01/27/2005 11:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Public School Funding Program | |
| HB73 | |
| HB1 | |
| HB18 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 18 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 73 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
January 27, 2005
11:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Chair
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Bill Thomas
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Les Gara
Representative Woodie Salmon
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Carl Gatto
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW
HOUSE BILL NO. 73
"An Act increasing the base student allocation for state
financing of public schools; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 1
"An Act relating to the base student allocation used in the
formula for state funding of public education; and providing for
an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 18
"An Act increasing the base student allocation used in the
formula for state funding of public education; and providing for
an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 73
SHORT TITLE: INCREASE AMT OF BASE STUDENT ALLOCATION
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/18/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/05 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
01/27/05 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 1
SHORT TITLE: INCREASE AMT OF BASE STUDENT ALLOCATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GATTO
01/10/05 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/04
01/10/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/10/05 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
01/27/05 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 18
SHORT TITLE: INCREASE AMT OF BASE STUDENT ALLOCATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) WILSON
01/10/05 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/04
01/10/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/10/05 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
01/12/05 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
01/12/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/12/05 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
01/27/05 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
EDDY JEANS, Director
School Finance
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview of the public school
funding program; Presented HB 73 to the committee.
ANNE KILKENNY
Wasilla, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 73.
CODY RICE, Staff
Representative Carl Gatto
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 1.
STEVE BRADSHAW, Superintendent
Sitka School District
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of increased student
base allocation funds.
BRUCE JOHNSON, Director
Quality Schools/Quality Students Service (QS2)
Association of Alaska School Boards, AASB
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 18.
MARY FRANCES, Executive Director
School Administrator's Association, SAA
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of increased student
base allocation funds.
MARY HAKALA, Coordinator
Alaska Kids Count, AKC
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of increased student
base allocation funds.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR MARK NEUMAN called the House Special Committee on
Education meeting to order at 11:03:54 AM. Representatives
Wilson, Lynn, and Salmon were present at the call to order.
Representatives Thomas and Gara arrived as the meeting was in
progress. Representative Gatto was excused.
^OVERVIEW: PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDING PROGRAM
11:08:08 AM
EDDY JEANS, Director, School Finance, Department of Education
and Early Development, presented the handout, within the
committee packet, entitled, "Public School Funding Program
Overview, Updated January 2005". He described who pays for
entitlements, which consist of the following three areas:
required local contribution by municipalities, federal impact
aid dollars, and state funds.
He referred to the five steps listed at the top of page three of
the handout:
We start with the school size adjustment, we adjust
that product by the district cost factor, we multiply
it by the district cost factor; in step three, we
increase that product by 20 percent to provide
additional resources for special needs programs and
that would be your special education, excluding the
intensive students. The severely multi-handicapped
requires a full-time aid student, bilingual programs,
gifted talented programs, and vocational education.
The next step is, we add the adjustment for the
intensive service counts, which I just described,
students that would fall into that category. The
fifth adjustment is for students enrolled in
correspondence programs. And as many of you are
aware, they're funded at 80 percent of the base
student allocation. That gives us what we call the
district's adjusted ADM and, as I mentioned earlier,
on page 8, those calculations simply move from the
left to the right for each school district on that
spreadsheet. The ADM is the average number of
students enrolled during the 20-day count period,
which ends the fourth Friday in October and that's the
mandatory count established by law. The first step is
to adjust for school size; we have to take a look at
the number of students that are being served in each
of the communities and this school size step one
adjustment tells us that if you're in a community that
is serving 10 to 100 students, we're simply going to
take that total population, and run it through the
school size adjustment table, as one group. If you're
in a community that is serving 10-100 students, we'll
split your student population into K-6 and 7-12 and
we'll run those two groups through the table as if
you're operating two separate schools. Once you get
over 425 students, each one of your schools in your
district go through the size adjustment,
independently. There are a couple of exceptions to
that rule and that is, if you have alternative
programs in your community, you have to be serving
more than 200 students for that school to count as a
separate school otherwise, they're added to the
largest school in the district for the purpose of size
adjustment. And, if you have charter schools in your
school district, you have to have more than 150
students for those schools to be adjusted
independently. On page 4, Mr. Chairman, we have the
size table, this is listed in Alaska statute
14.17.450, and you can see we have a number of ranges
of student population. The first is, 10 to 20; you
get a flat adjustment of 39.60. The next range is 20
to 30, 30 to 75, 75 to 150 and you can see that
further down the table, there. On the right hand side
of that formula, I'd like to show you, real quickly,
within the parens you can see that we have ADM minus
... 20, so if you have a student population of more
than 20 students, but less than 30, what this formula
tells us, is, let's say, for example, it's 5, or 25,
you would start with 25 subtract 20, you would have 5
left over, you would multiply that times 1.62 and that
product would be added to 39.6 to get your adjusted
ADM for school size for a school of 25 students.
Looking at the 1.62, if you look down that table, you
can see the next adjustment is 1.49, the next
adjustment 1.27, and this is a declining scale for
economies of scale. In other words, your student
population gets larger, it's more efficient to operate
that school, so this is our size adjustment on a
declining scale.
MR. JEANS explained that after all of the district schools have
been adjusted in the size tables, the product is multiplied by
the district cost factors which are set in Alaska statute
14.17.460. He stated that [district cost factors] are specific
to school districts and range from 1.00 to 1.736. This new
product, he said, is increased by 20 percent for special needs
and the final number is adjusted for intensive service students.
He described intensive service students, "these students are
counted on the last day of the count period, and they have to
have an active IEP, Individual Education Program, and receiving
services on the last day of the count period. Once again, these
are your severely multi-handicapped students and it's important
to point out that not are they only counted here but they're
also counted in the school, for the school size adjustment, so,
it's not just this one component they're in the base and they
roll through as well."
11:15:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA inquired as to the changes in the funding
formula for special or intensive needs students.
MR. JEANS explained that the regulations clarify the definition
of intensive students. Although, the regulation requires that
each intensive child have a full-time aide, some school
districts did not interpret the regulation as such.
In response to Representative Thomas, Mr. Jeans clarified that
when the foundation statute was amended under Senate Bill 36, in
1998, the adjustment for special needs students was determined
to be 20 percent across the board.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS asked if any studies or feedback from
other districts indicate that the 20 percent is inadequate.
MR. JEANS responded that there have not been any formal studies
to determine the appropriate percentage. Senate Bill 36 passed,
directed the department, through the foundation statute, to
apply 20 percent to each district, he related.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA related that some of the school officials
have complained that the regulation has resulted in less staff
available for special needs children. He asked, "is my
understanding correct, that under the new rule, you don't
qualify as a special needs student for purposes of increased
foundation formula funding unless you can show you need a full-
time teacher aid?"
11:18:59 AM
MR. JEANS clarified that [special needs funding] is specifically
for students under the intensive category, including severely
multi-handicapped children; the issue concerns the ratio of
teacher aids to intensive students. He explained that special
education staff are working with school districts to assure that
they understand how this specific provision is applied. He said
that [the department] is currently going through a statewide
audit of all intensive students and is working with school
districts to clarify this issue.
11:20:00 AM
MR. JEANS turned to page 5 and the correspondence programs. He
said that correspondence students are funded at 80 percent. He
explained:
Once we go through all those calculations, we end up
with what we call the district's adjusted average
daily membership. And if I could just jump you over
to page 7, real quickly, Mr. Chairman, you can see we
use the Nome school district as an example, they are
serving 809 students. Once we took them through the
size adjustment tables, they're adjustment for school
size is 979.88, you apply the district cost factor of
1.319 to come up with $1,292.46. Apply the special
needs factor of 1.20, gets you an adjustment of
$1,550.95. They had three students that qualified for
the intensive services, the adjustment there is five
times, so that product is $1,565; they don't have any
correspondence students. The district's adjusted
average daily membership is $1,565.95; we then
multiply that times the base student allocation, which
is currently set at $4,576, to come up with the basic
need for that school district, which is $7,165,000
dollars. Once we've determined the need ... it's
really who pays for the need, and as I mentioned
earlier there's three components: there's the required
local contribution, the equivalent of four mills for
municipalities, federal impact aid dollars, which the
state considers 90 percent of those, and then the
remaining is your state aid. And so, Mr. Chairman, if
I can take you to page 9, we can go ahead and use Nome
again, as the example, in column B their basic need is
$7,165,000. Their required local effort $796,000.
The federal impact aid that the state will consider is
$34,570. So the remainder is the state aid at
$6,334,000. We also have in the foundation program,
what we call the quality school grant which is above
the basic foundation, $16 per adjusted average daily
membership and districts have to submit a grant
application to qualify for those funds. And
typically, those are for your after school remedial
type programs.
MR. JEANS offered to answer questions from the committee.
11:23:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired as to changes associated within
the foundation formula.
MR. JEANS clarified that increasing the base student allocation
increases the entitlement. He said that state aid will go up to
offset that increase, but that required local effort and the
deductible impact aid won't change. He included that [the
department] has a cap on local contributions and districts are
allowed to contribute 23 percent of their basic need in the
current year. He concluded, "as you increase the student base
allocation, what you're also doing is increasing the ability of
local municipalities to contribute more to schools, so the cap
goes up as well, but that doesn't necessarily mean districts
will receive more money."
CHAIR NEUMAN inquired as to that "23 percent" being spread
evenly across the schools in that district or targeted toward a
specific school.
MR. JEANS stated that all of the state aid is discretionary
money and it is up to the local school board to determine how
those resources are allocated at the district level.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS inquired as to increasing the base needs
in the bill.
MR. JEANS replied that depends on what is in the bill.
11:25:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA inquired as to quality schools funding and
its source.
MR. JEANS said that it is a separate section in the foundation
formula at $16 per adjusted ADM, which is in addition to the
base student allocation.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA expressed his understanding that the base
student allocation increased separately from the allowable local
match, and as the foundation formula increased, the local match
requirement was also increased.
MR. JEANS stated that it will increase on a one-year delay for
three school districts where the required local effort is 45
percent of basic need. Those communities are the North Slope,
Valdez, and Skagway. Mr. Jeans explained further, ""that if 4
mills of your property value exceeds 45 percent of your basic
need, then the state capture required local contribution at 45
percent."
11:27:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SALMON referred to page 9, in the handout, and
inquired as to whether the money comes from state or federal
funds.
MR. JEANS replied:
Column C is the required local effort, and ... a zero
... represents regional education attendance areas.
They are not part of a organized, local municipality
required to make a local contribution to education.
The 100 percent that you are referring to in column E,
is the impact aid percentage. And under the federal
impact aid law, if you don't have a required local
contribution in your state funding formula, you're
allowed to consider up to 100 percent of a district's
federal impact aid dollars. So, where you see that
100 percent in our state law, it's written that we
will deduct 90 percent of what we're allowed to
consider under the federal law. So, if we look at
Alaska Gateway, you can see they have federal impact
aid, $242,000 worth, under the federal law we're
allowed to consider 100 percent of those funds and so,
under column F, 90 percent of the $242,000 is $218,000
and that gets subtracted from basic need in column B,
to arrive at your state aid in column G.
REPRESENTATIVE SALMON asked what determines percentage amounts
for different boroughs.
MR. JEANS responded that the federal impact aid program has
requirements that include looking at requirements specific to
the funding formula and comparing that to what districts are
actually contributing. He stated that the ratio calculated must
be applied to the federal impact aid dollars because, under the
federal impact aid program, those funds are considered local
resources. For example, the Aleutians East Borough contributes
60 percent above the required local effort, although the state
only considers 40 percent of its federal impact aid dollars in
the state funding formula. He concluded, "...our state law
says, deduct 90 percent of what the federal government allows
you to consider."
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he does not understand the factors
related to the local contribution requirements. He inquired as
to the affects on the local contribution, if the 4 mill property
tax part remains static year to year and the community has
rising property evaluations. He inquired as to the affects on
the local contribution.
11:31:29 AM
MR. JEANS explained:
There was an amendment to the required local
contribution that began in fiscal year 2002, and,
basically, what that requires the department to do is
compare the current year's full value to a base year,
which was the 1999 full values. We take that
difference and cut it in half, and we apply that 50
percent remainder to the 1999 evaluation for the
purposes of calculating required local effort for
municipalities. So, I call it the education full
value because it's not used anywhere else in the
state; we get the full value determinations from the
state assessors, Steve Vansant, and we have to make
this comparison to the 1999 base, and make that
adjustment. So, in essence, municipalities that have
a rising property value are only having to pay 4 mills
on 50 percent of that increase, from the 1999 base.
CHAIR NEUMAN asked for clarification concerning the references
to the changes in 1999.
MR. JEANS stated that the bill was Senate Bill 174. He
explained that this bill provided relief for specific
municipalities and required the Department of Education and
Early Development to use a calculation that considers only 50
percent of the property value increase when determining the
required local effort.
REPRESENTATIVE SALMON inquired as to the effects of a school
tax.
MR. JEANS said that there is school tax at present.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired as to increasing tax bases and
the protocols associated for each following year.
MR. JEANS replied:
What the law requires us to do is always look back to
the 1999 base. So in, say, this year, the value went
up $100,000, what the law requires us to do is only
consider $50,000, add that back to the base, and
that's the full value that we apply the 4 mills to, to
determine the required local contribution. Next
year's values will come out, if it goes up $150,000,
half of that is $75,000, we add that to the 1999 base
and that becomes the full value for determining
required local contribution.
11:36:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired as to the economic
responsibilities of schools in different areas, with different
financial situations.
MR. JEANS informed the committee that if a municipality has
increased property values, it is held harmless. Communities
that aren't showing any growth are required to contribute 4
mills at the same level they have in the past.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS asked about Mt. Edgecumbe School, which is
a state run school, and how it gets aid.
MR. JEANS responded that Mt. Edgecumbe is a state run school and
the foundation law has specific direction, to the department,
regarding how to calculate [Mt. Edgecumbe's] state aid. He
explained that what this does is provide Mt. Edgecumbe with the
revenue for its instructional program. Within the department's
budget there is a separate component for the residential
component.
11:38:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA posed a situation in which property
assessments increase, so does the local match requirement.
Would such a situation cause the amount the community receives
from the state to decrease or is an additional amount of local
money required, he asked.
MR. JEANS answered that if the need stays the same and property
values increase, state aid decreases.
HB 73-INCREASE AMT OF BASE STUDENT ALLOCATION
CHAIR NEUMAN announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 73 "An Act increasing the base student allocation
for state financing of public schools; and providing for an
effective date."
11:40:31 AM
MR. JEANS explained that HB 73 would increase the base student
allocation for a two-year period. The first increase would take
effect in the fiscal year (FY) 2006 budget cycle and would
increase the base student allocation from $4,576 to $4,880. In
FY 07, the bill requires a second adjustment that would increase
the base student allocation to $5,190. The first-year costs
associated with increasing the base student allocation would be
$62 million for FY 06 and $64 million for FY 07. He mentioned a
fiscal note, included in the committee packet, for the military
youth academy, and explained that its funding is tied directly
to the base student allocation. The fiscal note shows that the
increased grant would be $425,000 in FY 06 and $433,000 in FY
07. Mr. Jeans pointed out that the governor's funding proposal
does have a companion bill, HB 65, which would make the
appropriations for K-12 support.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired as to how the increased amount
was determined.
11:42:54 AM
MR. JEANS explained that the increased contribution of school
districts to Public Employee's Retirement System (PERS) and
Teachers' Retirement System (TRS) will be $38 million statewide
and the governor wanted to provide additional funding for
ongoing operational costs. Therefore, [the department] averaged
the Anchorage Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the last three
years and came up with 2.47 percent. This percentage was
applied to the foundation program, and the cost associated was
$24 million. The total amount summed $62 million.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked what happens if a school loses ADM.
MR. JEANS stated that if a school has fewer students, it will
receive fewer dollars and staffing adjustments will be
necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS inquired as to Anchorage's $10 million
shortfall, and the proposed increase request.
MR. JEANS clarified that the Anchorage initial budget shortfall
was $30 million of which the governor's proposal would provide
$20 million. He stated that this was the starting point and the
numbers have yet to be refined.
11:46:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA described his involvement in attempting to
figure out the impact of the governor's budget on various school
districts. He said the preliminary assessments show that many
school districts are somewhat held harmless by the budget
compared to last year. He asked, "What is causing so many of
these school districts still to fall behind?"
MR. JEANS replied that this is a product of the budget process
at the local level in trying to determine the district's needs.
The governor's budget proposes to increase the foundation
program, to offset the increases for PERS/TRS, and provide an
almost 2.5 increase for operational costs.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA stated that he would like to do something
more than just hold schools harmless to where they were last
year. Last year schools were held harmless to the prior year,
when they essentially lost money. He said that he would like to
add staff in a way that could make a meaningful difference to
schools. He asked if the administration would consider that.
He also asked if Mr. Jeans could provide some suggested
efficiencies to control cost growth.
MR. JEANS said that he could not respond.
11:50:12 AM
ANNE KILKENNY stated that there are different needs in different
districts because of the adjustments that are not made in the
foundation formula. The foundation formula only makes four or
five adjustments. She said that the foundation formula does not
make adjustments where student enrollment is decreasing and so,
the cost per student increases. The aforementioned is the
situation in Kenai. She related situations in which property
values rise and cause local required contributions to increase
but this, in turn, decreases state contributions, as is the case
in Anchorage. Therefore, certain areas have greater need than
others.
MS. KILKENNY discussed that schools that are designed for
specific numbers of students cannot operate efficiently or cost
effectively if the student populations rise. She provided an
example in the Mat-Su Valley, and noted that even the governor's
proposal may be inadequate for the Mat-Su Valley. She expressed
her belief that, "a refinement of the Anchorage school district
budget would mean a diminishment of the quality of education in
that district as it would in the Mat-Su, as it would in Kenai,
as it would in Ketchikan, Petersburg, North Slope burrow, and
every other district that has indicated that even the governor's
proposal is inadequate for this simple maintenance of the status
quo."
[HB 73 was held over.]
HB 1-INCREASE AMT OF BASE STUDENT ALLOCATION
CHAIR NEUMAN announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 1 "An Act relating to the base student allocation
used in the formula for state funding of public education; and
providing for an effective date."
11:55:41 AM
CODY RICE, Staff to Representative Carl Gatto, sponsor, stated
that HB 1 represents a $13 increase over the current year's base
student allocation; the total number would then become $4,589.
He clarified that this number does not include PERS/TRS
adjustments in the base allocation.
CHAIR NEUMAN upon determining there were no comments or
questions, announced that HB 1 would be held.
HB 18-INCREASE AMT OF BASE STUDENT ALLOCATION
CHAIR NEUMAN announced that the final order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 18 "An Act increasing the
base student allocation used in the formula for state funding of
public education; and providing for an effective date."
11:57:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON, sponsor, expressed her belief that it is
essential to attract and retain the most highly qualified
teachers and support staff in order to provide the best program
offerings for students. She explained that costs associated
with operating schools are increasing and teachers have no
control over the regulation of these expenses. Furthermore,
although teachers have to assume greater responsibilities due to
NCLB standards, they are not receiving monetary awards.
Therefore, it is imperative that the legislature increase the
student allocation. This bill would increase the student
allocation by $325 dollars per student. She related that she
has received letters from around the state which have stated
that the governor's bill would not allocate sufficient funding
for securing basic needs, such as rehiring current teachers for
the coming school year. She reviewed some of the specific needs
of specific districts.
12:00:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN requested a spreadsheet comparing the
similarities and differences between HB 1, HB 18, and HB 73.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS inquired as to the effects of increasing
quality school grants.
MR. JEANS replied that quality schools funding is separate from
the foundation program base funding which is discretionary money
to allocate as the school board sees fit. The quality schools
grants require that the district submit an application, tell how
it's going to use those funds to improve student performance
achievement and require follow-up reports and assessments. He
explained that although an increase in quality schools grant
doesn't allow an increase in the local contribution, an increase
in the base student allocation will increase the allowable local
contribution.
REPRESENTATIVE SALMON asked if the department had established
what the school district's needs are this year. He noted that
it seems that things are always based on Anchorage. He
expressed the need to concentrate on the small schools in rural
districts.
12:05:37 PM
MR. JEANS said the school districts haven't been polled in
regard to their fiscal desires. He pointed out that the formula
makes adjustments for the size of the student population within
communities, and there is more funding provided for smaller
student populations and smaller schools. He said there are
adjustments with the regional cost differentials that are to
assist in offsetting the regional cost differences of providing
education. In the end, when the money is put into the formula,
he said, those adjustments are being considered through the
other factors in the funding formula itself.
REPRESENTATIVE SALMON asked if the formula takes into
consideration the location of the schools.
MR. JEANS replied yes, and restated that the regional cost
factor takes into account the varying regional cost factors. In
further response to Representative Salmon, he stated that
increasing the base student allocation should be making
adjustments for those increased costs such as higher fuel costs.
12:09:04 PM
STEVE BRADSHAW, Superintendent, Sitka School District, opined
that he has serious concerns related to increased demands with
special education. He explained that these students have high
needs that require multiple special assistants. The costs
involved, he said, are extremely high. He mentioned the demands
of NCLB standards and opined that the [Sitka School District]
has made great leaps forward in the education of Alaskan
children but more manpower is required. He expressed his
frustration in finding the quality of teachers demanded by
statute and not being able to offer them competitive wages. He
stated his appreciation of the governor's proposal, but
explained that it will not meet his school district's needs.
He stated:
We've already started the budget process; we'll have
to cut $200,000. That means, four teachers in this
district. If I take four of the teachers at the
bottom of the pay scale, it will cost me four teachers
to get through next year. I can't afford to cut four
teachers; I've already cut about 13 over the last
three years. So, any effort that you can make to help
us in the situation would be greatly appreciated. We
can get the job done, we can educate every child and
not leave any child behind, but I need specialists in
the classroom to help my teachers, not only my kids,
but my teachers in instruction in reading, writing,
and math. I know you've got a tough year in front of
you, I appreciate your efforts, and we just need the
help, so thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS pointed out that Sitka is considered the
same base as Anchorage and inquired as to the impact loss of
that.
MR. BRADSHAW stated that the cost of living and the housing
costs in Sitka are high, but fuel costs in Southeast are lower
than in other parts of the state. He expressed his belief that
the Southeast cost factor should be adjusted.
12:14:50 PM
BRUCE JOHNSON, Association of Alaska School Boards, (AASB), said
that on behalf of AASB, he wanted to thank the committee for
taking this issue seriously. The governor's bill is a wonderful
starting point, he said. He explained that AASB is working with
member districts to look at some of the impacts of a $62 million
increase and what it might take to offer the same program as
this current year plus appropriate changes relevant to recent
mandates. He emphasized that AASB would not shy away from the
accountability portion and that many of these measures are
helpful in moving ahead.
12:17:22 PM
MARY FRANCES, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School
Administrators, , related that the association is supportive of
any bill that increases the student base allocation. She stated
that "SAA" is trying to decide on a specific request for the
student base allocation. She pointed out that after years of
flat funding and increased inflation, it has been difficult to
compensate each year. Therefore, "SAA" looks forward to
continued incremental improvement.
MARY HAKALA, Coordinator, Alaska Kids Count (AKC), described AKC
as a grassroots lobbying effort organized by parents and
community members supporting public education. She said this is
a statewide network of over 500 individuals. She explained that
AKC establishes its goals dependent on what involved parents
determine is needed in schools. She related that AKC's
priorities this year are to increase foundation funding. She
expressed that although AKC appreciated the governor's initial
increase proposal, it does not bring the schools into "status
quo funding". She said that school programs have suffered in
the past, due to the lack of sufficient funding, and AKC would
like to see a direction change.
[HB 18 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Education meeting was adjourned at 12:21:00
PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|