Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/17/2014 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB278 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 278 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 220 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 291 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 150 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 179 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 17, 2014
1:33 p.m.
1:33:52 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:33 p.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
Representative Lynn Gattis, Chair, House Education
Committee; Michael Hanley, Commissioner, Department of
Education and Early Development; Angela Rodell,
Commissioner, Department of Revenue; Diane Blumer,
Commissioner, Department of Labor and Workforce
Development.
SUMMARY
HB 150 TECHNICAL/VOCATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAM
HB 150 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HB 179 BROADBAND DISCOUNTS FOR SCHOOLS
HB 220 REPEAL SECONDARY SCHOOL EXIT EXAM
HB 220 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HB 278 EDUCATION: FUNDING/TAX CREDITS/PROGRAMS
HB 278 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 291 STIPEND FOR BOARDING SCHOOLS
HB 291 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HOUSE BILL NO. 278
"An Act increasing the base student allocation used in
the formula for state funding of public education;
repealing the secondary student competency examination
and related requirements; relating to high school
course credit earned through assessment; relating to a
college and career readiness assessment for secondary
students; relating to charter school application
appeals and program budgets; relating to residential
school applications; increasing the stipend for
boarding school students; extending unemployment
contributions for the Alaska technical and vocational
education program; relating to earning high school
credit for completion of vocational education courses
offered by institutions receiving technical and
vocational education program funding; relating to
education tax credits; making conforming amendments;
and providing for an effective date."
1:33:59 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed the omnibus education bill and
the intent of the meeting.
Representative Costello moved the House Education Committee
bill version before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN GATTIS, CHAIR, HOUSE EDUCATION
COMMITTEE, read from a prepared statement pertaining to HB
278:
The Governor's Education bill came to us in late
January and we immediately began hearing it in House
Education. Recognizing that the bill had many
different aspects related to education in it, the
Committee determined very early on that the bill would
need to be broken down into its various components and
heard in segments.
We identified at least ten different components of the
bill and though some of them overlapped, we spent
several weeks hearing the bill by the various topics.
We had several presentations from DEED and from the
DLWD. We heard several hours' worth of expert
testimony and even more hours' worth of public
testimony.
Last week we began the arduous but thoughtful process
of presenting our amendments. The Committee dealt with
two dozen amendments and the result of those that
passed is in front of you in CSHB 278, version N.
To begin with, there are some changes in this version
of the bill that are the work of the Legislative Legal
department simply for clean - up and conformity
purposes. But the bulk of the work is the result of
the Committee's work, so here is a summary of that
activity by the topical components.
Section 1 is the High school course credit earned
through assessment. The Governor's bill provided for
"testing out" for students who could prove mastery of
a subject through an assessment rather than having to
do required "seat time" in a classroom and thereby a
student can receive credit for that course if the
established "mastery" or proficiency rate on the
assessment is reached.
The House Education Committee amended the bill with
language similar to HB 190 - which provides for the
development of more course assessments to be made
available to students other than just those courses
that are required courses for meeting the criteria of
the Alaska Performance Scholarship Program.
Sections 2, 3, and 4. These sections deal with
eliminating the requirement for passing the HSGQE and
the Committee amended out any requirement for the
state to pay for a student to take a post-secondary
test such as the ACT, SAT or WorkKeys. The current
requirement from the State Board of Education for high
school Juniors to take the Work Keys test is not
impacted by this potential change. The Committee
amended in the requirement for determining and
reporting on the number, the attendance rates and the
performance of students whose parents are active duty
military. The effective date for the transition
regarding these sections was amended from June 30,
2017 to June 30, 2015.
1:38:55 PM
Representative Gattis continued to address the legislation
in a prepared statement:
Section 5 begins the sections that deal with charter
school applications, appeals and programs. The first
segment regarding charter schools was amended to add
language allowing the State Board of Education to be
an alternative authorizer of a charter school. Though
the bill's initial language states that a denial from
a local district for a charter school application
could be appealed to the Commissioner and then could
be approved by the Commissioner, the Committee amended
that portion to state that the State Board of
Education could become the charter school's chartering
and operating authority so a charter school would not
have to try to operate within a hostile environment of
a district that initially denied it. The amendment
however, does provide for giving the local district a
chance to appeal and request that it become the
operating authority. This section was also amended by
the Committee to limit the length of time by which a
local board had to make its decision to approve or
deny to 60 days.
If you move onto Section 8, you will see where the
Committee amended that section to add that a charter
has the right of first refusal for leasing of
available space of school district facilities and that
the district can charge a reasonable fee that reflects
the true operational costs of that facility.
Section 9 limits the amount that a district can charge
in indirect cost fees to 4%.
Skipping onto Section 12; it was amended by the
Committee to require that school districts formulate
policies and thoughtfully address the transportation
challenges of their charter school students.
Districts would be charged with coordinating
transportation routes and transportation availability
as best they can within their current transportation
plan in order to provide transportation where and when
feasible. If not, the districts will have to forfeit
the portion of their transportation funds generated by
the number of students attending the charter school
and hand that money over to the charter school.
1:41:26 PM
Representative Gattis spoke to the component requiring
districts to forfeit the portion of their transportation
funds generated by the number of students attending the
charter school; districts would be required to hand the
money over to the charter school. She had offered the
provision as an amendment in the House Education Committee;
it had passed unanimously. The intent was not to change the
existing transportation system, but to require buses to
pick up and drop off charter school students if there were
open seats.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that the amendment became easier
once people had understood that charter schools were public
schools.
Representative Gattis replied that the issue had been a
topic of lengthy conversation. She discussed that many
people did not understand how charter schools were funded
given that some had been implemented as experimental and
processed through as private-type programs. She spoke to a
lack of understanding about where charter schools paid and
where inequities existed. She believed the governor had
recognized the issues and that charter schools were an
opportunity to compete on a local level, offered parents a
choice, and complimented the existing educational system.
She pointed to the success of charter schools demonstrated
by their long waiting lists.
Representative Gattis continued reading from a prepared
statement:
It does not require the district to specifically
provide transportation for students but they do have
to allow charter school students to take advantage of
normal bus routes whenever reasonably possible.
In Section 13, the end of that section was amended to
allow for bonding by a municipality or borough for
construction, additions and major rehabilitation
projects for charter schools. This will allow for a
70% debt reimbursement of bonds for charter schools.
Though it seems a little out of order Section 17 was
added in to decrease the minimum number of students
required for establishing the funding rate for a
charter school within its first three years, and
allowing the adjusted student count to be counted at
the same rate as for 150 students.
Looking back at Sections 15 and 16, the Governor's
bill provided for an improved application process for
creating new residential schools and for an increase
in the stipend to more accurately reflect the actual
audited costs of boarding school students and the
House Education Committee simply amended Section 37 to
provide for an effective date of July 1, 2014
replacing the Governor's date of Sept. 1st.
Representative Gattis explained that the effective date had
been changed to July 1, 2014 given that school would have
already started by the September 1 date that had been
included in the governor's bill version.
1:44:36 PM
Representative Gattis continued reading from a statement:
Sections 18, 19 and 20 deal with the Base Student
Allocation increases. The committee did not address
the component of the bill that deals with the BSA but
decided from the beginning that that was an issue
better discussed in HOUSE FINANCE so the Committee
passed that portion unamended.
Section 21, Technical and Vocational Education
Programs (TVEP); the percentages for the funding
allocation were amended in order to add another
program to the list of supported programs. The U of A
percentage was decreased to 42% and the Southern
Southeast Alaska Technical Education Center was added
at 3%.
Co-Chair Stoltze interjected that the section would be up
for discussion.
Representative Gattis agreed. She resumed reading beginning
with Section 22:
Section 22 was amended to add more reporting
requirements to verify the performance results of
those programs.
Moving on to Section 25 and the Tax Credit component
of the Governor's bill - this section further defines
the items that can be identified as costs, and added a
tax credit for contributions made to early learning
and childhood development programs to include those
provided by a for-profit corporation. This section was
also amended to clarify that this tax credit applies
to those contributing to post-secondary schools or
institutions within the state, not outside. That
language is repeated in Sections 26, 28, 29, 31, 32,
34 and 35.
Section 37 repeals Section 3, ch. 91, SLA 2010 which
will remove the sunset date and that will allow Alaska
to continue to seek federal grants for providing
start-up funds for new charter schools.
The amendments made by the House Education Committee
make our charter school environment even stronger in
the state of Alaska, they further reduce unnecessary
testing requirements in our state and the costs
associated with testing and improve incentives for
corporations and organizations to support our
vocational opportunities and the learning
opportunities of our youngest students. The amendments
will more effectively support the Governor's efforts
to improve our education system in our state.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked about Section 38. He referred to two
"repealers." Representative Gattis believed there may have
been a TVEP sunset included. She was unsure what Section 38
encompassed.
Co-Chair Stoltze commented that repealers were often more
powerful than other more descriptive language.
Co-Chair Austerman asked Representative Gattis to provide
her written comments to the committee. Representative
Gattis agreed to provide her remarks.
1:48:36 PM
MICHAEL HANLEY, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
EARLY DEVELOPMENT, clarified that Section 38 was the only
location the High School Graduation Qualifying Exam (HSGQE)
was repealed. He expressed intent to highlight items
differing from the governor's original bill.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked Commissioner Hanley to make comments
on changes made in the House Education Committee and to
address the department's aspirations for the legislation.
Commissioner Hanley relayed that some of the changes
brought a different perspective, but did not change the
governor's intent.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked Commissioner Hanley to outline the
governor's goals, objectives, and hopes related to the
various elements of the bill.
Commissioner Hanley shared that ultimately the governor's
goal was to reform education largely by examining the
current system, cleaning things up, removing barriers, and
incorporating an increase in the BSA. He addressed the
secondary school course credit where students were allowed
to test out. He detailed that the House Education Committee
had aligned the bill with HB 190 [a bill introduced the
prior year]; HB 190 allowed school districts to provide the
opportunity for students to test out; whereas, HB 278
identified specific courses including reading, writing,
math, social studies, science, and world languages. The
specificity recognized the burden the development of
assessments was on school districts and that some courses
were experiential in nature and did not naturally lend
themselves to an end of course exam (e.g. drama, pottery,
or debate).
Commissioner Hanley discussed that the idea was to remove
the a high stakes exam that a student was required to pass
and to provide a choice of assessments a student could use
towards their next step out of high school. Currently
WorkKeys was required in 11th grade. The idea was to allow
students to have a choice; if the student knew they were
going to college they could choose to take the SAT or ACT
instead of WorkKeys. Under the CS before the committee
WorkKeys was required, but the option to take the SAT or
ACT was not.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that there had been significant
input on Common Core. He asked Commissioner Hanley to
provide the administration's position on the topic and any
Common Core elements in the legislation.
1:54:18 PM
Commissioner Hanley relayed that Common Core was a set of
academic standards adopted by numerous districts in the
nation in recognition that many students were not
adequately prepared when leaving high school. Alaska
districts had similar standards; therefore, its students
would be competitive. However, the bill contained no Common
Core components. Alaska adopted new academic standards for
students in June 2012; districts had been implementing the
new standards for the past 1.5 to 2 years. He stated that
there was no connection between the policies in the bill
and the academic standards. He addressed a component that
increased the boarding stipend for residential schools to
recognize the true cost; the component also required the
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) to
hold an annual open application period. There had been an
open application period one year earlier; subsequently
there were some "great" new schools. He noted that the
commissioner's approval was not required.
Commissioner Hanley explained that the governor's vision
was to remove some barriers that made starting new charter
schools challenging. The key component to the charter
school application required an academic policy committee
(comprised of parents) to apply with its local school board
to start a charter school. The school board response had to
be in writing based on fact and conclusions of law. He
stressed that the requirement brought integrity to the
local process. In cases of denial an academic policy
committee could appeal to the commissioner. The
commissioner had the ability to remand the denial back for
further consideration, to confirm the denial, or to suggest
an approval; ultimately the decision would continue to go
to the state board. One of the House Education Committee
amendments outlined that in order for the state board to
overturn a local school district they would essentially
start a new school district; the fiscal note was
indeterminate given that the number of future denials was
unknown. Under the scenario a new charter school would
become its own school district (similar to Mt. Edgecumbe)
with its own superintendent and teachers who would all be
state employees. There would be a significant fiscal note
for the state to start one of the new schools. He stated
that the idea of using the state board of education as an
additional authorizer had some unintended consequences that
would bring a significant fiscal note to the state.
1:58:10 PM
Commissioner Hanley discussed the tax credits that had been
included; the CS included an amendment that added a credit
for early education and the governor had added two
additional tax credits. One credit aimed to defray costs of
students who are taking dual credits (i.e. course and
registration fees) and allowed for transportation and
potentially room and board. The credit would apply to
programs such as the Alaska Native Science and Engineering
Program or the Rural Alaska Honors Institute that helped
students get college and high school credits during the
summer. The second credit added by the governor would help
provide funding for the maintenance, operation, or
construction of a dorm facility for one of the approved
residential schools. The funding was currently unavailable
through the capital improvement projects or major
maintenance process.
ANGELA RODELL, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
addressed the tax credits component of the legislation. She
noted that the education tax credit cap of $5 million per
tax payer had not changed. Additional uses had been added
related to what would qualify for the education tax credit.
She spoke to the importance of encouraging private
investment into the state's education system and to create
opportunities for partnership with the private sector. She
believed the amendments expanding the education tax credit
were important to increase opportunities for students
across the state of Alaska. Additionally, she believed it
was important that the additions did not increase the
overall tax credit claim above the $5 million cap.
2:01:13 PM
DIANE BLUMER, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, spoke to the TVEP program section.
She communicated that the program provided funds for
statewide job institutions. She relayed that the governor's
primary focus had been to recognize the importance of
career and technical education and to provide for a bridge
or partnership with local or distance high schools through
the process. The process included the identification of a
requirement of an articulated agreement with the vocational
technology programs, high schools, and universities. A
component was added to make reporting requirements more
stringent and enforceable by the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development (DLWD). The amendments required
financial information to be provided to DLWD in order for
the legislature to determine if the performance measure
outcomes were meeting the designated mark. She noted that
there had been one change made to the formula funding.
Commissioner Hanley pointed to a section regarding bond
reimbursements for charter schools. The state reimbursed at
a 70 percent rate. He explained that restrictions were
largely square footage related and qualification was based
on the number of students in a school district; districts
qualified for construction of a certain square footage. He
detailed that a 60 percent reimbursement rate did not
include square footage requirements. The component would
allow a 70 percent/30 percent (70/30) reimbursement of the
bonds without the space requirements; therefore, space and
structures could be increased in school districts with a
higher reimbursement rate.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if the provision was 70 percent or
up to 70 percent. Commissioner Hanley replied that the rate
would be 70/30 even though only the requirements of the
60/40 rate were met.
Co-Chair Stoltze thought the issue should be looked at. He
wanted charter schools to be treated fairly, but not more
fairly.
2:04:23 PM
Representative Guttenberg wondered if the charter school
application process including denials and appeals were set
in statute. He gathered from Commissioner Hanley's
statement that sometimes school districts did not provide
timely responses to applications. Commissioner Hanley
answered that there was no appeal process at present.
Currently the process came to a stop if an application was
denied for any reason. The idea of the proposed provision
would be to provide a second set of eyes to review
applications.
Representative Guttenberg asked if the reason for denial
was currently delineated in statute. He asked about reasons
for reconsideration of a denial. Commissioner Hanley
replied that currently a denial could be made for any
reason based on fact and conclusions of law.
Co-Chair Austerman asked about Section 13 related to the
70/30 provision. He wondered why a sunset had been added.
Commissioner Hanley did not believe there was a new sunset
related to the 70/30 provision.
Co-Chair Austerman pointed to a letter from DEED to the
House Finance Committee related to a summary of bill
changes dated March 14, 2014 (copy on file). He pointed to
the July 1, 2014 through December 31, 2017 dates included
in the letter. Commissioner Hanley answered that the
program would be three years because the provision allowing
a school to qualify for the 70/30 reimbursement when they
only met the 60/40 requirements was new. He noted that a
sunset had not previously been in place. He could not speak
to the reason the sunset had been proposed.
2:08:00 PM
Representative Thompson spoke to the 70/30 reimbursement
provision. He wondered why the size and building standards
would be different from those currently in place for public
school buildings.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the provision had not been
inserted by DEED. He asked Representative Gattis to respond
to the question.
Representative Thompson reiterated his question.
Representative Gattis answered that she did not recall a
discussion about the same size standard for neighborhood
and charter schools. The bigger conversation had been about
charter schools being responsible for the leasing of their
own property, paying for property tax, and to use the same
funding as neighborhood schools that did not have the same
responsibility. She referred to charter schools in her
district that were leasing space and were not able to
purchase or participate in a bonding program. She explained
that they did not have the opportunity if the school
district did not put them forward. The provision would
enable charter schools to ask for bonding from the
municipality.
Representative Thompson wondered about building standards
currently in place for public schools. He mentioned R-
values of walls and ceilings. He could not find any of the
detail under the charter school provisions.
2:10:30 PM
Representative Gattis responded that the specific issue had
not come up in the House Education Committee deliberations.
She believed it had been assumed that the same school
intent should apply to charter schools as well. She
communicated that the committee had spent significant time
talking about parity and equity; that charter schools
should be provided with the same opportunities.
Representative Kito had offered the amendment related to
the inequity. She reiterated that most of the committee
assumed it was covered in what was already done in
neighborhood schools.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that the issue may be subject to
refinement. He surmised that if the goal was parity that
the provision may make charter schools more equal. He
believed the intent was to have the schools on the same
level playing field. He noted that the committee could work
on the provision related to Representative Thompson's
questions.
Representative Thompson asked why the SAT, ACT, and career
readiness assessment exams had been removed from the
legislation. Commissioner Hanley replied that the items had
been removed by the House Education Committee.
Representative Gattis answered that the amendment sponsor
in the House Education Committee thought it was appropriate
to remove the college and career readiness verbiage because
the language was used in Common Core standards. The ACT and
SAT had been removed, but because WorkKeys fell under a
different bill it had not been removed. She believed the
intent had been to remove all three, but it had not been
done. She believed the issue was more about the college and
career readiness verbiage and had less to do with the ACT
and SAT (except for the fact that the tests were aligned
with the Common Core).
2:13:32 PM
Representative Edgmon asked whether residential school
stipends were the same as boarding school stipends. He
wondered whether stipends included in the bill recognized
1st through 8th grades. Commissioner Hanley answered that
the terms residential and boarding were used synonymously.
He detailed that residential schools were for high school
students only.
Representative Wilson asked what data had been used to
determine how to approach the goal of increasing graduation
rates and other. She wondered why the solutions in the CS
been chosen versus others. She questioned how to determine
whether the solutions would work. She opined that the bill
represented a significant amount of money.
Commissioner Hanley replied that he did not believe there
was a focus on new programs, but on current activities and
artificial barriers that were in place. The goal was to
remove some of the barriers and to increase equity for
charter schools. The provision would provide an annual
period where charter schools could apply to be residential
schools. The components with positive fiscal notes were
primarily related to the BSA and the increase in boarding
stipends for residential schools. The HSGQE had a negative
fiscal note and other items did not have a fiscal impact.
The idea was to provide improvements to current practices.
The bill included additional tax credits to incentivize
private/public partnerships.
Representative Wilson wondered how the department had
identified specific programs and what data it had used to
determine that the programs were working. Additionally, she
wondered how the department had determined expected
outcomes that would occur based on the reduction of
barriers.
2:17:16 PM
Commissioner Hanley replied that the bill was not
comprehensive to everything that the department could do;
however, it did address some items that could be done
relatively easily due to built-in barriers. Bill components
provided students with increased opportunity by providing
them with the ability to test out of classes and to choose
the SAT or ACT. He elaborated that there was not data
comparing a student taking the SAT or ACT versus WorkKeys,
but he believed there was recognition that not all students
need WorkKeys. Some students had a vision for college;
therefore, the tools they would use would be the SAT or
ACT. Clear data around removing barriers may not be
available, but he believed the proposals made sense.
Representative Wilson spoke to her concern. She wondered if
charter and boarding schools took students away, but left
traditional public schools with the same costs. She thought
the schools would need more money per student due to the
fewer number. She spoke about her district and that charter
schools provided opportunity for a few, but that the
district continued to have the same number of schools and
bus routes with fewer students. She was not against
providing the opportunity, but she was trying to determine
how the cost would work as more opportunities were created.
She wondered how to know whether a boarding school was
successful. She opined that testing out of a class should
require the same test across school districts. She stated
that the bill included significant costs to districts. She
clarified that whether or not the state adopted the Common
Core standards the standards would enter the state's
schools in curriculum because curriculum would be written
for the majority of states that did adopt the standards.
She stressed that the state did not need to adopt Common
Core to utilize it.
2:20:50 PM
Commissioner Hanley replied that districts were able to
address their need to expand as a part of their own
districts. He stated that he had taken the SAT and ACT when
he was in high school, but the Common Core had only been
around for a few years. He found it strange to equate the
exams with Common Core. The addition of the exams in the
bill was recognition that colleges used them for entrance.
He believed additional charter schools and opportunities
for residential schools increased opportunity in response
to local-level needs.
Co-Chair Stoltze believed there had been concern related to
Common Core because the administration had come out against
the standards, but then appeared to include some in the
legislation. He opined that the administration had had
challenges presenting its vision on the topic.
Representative Gara asked if any of the provisions in the
bill took funding away from the BSA received by school
districts for non-charter schools. Commissioner Hanley
replied in the negative.
Representative Gara asked if DEED had studied what BSA was
needed by school districts in order to avoid a fourth year
of cuts.
Commissioner Hanley replied that he had provided the
information to Representative Gara's office. He stated that
no two districts had the same number. He hypothesized that
one district may need an increase of $110 while another
district may need an increase of $150. He explained that an
average would be erroneous. He communicated that there was
no good number. He elaborated that if he had provided
Representative Gara with a number in the past that it would
be wrong at present because districts had changed their
numbers. He communicated that in his ongoing conversations
with districts, numbers tended to be between $100 and $200;
a few districts had communicated the need for an increase
above $200. He had not had any districts speak to him about
a $400 increase. He reiterated that the numbers had
continued to change in ongoing conversations; therefore, it
was impossible to provide a number reflective of all
districts statewide.
Representative Gara wondered what various school districts
needed. He noted that the Juneau School District needed an
increase of over $400. He added that there were a number of
other schools in the same situation. He pointed to a
provision that would allow a charter school application to
be appealed to the DEED commissioner in the event of a
denial. He asked about the standards that would be used by
the commissioner in order to make a decision on the appeal.
2:25:01 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze asked about the current standards.
Representative Gara asked about the standards that would be
used by the commissioner in order to make a decision on the
appeal. He wondered if there were current standards for the
denial or acceptance of a charter school application.
Commissioner Hanley replied that there was currently no
appeal process; therefore there were no standards listed in
statute or regulation. The standards were listed in the
legislation. The conclusions of law and statement of fact
coming from the local school district would be the same
criteria that would appear before the commissioner. There
was no additional language on what the commissioner would
do to address the appeal.
Representative Gara believed the removal of the HSGQE had
support by much of the legislature. He opined that it was
time for the test to go. He did not want to discriminate
against students in the past who had completed course work,
but had not passed the exam. He wondered if the bill would
grant a high school diploma to students who had received a
certificate of completion in the past.
Commissioner Hanley replied that under the current bill
version students graduating up to 2014 were required to
have passed the exam. The governor had included three years
of transitional language in the bill to allow adults who
had left with a certificate of achievement to pass the
HSGQE to receive their diploma. The bill had been amended
from three years (to match HB 220) to one year.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that it was the committee's
intent to report out HB 220 prior to reporting out HB 278.
Representative Gara believed prior students should be
treated the same as future students.
Representative Gattis clarified that there had been much
discussion related to the appeal process for charter school
applications. She explained that the DEED commissioner
would have criteria that the charter schools would write
to; it would not be an arbitrary process.
2:28:56 PM
Representative Gara pointed to Sections 6 and 7 of the
legislation related to the appeal process. He did not see
standards or the authority for the commissioner to come up
with standards.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the committee would work on the
section if it needed refining.
Commissioner Hanley noted that there was no objection from
the governor's office or the administration to clarifying
what the authority for the DEED commissioner looked like.
He added that it was necessary to look beyond his tenure as
commissioner. The authority could be outlined in regulation
or statute.
Representative Costello asked about the transportation
element of the bill in relation to lottery schools. She
listed various programs including the Russian, Spanish,
Japanese immersion programs, and the Denali Montessori. She
explained that the lottery schools were housed in
neighborhood schools. Currently the BSA and transportation
funding was going to the school, but there were parents of
students driving across town.
Commissioner Hanley replied that current statute said that
charter schools shall have a budget that reflects no less
than the amount generated by those students in the same
manner as other schools in the school district. The idea
was equity; that students attending charter schools should
have some access to transportation. The language included
by the governor specified that transportation funding was
generated by student for the special education and
vocational technical education components as well. He noted
that the formula was different. The addition did not mean
that transportation would be provided to individual homes
around a district, but it could mean that there were
designated drop off/pick up spots. He believed there should
be a conversation about transportation. He appreciated that
the House Education Committee had clarified that there
should be a conversation about providing transportation at
least to a minimal extent.
2:31:52 PM
Representative Gattis elaborated that charter schools had
experienced difficulty speaking to their school districts
about the transportation of students. The bill language
would force the school district to have the conversation.
She asked about the definition of a lottery school.
Representative Costello replied that that parents lotteried
into the public school that housed an additional program
(e.g. Russian, Spanish, Japanese immersion programs, and
the Denali Montessori); there was a blend of a neighborhood
school that had busing for neighborhood students and
families outside of the district that had to drive. She
noted that the challenge was no different from that facing
charter schools related to transportation. She asked for
verification that lottery schools had not been discussed
during the House Education Committee meetings on the
legislation.
2:33:41 PM
Representative Gattis replied that the term "lottery
school" had never been discussed. She noted that the
schools were referred to as "mission schools" in the Mat-Su
district. She verified that the same concern existed. The
committee had not discussed the issue. She believed that if
lottery, mission, or boundary exempt schools had been
discussed that they would have fallen in the same category
as charter schools in relation to transportation; students
should have the opportunity to ride on a school bus if they
were on the bus route and room was available.
Representative Costello asked if there had been any
discussion about exempting charter schools from paying
property taxes if they were leasing their facility.
Commissioner Hanley replied in the negative. He elaborated
that local property tax was a local decision.
Co-Chair Austerman asked about Section 13 related to the
70/30 provision. He wondered about the House Education
Committee's decision to include a sunset date of December
31, 2017. He thought that under the provision charter
schools would return to the 60/40 like all other schools.
Representative Gattis replied that the dates had not been
discussed in her committee. She expounded that the
discussion had focused on the 70/30 split for a charter
schools. She thought the dates may have come from DEED.
2:36:21 PM
Co-Chair Austerman noted that charter schools currently had
a 60/40 split. He wondered if the schools could qualify for
the 70/30 split. Commissioner Hanley replied that any
school district school could qualify for either based on
the square footage requirements of the district; typically
a school district was at the maximum with their
neighborhood schools. A charter school could qualify if a
district chose to put the issue before its voters.
Co-Chair Austerman surmised that the provision allowed
charter schools to receive the 70/30 reimbursement on
construction for three years regardless of the existing
60/40 and 70/30 requirements. Commissioner Hanley believed
that had been the intent; charter schools would have a
lesser requirement to receive the higher reimbursement
rate.
Co-Chair Austerman wondered whether a sunset applied to any
of the tax credits. Representative Gattis responded that
the House Education Committee had limited discussion about
the tax credits and their effect given the bill's finance
referral. The committee had given thought to what tax
credits could and could not do, but there had not been
discussion on finances or sunsets.
2:38:19 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman spoke to Section 18 of the bill. He
pointed to the summary of changes that included the removal
of sideboards related to space requirements for the current
debt reimbursement program. He discussed Susitna High
School related to average daily membership and the
different costs and size requirements for courses. He
wondered if the bill removed all building size requirements
based on school population. He wondered if schools would
have the ability to build a school of any size.
Commissioner Hanley replied in the affirmative. Currently
if a district wanted to add a facility they qualified for
the 60/40 reimbursement without space requirements. The
bill would allow charter schools to do the same, but with
the 70 percent reimbursement.
Vice-Chair Neuman referred to page 2 of the bill. He
discussed the application for dual credits for TVEP and
other similar programs. He recalled a requirement to
maintain a certain grade point average (GPA) to receive the
credits. He wondered if there were any existing sideboards
on the amount of funds available for students. He wondered
about any GPA requirements. He referred to secondary school
credits and asked if there were ways to define required
standards for students.
Commissioner Hanley replied in the negative. The provision
related to testing out of a course currently offered by a
school. For example, he discussed whether a Spanish
speaking student could test out of and receive credit for a
Spanish 1 course. The local district already determined
what it took to receive a credit either through a test or a
course.
Vice-Chair Neuman pointed to pages 18 through 20. He
discussed the funding of scholarships awarded by a non-
profit organization to a dual credit student. He wondered
if the provision allowed students to receive dual credits.
He thought the provision tied into TVEP funds.
Commissioner Hanley responded that the component related to
tax credits and was not directly connected to TVEP. The
provision recognized that dual credit students often had
costs at the university level (e.g. registration, course
and lab fees, transportation, and other) and that a tax
credit could be offered to corporation helping to defray
the costs. The TVEP components in the bill stated that an
entity receiving TVEP money needed to offer dual credit and
needed to have an articulation agreement with the student's
high school in order to ensure the credit would be earned
in both locations. The provision did not address GPA.
2:44:26 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman looked Section 26 pertaining to funding
awarded for a scholarship awarded by a non-profit to a dual
credit student. He referred to the summary of changes that
allowed a non-profit to fund a scholarship for a dual
credit student. He wondered whether a student received a
tax credit.
Commissioner Hanley replied in the negative. He provided an
example of tax paying corporation providing funds to a
university to provide scholarships to students earning dual
credits. The company would receive a tax credit for
providing the funds and the student would have an
opportunity to receive a scholarship or defray some of the
costs.
Representative Munoz noted that the education tax credit
appeared to apply to a single student. She wondered if it
rose to the level of the tax credit that was 50 percent of
a $100,000 donation. She wondered if the intent was to fund
the scholarship program versus an individual student.
Commissioner Hanley replied that the intent was to provide
scholarships or to defray dual credit costs for any
students; however, someone providing a scholarship fund
could establish parameters designating that the money
should support students in a specific field or go to a
particular institution.
2:47:04 PM
Commissioner Rodell elaborated that the intent was to allow
the scholarship program to be operated by the receiver of
the donation. She detailed that the tax credit was attached
to the tax payer who would determine which causes the money
would go to. She clarified that the credit was not intended
to attach to a specific student.
Representative Munoz asked about the ultimate hiring
flexibility provided to charter schools. She spoke to
schools with alternative education programs (e.g. language
immersion or native language instruction) where the labor
pool may be specialized and hire may be difficult. She
wondered if the legislation offered flexibility that would
allow charter schools to hire outside the traditional labor
force.
Commissioner Hanley replied in the negative. The
conversation was primarily one that occurred between the
local union, school district, and charter school to
determine how a charter school would be staffed.
Representative Munoz wondered if the administration had
looked at having an organization other than the school
district authorize a charter school (e.g. an educational
nonprofit, university, or other). Commissioner Hanley
replied in the affirmative. He detailed that several states
allowed multiple authorizers. He relayed there was
sometimes a charter school board that authorized and
operated what was essentially a separate school district;
not defined by geographic boundaries, but defined by the
school's mission and authorizer. The topic had been
discussed related to providing greater opportunities for
charters, but it not included in the bill.
Representative Munoz thought the committee may want to look
at the items.
2:49:49 PM
Representative Gattis shared that she had a bill on
multiple authorizers, but she was not sure her committee
was ready for that. She detailed that the committee had
gotten hung up on another school district and could not get
past the issue. She elaborated that Native organizations
had expressed their desire to be a multiple authorizer.
There were charter schools that wanted to participate. She
believed there were some great programs that the state
could grow into. She opined that it had been difficult for
her committee to get around the issue especially in the
omnibus bill. She expressed intent to continue working on
the issue.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked what DEED thought about credential
based licensing for teachers. He stated that there was a
difficulty keeping teachers in rural Alaska. He provided an
example of a person working in rural Alaska for Department
of Fish and Game with a master's degree in the science
field. He wondered about setting up a truncated process
that would allow the individual to get a teaching license.
He wondered if it was a possibility to solve some of the
chronic shortages in villages.
Commissioner Hanley replied that the AKT2 [Alaska
Transition to Teaching] program had provided an alternate
route to becoming a teacher; people with a degree in
another subject area could begin working in a school while
getting their credentials and learning the art of teaching.
The state had discontinued the program due to its expense.
He believed it was a great conversation to have.
2:52:32 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze pointed to the comparative expense of
bringing up a teacher from California who had never lived
in rural Alaska. He referred to the benefit of having an
enthusiastic teacher who was familiar with the region in
comparison to a person with traditional teaching
experience. He was surprised at the opposition he had faced
on the issue by the educational community. He thought it
would be beneficial to include the option in the bill to
provide another tool in the tool box.
Commissioner Hanley did not dispute the significant cost of
teacher turnover and the alienation students felt with high
turnover rates. There was a fiscal component to the state;
the fiscal component to the districts was the difference.
The former program had been successful, but it was dropped
due to cost.
Representative Wilson asked for the cost the state was
paying to transport students who were not actually
transported. She understood that currently the state paid
transportation funding for charter schools, but the
students did not receive transportation. She stated that
transportation to the Catholic school was paid for in
Fairbanks. She believed that some boroughs and cities took
an administrative fee from the education formula. She had
thought the money all went directly to school districts.
She opined that formula funding should go to students and
not boroughs.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if she wanted to include lottery
schools as well.
Representative Wilson stated that a lottery was used in
Fairbanks to determine charter school attendees. She was
interested in transportation costs the state was paying for
any students who were not being transported.
2:56:37 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze assumed the superintendents knew the
number of boundary exempt students in their districts.
Commissioner Hanley replied in the affirmative. The
superintendents would know the number of students in
alternative and charter school programs that districts did
or did not offer transportation to. The component spoke to
charter schools, which encompassed any alternative program
(e.g. optional, charter, or other). A lottery process was
typically used when there were more applicants than the
school had room for. Additionally, there was a lottery
process for neighborhood schools when students wanted to
come in from outside the district. He explained that the
lottery process referred to the way the schools were
filled. He shared that Representative Ledoux's staff had
called all school districts with charter schools (he
believed there were five districts) to determine which
districts provided transportation. Anchorage was the only
district out of the five that did not provide
transportation. He believed Anchorage did not provide
transportation to alternative schools either. He did not
know if the state should get involved in the issue or if
local parents should ask why their students were not
provided with transportation.
Co-Chair Stoltze believed the larger question was whether
school districts were receiving the allotment for
transportation.
Representative Wilson wondered why the state would pay for
the transportation of a student that it was not
transporting. She thought it was nonsensical and wrong. She
thought there may be other places the state was paying
transportation funds for students who were not transported.
Additionally, she wondered whether boroughs and cities were
taking formula funding away from schools at different
rates. She did not know if the activity was occurring, but
believed that it could be a reason some districts were
short of funding. She discussed mandatory local taxes and
in-kind donations versus financial donations.
3:00:51 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that it was informational to know
about the disbursement of funds. He stated that it cost a
school district the same amount to transport 32 students
versus 40 students. He did not want school districts to
think they would be penalized and reiterated the importance
of understanding the various pieces of funding.
Representative Gara wondered about the purpose of requiring
a high school student to take the SAT or ACT if a score
requirement was not imposed. He pointed to studies
indicating that the SAT had little bearing on what a
student did in college. He wondered about Commissioner
Hanley's view of a bill that would not require the tests.
Commissioner Hanley replied the goal was to move away from
requiring a student to pass a test towards a requirement of
participation. The idea was to provide data and information
for the student, the school, and the parents related to a
student's next steps. Currently WorkKeys was required; the
addition of the SAT and ACT would give students an
additional choice. The tools were also used to qualify for
the Alaska Performance Scholarship. Currently if a student
wanted to qualify for the performance scholarship on the
college route they would be required to pass and pay for
either the SAT or ACT. The bill would provide students with
a choice and the state would pay for one administration of
the exam.
Representative Gara explained that there was already
incentive for students who needed one of the tests to go on
to college. He wondered how requiring a non-college bound
student to take one of the tests would be of any advantage.
He thought students who did not need the test would not
take it seriously.
Commissioner Hanley replied that without the option
students would continue to be required to take WorkKeys in
11th grade. The addition of the ACT and SAT would allow
students to choose between the three options.
Representative Gara asked for verification that adding
transportation funding for charter school students did not
take away funding for other students. Commissioner Hanley
replied in the affirmative. He believed current statute
outlined that a charter school's budget should not be less
than the funds generated by its students; however, the
language was broad enough that it was open to
interpretation and was not always included. He noted that
there were no additional funds going out. He referred to
testimony from several school districts that they would not
be impacted because they were already transporting their
students.
Representative Gara asked for verification that the
provision would not dilute funds going to other students.
Commissioner Hanley answered that if a district was not
currently transporting students to its charter schools it
may need to begin transporting the students and may need to
locate the funds to do so. He elaborated that if that was
the case a disparity existed between the charter and
neighborhood schools; funds may need to be shifted to
provide equity.
3:06:15 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze informed the committee that the
legislature was currently appropriating money for the
charter school students on a pro rata basis through the
formula. Commissioner Hanley agreed.
Vice-Chair Neuman recalled that overcrowding on school
buses had been an issue in the past. He believed buses had
been allowed to go over capacity by approximately 20
percent. He wondered if the regulations were still in
place.
Commissioner Hanley replied that safety requirements were
still expected to be met. He could not speak to the
specific requirements as decisions were made locally. The
department expected districts to have student safety in
mind; students should have a seat and should not need to
stand.
Vice-Chair Neuman asked for an explanation of the WorkKeys
requirement. He wondered how it differed from Common Core
or Alaska standards.
Commissioner Hanley replied that WorkKeys was not connected
to Common Core or the Alaska standards. WorkKeys had three
components that gave students information about their
aptitude for a particular career; whereas the SAT and ACT
were geared more towards colleges and universities. The
three components included location of information, math
application, and understanding information. Students were
provided with a score sheet and certificate.
3:08:55 PM
Representative Guttenberg wondered if there was a system
used to evaluate the transportation efficiencies between
school districts. He wondered whether there was a pupil
mile or number of students on a bus per mile. He was under
the impression that school districts did not all treat
transportation in the same way.
Commissioner Hanley replied that in the past DEED had
reimbursed schools for transportation based on routes. He
detailed that the exercise had been cumbersome and did not
incentivize efficiencies on the routes. The process had
been changed many years back and schools began to be funded
based on actual contract costs and a per pupil basis. The
cost of transportation in contracts was divided by the
number of students. He added that there had been increases
since then to pupil transportation. He summarized that
currently transportation was funded on a per student basis,
but it had previously based on actual contracts and costs.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that he and Representative Gattis
represented districts with higher costs. He thanked
Representative Gattis for her time and candor. He informed
the committee that it would spend multiple days on the
topic. He asked members to communicate through his office
and with the departments. He believed the committee needed
to do its due diligence on the subject.
HB 278 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 150
"An Act extending the unemployment contributions for
the Alaska technical and vocational education
program."
HB 150 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HOUSE BILL NO. 179
"An Act providing for public school funding for
telecommunications or Internet services."
HB 179 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HOUSE BILL NO. 220
"An Act repealing the secondary student competency
examination and related requirements; and providing
for an effective date."
HB 220 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HOUSE BILL NO. 291
"An Act increasing the stipend for boarding school
students; and providing for an effective date."
HB 291 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed the schedule for the following
day.
ADJOURNMENT
3:14:24 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:14 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHB278 EDC Letters of Support.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 278 |
| CSHB278 EDC Resolutions of Support.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 278 |
| CSHB278 EDC Sponsor Statement-Transmittal Letter.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 278 |
| CSHB278 EDC Summary of Changes from HB278.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 278 |
| HB291 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 291 |
| HB291 Support Master File.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 291 |
| HB 278 CS NEW FN DEED TLS.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 278 |
| HB 278 CS NEW FN DOR.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 278 |
| HB 278 CS NEW FN DOL.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 278 |
| HB 278 CS NEW FN FUND Transfers.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 278 |
| HB 278 CS NEW FN UOA.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 278 |
| HB 278 CS NEW FN DEED Foundation.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 278 |
| Summary of HB 278 for Finance.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 278 |
| HB 220 CS WORKDRAFT FIN 28-LS0947-C.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 220 |
| HB 220 CS DRAFT FN DEED TLS 3-18-14.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 220 |