Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/03/2012 09:00 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB256 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 330 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 256 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 3, 2012
9:05 a.m.
9:05:08 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas Jr., Co-Chair
Representative Anna Fairclough, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Mike Doogan
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mark Neuman
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Alan Dick; Annette Kreitzer, Staff,
Representative Dick; Mike Hanley, Commissioner, Department
of Education and Early Development; Les Morse, Deputy
Director, Department of Education and Early Development.
SUMMARY
HB 256 REPEAL STATE INTERVENTION IN SCHOOLS
HB 256 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 330 STATE EDUCATION STANDARDS
HB 330 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
9:05:19 AM
HOUSE BILL NO. 256
"An Act repealing provisions relating to the power and
duties of the Department of Education and Early
Development to intervene in a school district to
improve instructional practices."
9:06:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN DICK pointed out that he represents
remote and primarily native school districts. He indicated
that the difficult part in forming the bill was there were
only two representatives, besides himself, who had the same
concern. The representatives were Representative Neal
Foster and Representative Bob Herron. He noted that the
bill was born out of frustration, conflict and a desire to
see low performing schools improve. He believed HB 256
brought resolution to any conflict. He expressed that the
key word would be "collaboration," the part missing between
the intervention districts and the Department of Education.
He listed the six key parts of the bill:
1) The word "intervention" is changed to
"restoration." Representative Dick indicated the word
"collaboration" changed the entire mentality of going
in, intervening and forcing people to do anything. He
illustrated a story of a caribou he shot being aided
by two cows trying to lift him up to run again. The
incident left an impression in his mind of
intervention and restoration of school districts.
People coming together to help a wounded
superintendent or school district be lifted up and
helped to move forward.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked Representative Dick to describe the
rural intervention districts.
Representative Dick responded that originally there were
five school districts. The Yukon-Koyokuk School District,
north of Fairbanks; Yukon Flats School District, north of
Fairbanks; Lower Yukon School District, near Mountain
Village; Yupiik School District, upriver from Bethel; and
Northwest Arctic School District, near Kotzebue. Northwest
Arctic and Yukon-Koyokuk are no longer in intervention.
Yukon Flats, Lower Yukon and Yupiik School Districts are
still in intervention. The districts have many great
concerns. He stressed that he has tried for a long time to
work with the Department of Education. He tried diplomacy,
wrote letters, spent 150-200 hours trying to work out the
issues and asked pointed questions. He realized diplomacy
was not an option so he brought forth the bill. He
referenced the Alaska State Systems of Support Operations
manual. He saw a few ideas that might help, but the major
issues were not addressed for rural schools. Part of
problem in the Alaska State Board of Education is that the
members are primarily from more urban areas; not one board
member lives in a Regional Educational Attendance Area
(REAA) area or in an intervention district.
Representative Dick continued to list key parts of the
bill:
2) Superintendents evaluate the Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED) annually
through a Survey Monkey. Positive and negative aspects
could be addressed.
9:12:48 AM
Representative Gara asked for an explanation on how under
Moore vs. the State of Alaska some districts got off the
intervention list and others remained on.
Representative Doogan asked for the definition of a Survey
Monkey. Representative Dick responded that it was an online
survey. The intent of the survey would be that every
superintendent at the end of the year could give an
evaluation of the Department of Education on how well they
had been served. The survey would be broken down into
departments such as maintenance, instructional support,
data reporting and other issues. He listed additional key
components of the legislation:
3) Superintendents have a voice in Board of
Education (BOE) meetings. The problem with the Board
of Education is that there are no representatives from
the intervention districts sitting in on the
discussions.
4) Restoration districts must incorporate Cultural
Standards. The restoration districts must incorporate
the book, Alaska Standards for Culturally Responsive
Schools. The book was written fourteen years ago, but
has not been adopted or used. He commented that HB 256
makes the book the foundation of the plan to move
forward. The state support manual is used, but has not
demonstrated any improvement. Representative Dick
indicated that he sat down with former commissioner
Jerry Coven and tried to figure out how to make it
work. He relied heavily on Commissioner Coven's input.
9:17:17 AM
Representative Dick read the sequence of events from No
Child Left Behind:
(a) Year One, the district is notified.
(b) Year Two, students have the right to transfer to a
different school.
(c) Year Three, the students have a right to free
tutoring.
(d) Year Four, corrective action of the staff or
curriculum.
(e) Year Five, restructuring to convert to charter
school, replace the principal and staff, turn over to
private management, turn over to the state, or other
restructuring.
Representative Dick stated that would take five years to
solve the problem. He communicated that under HB 256 the
strategy was simple. He highlighted the fifth key piece
included in the bill:
5) Strategy for improving schools. Alaska Standards
for Culturally Responsive Schools is foundational.
Year 1. Independent expert evaluates critical
components of district. (7x $1,600=$11,200)
Year 1(a) One coach chosen for each
superintendent and board. (20x $1,600= $32K) Schools
struggle from many variables one of which is that the
students are not coming to school prepared to learn.
In the same year, after the evaluation, there would be
a collaborative agreement for a professional person
chosen by the school district and the Department of
Education. The coaches would give their evaluation at
the end of the year to all concerned and all factors
that influence school districts would be addressed.
Year 2. One additional coach chosen for each
superintendent and board. (20x$1,600= $32K) There are
different problems in each district. All components
would be identified and coached.
Year 3. Team formed. One each from the
Department of Education, Board of Education,
Superintendent, the local school board, and four
coaches all brought together to develop a three-year
plan that the Superintendent carries out. (Team- 8
people x 20 days x $1,600= $256K) The plan would be a
collaborative solution instead of someone from the
Department of Education telling the district what to
do. There was contention with the trustee in the
Yupiik School District. The trustee made $190,000 a
year and was only out in the district 10-15 days a
month. There has been no positive outcome from the
trustee although he was seen as an icon of the
Department of Education's ability to tell districts
how to do their job. The district indicated if they
had to have a trustee then they wanted someone they
could work with.
9:22:32 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze asked for the definition of a trustee.
Representative Dick reported that a Department of Education
trustee was someone who would oversee and have authority
over the superintendent in a district. The trustee could
tell the school how long each subject would be taught. He
relayed that students in the Yupiik School District wanted
cultural activities in the school, but were told by the
trustee that cultural activities could only occur after
school.
Representative Edgmon asked if the trustee was the conduit
between the Board of Education and the Department of
Education, which sounded like a top down approach.
Representative Dick agreed it would be a top down approach.
He indicated that he showed the Department of Education
they were not even following their own support manual.
Collaboration was the part that was missing. He referred to
the disturbing $5 million in the fiscal note. He believed
the amount needed was closer to $299,264 for three years.
The trustee alone is costing that amount in just two years.
He believed his plan to be a healthier approach with more
collaboration.
9:27:05 AM
Co-Chair Thomas expressed that all the blame was being put
on the Department of Education and not the parents. He
questioned on what Representative Dick planned to do about
having parents participate in getting their children to
school. He believed that something needed to go into the
bill to require parents to participate in their children's
education. He also expressed concern that the intervention
districts had sued the state and won an $18 million
settlement and questioned why the districts should be given
$5 million more on top of the $18 million. He added there
was also no sunset in the bill and argued that the look-
back should be at the end of each year. He recognized that
would be a question for the Department of Education. Co-
Chair Thomas asked who the trustee was and how to obtain
their reports.
Representative Dick recounted that his plan would not cost
$5 million. In the bill, the Alaska Standards for
Culturally Responsive Schools would be the foundational
document. The program explains the standards for students,
educators, curriculum, and cultural standards for schools,
communities, and parent participation. He warned that one
school has a problem with students sniffing gas. The bill,
in the first year, would evaluate all areas that could
affect student learning in a public report. The team would
be made up of professionals from around the state to help
understand the problem. The districts are looking for
mentorship and coaching from others who know the issues. He
stressed that an urban advisor might not even know or be
aware of where to look for the problem.
9:33:41 AM
Co-Chair Thomas revealed that the committee packet did not
contain the referenced book. Representative Dick indicated
that he would get copies of the book for the committee. He
also suggested that the committee read the Alaska Standards
Support Manual. The manual states twenty five times to
align the curriculum to the standards when he believed that
the standards need to be aligned to the reality of where
the students live. He indicated that he has asked all these
questions of the Department of Education, but has not
received many answers.
Co-Chair Thomas repeated that the school boards and
districts sued the state and received $18 million. He
believed that the $18 million should be used first before
more intervention money is allocated. He felt a lot of the
problem fell on the school districts who have already been
receiving money from the state to provide a good education.
Representative Dick indicated he was asked about the Moore
vs. the State of Alaska case, but he could not provide the
answers. He opined that the Moore case itself does not
address the problem. He agreed that the districts could
wait and spend the $18 million, but he contended that it
would not help because the core issues were not being
addressed. He clarified that he had no say in how the money
from the case was being allocated.
Co-Chair Thomas expressed that the committee knows nothing
about how the money is spent because they have not received
any progressive reports on the Moore standards. He declared
that the $5 million fiscal note was scary when there was
already $18 million available.
Representative Dick agreed that the $5 million in the
fiscal note was high. He explained that the cost of his
program would total $267,264 for the three years per school
district. HB 256 would bring results using much less money.
He believed nothing would make a difference until students
realized and understood in their own lives the usefulness
of an education.
9:40:02 AM
Representative Gara shared that he was concerned about many
of the same things that concerned Co-Chair Thomas. He
questioned if the $5 million in the fiscal note could be
used in a better way or a program requiring less money
could be developed. Representative Dick agreed that he
would not allocate $5 million either. Representative Gara
asked if the fiscal note was wrong. Representative Dick
announced that the fiscal note was wrong. Representative
Gara remarked that the fiscal note needed clarification. He
commented on the lack of commitment between the school
districts and the Department of Education and noted a few
things that could be accomplished for free. He believed the
cost of the trustee was outrageous and commented that for
less money better leadership could be hired. He questioned
if some of the money could be used for outreach
coordinators to get parents more involved. He commented
that he preferred something more cost effective.
Representative Dick responded that he felt sad that the
process has to be legislated in order for everyone to play
nice with each other. He indicated having four meetings
with the Department of Education commissioner and although
he was at first optimistic about results, he soon became
disillusioned. The problem of the department not
collaborating with schools districts has pre-dated
Commissioner Hanley. He wanted to create a process to form
a consistent program that is separate from the personality
of any commissioner. He trusted that the school districts
have hired the best staff available, but the schools are
frustrated dealing with the department. He believed the
skilled workers are not getting the support they need. He
emphasized that all plans have been from the top down. He
contended that he made several inquiries of the department
and the trustee about how to get more parental involvement,
and although there were some community events, no effort or
plan was actually put into place to initiate home
involvement.
Representative Gara asked why money was needed for coaches
if the superintendents are of such high quality. He thought
the money could be better spent coaching parents to become
more involved. He thought it outrageous that the department
had not worked with the local districts to formulate a
plan.
Representative Dick voiced that he personally liked the
trustee, Darrell Sanborn, but Mr. Sanborn was put into the
role of an enforcer and that was why nothing worked. He
felt everyone needed to come to the table feeling as though
they were actual participants in the decisions. He believed
the only thing that would get parents involved would be to
follow the Alaska Standards book activities. The activities
reflected their culture and would teach students from that
perspective.
Representative Gara asked again why coaches were needed if
the superintendents are of such high quality.
Representative Dick responded that $400,000 had been spent
sending coaches to the Yupiik School District only to see
the tests scores decrease over the past three years. He
pointed out that there has been no evaluation of the
coaching project. He hoped that after three years of the
coaching program a plan would have emerged. The only
coaching evaluation came from Education Northwest in
Seattle. He could not understand how someone from Seattle
could evaluate or understand the problems of the Yupiik
School District. He stressed that millions of dollars had
been poured into programs that have not worked. He
reiterated that a trustee coming from the outside to make
suggestions was not effective. He contended that HB 256 was
the answer. He declared that the Yukon-Koyokuk District was
able to get off intervention by using the Partners
Empowering All Kids (PEAK) program with federal funds.
9:51:36 AM
Representative Dick stated that it was never clear how
districts moved on and off intervention. In the Moore case,
the lowest forty performing schools districts in the state
of Alaska were supposed to receive help. In the lowest
forty, ten came from the Lower Kuskokwim School Districts.
He did not know why Lower Kuskokwim did not become an
intervention district. He declared that the Moore case
became a rat's nest causing all of the contentious
problems.
Representative Doogan asked where he could find a copy of
Alaska Standards for Culturally Responsive Schools book.
Representative Dick responded he would make sure that
copies were provided to the committee.
Representative Doogan pointed out that in year one of
Representative's Dick program, an independent expert would
evaluate critical components of the district. He questioned
how the expert would be selected. Representative Dick
responded the expert would be chosen in collaboration
between the Department of Education and the superintendent
of the school district.
Representative Doogan asked if he meant the superintendents
from the three failing districts. Representative Dick
replied that the superintendent from an intervention school
and the Department of Education and Early Development would
choose an expert to evaluate the school district on a list
of specific criteria.
Representative Doogan asked if that was one expert going
through three schools to evaluate the school district.
Representative Dick indicated that was correct and the
experts would evaluate the school district in seven days.
9:55:11 AM
Representative Wilson clarified that there are three
intervention districts, but there was only one trustee in
only one of the districts. She asked the names and
qualifications in the Yupiik School District.
Representative Dick responded Howard Diamond, Kim Langton,
Diane George who had over 70 years' experience in the bush.
Howard Diamond is the superintendent, Diane George is the
Assistant Superintendent and Kim Langton supervises
instruction in the Yupiik School District.
Representative Dick had hoped the committee just wanted to
talk numbers. Co-Chair Thomas interjected that the numbers
were scary. Representative Dick signified that the
committee needed to ask the commissioner why $5 million was
needed. Co-Chair Thomas commented that was the goal.
ANNETTE KREITZER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE DICK interjected
that the parental involvement issue is located in the bill.
Representative Dick summarized that what has happened up
until now has cost millions of dollars, but produced no
improvement or results.
9:57:55 AM
AT EASE
10:03:55 AM
RECONVENED
MIKE HANLEY, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
EARLY DEVELOPMENT commented that there had been a
mischaracterization about the efforts of the department. He
noted that there have been five intervention districts.
Statistically across the nation once a district is in
intervention they never come out of intervention. Alaska is
different as there have been two districts moved out of
intervention because they showed improvement and no longer
needed support. The Yupiik School District is the only one
with a trustee. When the department first intervened in
that district the scores were at 9 percent proficiency and
now the scores are 19 percent. It is not where the
department wants to see the school, but there has been a 10
percent gain. The primary tool in intervention is with the
coaches, not the trustee. Coaches are sent to the schools
to work directly with the teachers to build capacity, align
curriculum, help with best practices, and scheduling. The
goal is not to tell the school how to do it, but help
strengthen the system that is already there. He opined not
seeing the contentiousness in any other district except the
Yupiik District with the one trustee. The trustee has
specific authority and the mid-year and end-year reports
can clarify what he does. The trustee only has authority
over the curricular activities in the district, but does
not oversee the superintendent. The trustee is in the
district for about 15 days a month working directly with
coaches, teachers, and students. He agreed that having a
trustee oversee a district is not always a pleasant
experience. The trustee, Darrell Sanborn, has worked all
over Alaska and is a respected retired superintendent.
Co-Chair Thomas asked if the trustee makes $192,000.
Commissioner Hanley stated that last year's contract was
for $174,000. The contract included no retirement or other
benefits. He added that all expenses come out of the
contract money including transportation. He continued that
using the trustee has been the primary tool used and the
school has seen improvement, but he acknowledged the system
is not perfect. He recognized in meetings with
Representative Dick and the three school districts that
they all want the trustee removed. As a compromise, the
department agreed to put some measurable student
achievement goals in place to move forward, and after that
happens, he would begin to back the trustee out.
Commissioner Hanley believed it would be a good
collaborative approach. The plan started in the spring with
the trustee beginning to travel less to the districts.
10:10:19 AM
Representative Neuman wondered with all money being put
into education would it be possible to implement the new
ideas and concept proposals of Representative Dick.
Commissioner Hanley responded that SB 285 put forth
specifics on how the state would intervene in failing
districts. There were concepts on coaches and trustees and,
when a district showed a two percent growth in three years,
the department would step back. At the time, all the
failing districts testified they would like to have the
coaches in the districts more. HB 256 limits how long a
coach could be placed in the districts. The bill also
removes the two percent per year growth and softens the
goals of the districts.
Representative Neuman asked Commissioner Hanley if he could
support any part of the bill.
Commissioner Hanley commented that he had no problem with
holding himself or the department accountable. He agreed it
was valuable to put together a survey to understand why
teachers were leaving the districts. He remarked having no
problem with coaching as that was something the department
already did, but he did not like the restrictions on the
coaches in the bill. He struggled with the concept of the
Yupiik School District choosing two more coaches in
addition to the two already there. He failed understand how
that would work.
10:15:02 AM
Representative Wilson wondered why the Yukon-Koyokuk School
District was not one of the intervention districts.
Commissioner Hanley replied that the district built
capacity and improved scores to over 50 percent. There was
an exit interview where he asked the district what would
happen if the department stepped back and the
superintendent replied that the school would continue to
follow growth plans.
Representative Wilson asked commented that the
superintendent was new and was one of the main reasons for
the teacher turnover. She noted that the new superintendent
was very hands-on and had not been in the area long.
Commissioner Hanley responded he did not know how long the
superintendent had been in the area.
Representative Wilson remarked on her surprise that the
department did not put down all the costs going into the
districts in the fiscal note. She mentioned the coaches
only going into the intervention districts and teachers not
being reflected. The fiscal note looks like a lot of
funding was being added when the true situation might just
be the shifting of funds. She asked how much money was
going into the intervention districts. Commissioner Hanley
understood the intent of the sponsor of HB 256 was to
replace the current model; therefore certain costs would no
longer be there. Representative Wilson pointed out that by
replacing the coaches then there would be cost savings on
one side. She asked again how much money was going into the
intervention districts. Commissioner Hanley responded he
did not have numbers, but Deputy Commissioner Morse may
have them.
LES MORSE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
EARLY DEVELOPMENT responded he could shed some light on the
costs. He noted that the bill did not just affect the
current three intervention districts, but would look at all
the schools through an auditing process. Some of the costs
in the fiscal note reflected the additional schools that
may be affected under the bill. Representative Wilson
stressed she was just trying to get a dollar amount about
what currently is being spent in the intervention districts
and what costs would change with the new bill. Mr. Morse
responded that he would obtain the cost number for the
committee. He reiterated that the HBB 256 would change part
of the statute and he needed to analyze exactly how much
would be changed. Representative Wilson emphasized that
when the committee received fiscal notes, they should be
reflect where there might be savings.
10:20:14 AM
Representative Gara added that the committee would like to
know the additional costs of HB 256 compared to the amount
presently being spent. He noted that the Department of
Education could coordinate with the local school districts
for no extra cost. He questioned if that might be something
the department would be willing to do. Commissioner Hanley
answered that the department had already committed to do
that. Representative Gara mentioned an example from
Representative Dick where a trustee only showed up a few
weeks and cost the state $180,000 a year. He asked the
commissioner to shed some light on that. Commissioner
Hanley responded that the trustee was in the district about
10 to 15 days a month working directly with the school and
staff.
Representative Gara questioned what the commissioner on
what could the department do about increasing parental
involvement and would the department be willing to use the
Alaska Standards for Culturally Responsive Schools program.
Commissioner Hanley signified that the cultural standards
are already being used, but the program could be more
assertive. He warned that parents do not always find it
popular when someone from outside the community comes in to
tell them what they should do. He was not sure that the
state can tell a small district the best way to involve
families.
10:23:31 AM
Representative Doogan referred to the book Alaska Standards
for Culturally Responsive Schools and wondered what the
department thinks of the book. He indicated that from
statements heard, the three districts are not using
cultural standards. Commissioner Hanley responded that the
book has already been adopted by the State Board of
Education to be utilized, but the use is not monitored. He
believed that to be the responsibility of the local
districts. He professed that cultural standards were more a
way of teaching, but hard to measure. He concluded the book
was a very valuable document, but there is no mandate that
the districts use it. He added again that it would be hard
to measure the effects. Representative Doogan disagreed. He
thought it would be easy to measure the effects of using
the cultural standards approach and wondered why it was not
being used. Commissioner Hanley responded that cultural
standards do need to be used, especially for teachers who
were not from those communities.
Co-Chair Thomas asked if the districts have the option of
adopting the cultural standards now. Commissioner
reiterated that they had been adopted by the State Board of
Education.
10:27:08 AM
Representative Edgmon stated he was intrigued by
Representative Dick's theme based educational approach. He
would like more discussion on the theme based approach and
the cultural response in the schools.
Co-Chair Thomas questioned when the legislature cuts money
from the budget, there was a threat of being sued due to
breaking the Moore vs. the State of Alaska decision. He
felt the districts could not have it both ways by giving
them more money. He felt the attorney involved in the case
should be brought before the committee to see if going
forward with a new plan would align with the Moore Act.
Commissioner Hanley agreed and believed the Moore
settlement would operate side by side. The grant funding in
the Moore settlement would not be able to be used for
changes presented in HB 256. Co-Chair Thomas questioned if
the attorneys for the Moore Settlement would be happy with
the new bill. Commissioner Hanley agreed that was a good
question. The Moore settlement allows the districts to
address their needs to build up capacity, but the bill is
very specific. Co-Chair Thomas elaborated that intervention
districts were being addressed.
Representative Wilson furthered that there needs to be an
understanding on how the committee would be put together
because the settlement works separately with the
intervention districts outside of the Department of
Education program. The committee needs to understand how
all the parts will fit together in order to ask the right
questions.
HB 256 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 330
"An Act establishing a Joint Legislative Task Force on
Education Standards; requiring the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development to provide information and resources
to the task force; establishing state education standards;
amending the authority of the Department of Education and
Early Development to adopt education standards; and
providing for an effective date."
HB 330 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
ADJOURNMENT
10:31:34 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:31 AM.