Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/12/1993 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
April 12, 1993
3:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Rep. Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Rep. Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Rep. Gary Davis, Vice Chair
Rep. Al Vezey
Rep. Pete Kott
Rep. Harley Olberg
Rep. Bettye Davis
Rep. Irene Nicholia
MEMBERS ABSENT
Rep. Tom Brice
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SB 71: "An Act relating to emergency medical service; and
repealing obsolete references to the Statewide
Health Coordinating Council and health systems
agencies."
PASSED WITH INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS
HB 85: "An Act relating to the public school foundation
program; and providing for an effective date."
HEARD - HELD TO TIME CERTAIN
WITNESS REGISTER
MARK JOHNSON, Chief
Emergency Medical Services Section
Division of Public Health
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box H
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0616
Phone: (907) 465-3027 work
Phone: (907) 463-5807 home
Position statement: Testified in support of SB 71
ANNETTE KREITZER, Legislative Assistant
Sen. Loren Leman
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 113
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: (907) 465-2095
Position statement: Testified in support of SB 71
DONNA EMERSON
3 Crab Cove
Funter Bay, Alaska 99850-0140
Phone: (907) 790-3888
Position statement: Testified in support of HB 85
MIKE WILEY
Kenai Peninsula Borough School District
P.O. Box 618
Seward, Alaska 99624
Phone: (907) 224-5563
Position statement: Testified in support of HB 85
DEBRA SHUEY
P.O. Box 3867
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Phone: (907) 262-9368
Position statement: Testified in support of HB 85,
DUANE GUILEY, Director
Division of Education Finance and Support Services
Department of Education
801 W. 10th St., Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
Phone: (907) 465-2891
Position statement: Testified in support of HB 85
HARRY ROGERS, Superintendent
Valdez City Schools
P.O. Box 398
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Phone: (907) 835-4357
Position statement: Questioned changes in HB 85
STEVE YEATS, Director
Curriculum and Instruction
North Slope Borough School District
P.O. Box 169
Barrow, Alaska 99723
Phone: (907) 852-5311
Position statement: Questioned changes in HB 85
DENNIS WETHERELL, President
Mat-Su Talented and Gifted Association
P.O. Box 876862
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Phone: (907) 745-2007
Position statement: Wanted TAG kept under special education
FRAN TALBOTT, Supervisor
Gifted and Talented Coordinator
Anchorage School District
225-500 N. Muldoon Rd.
Anchorage, Alaska 99506
Phone: (907) 337-4277
Position statement: Wanted TAG kept under special education
LARRY WIGET
Legislative Liaison
Anchorage School District
4600 DeBarr Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99508-3195
Phone: (907) 269-2255
Position statement: Wanted TAG kept under special education
LINDA OKLAND
2702 McKenzie Dr.
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
Phone: (907) 346-1964
Position statement: Wanted TAG kept under special education
MAUREEN KNIGHT
10424 Loudermilk Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
Phone: (907) 346-1964
Position statement: Wanted TAG kept under special education
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 71
SHORT TITLE: EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES SYSTEM
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S)LEMAN,Ellis,Taylor,Duncan,
Donley,Kerttula,Little,Zharoff,Lincoln
TITLE: "An Act relating to emergency medical services; and
repealing obsolete references to the Statewide Health
Coordinating Council and health systems agencies."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/27/93 170 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/27/93 171 (S) HES, LABOR & COMMERCE, FINANCE
02/26/93 503 (S) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE
INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
02/26/93 503 (S) HES, LABOR & COMMERCE, FINANCE
03/08/93 (S) HES AT 02:15 PM BUTROVICH
ROOM 205
03/08/93 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/09/93 688 (S) HES RPT 3DP 2NR
03/09/93 688 (S) FISCAL NOTE (DHSS)
03/09/93 688 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
03/10/93 723 (S) L&C REFERRAL WAIVED
03/15/93 (S) FIN AT 08:30 AM SENATE FINANCE
ROOM 518
03/22/93 895 (S) FIN RPT CS 7DP SAME TITLE
03/22/93 895 (S) LETTER OF INTENT WITH FIN
REPORT
03/22/93 895 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO CS
(S.FIN/DHSS)
03/22/93 895 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN APPLIES
(DCED)
03/22/93 (S) RLS AT 12:00 PM FAHRENKAMP
ROOM 203
03/22/93 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/23/93 912 (S) RULES 2 CALENDAR 1NR
3/23/93
03/23/93 913 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/23/93 913 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/23/93 914 (S) ADVANCE TO 3RD RDG FAILED Y11
N9
03/23/93 914 (S) THIRD READING 3/24/93 CALENDAR
03/23/93 916 (S) COSPONSOR(S): TAYLOR, DUNCAN,
DONLEY,
03/23/93 916 (S) KERTTULA, LITTLE, ZHAROFF
03/24/93 929 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSSSB
71(FIN)
03/24/93 929 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1
UNAN CONSENT
03/24/93 930 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN
CONSENT
03/24/93 930 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
03/24/93 930 (S) (S) ADOPTED FIN LETTER OF
INTENT
03/24/93 933 (S) COSPONSOR(S): LINCOLN
03/24/93 931 (S) PASSED Y20 N- CSSSSB 71(FIN) AM
03/24/93 934 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/26/93 775 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/26/93 775 (H) HES, FINANCE
04/07/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/12/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 85
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC SCHOOL FOUNDATION PROGRAM
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
TITLE: "An Act relating to the public school foundation
program; and providing for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/22/93 138 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/22/93 138 (H) HES, FINANCE
01/22/93 138 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (DOE) 1/22/93
01/22/93 138 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/18/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/18/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/23/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/23/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/22/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/25/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/25/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/01/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/01/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/05/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/06/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/06/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/12/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-62, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIR BUNDE called the meeting to order at 3:07 p.m., noted
members present and announced the calendar. He brought
SB 71 to the table.
SB 71: EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES SYSTEM
REP. TOOHEY asked if there were a committee substitute (CS)
version of the bill, but then withdrew her question.
Number 047
REP. TOOHEY asked which fiscal note the committee would use
in considering the bill. She noted that various fiscal
notes listed had put the cost of the bill at no money, at
$40,000 and at $100,000.
Number 054
MARK JOHNSON, CHIEF OF THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
SECTION OF THE DIVISION OF PUBLIC HEALTH IN THE DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, testified in Juneau on SB 71,
saying his department supported the April 6, 1993, fiscal
note and pointed out that the state Senate had passed the
bill with a zero fiscal note. He said his division believed
it needed money for the patient care information system,
"which was changed from a shall to a may." He said the
division would like money to pay the estimated cost for
certification teams to visit Alaska hospitals to verify
their qualifications as trauma centers.
(Rep. Vezey arrived at approximately 3:11 p.m.)
CHAIR BUNDE said there had been talk of removing the $40,000
from the grants line in the fiscal note and moving it to the
general fund line.
MR. JOHNSON said Ms. Kreitzer had made that suggestion.
Number 081
ANNETTE KREITZER, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT TO SEN. LOREN LEMAN,
PRIME SPONSOR OF SB 71, said Sen. Leman had recommended the
change in funding in order to pay for the emergency room
nurses who did the abstracting for the patient information
system. She also recommended adding $100,000 in the grants
line. She said that the sponsor would feel comfortable with
amending the fiscal note in the House Finance Committee.
Number 099
REP. G. DAVIS MOVED that CSSSSB 71 as amended be passed from
committee with the HESS fiscal note.
REP. KOTT OBJECTED and asked for an at-ease at 3:15 p.m.
CHAIR BUNDE called an at-ease and returned the meeting to
order two minutes later.
Number 110
REP. KOTT distributed copies of a proposed amendment, which
would have the effect of ensuring that the Alaska Council on
Emergency Medical Services would have three consumer
members, and that no more than one member would come from
the same one of the four federal judicial districts, to
ensure geographical distribution.
REP. VEZEY pointed out that the judicial districts were
archaic political boundaries and asked why the state would
want to perpetuate the use of such obsolete and arbitrary
boundaries.
REP. KOTT said he was offering the amendment on behalf of
the sponsor, and invited the sponsor's representative to
address the question.
MS. KREITZER said use of the judicial districts was a simple
way to ensure representation from different areas of the
state to address concerns by regional EMS offices that the
council might over-represent Anchorage and under-represent
Bush areas.
Number 159
REP. VEZEY pointed out that the Second Judicial District
included 12,000 people in Nome and Kotzebue, and asked why
that district should be guaranteed a seat on a board
representing half a million people. He said he did not like
to perpetuate the use of obsolete political boundaries in
state law, and said there were other ways to ensure
geographical diversity.
MS. KREITZER said the amendment resulted from requests from
EMT organizations and regional Native corporations. She
said Sen. Leman was responding to constituent concerns, and
she believed the amendment would ensure effective
representation from across the sate.
MR. JOHNSON said he believed the judicial districts were
used because similar language was in an emergency medical
services law passed in 1977, and that the continued use of
those boundaries reflected constituent concerns.
REP. OLBERG said that regional representation was
appropriate in many instances.
Number 196
CHAIR BUNDE said the issue was not regional representation,
but how such regions would be defined.
REP. TOOHEY noted the requirements for the board's makeup;
including two physicians with emergency room experience; one
registered nurse; three members active in pre-emergency
hospital emergency care, at least one of whom lived off the
land or marine highway; one emergency medical service
administrator; and one Native health care facility
administrator. She said the makeup of the board already
included sufficient opportunity for representation from non-
urban areas.
Number 216
REP. VEZEY noted that the existing statute once called for
four of the board's members to each come from separate
judicial districts, but that provision had been deleted. He
repeated his opposition to using judicial districts for
purposes of ensuring broad geographical distribution of
council membership.
REP. TOOHEY noted that the bill, starting at page 5, line
29, required the governor to consider geographical
distribution in making appointments to the council.
Number 235
MS. KREITZER repeated that regional EMS corporations still
feared that a governor might not appoint members
representing rural interests. She said broad representation
had been important from the start.
REP. VEZEY suggested looking at maps of the judicial
districts.
MS. KREITZER said that the wording of the amendment allowed
lots of leeway for many services within those districts to
have members on the board. She repeated that she believed
judicial districts were a suitable way to accomplish the
diversity.
Number 265
REP. OLBERG noted that it was possible to interpret the bill
such that the governor could appoint all members of the
board from one area if he so desired, and that the amendment
would prevent that from happening.
CHAIR BUNDE suggested an amendment to include three consumer
members to the board, one each from an area not connected by
land or marine highway, an area not connected by land
highway, and an area not connected by marine highway.
However, he did not formally make such a motion and
abandoned the attempt.
REP. NICHOLIA voiced support for Rep. Olberg's comments.
She said there were Alaska Native hospitals in Anchorage and
Fairbanks, and the Bush areas needed ensured representation.
She voiced support for the amendment.
CHAIR BUNDE repeated that the issue was not regional
representation, but how such regions would be defined.
REP. VEZEY repeated his opposition to the amendment.
CHAIR BUNDE called for a roll call vote on the amendment.
Those voting yes were: Reps. G. Davis, Kott, Olberg, B.
Davis, Nicholia, Toohey. Those voting no were: Reps.
Vezey, Bunde. The motion PASSED 6-2. He announced that the
committee was now considering the bill as amended.
REP. TOOHEY asked whether, if CSSB 71 were passed, it would
pass with a zero fiscal note.
Number 328
CHAIR BUNDE answered that that would be up to the committee.
REP. TOOHEY MOVED passage of the bill with a zero fiscal
note.
REP. B. DAVIS said there was already a motion on the floor.
Number 328
CHAIR BUNDE said the motion on the floor included "a fiscal
note with numbers on it," and that if Rep. Toohey wanted to
pass the bill with a zero fiscal note, it would be necessary
to vote down the current motion and then propose a different
motion.
Number 330
REP. G. DAVIS asked the routing of the bill.
CHAIR BUNDE answered that once the bill left the HESS
Committee it would move to the House Finance Committee.
REP. G. DAVIS said, concerning the issue of fiscal notes for
the bill, that the Finance Committee would protect the
state's financial interest when the bill went to that
committee.
CHAIR BUNDE noted that the motion on the floor was to pass
the bill with a fiscal note from the Department of Health
and Social Services indicating a cost of $99,200 for FY94.
He called for a roll call vote on the motion. Those voting
yes were: Reps. Toohey, Bunde, G. Davis, Vezey, Kott,
Olberg, B. Davis, Nicholia. Those voting no: None. The
motion PASSED 8-0. Chair Bunde noted that the bill passed
to the House Finance committee along with a letter of intent
from the Senate. He then brought HB 85 to the table.
HB 85: PUBLIC SCHOOL FOUNDATION PROGRAM
CHAIR BUNDE noted that the meeting was being teleconferenced
to Anchorage, Kenai/Soldotna, Valdez, Barrow, Seward and
Funter Bay.
Number 340
DONNA EMERSON, A PARENT WITH CHILDREN IN CCS (CENTRALIZED
CORRESPONDENCE STUDY), testified via teleconference from
Funter Bay in favor of HB 85, and its provisions for funding
for CCS. She noted that half of CCS students were secondary
students, but were counted only as elementary students, and
said the state must provide such students the best possible
educational opportunities.
Number 404
MIKE WILEY, A BOARD MEMBER OF THE KENAI PENINSULA SCHOOL
DISTRICT, testified via teleconference from in support of
HB 85. He said he was speaking for himself, but said he
knew that the school board supported the bill. He said that
five of the district's 35 sites were off the road system,
and two could at times only be reached on foot. He pointed
out that the district did not have the large economies of
scale as larger districts did. He said that the district
faced financial hardships because it was at its budget cap
and needed relief. He said the district was interested in
getting the Area Cost Differential (ACD) formula changed, as
rural schools cost more to operate. He urged support of
HB 85 as an issue of fairness.
Number 430
DEBRA SHUEY, PARENT OF A CHILD IN THE CCS PROGRAM, testified
via teleconference from Kenai in support of HB 85. She said
she lives in a remote location on the Kenai Peninsula and
her son has been receiving an excellent education through
his four years in the CCS program. She spoke in favor of
extra funding for secondary students.
Number 452
REP. TOOHEY said her son attended CCS schools from eighth to
twelfth grade. She asked what was the difference between
elementary and secondary schooling in CCS.
MS. SHUEY said she believed it cost more to teach secondary
students.
REP. TOOHEY said she did not know why it costs more.
Number 462
MR. GUILEY said CCS secondary schooling cost more than
elementary schooling because it required more courses and
electives. He said the foundation funding formula equalled
13 secondary students per incremental unit, while the
elementary school formula required 17 students.
REP. TOOHEY asked why the request for more money for
secondary CCS students was only coming now.
Number 471
MR. GUILEY said funding through the foundation formula has
always been higher for secondary schooling than for
elementary schooling. He said CCS has been funded only at
the elementary level since 1988. He said there was a
significant change in 1988, when the educational unit value
rose from $42,184 to $60,000, and other changes were made in
state educational funding.
CHAIR BUNDE said that, historically, students attended CCS
schooling through their elementary years, then went away to
cities with high schools when they attained secondary school
age.
Number 488
HARRY ROGERS, SUPERINTENDENT OF VALDEZ CITY SCHOOLS,
testified via teleconference from Valdez on HB 85. He
referred to Section 1, paragraph 8, of the bill concerning
the ASPI.
CHAIR BUNDE noted that the provisions for the ASPI did not
change in the CS version of HB 85.
MR. ROGERS stated that development of the ASPI began a year
ago. He said most Alaska school districts would support the
ASPI as it existed in draft form, but the validation process
had resulted in changes which had not been approved by the
original ASPI committee. The first change concerned the
grouping of school districts. He said he had received data
showing that the grouping was based on the 1988 McDowell
study, but he said that it was actually based on non-
personnel costs, which represented about 15 percent of
budget for most school districts. He said personnel costs
were already figured into the ASPI. He said in some cases
the group average completely negated the effect of earlier
data. The second change was the sparsity factor, which he
said added a multiplier for multi-site districts of from two
percent to 20 percent. He said it recreated the problems of
single-site school districts.
Number 530
STEVE YEATS, DIRECTOR OF CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION FOR THE
NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, testified via
teleconference from Barrow on HB 85. He said he wanted to
see the changes made in the ASPI be returned to the ASPI
committee for consideration and concurrence.
MR. GUILEY responded to Chair Bunde's invitation to answer
questions raised by the two previous testifiers. He said
the commissioner of the DOE had met with superintendents who
were in Juneau the previous week, and he said he wanted the
original committee to look at the final ASPI calculations,
at the grouping, at the sparsity factor, and at averaging of
the groups in an attempt to reach consensus and to determine
a final ASPI index. He said groupings, according to the
most recent version of the ASPI, were based on the 1988
McDowell study update, which led to some slight
modifications to the groups. He said the rationale for
averaging within the groups was to overcome the different
levels of negotiated contracts and smooth out the labor cost
differences within a certain geographical area.
Number 551
REP. OLBERG asked what had prompted the DOE to make the
change in the ASPI in a preliminary draft when there had
already been a draft version.
MR. GUILEY answered that the department had found that the
committee had reached certain conclusions early in its work
and was unwilling to endorse any further changes in the
index until it could see how such changes would affect the
final results of the index calculations on their local
districts. The DOE therefore had to produce some figure
showing the financial effect of the ASPI, he said, which
resulted in the draft index. The ASPI committee would not
endorse specific groupings of districts, he said. The DOE
did, however, use some recommendations on grouping offered
by an educational consultant working with the department on
the committee to calculate the initial draft ASPI. The DOE
then had a draft ASPI which could be used for comparison
with the Area Cost Differential. The preliminary draft ASPI
was the most recent calculation of the index, based upon
specific grouping, which had not yet been endorsed by the
ASPI committee, he said.
Number 572
REP. OLBERG asked if the ASPI committee had yet had the
chance to discuss the preliminary draft ASPI.
MR. GUILEY said the committee last met in November, 1992,
and had not had the chance to discuss the preliminary draft
ASPI.
TAPE 93-62, SIDE B
Number 000
DENNIS WETHERELL, PRESIDENT OF THE MAT-SU TALENTED AND
GIFTED ASSOCIATION, testified via teleconference from
Anchorage in opposition to CSHB 85. He expressed
disappointment that funds for TAG were cut and that the only
change from the original bill was that the cuts were phased
in over three years instead of being made immediately. He
said the mandate for TAG was cut immediately by cutting the
program free from special education. He said the bill
removed from school districts the incentive to use money
aimed at TAG for that purpose. He said the funding cap was
unfair and appropriate, as some school districts might have
more than 4.5 percent TAG students, and he suggested instead
that the DOE should develop standard criteria to prevent
abuses of the TAG designation. He questioned the reason for
a change in the weighting formula and said the department's
proposed 0.012 weighting formula, combined with the 4.5
percent cap, would result in less funds for school districts
with more than 2.16 percent TAG students, and more funds for
those with higher percentages. He recommended a weighting
factor of 0.025.
Number 061
CHAIR BUNDE invited Rep. B. Davis to question or comment on
the points Mr. Wetherell raised.
REP. B. DAVIS responded, "I have no question of him. I'd
like for administration to speak to the questions that was
asked. It was my understanding that I was not taking it out
of the special-ed line. I'm looking at Section 12 now. It
did say that it would repeal it. And, if that's what that
does, I would be willing to change that, but I'd like to
hear Mr. Guiley speak to that first."
Number 070
MR. GUILEY said repealing Section 12 did not change the fact
that gifted children would still be identified as
exceptional children within the state definition of
exceptional children. He said that the bill would merely
separate TAG children from special-ed children in
development of educational units. He said Individual
Education Plans (IEP)s would still be required for gifted
children, but plans of service would not. According to Mr.
Guiley the state board was trying to reduce the
administrative burden of TAG programs so as to allow more
money to be spent on educational of the program, not on the
administrative costs. He said most TAG programs were over-
funded under the existing formula and most school districts
spent less than two-thirds of their TAG funds on TAG
programs. The State Board of Education believed that
reducing the weighting factor would reduce the over-funding
and was not aimed at eliminating TAG programs state-wide, he
said.
MR. GUILEY said that the rationale for establishing the 4.5
percent cap was that, in the last 12 years, no more than 4.3
percent of the state student population had ever been
identified as gifted and talented. He said the board felt
the cap was adequate and in line with the national average.
He also pointed out that 38 other states did not fund TAG
educational programs under special education and that Alaska
would simply be following the lead of most other states by
funding TAG students as a separate component within the
revenue generation structure instead of classifying them as
special-ed students.
Number 109
REP. TOOHEY asked whether the TAG program would be able to
provide funding in a case in which more than 4.5 percent of
a school district was truly qualified as TAG students.
MR. GUILEY said there were no current limits on the number
of students that could be identified as TAG. While the
identified TAG population ranged from none to 18 percent at
various school districts, the state population in whole had
not exceeded 4.3 percent, while the national norm was from
4.5 percent to 5 percent, he said. Mr. Guiley stated, "The
money would flow based upon the specific formula of 4.5
percent of the K-12 population regardless of how many
students were in fact identified and served. There is no
categorical spending requirements in our formula, in our
current statute, or proposed in any of the amendments to the
statute that would require categorical spending of dollars,
simply categorical revenue generation."
Number 130
REP. G. DAVIS asked whether the cap would prevent a school
district with 12 students from receiving any TAG funding,
and asked how funding would be calculated for such a
district under the formula.
MR. GUILEY answered that the formula calls for each district
to receive TAG funding based upon the assumption that 4.5
percent of all students in the district were TAG. TAG
funding would become another type of instructional unit,
modified by the ASPI, or weighted by the ACD to generate
total revenue available to the district, multiplied by the
$61,000 for the instructional unit.
Number 148
REP. G. DAVIS asked how much money a 12-student district
with two TAG students would get under both the current
formula and the proposed new plan. He said it appeared to
him that the new formula would bring a drastic reduction.
MR. GUILEY answered that the plan reduced TAG funding to $7
million from $11 million, but it was not intended to be a
drastic reduction. He said the vocational educational
program would at the same time receive a $4 million
increase. He repeated that the board's intent was to make
as much money as possible available to school districts with
the fewest strings attached. He said the money could be
used with a maximum of local discretion to meet the
performance standards under development by the State Board
of Education.
Number 166
REP. G. DAVIS asked a clarifying question whether the bill
strengthened voc-ed at the expense of TAG programs, funding
wise.
MR. GUILEY said the two bills, taken together, had a zero
fiscal note.
Number 172
REP. TOOHEY said that if it cost more to train a TAG child,
then the TAG child would not be trained properly if the
district ran short on money.
MR. GUILEY answered that under the current foundation
formula program, TAG students were counted twice, both as
normal students and as TAG students. The intent of
secondary categories was to provide supplementary funding
for extra educational costs, he said. He stated voc-ed
students get $240 extra each, while TAG students get an
extra $1,525 each. The state board decided TAG was
overfunded and voc-ed was underfunded, based on analysis of
local district expenditures and on testimony of how TAG
funds were used in local districts, he said. He said the
adjustment in funding was based on that belief.
Number 196
REP. TOOHEY asked Mr. Wetherell if he had any indication
that his gifted children would not be educated as gifted
children.
MR. WETHERELL said his four-year-old daughter was a high
achiever, but the only extra schooling available to her as a
TAG student in the Mat-Su School District was three hours of
TAG instruction a week. He said that three hours of extra
instruction a week was not adequate. He said the Mat-Su
borough school districts spent all the TAG funding it
received and allocated an equal amount from assembly funds
as well, but still did not have enough for an adequate
program, he said.
FRAN TALBOTT, COORDINATOR OF THE GIFTED AND TALENTED PROGRAM
AT THE ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT (ASD), testified via
teleconference from Anchorage in opposition to HB 85. She
said she was disappointed that the bill eliminated TAG
students from the definition of exceptional children and
thus removed it from the state mandate for funding of
special education programs. She said repeal of AS 1430.315
eliminated the need for school districts to have plans of
service, which she said eliminated the need to identify TAG
students. She stated that 3.7 percent of the Anchorage
student population was identified as TAG. She expressed
concern that there would be no requirement that such
students be served as TAG. She said she and her program
viewed the bill as an attempt to eliminate TAG educational
services from the state. She said establishing a separate
mandate for TAG would eliminate the administrative burden of
including TAG students in special education and would still
guarantee funding for the programs. She said she understood
that the DOE was uncomfortable that each school district had
its own means to identify and serve TAG students, but the
answer was not to eliminate the program altogether. She
said teachers were not taught how to deal with TAG students,
and for the last five years hundreds of teachers have been
happy to take her distance courses on how to deal with TAG
students and they were excited to learn about such students.
MS. TALBOTT commented, "... (unintelligible) ... educators
aware of the needs of these students. We are fighting the
Department of Education to serve them. We will all lose in
the long run when these students shut down in class, as they
do, and drop out of high school, as they do." She said TAG
children are 10 percent of drop-outs, as were many of the
nation's brightest criminals. She said that gifted people
make up 13 percent of prison populations, represent a high
suicide risk, and need attention from the educational
system.
Number 255
REP. B. DAVIS said that she was growing more confused as
testimony proceeded. Before introducing the CS, she said,
she asked officials at the Anchorage School District their
feelings on the bill. She said she wanted to see the TAG
program remain as it was, though she did not think she had
the votes on the HESS Committee to accomplish that aim. She
said that she then tried to develop a next-best response.
She referred to a letter from the ASD saying that the CS
version would be acceptable to the district. She wondered
why Ms. Talbott said she opposed the CS.
CHAIR BUNDE interrupted to note that Ms. Talbott was not
necessarily representing the official position of the
Anchorage School District on the bill.
Number 271
REP. B. DAVIS said she assumed that the head of the TAG
program at the ASD was representing the district's position.
She said ASD was not at the 4.5 percent cap and therefore
would receive even more money under the bill. She said some
school districts receiving TAG funding for up to 16 percent
of their populations would see their funding capped at the
4.5 percent level under the CS. She said she thought, based
on the recommendation of DOE, that the CS version of the
bill she had requested from bill drafters would still leave
the TAG program under the exceptional guidelines for special
education. She said that if that were not the case, then
she did not support the CS. She said, however, that she
believed that the repeal on page 6 dealt with funding
sources and not the inclusion of TAG in special-ed. She
asked Mr. Guiley if that was correct.
MR. GUILEY answered that she was correct.
REP. B. DAVIS asked if that meant that school districts
would not have to use money they received for TAG programs
for that purpose.
MR. GUILEY said that was correct, just as it was true under
the current standard. He said the CS contained no changes
from current law in how school districts must use their TAG
funds.
REP. B. DAVIS asked a clarifying question, whether school
districts had to spend TAG funds on TAG program.
MR. GUILEY answered no, they did not.
Number 292
REP. B. DAVIS said she did not understand the concern of
those testifying against the bill. She said she was willing
to delete from the bill the element to which those
testifying had objected, but she wanted someone to explain
what it was that those testifying did not like about the
bill, other than the 4.5 percent cap.
CHAIR BUNDE invited an official from the ASD to address her
questions.
Number 303
LARRY WIGET, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON FOR THE ANCHORAGE SCHOOL
DISTRICT, testified via teleconference from Anchorage on
HB 85. He said Mr. Guiley was correct. He said the ASD was
concerned that there was no mandate for TAG funding and it
might be hard to see to it that money would be directed to
that aim. He said he could imagine a school board meeting
at which parents of voc-ed and TAG students tussled over
limited funding, and in which the parents of voc-ed students
would point out that the foundation formula specifically
identified money for voc-ed programs. He said that the
state was undergoing a philosophical change in how it
allocated educational resources, away from TAG education and
toward voc-ed. He apologized for the confusing signals from
the ASD. He said the district saw the change as a
philosophical shift. He said that he had spoken with the
district's chief financial officer, lobbyist and TAG program
people and said that they supported having the TAG weighting
factor remain unchanged and leaving TAG students included in
the definition of exceptional children.
Number 335
CHAIR BUNDE said it was obvious that the committee was not
going to come to any consensus on HB 85 that day or possibly
even in the session. He said he expected it would be
necessary to place the bill in the committee's "to be
addressed file." He invited testimony to continue.
Number 341
LINDA OKLAND, A PARENT OF A GIFTED CHILD, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage in opposition to HB 85. She
said she felt strongly that TAG should be maintained in
special-ed and not have its funding cut. She said people
think TAG is extra instruction for elite children already
doing well in school, but it is actually a necessary program
of instruction for students with handicaps to effective
learning. She said denying special treatment for TAG
students was as unfair as denying it for dyslexic,
hyperactive or physically handicapped students.
MAUREEN KNIGHT, A PARENT OF GIFTED CHILDREN, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage in opposition to HB 85. She
said her oldest daughter had been gifted "ever since she was
in utero," and that her youngest daughter had attention
deficit disorder and dyslexia. She said the two have
succeeded under the special education program. She said her
gifted daughter would become bored and fall behind if not in
TAG programs, and if the programs were cut, she would put
her daughter in a special school. She said she did not
believe those in Juneau knew how important it was for
special students to grow to their potential through special-
ed programs.
Number 402
MR. WIGET continued his testimony, pledging to work with the
committee for fair funding for TAG programs. He apologized
to Rep. B. Davis for confusion from the ASD. He said a
priority of the Anchorage School Board that year was to
rewrite the foundation formula program to be fairer to the
district, and said the draft ASPI was a good start. He said
the ASD supported the ASPI with the school grouping
provisions as a more fair plan than the ASPI without the
grouping. With 38 percent of Alaska children, he said, the
district received 3.27 percent of state education funds, or
30.6 percent under the grouped ASPI. Mr. Wiget remarked,
"No, Mr. Chairman, or committee members or Department of
Education, we do not expect 38 percent of the funding. But
we do expect ... equity." He said the department opposed
changes to TAG education, wanted TAG to remain under the
definition of exceptional children, and wanted weighting
factors for TAG programs to remain unchanged.
Number 437
CHAIR BUNDE said the committee supported equity, too, as
well as getting more money into classrooms. He asked if the
problem of identifying and funding TAG students might be
more effectively addressed by a separate bill mandating
funding for TAG separately from special-ed.
MR. WIGET answered yes.
CHAIR BUNDE said he hoped that those in the ASD that might
support that separation realized that they would have to
lobby for funding for the separate mandate for TAG.
Number 451
REP. B. DAVIS said she wanted to make sure to clarify a few
points about the CS version of HB 85. She said that while
DOE and Legal Services had assured her that her CS would not
pull TAG out from under the special-ed program, everyone who
had testified said that it would. She said she wanted the
record to show that TAG had not been removed from the
special-ed provisions and that the only change in the CS had
to do with the funding source, which could be easily
changed. She insisted that TAG would remain in special-ed
and had never been removed from the CS. She said the first
CS left it exactly as it was, and the second CS phased it in
because she did not think she had the votes to leave it the
way it was. She said the original bill would remove TAG
from the special-ed line, and the CS would retain TAG in
special-ed.
Number 463
CHAIR BUNDE said that this was his understanding of the
amendment's intent as well.
Number 466
MR. GUILEY said Rep. B. Davis was absolutely correct. He
then pointed out Section 6, line 19, of the bill, dealing
with exceptional children to show how TAG children were
included in the definition of exceptional children and
therefore eligible for special-education programs. He said
Section 7 just added a new type of instructional unit to the
revenue generation formula, but did not remove TAG children
from the definition of exceptional children in Alaska. He
said each TAG student would have to have an IEP in place and
there were no changes in the requirements in special
education. He said the board felt that eliminating the plan
of service might reduce the program's administrative burden.
He stated Section 12 simply repeals the plan of service
requirement, because nothing was done with them anyway.
Number 488
REP. B. DAVIS said that she believed ASD would gain money,
not lose money, under the CS version. She said it was not
fair to say that the committee was pitting special-ed
against TAG, and she said that voc-ed has not been given its
fair share of money. She said allocation of money for
programs would be a local issue to be decided at the local
school board level. She added that even the first version
of HB 85 would have given the ASD an additional $360,000,
and that with the new adjustments the district would get an
additional $5 million. She said for the record that there
had never been any intent to take money away from any
district. She said that, while she wished there could be
enough funding for all areas she wanted, the changes made in
the bill had been made for the best. She said the bill
takes care of the single-site school district issues, clears
up the legitimacy of some funding sources, and in general
takes care of a lot of problems. She also pointed out that
while much attention had been paid to the issue of TAG
students, HB 85 contained many more provisions that were
good for the state's educational system. She said it would
be easy to pass an amendment to the 4.5 percent cap, if the
committee so desired.
Number 515
CHAIR BUNDE said that he agreed that whatever level TAG
funding was set at, it was still up to local school
districts to decide how to allocate that funding.
REP. G. DAVIS asked which version of the bill the committee
was considering.
Number 523
CHAIR BUNDE said the committee was addressing the CS
version, which had been adopted as the committee's working
document.
Number 532
CHAIR BUNDE said he would like to encourage the committee to
consider the cost of HB 85. He noted that it would add $15
million to the education budget, and it was a major
consideration for the committee as to whether it wanted to
endorse such a plan. He said that while the bill would
address the single-site issue, single-site school districts
was only a $1 million issue.
TAPE 93-63, SIDE A
Number 000
REP. VEZEY commented that it was clear that students did not
fit any one mold. He also commented that there was a need
for further evaluation of the bill. He said there were many
interesting comparisons of the ACD and ASPI and such
comparisons might show that the differences were related to
the relative efficiency of individual school districts. He
was concerned that the ASPI seemed to codify inefficiency,
and that there might be a need for an index placing funding
levels somewhere between those set by the ASPI and ACD.
Number 040
REP. OLBERG said that the Alaska 2000 proposal had
originally carried the assumption of an associated income
tax. He asked if there was still an income tax associated
with the Alaska 2000 project as an income source.
REP. TOOHEY said she believed it was a school tax.
Number 056
REP. OLBERG asked why it took a fiscal note simply to clean
up school funding. He said a fiscal note was necessary only
if there were a reallocation of money.
CHAIR BUNDE observed that the bill seemed to increase
education funding by $15 million, over and above the nearly
$800 million already invested.
Number 066
REP. B. DAVIS said the committee was making a mistake to
look only at the fiscal note of HB 85. She said the bill
would save the state money, despite the fiscal note. She
said increasing the instructional unit would cost much more
than the $15 million in HB 85. She said the bill was
reallocating the state's educational funding more
appropriately. She said some school districts gained and
some lost, but the process was aimed at instituting a more
equitable funding system. She said the bill was a start
toward resolving educational funding policies.
CHAIR BUNDE said he was not recommending that the bill not
be considered simply because it carried a $15 million fiscal
note. He said he was making the point that the committee
was not discussing philosophy, but the expenditure of actual
dollars.
Number 114
REP. G. DAVIS said he agreed with Rep. B. Davis in part. He
said it had become apparent over time and through study that
the ACD contained elements of inequality. More study had
resulted in a new formula, the ASPI, he said. He predicted
that in a few years similar reworking would have to be done
on the ASPI, and that no funding system could be set in
stone and disregard changes. He said HB 85 had many good
elements, even with the $15 million price tag. He mentioned
school districts like the Kenai Peninsula district, which
were at a funding cap and needed relief. He said much good
work had gone into the bill, and the work would need to be
reviewed again. He said he wanted the Finance Committee to
get the bill and work on it.
CHAIR BUNDE said he wanted to point out that those on the
ASPI committee had not yet seen the final numbers and they
probably would appreciate the chance to do so.
Number 165
REP. B. DAVIS stated, "I think I understood what your
question was, and I think there's a way we could get
around... I do believe that probably the committee that
looked at this needs to have some time to look at it. And
if we could pass the bill on and remove the statute part of
it, and let them work on the regulation part is that, if you
can, to get the other input that they need. And when it's
all finalized we could come back and put it in statute.
That might be one way of getting around that. I don't ...
I'd like to hear you speak to this, Mr. Guiley, if you think
that would be workable."
Number 174
MR. GUILEY said that HB 85 gave the DOE the ability to
establish the ASPI through regulation. If the HESS
Committee were to pass out the bill, the DOE could begin to
establish the index through regulations, he said. He said
the next step would be to forward the regulations to the
ASPI committee and have them meet to review the regulations
in writing, and that it would be easy to call a meeting at
short order to do so.
CHAIR BUNDE asked how long it would take to convene a
meeting of the ASPI committee.
Number 191
MR. GUILEY answered that the committee could meet within
days or in weeks, as the HESS Committee desired.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if the HESS Committee could bring HB 85
back to the table by Friday (four days later) with response
from the ASPI committee. He said he was seeking a ballpark
time-frame.
MR. GUILEY noted that there were 20 members of the ASPI
committee, most of them school district officials, plus some
private auditors and education businessmen. He said he
could call a meeting in a week and get partial attendance,
though some of the vacant slots might be filled by stand-
ins.
Number 201
REP. VEZEY objected to the provisions of the bill allowing
DOE to write regulations for the ASPI. He said he had been
waiting six weeks to get a copy of the ASPI, and he still
considered the index to be in draft form only. He said he
wanted to wait until the index was in a final form, and to
perform some work on it and possibly propose an alternative.
CHAIR BUNDE said he would like to hear the ASPI committee's
reaction to the draft index. He noted that the session was
running out of time. He asked the pleasure of the
committee. He asked Rep. Vezey whether his concerns about
the bill could be satisfied in the first session of the
legislature.
REP. VEZEY said he believed HB 85 needed a substantial
amount of work, and that the committee was still waiting for
the DOE to finish its work on the bill.
Number 224
REP. OLBERG said that he was not sure he and Rep. Vezey
would agree on what needed to be repaired, but that some
fixing was necessary, especially as the bill called for one
school district's funding to rise by 21 percent and
another's funding to drop by 18 percent. He also said that
his fiscal note showed a $12 million cost, and asked why the
change required any expenditure requiring a fiscal note. If
the bill was a means of eliminating single-site school
districts, he said, that would be another question, but some
of those answers were not available.
CHAIR BUNDE said he wanted to poll the committee members for
their views on the bill in light of the amount of time left
to consider it.
Number 244
REP. KOTT said the committee was up against a time crunch
and he would like the ASPI committee to study the index. He
said he would like to see the final numbers from the ASPI
index in a week or 10 days to see which districts gained or
lost.
REP. G. DAVIS said he also would like to see the final
numbers from the ASPI index.
REP. TOOHEY said she agreed with Rep. G. Davis and Rep. B.
Davis.
Number 258
REP. OLBERG said he had earlier asked for a breakdown by
district of the dollar impact of HB 85, and still wanted to
see such a breakdown. He said he was not convinced the
educational funding system was broken, but, if the ASPI was
to be the vehicle of repair, it still needed some work.
REP. B. DAVIS said she did not mind waiting on the numbers
for the ASPI, but noted that the committee might profitably
work on many other elements of the bill which the committee
had not yet addressed and which could be easily addressed.
She said she would like the committee to do more work on
HB 85 while waiting for the final ASPI numbers.
CHAIR BUNDE said the committee would continue to work on the
bill.
REP. NICHOLIA said that she agreed with Rep. B. Davis'
comments on the need to address elements of the bill other
than the ASPI. She suggested the possible need to form a
(sub)committee to work on HB 85.
CHAIR BUNDE asked a committee aide about the committee's
schedule for the following week.
LYNNE SMITH, COMMITTEE AIDE, said the committee's schedule
was wide open next week, although the Speaker of the House
had called for all committee business to be completed by
April 20.
CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Guiley when it would be possible to
hear back from the ASPI committee.
Number 291
MR. GUILEY said he could try to arrange a teleconferenced
committee meeting to save time and could report back to the
committee whenever the chair so desired.
Number 294
CHAIR BUNDE said he would therefore schedule HB 85 to come
before the HESS Committee on Tuesday, April 20, 1993.
Noting the concerns and suggestions of committee members
regarding other elements of the bill, he encouraged them to
be ready to make some progress on those areas as well.
REP. TOOHEY asked if the committee could possibly schedule
the bill before April 20, as there was little other pending
committee business.
(Rep. Nicholia departed at 4:49 p.m.)
CHAIR BUNDE said that was so, but it might be best to do all
of its work on one day.
REP. TOOHEY said it might be good to go through the bill
line-by-line and have answers to some questions by the
Tuesday meeting.
CHAIR BUNDE announced that the chair of the meeting would
work out those problems. He ADJOURNED the meeting at 4:50
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|