if a
child who qualifies is not yet potty trained.
Number 2627
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that the letter [dated January 21,
2004, from Robert Doyle, Chief School Administrator, Matanuska-
Susitna Borough School District] points out that the September
1st school cutoff date is more closely aligned with the
beginning of the school year.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE replied that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON told the members that he is concerned with
two portions of the bill.
On page 1, lines 4 and 5
A child who is six year of age on or before September
1 [AUGUST 15] following the beginning of the school
year, ...
On page 2, line 3
[A] child who is five year of age on or before
September 1 [AUGUST 15] following the beginning of the
school year...
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that [the language could be a
problem because] some districts may start school before
September 1st. Representative Seaton said he is not sure of the
effect of these definitional [changes].
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE commented that Representative Seaton
points out a need for an amendment. She said that when drafting
the bill, the language was just fitted into existing statute.
She suggested striking the words "following the beginning of a
school year" [on page 1, line 5 and again on page 2, lines 4 and
5.] She said that she believes the existing language in the
bill could cause confusion. The Anchorage School District is
moving toward starting school after Labor Day, but if rural
parts of Alaska are starting sooner, that could serve as a
source of confusion.
Number 2518
CHAIR GATTO agreed with Representative McGuire's point. For
example, a parent could enroll a child in Bethel prior to
September 1st for the sole purpose of defeating the intent of
the legislation. Then later move to Anchorage on September 2nd
as a transfer and then say the child is already enrolled.
MR. HILYARD pointed out that is precisely one of the situations
that the bill would remedy. There are cases where people enroll
their children in other states, for a week or less for the sole
purpose of circumventing the law, he said. The new date is more
of a national standard so individuals do not feel the need to do
that, he added.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the department sees a problem
with an amendment which would strike the phrases "following the
beginning of the school year".
Number 2469
KEVIN SWEENEY, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Education and Early Development, answered
questions from the members on HB 338. In response to
Representative Seaton's question he replied that he would look
into it and get back to the committee.
Number 2460
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that she is shocked that there
are parents who have enough money to go to another state, enroll
their child [in school], and then come back to Alaska, just so
the child could go to school that year.
Number 2440
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE responded that what is really being
referred to is military families who are already living in the
lower 48 states and are preparing to move to Alaska. She
commented that it is possible that a family could be visiting
grandparents somewhere and enroll the child out of state.
MR. SWEENEY spoke to the discussed amendment [where the language
"following the beginning of the school year" would be deleted].
He told the members that the language would not have any impact
because the beginning of the school year officially, according
to statute, begins July 1st. The change in language would not
be a problem, he reiterated.
CHAIR GATTO noted for the record that the fiscal note is in
determinant at this time.
Number 2384
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report CSHB 338, 23-LS1258\H,
Mischel, 1/21/04, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 338(EDU) was reported out of the House
Special Committee on Education.
HB 353-JURY DUTY EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN TEACHERS
Number 2350
CHAIR GATTO announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 353, "An Act relating to jury duty; and amending
Rule 15(k), Alaska Rules of Administration."
Number 2353
REPRESENTATIVE MARY KAPSNER, Alaska State Legislature, testified
as the sponsor of HB 353. She explained that HB 353 precludes
teachers from having to serve as part of a jury pool if the
school where they work is not meeting adequate yearly progress
(AYP). It has been a concern over the years, particularly in
rural Alaska, but the concern is greater with the implementation
of the No Child Left Behind Act and the exit exams that seniors
will be required to pass, she added. For example, the Lower
Kuskokwim School District is in the 4th Judicial Court, but the
Bethel Court has a lot of pressure on it, she said. The jury
pool includes a 30-mile radius of Bethel which in turn puts a
lot of pressure on the teachers in many of the outlying
villages. She pointed out that the jury is not really a jury of
their peers, because most of the teachers come from outside and
are new to the region. Another problem is that there is a major
shortage of substitute teachers in the region. This is
especially true in villages. There just aren't a lot of
certified teachers hanging around the villages waiting to be
called in case a teacher is sick or has been called for jury
duty, she commented. Representative Kapsner referred to e-mails
that she has received from teachers from the Lower Kuskokwim
School District who discuss these particular [problems] and how
that effects the classrooms.
Number 2247
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER shared an e-mail from one constituent,
Felecia Griffith-Kleven, who said that when a teacher is out the
best that can be done is to bring in a high school graduate who
is not otherwise employed. Representative Kapsner told the
members that students are the ones who suffer from the
interruption of their learning because sometimes teachers do not
have time to prepare lesson plans for the substitute teacher.
Another facet of the issue is that during the winter months,
planes can only fly during daylight hours so as a result it is
often not possible for the teachers to fly back before the
school day ends.
Number 2171
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER added that one concern that was expressed
is what [other job classification] is next. Would policemen,
firemen, or Village Public Safety Officers (VPSOs) be exempted
from serving on jury duty. She pointed out that there is such
stress on the education system right now that it is a real
hardship to be pulling teachers out. For example, one school
has 11 teachers and 5 were called out for jury duty which can
last as long as 3 months, she said. Representative Kapsner
relayed that the Lower Kuskokwim School District said that from
September 1st through December 15th of 2003, payroll records
show a total of 107.5 days that teachers were out of the
classroom performing jury duty. This is a significant toll on a
school system, she added.
Number 2136
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON agreed with Representative Kapsner on the
[seriousness of the problem]. She shared that in the last two
years she has been called to jury duty every three months.
Representative Wilson said it is important to think about what
would be best for kids. She stated that this bill is best for
kids.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER explained that the requirements for
substitute teachers is almost non-existent. Only a high school
diploma is needed now, she commented. When she went to school
in the Lower Kuskokwim School District most of the substitute
teachers were cab drivers because it would be possible for them
to make more money [substitute teaching] than driving cab,
Representative Kapsner said. Another substitute teacher that
she recalls was the wife of the minister who had English as her
second language. There was no effort to teach, she just brought
her knitting and did babysitting.
CHAIR GATTO asked what the average number of teachers is in the
27 villages that are listed.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER replied that there probably would be at
least two teachers in each village. In Platinum, for example,
she told the members that her dad taught every grade and every
subject in high school and another teacher taught every grade
and subject in elementary school. A larger village could have
10 or 11 teachers.
CHAIR GATTO said that an important point to be made is that in a
small village with two teachers, if one is gone [for jury duty],
then half the teachers are gone, possibly for three months. He
asked the members to imagine any district that said half their
teachers are gone. Chair Gatto told the members that he
supports this legislation.
Number 2013
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON explained that many of the schools in the
small villages are not on the list of those who failed to make
adequate yearly progress because [of privacy concerns] in that
the school is so small a child could be identified. She
questioned whether the language should be changed in a way that
will ensure that these small schools are considered under this
legislation. Representative Wilson told the members she
supports this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER agreed with Representative Wilson's
point. She noted that Eddie Jeans is indicating his agreement
with Representative Wilson's suggestion as well.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG expressed his concern with Representative
Kapsner statements about a particular area of the state, with a
particular circumstance. He pointed out that during testimony
taken last fall with respect to schools that are not making AYP,
it was found that metropolitan schools were found to be the ones
with the more serious problems. Representative Ogg questioned
whether there could be a different way of approaching this
problem. He suggested that the language would say something
like, "jury duty would not be required if not on the road system
connected to the court house." He told the members that he
believes that would be a better approach than affecting a whole
class of teachers in the state of Alaska. Representative Ogg
stated that he feels strongly that no matter what someone's
profession is, he/she should have an opportunity to serve on
juries. That is what makes the jury system work.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER said she appreciates Representative Ogg's
concerns. She offered to list the schools in Anchorage that are
not meeting adequate yearly progress.
CHAIR GATTO asked if that is pertinent.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER replied that she believes it is because
these are schools that are on the road system within driving
distance of the [court house], but said she does not believe
that their substitute teacher pool is any more qualified to meet
the concerns of AYP [than those in small communities].
CHAIR GATTO commented that this is public information and asked
Representative Kapsner to proceed.
Number 1818
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER listed the following schools in Anchorage
that are not meeting AYP: Bowman Elementary, Campbell
Elementary, Central Middle School of Science, Chinook
Elementary, Chugiak Elementary, Chugiak High School, Clark
Middle School, College Gate Elementary, and Creekside Park
Elementary. There are probably 50 schools in Anchorage that are
not meeting AYP, she stated. Representative Kapsner told the
members that she believes the kids in Fairview deserve to have a
teacher there to teach them, just as much as the [kids in]
Nunapitchuk.
Number 1801
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that he agrees with the approach of the
bill, and in fact, would be alarmed if the bill said that it
only applies to certain parts of the state. He said he believes
it is important to keep this bill non-discriminatory.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON told the members that he believes that AYP
is important, and there should not be a gap in schools being
identified because of the number of students. He said he would
like to see this bill amended to address both issues.
CHAIR GATTO commented that there is quite a bit of time when
school is not in session, and asked if that is addressed in the
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER responded that probably 98 percent of the
teachers leave during the summer.
CHAIR GATTO said he is unfamiliar with the process of
identifying persons for jury duty. For instance, couldn't a
teacher serve on jury duty elsewhere in the state [during summer
months when school is not in session]. He asked if jury duty is
assigned by where a person resides.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER replied that persons get called for jury
duty depending on where he/she lists [their permanent] address
for the permanent fund dividend check. In response to
Representative Ogg's earlier comments, she said the point is
that "highly qualified" teachers should not be taken out of the
classroom. Substitute teachers do not qualify as highly
qualified teachers, she added.
Number 1613
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON explained that when a person is called to
jury duty, there is adequate advance notice so the individual
can explain his/her circumstances.
Number 1600
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered the following conceptual
amendment:
On page 1, line 7
After the word "progress"
Insert the words "or a school that was exempt from
classification."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that this additional language
would ensure the inclusion of schools that failed to meet AYP or
those that were of such a size that they were exempt from
classification.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER responded that she believes this
amendment needs to be in writing and have the department and the
[Legislative Legal and Research Services] look at it.
Representative Kapsner pointed out that once AYP is met, this
legislation would be a moot. At that point, teachers would not
be exempt [from jury duty], she said.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said that her primary concern is what is
best for kids. In schools where there are no highly qualified
substitute teachers to help the kids get the education that is
needed, she told the members she believes the teacher should be
in the classroom as much as possible. Representative Wilson
questioned how the bill could be changed to address those
concerns. In summary she said that what is best for kids is for
the teacher to stay in the classroom.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG commented that he has heard testimony that
the effort to have "highly qualified" teachers in rural areas is
very difficult. He said he believes this bill is too broad and
would be more comfortable with a bill that just addresses a
specific issue. For instance, if the court system in Bethel is
bringing in people to serve on jury duty from villages that are
not on the road system, that jury pool would be difficult to
fill. He suggested language that would address teachers in
rural areas, not on a road system, that are called to [serve on
jury duty] be exempt. Representative Ogg said that tying
exemption from jury duty to schools' classification on AYP
appears to be too broad a stroke. He said he is uncomfortable
with the way the bill is written.
Number 1322
CHAIR GATTO asked if there is a perimeter beyond which an
individual would not have to serve on jury duty.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER replied that in Bethel's case there is a
30-mile radius. There are seven or eight villages within that
radius in the Bethel area. She explained that there are no
communities in the Bethel region that are linked by roads. In
the winter it is possible to travel by ice road, but not a lot
of people new to the region, such as teachers, have cars.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON told the members that he does not believe
this is only a rural issue. In schools that failed to meet APY,
it is especially important that there is continuity of teachers
in the classroom. He stated he does not care what the location,
teachers should not be pulled out of classrooms, especially in
schools that are not meeting AYP. This committee's concern has
to be for the schools that are failing, not what the jury pool
is doing, he said. This bill will probably go to the House
Judiciary Standing Committee where the members there may or may
not like it. He emphasized the importance of members to focus
on the education of kids, and making sure kids and schools have
every opportunity to succeed.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA pointed out that this bill has two more
committees of referrals where Representative Ogg's concerns
could be addressed. He asked if the sponsor would confer with
the individual who has the question [before the next committee
hears the bill], and asked that the bill be passed out of
committee today.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that the next committee of
referral is the House Health, Education and Social Services
Standing Committee, of which she is chair. She asked
Representative Kapsner to talk with the Department of Education
and Early Development and others to address questions raised in
committee [today] before the bill comes before the House Health,
Education and Social Services Standing Committee. She said she
believes this is a good bill and has merit.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON told the members that he will withdraw his
conceptual amendment if the sponsor will work with the
department to include the language for consideration in the
House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee.
In response to Representative Kapsner affirmative response,
Representative Seaton withdrew his conceptual amendment.
Number 1036
REPRESENTATIVE GARA moved to report HB 353, Version A, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, HB 353 was reported out
of the House Special Committee on Education.
HB 390-LENGTH OF SCHOOL TERM
[Contains discussion of SB 239.]
Number 0977
CHAIR GATTO announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 390, "An Act relating to the required number of
days in a school year."
CHAIR GATTO, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB 390, told
the members that if this bill could be spoken of in a single
word, it would be "flexibility." He told the members that the
Anchorage Police Department went from a 40-hour week, using
five, eight-hour days, and moved to four, ten-hour days. It was
a change that was welcomed by the police and has been
successful. In looking at the schools, HB 390 allows school
districts to look at school terms in a more flexible manner.
Chair Gatto told the members that current law requires 180 days
of school; however, if approved by the Commissioner of the
Department of Education and Early Development, school districts
would be allowed to adjust their school terms within statute to
meet the needs of their students, teachers, families, and
location. He said that rather than focusing on the number of
days, the focus would be on the amount of attendance. Recently,
an Anchorage charter school proposed a plan to the Anchorage
School Board for something less than 180 days. This plan was
approved in concept, but is now on hold pending the passage of
this legislation, he said. The increased flexibility provides
for a stronger focus on academic performance instead of just
accounting for seat time.
Number 0835
CHAIR GATTO said that while allowing for a four-day week is not
the specific intent of HB 390, passage would provide for
meaningful dialogue on this and other plans. This bill would
specifically effect boarding and residential students by
allowing them a flexible schedule. Year round schools could
also be introduced, he remarked. This bill is supported by the
superintendents of the Anchorage School District and the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District.
Number 0833
REPRESENTATIVE OGG moved to report HB 390, 23-LS1522\A out of
committee with individual recommendations, and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected to the motion for purposes of
discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON shared that her niece and niece's husband,
who are teachers in Colorado, work a four-day workweek. The
response from teachers and the administration has been very
positive. The district likes it because of the flexibility [in
hours] and it has been shown to save money.
CHAIR GATTO pointed out that this bill does not mandate or
require anything, it only allows for flexibility. There have
been some studies on the savings of a four-day school week and
the savings have been shown to be much less than anticipated.
He remembers from personal experience that when his son is
traveling with the basketball team, there will be a missed
school day, usually Friday. He said that is what he believes is
behind some of the drive for the bill. If a school is on the
road system, they can travel early, or if it is necessary to
fly, it provides for a make up if the plane is late getting in.
There are many reasons the school districts would love this
flexibility, he commented, but it is not a requirement.
Number 0661
MR. SWEENEY told the members that the Department of Education
and Early Development testified on the senate version of this
bill. There were a couple of suggestions that could make the
bill a bit stronger, but over all the department agrees with the
intent of the bill in allowing some flexibility in school
districts to look at innovative ideas in calendaring. There are
still some checks and balances in that the school board must
approve the plan and the commissioner of the Department of
Education and Early Development must also approve the plan.
MR. SWEENEY referred to the new version of SB 239 [the companion
bill to HB 390, offered in the senate]. The department wanted
to have some sort of minimum proposed. The problem, he said, is
that while it says the approximate educational equivalent in a
180-day term, it does not define that it has to be 180 days
worth of hours. The commissioner was concerned that there would
be a huge range of interpretations on the equivalent of 180 days
worth of education. Mr. Sweeney told the members that the
department came up with 144 days, because if a district went to
a four-day workweek schedule, four-fifths of 180 is 144 days.
MR. SWEENEY commented that there was some confusion with respect
to school employee wages as discussed in one section of the
bill. It was determined that the drafter who wrote the bill for
the senate version thought that this bill dealt with contracts
and used language to make it more uniform. There was a lot of
confusion about that language and the department did not know
how that impacted current contracts and contract negotiations.
Upon looking at this point further, it was determined it would
be better to leave that up to the [individual] contracts as they
are negotiated. He emphasized that the removal of this language
would not impact the districts' ability to come up with
innovative scheduling plans.
Number 0436
CHAIR GATTO agreed with Mr. Sweeney's comments. He told the
members that he would support amending the bill to remove that
language and have the bill's language agree with the senate
version.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for clarification of the language on
page 1, subsection (4)(A) of [SB 239, the senate version of HB
390], which reads as follows:
(A) the school board has submitted an acceptable plan
...
Number 0311
MR. SWEENEY replied that the way he and the commissioner
envision this working is that the school district would come up
with a plan at the beginning of the school year. The district
would layout the new calendar, which doesn't meet the 180-day
requirement the district use to have, and show what will be done
to meet the same education equivalent of the old school year.
He pointed out that the school board would have to approve the
plan before it is sent to the commissioner, and the commissioner
would have to approve it as well.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented that the language in the senate
version does not reflect that the new calendar would have to be
acceptable to the commissioner of [the Department of Education
and Early Development].
MR. SWEENEY pointed to HB 390, page 2, lines 3 and 4, where it
says "the school board adopts a different school term for a
school if the commissioner finds that the school board..." He
summarized that the school board must submit a plan of no less
than 144 days, and the commissioner must find that the students
are still going to get the equivalent of 180 days of education.
CHAIR GATTO told the members that he would entertain amendments
to HB 390 that would incorporate the changes suggested by the
Department of Education and Early Development, and which were
made to the senate bill [SB 239].
Number 0203
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON clarified that the text in brackets on
page 2, lines 3 and 4 was deleted. She moved Amendment 1 as
follows:
Page 2, lines 3
After the words "school term"
Insert "of not less than 144 days"
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved Amendment 2 which she explained
would allow for the completion of the previous sentence on line
4. The amendment is as follows:
On page 2, line 5
Delete "(A)"
[Due to technical difficulties, the following was not taped but
was reconstructed from the recording secretary's log notes.]
There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved Amendment 3 as follows:
On page 2, delete lines 8 through 10
There being no objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG moved to report HB 390, 23-LS1522\A, as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
390(EDU) was reported out of the House Special Committee on
Education.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Education meeting was adjourned at 12:45
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|