Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/04/2014 08:30 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB199 | |
| HB220 | |
| SB125 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 199 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 220 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 125 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 4, 2014
8:48 a.m.
8:48:06 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Austerman called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 8:48 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Daniel George, Staff, Representative Bill Stoltze;
Representative Pete Higgins; Les Morse, Deputy
Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Mike Coons, Self, Palmer; Mary Nanuwak, Self, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 199 VPSO FIREARMS
HB 199 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a new zero fiscal
note from the House Finance Committee for the
Department of Public Safety.
HB 220 REPEAL SECONDARY SCHOOL EXIT EXAM
HB 220 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
SB 125 REJECT RECOMMENDATION OF COMP. COMMISSION
SB 125 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with previously
published zero fiscal note: FN1(ADM).
HOUSE BILL NO. 199
"An Act relating to Department of Public Safety
regulations allowing village public safety officers to
carry firearms."
8:49:27 AM
DANIEL GEORGE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE,
explained the new zero fiscal impact note from the House
Finance Committee. He explained that the new fiscal note
reflected zero operating, no change in revenue noted, and
zero fund source changes. The new note replaced the
previous note.
8:51:25 AM
Co-Chair Austerman solicited public testimony. There being
none public testimony was CLOSED.
8:52:31 AM
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT HB 199 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 199 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a new zero fiscal note from the
House Finance Committee for the Department of Public
Safety.
8:53:00 AM
AT EASE
8:54:20 AM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 220
"An Act repealing the secondary student competency
examination and related requirements; and providing
for an effective date."
8:54:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETE HIGGINS, summarized the sponsor
statement:
CS HB 220 is up for consideration this session. This
legislation repeals the secondary student competency
examination and related reporting requirements for
these exams as required by AS.14.03.075 and AS
14.07.165(5).
The repeal of High School Qualifying Exam (HSGQE) or
"Exit Exam" is a step forward in the process to reform
our Alaska education system. This hurdle was created
to measure student achievement followed by federal
pressure created with No Child Left Behind Act of
2001.
This legislation equates to a savings of approximately
2.7 million for the State of Alaska that can be put to
better use for the education of our children.
To continue to fund these exams no longer makes fiscal
sense for our state and most importantly for our
children.
The Committee Substitute for HB 220 28-LS0947\ U
Inserts the language
TRANSITION: STUDENT TESTING IN PROGRESS.
Until June 30, 2017, a school district shall continue
to administer the competency examination for a student
who seeks to qualify for a secondary school diploma.
This provides fairness for students who are in
transition.
8:57:34 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the legislation would save the
state $1.4 million for the next fiscal year, and not $2.7
million. Representative Higgins clarified that the state
would fulfill the contract for the last time in 2015.
8:58:18 AM
Representative Wilson asked why the program was not ending
in the 2014 school year. Representative Higgins understood
that the contract was good until 2015 and it would be
better to honor the original contract than to spend time
and money on new contract negotiations.
Representative Higgins assured the committee that the test
would end in the 2014 school year. Students that had failed
the test would have the opportunity to take the test
through 2015 in order to receive their high school diploma.
9:00:18 AM
LES MORSE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
EARLY DEVELOPMENT, introduced himself.
9:00:34 AM
Representative Gara asked whether students who would
graduate by 2015 would still be required to take the exam.
Representative Higgins explained that if the student were
graduating in 2014, and could not pass the exam, they would
still receive a certificate of achievement. He said that if
a student still wanted receive their high school diploma
they would have the opportunity to retake the test in 2015,
when the test would still be offered but not required.
9:01:58 AM
Representative Gara asked why the students that did not
pass the exam in 2014 would need to retake it in 2015 in
order to receive a diploma. Representative Higgins
responded that attorneys for the state had decided that the
cleanest way to phase out the test would be to allow every
student the opportunity to pass the standard and be done
with it.
9:03:23 AM
9:03:45 AM
Representative Holmes asked if the idea of continuing
through to 2015 stemmed from that by the time the bill went
into effect the 2014 school year would already be over. She
asked whether students who had failed the exam during the
entire existence of the program would have the opportunity
to retake the test.
Representative Higgins shared that the whole purpose behind
allowing the test to phase out through 2015 was to give
students the opportunity to retake the test. He added that
there was a possibility that the bill could make it to the
governor's desk before the 2014 school year ended, but that
it was unlikely.
9:06:05 AM
Mr. Morse spoke to the exit ramp and how it affected the
fiscal note. He explained that the note indicated the total
current cost of the exam was $2.7 million. He stated that
there would be a savings of $1.4 million in 2015 because
the contract would be reduced by the removal of every
component given to current sitting students; the only
students that would participate in any testing in 2015
would be those who held a certificate of achievement. He
furthered that the certificate meant that the student had
net all of the local requirements but had not met the
graduation requirement in total because the high school
graduation qualifying exam was also a requirement. He said
that after the 2014 school year there would be
approximately 2,372 people with certificates of achievement
who had not returned to earn a diploma; 591 had returned
and successfully taken the test. He relayed that the
transition language offered those students who had not
passed the exam the opportunity to try again. He reiterated
that the saving in year 1 would be $1.4 million and then
$2.7 million in FY16.
9:08:22 AM
Representative Costello queried the tests that were
currently conducted on high school students. Mr. Morse
responded that there were standard based assessments
conducted in ninth and tenth grade. In eleventh grade,
there was the Work Keys assessment. He said that there were
subpopulations of students that took other tests.
9:09:23 AM
Representative Costello asked how long it took to
administer the exit exam. Mr. Morse replied that it was a 3
day exam, testing approximately 2 hours per day.
9:09:46 AM
Representative Costello asked whether not having to teach
to the test would open up classroom time for teachers to
spend time on other lessons plans. Mr. Morse responded that
the legislation would add to more instructional time.
9:10:48 AM
Representative Costello shared the concern that high school
graduates were not entering the work force with a strong
work ethic. She wondered if those skills could be taught in
the classroom. Mr. Morse said that the department sought
districts that were successfully implementing work ethic
lessons into their programs and asked those districts to
help teach their peer districts. He said that the
department worked to network together districts that were
working on the issue.
Representative Costello asked if the department had
considered videotaping the opportunities and putting them
online for other districts to access. Mr. Morse said yes.
9:13:38 AM
Representative Wilson asked how long a student who had
failed the test had left to retake the test. Mr. Morse
replied that the student would have another opportunity in
fall of 2014 and spring of 2015.
9:14:27 AM
Representative Wilson asked how many opportunities were
available currently. Mr. Morse said that under the current
system the student could take the test as many times as
they needed to as long as they held a certificate of
achievement.
9:15:06 AM
Representative Wilson wondered how the $1.4 million
reflected on the fiscal note had been determined. Mr. Morse
said that the $1.4 million came from working with the
contractor. He said that the figure reflected the fixed
cost of the scanners and scorers. He said that the number
of students testing would not change the fiscal note
because most of the $1.4 million was for fixed costs.
9:16:26 AM
Representative Wilson wondered if money could be saved by
allowing students to get the General Education Development
exam (GED) instead of retaking the exit exam. Mr. Morse
shared that students had prepared for the exit exam and not
the GED, which could present a challenge. He furthered that
the Department of Labor and Workforce Development had
indicated that the GED was not an inappropriate test to use
for the purpose of an exit exam.
9:17:50 AM
Representative Wilson queried the difference between the
two tests. Representative Higgins understood that the GED
did not qualify for an assessment for a high school diploma
because it was administered through a different department.
He asserted that the legislature did not have the authority
to change which department administered the test.
9:18:31 AM
Representative Wilson believed that the legislature could
make a policy change in the bill. Representative Higgins
felt that the bill offered a fair compromise and would save
having to change laws and statutes.
9:19:39 AM
Representative Guttenberg thought that the test could be
eliminated, and letters could be sent to all of the
students that had not passed it letting them know that they
qualified for a high school diploma, and a diploma would be
included in the letter.
9:20:32 AM
Representative Guttenberg thought that this would be a
simpler alternative that would bring closure for students.
He believed that if the state no longer held to the
standard it did not make sense for the student to be
required to meet it.
9:20:59 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze wondered whether students who had not
passed the test in the past would receive diplomas
retroactively.
9:21:08 AM
Representative Higgins said that the exit exam was a
firewall for the military; the military did not accept
certificates of achievement. He furthered that some trade
schools did not accept certificates of achievement. He
shared that if diplomas were given retroactively there
could be legal repercussions. He stressed that the
objective of the bill was to assure that everyone had an
equal opportunity.
9:23:20 AM
Representative Guttenberg asked what students would need in
order to qualify for a high school diploma. Representative
Higgins responded that the student would receive their high
school diploma if they met the standards set by the state.
9:23:40 AM
Representative Guttenberg surmised that currently, all the
state standards could be met, but if the student did not
pass the exit exam they would not receive a diploma. He
understood that under the bill, if a student passed all of
the state standards they would receive a diploma.
Representative Higgins replied in the affirmative.
9:24:12 AM
Representative Guttenberg reiterated that all of the
students who had qualified under the state standards up
until now, but had not passed the exit exam, should be
issued a diploma retroactively.
Representative Higgins thought that there had been
disagreement in terms of the value of the test. He proposed
to the committee the idea that the test had added value for
the years that it had been issued, that curriculums in each
district had been changed to make sure that low performing
students met a standard; if diplomas were to retroactively
be provided to all of the student that had failed the test
then the value of the law that existed would be negated, as
well as the work that students who had passed the test had
done. He said that the administration was in favor of some
transition language that would allow the past law to retain
value for the time it existed, and that an opportunity
could be provided for those former students with the
certificate of achievement to receive the full diploma.
9:26:44 AM
Mr. Morse added that the reason he had fought the exit exam
for many years was because he believed that it should not
be tied to a high school diploma.
Representative Guttenberg surmised that there was a finite
group of people that could retake the exam. Mr. Morse
clarified that there were 2,372 people, not including the
class of 2014, who could retake the test.
9:27:39 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze queried the current status of the
contract. Mr. Morse responded that it was a yearly
renewable contract, negotiated on July 1 of each year. He
said that the contract could be renewed through 2015
without going through the procurement process.
9:28:12 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze wondered whether there the state had a
financial obligation to the contract with the September 1
effective date. Mr. Morse replied that the only obligation
would be what was necessary in law.
9:29:13 AM
Representative Munoz wondered how the 2,372 Alaskans would
be contacted concerning retaking the test. Mr. Morse
responded that the department would work with the districts
that had the actual contact information. He added that
there would be public notices and advertising.
9:29:53 AM
Representative Munoz wondered if the fiscal note reflected
that outreach effort. Mr. Morse responded that the
department would be able to absorb the costs.
9:30:33 AM
Representative Gara asked why the transition language was
necessary.
9:31:18 AM
Mr. Morse stressed that the administration believed that
transition language related to good policy.
9:32:06 AM
MIKE COONS, SELF, PALMER (via teleconference), testified
against the legislation. He expressed confusion about the
fiscal note. He spoke of testimony on the bill from other
committees.
9:36:52 AM
MARY NANUWAK, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in opposition to the legislation. She expressed
disappointment with the way that education dollars were
allocated within districts.
9:41:58 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
HB 220 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
9:42:41 AM
AT EASE
9:44:25 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 125
"An Act disapproving all recommendations of the State
Officers Compensation Commission relating to the
salaries of state officers; and providing for an
effective date."
9:44:42 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze announced that the bill would prevent the
spending of state dollars for pay increases to the
governor, lt. governor and salary department heads.
9:44:58 AM
Representative Costello requested that page 3 of the fiscal
note be posted in color online so that the chart could be
more easily understood.
9:45:23 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze directed his staff to do so.
9:45:35 AM
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT SB 125 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SB 125 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with previously published zero fiscal
note: FN1 (ADM).
ADJOURNMENT
9:46:45 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 9:46 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CS HB 220 Section Analysis .pdf |
HFIN 3/4/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| CS HB 220 Sponsors Statement.pdf |
HFIN 3/4/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| Explanation of changes CS HB220.pdf |
HFIN 3/4/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| HB220 Response Rep. Higgins to HFIN.pdf |
HFIN 3/4/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| HB 220 Amendment 1 Thompson.pdf |
HFIN 3/4/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 220 |