Legislature(1993 - 1994)
01/28/1993 03:00 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
January 28, 1993
3:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Rep. Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Rep. Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Rep. Gary Davis, Vice Chair
Rep. Tom Brice, arrived later
Rep. Bettye Davis, arrived later
Rep. Pete Kott
Rep. Irene Nicholia
Rep. Harley Olberg
Rep. Al Vezey
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Rep. Ed Willis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Alaska Board of Education - Alaska 2000
Mechanics of the School Foundation Formula by the Alaska
Association of School Business Officials
WITNESS REGISTER
Joe Montgomery, Chairman
State Board of Education
1048 Beech Lane
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Phone: (907) 272-9339
Position Statement: Introduced board members and
explained how the board was appointed;
was available to answer questions
Don Fancher
P.O. Box 2027
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Phone: (907) 543-3121
Position Statement: State Board of Education member
Robert Walp, Second Vice Chair
State Board of Education
804 P St. #4
Anchorage, Alaska 99510-3252
Phone: (907) 265-5606
Position Statement: Available to answer questions
John Hotzfield
5890 Liberty Court
Wasilla, Alaska 99687-9345
Phone: (907) 376-6445
Position Statement: State Board of Education member
June Nelson
P.O. Box 158
Kotzebue, Alaska 99752-0158
Phone: (907) 442-3501
Position Statement: State Board of Education member
Judy Norton
9824 Atka Circle
Eagle River, Alaska 99577
Phone: (907) 696-2477
Position Statement: State Board of Education member
Karen Meehan
3640 Chiniak Bay
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
Phone: (907) 344-0662
Position Statement: Student advisor on the State Board
of Education
Jerry Covey, Commissioner
Alaska Department of Education
801 W. 10th St., Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
Phone: (907) 465-2800
Position Statement: Explained the Alaska 2000 program
Barbara Martin
Assistant Superintendent of Business and Finance
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District
P.O. Box 1250
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707-1250
Phone: (907) 452-2000
Position Statement: Introduced members of the Alaska
Association of School Business
Officials (AASBO), including herself;
described the foundation formula
Janet Stokesbary, Director
Finance and Accounting
Anchorage School District
4600 DeBarr Ave.
P.O. Box 196614
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6614
Phone: (907) 269-2394
Position Statement: Member of the AASBO
Richard M. Swarner
Executive Director, Business Management
Kenai Peninsula Borough School District
44955 Ptarmigan Place
Soldotna, Alaska 99699
Phone: (907) 262-4056
Position Statement: Member of the AASBO
John Anttonen, Superintendent
Hoonah School District
P.O. Box 157
Hoonah, Alaska 99829
Phone: (907) 945-3611
Position Statement: Member of the AASBO
Laraine Derr, Director of Business
Juneau School District
10014 Crazy Horse Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 463-1700
Position Statement: Member of the AASBO
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-7A, SIDE A
Number 000
CO-CHAIR CYNTHIA TOOHEY called the meeting to order at
3:00 p.m. and noted members present. She announced that the
purpose of the meeting was to hear a presentation from the
State Board of Education on the Alaska 2000 proposals,
followed by a presentation by the Alaska Association of
School Business Officials on the mechanics of the Alaska
school foundation formula.
CHAIR TOOHEY introduced the members of the STATE BOARD OF
EDUCATION who were present at the meeting. They were:
Chairman Joe Montgomery and members Don Fancher, Robert
Walp, John Hotzfield, June Nelson, Judy Norton, and Karen
Meehan. She also welcomed members who were present from the
ALASKA ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL BUSINESS OFFICIALS: Barbara
Martin, Richard Swarner, Janet Stokesbary, Laraine Derr, and
John Anttonen.
Number 072
JOE MONTGOMERY, CHAIRMAN OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION,
introduced himself. He explained that the seven-member
board is appointed by the governor with the legislature's
approval and meets 10 or 11 times a year, meeting around the
state and in Juneau while the legislature is in session.
MR. MONTGOMERY asked the board members who were present to
introduce themselves and briefly describe their backgrounds.
ROBERT WALP, of Anchorage, introduced himself as a former
state director of telecommunications and a retired president
of General Communications, Inc.
JOHN HOTZFIELD, of the Palmer-Wasilla area, introduced
himself as a Christian educator.
KAREN MEEHAN introduced herself as a senior at Dimond High
School in Anchorage and a nonvoting student member of the
board.
JUNE NELSON, a native of Kotzebue, said she represented
rural educators.
JUDY NORTON introduced herself as a teacher in the Anchorage
School District in Eagle River.
DON FANCHER, of Bethel, introduced himself as the newest
member of the board.
MR. MONTGOMERY noted that Dr. Roger O. Jarvis was on
temporary duty with the U.S. Air Force and could not be
present. Likewise, Patricia Norheim of Petersburg was
unable to attend.
Number 256
JERRY COVEY, COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
(DOE), began his detailed presentation on the Alaska 2000
initiative at Chair Toohey's invitation.
COMMISSIONER COVEY presented a document explaining the
Alaska 2000 program and the recommendations from the State
Board of Education. (The document, incorporated herein, is
identified as Attachment 1 and is on file in the House HESS
committee room.)
COMMISSIONER COVEY said the department had introduced its
Alaska 2000 package, which consisted of four bills covering
three major components. One was a large capital
improvements budget aimed at addressing longstanding
statewide construction needs and using the unreserved
earnings of the permanent fund. He said no funding plan was
initially included in the package, but as the Alaska 2000
committee did its work and received supportive public input,
they decided to seek funding through the permanent fund.
After the governor expressed a preference for the permanent
fund earnings over long-term bonding debt, the committee
approached the legislature.
COMMISSIONER COVEY said the plan tries to spread about half
of the $150 million through the top priority levels of
capital projects, not just the top level, and others as
funding remained. This was an effort to win statewide
support for the proposal by giving each school district some
benefit in the first two years and to perform some
preventative maintenance that might save larger costs later.
He then asked for questions.
Number 328
REP. CON BUNDE asked for a point by point description of the
Alaska 2000 program, starting with charter schools.
COMMISSIONER COVEY said the charter school idea, which he
had also helped Rep. Bettye Davis work on, was an effort to
create alternatives to local public schools funded with
public money and using public school teachers though
requiring no additional money. Charter schools would have
more latitude than regular schools in organization, in
teaching methods and other factors as long as they followed
all sate regulations. They would be established at the
proposal of and with close involvement by parents.
Number 350
REP. BUNDE asked whether parents would have the power to
fire teachers.
COMMISSIONER COVEY answered no; teachers in charter schools
would remain as school district employees subject to regular
personnel policies. Parents would more have influence over
the programs and methods than over individual teachers.
Commissioner Covey said he did not foresee parents having a
disruptive influence, for example, firing teachers in the
middle of a term.
Number 375
CHAIR TOOHEY asked about the size and location of charter
schools.
COMMISSIONER COVEY responded that such issues would be up to
the local board and subject to the provisions of the
contract, but they could range from a single classroom to an
entire school, or possibly in a different building, as long
as it did not require additional funding. He said it might
be possible for a group of parents to propose a partnership
with an independent entity, such as a corporation or
regional corporation, which could supplement the public
funding.
REP. BUNDE asked whether such an arrangement could lead to
charter schools being much better funded than other schools.
COMMISSIONER COVEY answered affirmatively.
Number 410
REP. BUNDE asked whether students at charter schools would
be required to pass standardized benchmark achievement
tests.
COMMISSIONER COVEY indicated that they would. He added that
schools must be subject to open enrollment policies.
CHAIR TOOHEY noted the meeting's time constraints and urged
Commissioner Covey to continue his item-by-item presentation
on the Alaska 2000 handout (Attachment 1).
Number 444
COMMISSIONER COVEY moved on and said the department was
soliciting proposals and had received previous legislative
funding to determine interest and need for alternative
schools for rural students. He stated the process would
offer information on which to decide whether to build more
boarding schools like Mt. Edgecumbe, or to build dormitories
at some existing schools, or some other options.
Number 464
REP. BUNDE inquired as to the fiscal impact of boarding
schools.
COMMISSIONER COVEY responded that a trial program with the
Yukon Flats School District and Nenana city schools showed
that it would cost as much to educate a child from the Yukon
Flats area in a boarding school with more programs as it
would to send him to a Nenana school.
Number 475
COMMISSIONER COVEY said another element of the Alaska 2000
plan would be choice of postsecondary courses, allowing high
schoolers to attend colleges, trade schools, or other
institutions at no cost as part of their high school
curriculum. This would encourage students to do well in
secondary school and would only cost the state the price of
tuition at the postsecondary institution, he said.
(Rep. Tom Brice arrived at 3:28 p.m.)
Number 503
COMMISSIONER COVEY continued his discussion on the program.
He said the advisory board program would attempt to get more
input from the public by establishing advisory boards for
all schools, similar to those required for Rural Education
Attendance Area (REAA) school districts. Local school
districts would decide on such boards' powers and duties,
and whether members would be elected or appointed.
COMMISSIONER COVEY said the state board has heard testimony
on the need to encourage parental responsibility and felt
their plan should be a public information campaign to
encourage them to help their preschool age children prepare
for schooling.
Number 529
REP. BUNDE commented that parental encouragement was crucial
to any educational system.
CHAIR TOOHEY countered that many two-job families do not
have time to spend at school, despite the possible benefits
to their children.
Number 541
COMMISSIONER COVEY began a swifter description of the Alaska
2000 proposals, as outlined on page 3 of Attachment 1. The
proposals had several elements aimed at improving student
performance, including: developing performance standards
for 10 subject areas; measuring student achievement by
standardizes testing at three age levels; issuing state
certificates of mastery to students who pass the third
benchmark tests, in addition to issuing diplomas at
graduation; increasing the school year from 180 days to 200
days by the year 2000; funding schools to provide 13 years
of education; and encouraging communities to prepare
preschool aged children for classroom education.
COMMISSIONER COVEY expanded on the proposal to expand the
school year, saying that the state board would provide more
detail on how other expanded school year programs operate
around the world and how students in them perform compared
to Alaska's students. He said decisions are yet to be made
about how the extra school time would be used, possibly
alternate educational experiences such as on-the-job
training. He predicted that the board would make more
detailed proposals on this question in a few weeks.
Number 600
REP. BUNDE expressed concern that a longer school year
should not become large-scale child care. He said he looked
forward to developing solid educational programs for the
extra time.
COMMISSIONER COVEY stated there is a need for a complete
multi-agency approach to addressing the needs of early
childhood education. He said an interagency group in
Anchorage was working on such a plan.
COMMISSIONER COVEY began discussing the proposals listed
under the aim of keeping kids in school, as listed on page 3
of Attachment 1. He said a School Conservation Corps would
combine public service with school work. Deregulating
vocational programs and increasing funding would return some
of the emphasis necessary to such programs lost during
earlier budget cuts, he said.
Number 639
REP. GARY DAVIS asked which vocational education regulations
would be dropped.
COMMISSIONER COVEY answered that the state has verification
requirements for vocational education funding that according
to some indications do not result in improved education. He
said reducing the reporting load on school districts would
save money that could be better used for instruction.
REP. G. DAVIS expressed support of that approach and asked
if certificates of mastery might be issued for vocational
educational programs.
COMMISSIONER COVEY answered no, but it was possible to
include such recommendations in his proposals.
REP. TOM BRICE asked whether state regulations that are
obstructing vocational education programs were established
by statute, and how the proposals would change the
regulations.
COMMISSIONER COVEY responded that there was no need to
change statutes. He explained that regulations were
established by the State Board of Education and are
supported by statutes. At one time, both funding and
expenditure for voc-ed programs were by category.
Expenditure by category has since been eliminated, and the
proposals would also eliminate requirements for categorical
funding for voc-ed programs. He said the changes would not
decrease funding for voc-ed programs.
Number 682
COMMISSIONER COVEY said reporting student contact time by
hours instead of days was aimed at allowing school districts
more allocating and reporting flexibility.
REP. BUNDE asked whether the residential high school
proposal would conflict with the Molly Hootch decision.
TAPE 93-7A, SIDE B
Number 000
COMMISSIONER COVEY said it did not pose any legal problems.
The state has complied with the decision and affords rural
students access to local schools. But some students want
more programs than are available locally. He mentioned the
300 student waiting list at Mt. Edgecumbe.
Number 040
REP. IRENE NICHOLIA commented that if many students
transferred away from Molly Hootch schools they may have to
close, requiring all students to go elsewhere for
educations.
COMMISSIONER COVEY acknowledged that possibility. He said
the state board was responding to requests from parents and
they would try to avoid skimming off certain students.
Number 082
REP. NICHOLIA mentioned deregulating vocational education.
She expressed her belief that it was more important to have
certified teachers in the classrooms and noncertified
vocational instructors teaching voc-ed classes than to have
a noncertified voc-ed instructor teaching academic classes.
COMMISSIONER COVEY said the deregulation would involve
shifting the talented and gifted program to a formula-driven
program, which would free up $4.5 million statewide to be
used for voc-ed programs. He said it did not direct the
school district to act in any certain way. He added that
teacher hiring, layoff and tenure would continue to be
governed by contracts.
Number 100
CHAIR TOOHEY reminded the committee of their need to vacate
the meeting room by 5:00 p.m. and asked how long the
foundation formula presentation would last.
MR. MONTGOMERY responded that a similar presentation had
taken 90 minutes.
COMMISSIONER COVEY said he would be available later to
finish his presentation and he would gladly yield to the
next presenters.
Number 110
REP. G. DAVIS mentioned waivers from regulations and asked
Commissioner Covey whether the state board had discussed the
possibility of allowing students to prove competency in a
subject area and therefore winning a waiver of the
requirement for that class, and for the hours of instruction
time it would require.
COMMISSIONER COVEY noted that this was an interesting idea
that had not arisen in discussion, but it could fit into the
proposals. He added that the board was to solicit public
comment on a regulation that would allow the board to waive
its own regulations.
CHAIR TOOHEY thanked Commissioner Covey and the state board
for their presentations and said the committee would
reschedule time to complete their presentation.
Number 155
CHAIR TOOHEY called an at-ease.
(Rep. Bunde left the meeting at 3:50 p.m.)
CHAIR TOOHEY called the meeting back to order at 4:02 p.m.
She introduced Barbara Martin to begin her presentation on
the state foundation funding formula.
Number 200
BARBARA MARTIN introduced herself as ASSISTANT
SUPERINTENDENT FOR BUSINESS AND FINANCE FOR THE FAIRBANKS
NORTH STAR BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, and as PRESIDENT OF THE
ALASKA ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL BUSINESS OFFICIALS. She
introduced Richard Swarner of the Kenai Peninsula Borough
School District, and Janet Stokesbary of the Anchorage
School District. She announced her intent to describe the
technicalities of how the foundation formula was calculated.
MS. MARTIN began a series of overhead projections showing
foundation formula calculations (copies of which are
incorporated herein as Attachment 2 and are on file in the
committee room).
MS. MARTIN differentiated between city school districts and
REAAs (Rural Education Attendance Areas). She said school
districts are run by cities or boroughs in which the city
government shares some management, construction and funding
functions. She said REAAs get most of their money from the
state and are responsible for managing their money and,
along with the state, for managing their construction
projects.
MS. MARTIN said all districts rely on the state as a primary
funding source. The Fairbanks district gets about 70
percent of its budget from the state and, if it were an
REAA, would get 90 percent from the state, she said.
MS. MARTIN noted that all districts spend from 50 percent to
90 percent of their budgets on salaries and benefits,
averaging about 85 percent for larger districts. Rural
districts spend more on utilities and less on salaries.
MS. MARTIN identified the schedule of district budgeting
during a school year, as outlined on page 3 of Attachment 2.
She stated that district enrollment projections are due by
October 15, budgets are due to the city or borough by April
1, cities must approve minimum budgets by April 30, final
local appropriation must be done by May 31, and the final
budget is due to the Department of Education by July 15.
Number 280
MS. MARTIN said the foundation formula is a simple equation
with some complicated features. It is based on
instructional units, each worth $60,000. Schools are
allocated units based on the number of students and on how
dispersed they are. A small school with fewer than 10
students get two units, or $120,000. The larger the school,
the more students required for a unit. At the higher end of
the scale, a school with 17 elementary students would
receive one unit, and 13 secondary students would receive
one unit. Smaller districts get more units because of their
higher overhead costs.
MS. MARTIN said schools get units for special education
services: gifted and talented; resource students, who
require extra services such as speech or learning therapy;
self-contained students, who require more specialized
services because they are in more restrictive environments;
and intensive students, such as autistic students, who need
tremendous amounts of attention. Three intensive students
make one unit. Forty gifted and talented students make one
unit. Units are also provided for bilingual and vocational
services.
Number 327
MS. MARTIN discussed two mythical school districts - one was
a city district, one was an REAA - to demonstrate the
differences in how they are funded. She referred to the
area cost differential (ACD) rates, which are established in
statute and therefore subject to change by the legislature,
aimed at measuring differences in the cost of providing
similar services at different school districts. Anchorage
is the basis, and Fairbanks' area cost differential is 4
percent more than Anchorage.
REP. BUNDE asked whether there had been attempts to change
the ACD.
MS. MARTIN answered that the ACDs were adopted in 1987,
along with the current foundation formula, and have not
since been changed. The Alaska 2000 bills from the governor
would substitute the ACD with the Alaska school price index,
which would change the area adjustment differential numbers.
MS. MARTIN said multiplying the number of units by the ACD
results in the adjusted units. Adjusted units times the
unit value results (originally set at $60,000 per unit, but
now set at $61,000 per unit) in the basic need amount, or
the amount necessary for a basic education, including
overhead and administrative costs.
Number 373
REP. BRICE asked why the unit value was originally $60,000.
MS. MARTIN answered that the number was selected when the
foundation formula system of budget allocation was
initiated, because it afforded an amount of state support
similar to that provided under the previous allocation
system.
Number 455
MS. MARTIN resumed her presentation. She said there are two
kinds of deducts from basic needs: the deductible PL874 and
the required local tax effort, which, when subtracted from
the basic need, results in the foundation amount.
MS. MARTIN explained PL874 as money paid by the state to
school districts with students living on federal land which
falls outside a district's property tax rolls, such as
Indian lands or military bases, as compensation for lost
property tax revenues. She explained that there is a second
category of students who are connected to the federal
government but who do not live on federal land. Category A
students are worth $3,800 from the state through PL874, and
Category B students are worth about $75. In figuring the
formula, the state cannot take into account much of the
money the district gets for PL874, she said.
MS. MARTIN said the deduct for PL874 is an attempt at
equalizing the financial benefit and therefore the level of
education between districts with different levels of federal
lands. A federal disparity test requires that a state can
allow no more than 25 percent funding disparity between
districts.
MS. MARTIN said calculations of PL874 deducts are different
for municipal school districts and REAAs. Since local
effort is not required of REAAs, the state takes 90 percent
of their PL874 deduct. Ms. Martin said she believed the
district gets to keep 10 percent as an incentive for them to
perform the paperwork and participate in the system.
MS. MARTIN stated districts which contribute more than the
minimum required local tax effort get to keep more of their
PL874 deduct, as PL874 funds are meant to be benefits paid
in lieu of taxes. She noted that PL874 varies in importance
among various school districts and the state receives about
$50 million in PL874 funds each year. Without the
equalization of the PL874 funds, the state would have to pay
out an additional $30 million in formula funds each year.
Number 489
MS. MARTIN continued her presentation, moving on to the
required local effort, calculated as the lesser of 4 mills
of the annual assessed valuation set by the Department of
Community and Regional Affairs, or at 35 percent of the
prior year basic need. The resulting required local effort,
based on the assumption of a community's ability to raise
school funds through property taxation, is deducted from the
state's payment. Only Valdez, the North Slope Borough and
Unalaska use the second test, because they have large
assessed valuations.
Number 520
MS. MARTIN said the state obligation to a municipal school
district is the combination of the foundation money and the
local contribution. An REAA's budget is what the state pays
in foundation formula funding, plus the 10 percent of PL874
funds they get to keep and any interest earnings on their
treasury.
MS. MARTIN stated most municipalities can and will pay more
to their school districts than the minimum local effort to
provide better than minimum educational services. There is
a maximum local effort allowed. The maximum local effort is
calculated as the greater of either 2 mills of the property
tax plus the required local effort, or 23 percent of the
basic need plus the required local effort.
MS. MARTIN then introduced Mr. Richard Swarner to explain
maximum local effort, as his school district has been up
against the maximum local effort for years.
Number 566
RICHARD SWARNER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
FOR THE KENAI PENINSULA SCHOOL DISTRICT, introduced himself.
He referred to a handout showing funding calculations for
his district under the foundation formula. (The document,
on file in the committee room, is herein incorporated as
Attachment 3.) He said the 2 mill test for maximum local
effort would probably apply in districts with high property
assessments.
Number 587
MR. SWARNER noted that the Kenai school district has been at
its cap for the last four years and has run out of new
creative ways to increase its budget. Under state law, the
only way the district can increase its budget without
violating the federal disparity test is to raise the
instructional unit higher than $61,000.
MR. SWARNER said it is not true, as is believed by some,
that the maximum local contribution for schools is 6 mills
of assessed valuation. The Kenai local effort, bolstered by
a sales tax dedicated to education, is equivalent to an 8.4
mill levy of assessed valuation. Likewise, the effort from
the Matanuska-Susitna district contributes an equivalent to
about 9.5 mills and Anchorage is about 7 mills.
CHAIR TOOHEY asked for questions from the committee.
Number 621
REP. G. DAVIS asked what would be the effect of raising the
instructional unit value to $63,000 from $61,000.
MR. SWARNER answered that each $1,000 increase in the unit
value costs an additional $12 million statewide.
REP. BRICE asked whether the Fairbanks school district was
bumping against its maximum local effort limit.
MS. MARTIN responded that this is true under current
calculations, but there is a proposed change in how students
living on military bases are funded, which would raise the
maximum local effort by about $5 million.
Number 642
REP. BUNDE asked about the governor's proposed funding
formula changes.
MS. MARTIN responded that she could discuss the components
of the changes, but offer no opinion as yet. She said there
are four major components to the governor's plan as it
pertains to funding. The first is to adopt the school price
index in lieu of the area cost differential. The price
index was developed through a committee work process in an
effort to develop indices that truly reflect the cost of
doing business in school districts, as opposed to
households. She said the department intended to create an
index that could be updated each five years. The second
component was to eliminate the mandate to fund gifted and
talented students and allow districts to devote some of the
money now allocated to them to vocational educational
programs. The changes would remove some regulatory
components of the gifted student program and give more local
control.
MS. MARTIN said the fourth (sic) component of the changes
would reduce the number of funding communities used along
with educational units in calculating state funding.
She said the changes would come in two ways. The first
would be a change in how small a district can be before it
loses up-front money to help operate the school, which she
said was controversial, especially as it relates to small
REAAs. The second way the changes would come is in changing
the limits on how close larger districts on the state's road
system can be to each other before they stop collecting up-
front overhead operating money. While Fairbanks now has
five funding communities and Anchorage has three, the
Department of Education says that each might have one under
the new system. The Mat-Su district might be most impacted
by the change, she said.
TAPE 93-7B, SIDE A
Number 000
REP. BUNDE thanked Ms. Martin for her presentation, but
lamented that the foundation formula program may soon change
under the governor's proposals. He asked for a similar
presentation on the proposed changes in state educational
funding processes.
MS. MARTIN said she would be happy to do so.
Number 030
CHAIR TOOHEY asked if the Department of Education was ready
to deal with students with fetal alcohol syndrome.
MS. MARTIN said the state mandated training a few years ago
on such children - training the Fairbanks district provided
with outside experts, and requiring that new teachers also
take such training.
Number 045
REP. G. DAVIS asked whether there was a consensus among
school districts that the FY 94 budget should include a
raise in the foundation formula or more attention to debt
reimbursement.
MR. SWARNER responded that he did not know if there was a
consensus, but both issues were on their way to being major
statewide concerns and each required money. He feared that
the lack of new construction to meet increasing need would
eventually require shockingly high levels of funding
requests, possibly up to $1 billion. He said he was
encouraged at the governor's desire to frame the school
construction issue as a problem to be resolved through a
five-year process. He stated that modern school districts
face problems, such as crime in the school and teen
pregnancy, that require much more money to address under
governmental mandate than the relatively simple problems of
gum-chewing and running in the halls faced by school
districts of 50 years ago.
Number 127
MS. MARTIN mentioned the question of single-site school
districts.
REP. BUNDE complained that more attention was paid to
pupil-teacher ratios than to teacher-administrator ratios.
MS. MARTIN said the disparity in school districts sizes,
locations and needs around the state posed problems in
finding meaningful data. She said there is a need to be
able to explain such disparities to the public.
(Rep. Olberg left at 4:43 p.m.)
Number 162
JOHN ANTTONEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE HOONAH SCHOOL DISTRICT,
described his background as a superintendent in a borough in
an REAA and in a small single-site school district. He said
equity in school funding of different districts is a
subjective consideration, but there are definite problems
working against single sites, or single attendance areas.
MR. ANTTONEN said multiple-site districts can count from
zero for each funding category area, such as bilingual,
special, or vocational education; whereas, single-site areas
must count from zero in its budgets for the entire district,
which he said short-changes them. He commented that the
single-site consortium has unsuccessfully proposed
legislation to deal with this problem, and he accused the
legislature of not wanting to tinker with the foundation
formula. The single-site districts have received
supplemental appropriations for five or six years to address
the inequities. He said Hoonah schools receive about
$160,000 in supplementals.
Number 200
MR. ANTTONEN stated most single-sites serve from 400 to 500
students. Small municipality single-sites often have a
small property tax base, or federal lands, which makes it
hard for them to raise funds for schools, he said.
REP. B. DAVIS asked whether the administration's proposed
funding changes would address these inequities.
Number 247
MR. ANTTONEN answered that the changes from area cost
differential to a price index system would grant some
single-sites an amount approximately equal to their recent
annual supplemental appropriations. But Hydaburg, Skagway
and Yakutat, and one other single-site, would not see their
inequities fully addressed by the changes.
CHAIR TOOHEY thanked those making the presentations and
ADJOURNED the meeting at 4:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|