Legislature(1993 - 1994)
01/17/1994 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 17, 1994
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. Irene Nicholia
Rep. Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
Rep. Bettye Davis (excused)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 250: "An Act relating to centralized correspondence
study; and providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD TO TIME UNCERTAIN
WITNESS REGISTER
DAVID SADLOWSKI, Member
Parent Outreach Program
2225 Arctic Blvd, #312
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Phone: (907) 272-7964
Position Statement: Testified in support of HB 250
PATRICIA MERWIN
HC 2, Box 701
Soldotna, Alaska 99503
Phone: (907) 262-3578
Position Statement: Testified in support of HB 250
DARBY ANDERSON, Superintendent
Centralized Correspondence School
Department of Education
3141 Channel Dr. #100
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
Phone: (907) 465-2835
Position Statement: Testified in support of HB 250
DONNA EMERSON, Elected Chair
Parent Program
3 Crab Cove
Funter Bay, Alaska 99850-1040
Position Statement: Testified in support of HB 250
CLAUDIA WALTON
P.O. Box 221166
Anchorage, Alaska 99522
Phone: 248-1323
Position Statement: Testified on HB 250
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 250
SHORT TITLE: CORRESPONDENCE STUDY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUNDE BY REQUEST
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/24/93 760 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/24/93 760 (H) HES, FINANCE
04/15/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/15/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/15/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/20/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
01/17/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-01, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIR TOOHEY called the meeting to order at 3:08 p.m., noted
members present and indicated that Rep. Bettye Davis had
been excused and was not present. The calendar was
announced and all were informed of the participants from
Anchorage, Soldotna, and Funter Bay by teleconference.
HB 250 - CENTRALIZED CORRESPONDENCE STUDY
Number 007
CHAIR TOOHEY asked for testimony from Anchorage regarding HB
250.
Number 026
DAVID SADLOWSKI, Member of Parent Outreach for Centralized
Correspondence School (CCS), stated via teleconference from
Anchorage that he supported HB 250 with exception to Section
14.17.022. He noted that the formula does not recognize
secondary funding, as it refers only to using elementary
school level funding. He added that the enrollment at
Alyeska Central School (ACS) was 50% secondary and
increasing. He stated that secondary not only costs more,
but also requires more parent/teacher interaction, and
teachers would require additional and more advanced
material. He stated that there was no other CCS in the
state that was limited to the elementary school funding
formula. He felt it would be irresponsible not to recognize
the state correspondence program for what it is.
Number 121
REP. VEZEY asked Mr. Sadlowski if he was aware of the number
of students that were enrolled both in a CCS program and
also in a state school district as well.
Number 170
MR. SADLOWSKI said he was unaware of people who were
enrolled in both schools.
Number 184
CHAIR TOOHEY thanked Mr. Sadlowski for his testimony and
referred to the next witness as there were no further
questions. She asked if Ms. Patricia Merwin was on line.
Number 190
PATRICIA MERWIN, via teleconference from Soldotna, expressed
that as a home educator the primary goal and responsibility
for her was to provide "prime level learning opportunity."
She stated her increasing concern over the "glaring"
inequity in the state funding for ACS and the decrease in
services and curriculum choices in their program. In
support of her concern, Ms. Merwin quoted statistics that
she obtained through her own research in regards to the
Kenai Peninsula School District. She stated that the borough
has a correspondence school that is funded at 100% of the
foundation formula for large secondary schools. She also
discovered that other districts fund their high school
correspondence programs at the same level. Against those
statistics, she contrasted the ASC secondary program funding
level at 65% of the elementary level foundation formula.
She urged the committee to change the current funding for
CCS so that secondary students can be funded at 65% of the
formula for secondary level, not elementary level.
MS. MERWIN stated that, to her knowledge, there were no
other secondary students in the state that were being funded
at the elementary formula. Ms. Merwin also stated that she
had heard that there might be a Computer Assisted Response
Evaluation System (CARES) used to cut costs. She asked the
committee if she could respond to that information.
Number 299
CHAIR TOOHEY urged her to continue.
Number 303
MS. MERWIN felt the CARES program was an inferior product to
use as a cost-cutting measure. As a teacher of CARES
programs, she felt the CARES courses did not meet the needs
of the student. She argued that rote work, fill-in-the-
blank, and multiple choice promoted "student regurgitation
of course material - a preprogrammed pattern" with,
hopefully, a 70-80% success rate. She urged the committee
again to fund ACS at 65% of the foundation formula.
Number 410
REP. VEZEY asked for a clarification between the primary
funding level as opposed to the secondary funding level.
Number 422
CHAIR TOOHEY referred to Darby Anderson to answer the
question.
Number 431
DARBY ANDERSON, Superintendent, Centralized Correspondence
School (CCS), testified in Juneau that the secondary program
provides approximately $1000.00 additional funding for
students at the elementary level.
REP. VEZEY indicated that this answer was in response to the
elementary rate not the secondary rate.
MS. ANDERSON continued to say, if funded at the secondary
level, a student would receive 65% of $1000.00.
REP. VEZEY concurred that it was $650 per student.
CHAIR TOOHEY thanked Ms. Merwin and asked for another
teleconference testimony.
Number 456
DONNA EMERSON, Elected Chair of the Parent Group for CCS in
Funter Bay, stated via teleconference that on behalf of
other parents of the 1700 students enrolled in the CCS, they
needed secondary recognition for funding to effectively
provide for the needs of students. She continued to say
that they were the only secondary public school system not
counted in the secondary formula.
Number 525
CHAIR TOOHEY thanked Ms. Emerson for her testimony and asked
for any questions. She then asked Ms. Darby Anderson to
testify.
Number 540
MS. ANDERSON testified in support of HB 250. She expressed
concern on one issue in regard to equity of funding to
secondary students. She felt because of the "unique form of
delivery" in regards to teaching students of correspondence
schools (i.e., they are taught in parent facilities by
parents) that it should be 65% not 100% of the secondary
level. She indicated a $1,200,000 savings to the state at
65% of the secondary level and she encouraged the committee
to look at the value of the program and the cost that would
be saved by supporting the secondary students.
Number 633
CHAIR BUNDE thanked Ms. Anderson, apologized for being late
and duly noted that he arrived at 3:25 p.m. He took over as
chair for the meeting and asked for committee member
questions.
Number 644
REP. BRICE stated he was concerned with the difference
between the April 14 and December 14 fiscal notes and asked
Ms. Anderson to explain the change.
Number 653
MS. ANDERSON stated that the increase in funding level was
due to a 17% increase in student enrollment.
Number 664
REP. VEZEY asked if primary enrollment had increased 25%.
Number 676
MS. ANDERSON answered that overall enrollment had increased
by 25%.
Number 677
REP. VEZEY asked the number of CCS schools in Alaska.
Number 686
MS. ANDERSON answered that based on year old information,
there were 22 school districts that offered local
correspondence programs, and an estimated 1600 students
enrolled. She further stated that the state provides
$100,000 worth of materials for the school districts that
deliver the local programs.
Number 699
REP. VEZEY asked what the net saving would be if all
students were brought into the CCS program and were funded
at 65% of the secondary formula level.
Number 718
MS. ANDERSON said there would be savings in terms of direct
dollars, but it does not necessarily mean for the long term.
Number 729
REP. VEZEY stated there would be a potential savings of 35%
if a student were taken off full funding and put in the CCS
program.
Number 734
MS. ANDERSON replied that was correct.
Number 745
REP. VEZEY stated that he had a " hard time understanding
why we pay the state centralized correspondence school
approximately $2900 dollars a student, but we're paying
somewhere around $4000 to $5000 for that student to have
correspondence at school district level."
Number 759
MS. ANDERSON stated that it was a legislative decision made
when the formula foundation was established.
Number 769
REP. KOTT asked why there was a variation in the number of
students enrolling in CCS.
Number 779
MS. ANDERSON indicated that the numbers would stabilize.
Number 787
REP. G. DAVIS wanted to know where the projected increase of
students was coming from.
Number 795
MS. ANDERSON did not have a breakdown on where the new
students would be coming from.
Number 812
REP. TOOHEY inquired about summer school for senior students
only.
Number 818
MS. ANDERSON stated that two years ago the legislature
decided that as a cost saving measure there would be only
senior summer school.
Number 835
CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Anderson to address the issue of
parents contracting with Nebraska and the state contracting
with Nebraska, stating that it was cheaper for the parent to
contract for secondary education.
Number 852
MS. ANDERSON addressed the question by stating that not all
secondary students do their all their studies through
Nebraska.
Number 870
CHAIR BUNDE stated that the saving presupposes that the
students did all the work through Nebraska. He then asked
why we're not getting all work through Nebraska if it's
cheaper.
Number 872
MS. ANDERSON made the comparison of students attending East
High and their teachers being from and teaching from
Nebraska without direct contact.
Number 893
CHAIR BUNDE offered for discussion CSHB 250 8-LS0863/U
(version U) that reduces the increased funding requested in
the fiscal note and allowing for future increases.
Subsequently, REP. KOTT offered CSHB 8-LS0863/D (version D).
Number 952
REP. VEZEY made a motion to adopt CSHB 250 8-LS0863/U
(version U) as a working draft. There were no and with no
objections.
Number 988
CHAIR BUNDE opened the floor for discussion.
Number 989
REP. BRICE questioned whether to let the legislation sit in
committee, as he felt it was a fairly "toothless" piece of
legislation.
MS. ANDERSON concurred by saying that changing "study" to
"school" would not effect the funding status.
CHAIR BUNDE asked, if within the state hierarchy, would the
change to "school" give the CCS a stronger foundation in
regards to future increased funding?
MS. ANDERSON said that legally there would be no difference.
Number 031
REP. KOTT expressed the concern that the bill would conform
CCS's to districts and that it was contrary to the aim of
consolidating districts, and he felt that the administrative
and internal cost associated with the district would grow
out of proportion in the out years. He further questioned
as to whether it was the student increase the committee was
addressing or additional administrative costs and burdens.
Number 053
MS. ANDERSON stated that HB 250 allowed a fund balance of
10% or less that would make CCS equal to a district but not
actually make it a district. Regarding CSHB 250, she stated
there would be no additional administrative costs as a
result of the initial bill or the substitute.
Number 072
REP. KOTT stressed that unrestricted funds available to
other districts would not be available to CCS under CSHB
250.
Number 081
MS. ANDERSON also clarified that the fund balance was about
$5000.
Number 091
CHAIR BUNDE closed testimony on CSHB 250 and added that in
view of the fiscal challenges facing the state, he felt it
was appropriate to remove secondary education, even though
there were good arguments supporting it because the money
just wasn't there. He subsequently moved to kill the bill.
REP. KOTT motioned to rescind the adoption of CSHB 250 and
adopt CSHB 250 8-LS0863/D (version D).
Number 129
CHAIR BUNDE asked for any objections. There being one
objection, a roll call vote was taken.
Rep. Toohey Yea
Rep. Bunde Yea
Rep. G. Davis Yea
Rep. Vezey Yea
Rep. Kott Yea
Rep. Olberg Nay
Rep. B. Davis ABS
Rep. Nicholia Yea
Rep. Brice Yea
With the majority vote, CSHB 250 (version U) was rescinded.
CHAIR BUNDE opened CSHB 250 8-LS0863/D (version D), as
offered by Rep. Kott, for discussion.
REP. KOTT moved to adopt version D as the committee draft.
There being no objection, it was so adopted.
Number 192
CHAIR BUNDE opened CSHB 250 (version D) for discussion.
Number 194
REP. KOTT stated that version D would accomplish what the
people would need. By converting Centralized Correspondence
Study to Correspondence School it would convey opportunity
for those who have had problems getting (at least) into the
military. By deleting district status it would decrease
bureaucracy in the state as it would not have the authority
that goes along with being one of 54 districts. The
committee substitute (CS) would combine the current CSS
programs in the local districts with the Centralized
Correspondence School program. The CS would reduce CCS and
local school districts to 60%. With the overall reduction,
it would raise the fiscal note to approximately $330,000
right off the top, but there being 700 students in the
school district, it had not been taken into consideration
the reduction that would be conveyed financially to the
school districts. Rep. Kott felt that would offset the
fiscal note.
TAPE 94-01 SIDE B
Number 083
CHAIR BUNDE stated it was not his intention to pass HB 250
out of committee without further discussion on the fiscal
impact.
Number 090
REP. OLBERG expressed concern that students in rural areas
would be penalized to the benefit of urban students in CCS
programs, as urban students could walk down the street to a
district school. He objected strongly to the entire tone of
the substitute bill.
Number 132
REP. BRICE asked Rep. Olberg if it was the flat reduction to
60% that he was concerned about.
Number 148
REP. OLBERG stated that he preferred the first CSHB 250
(version U). He felt that the percentage was incidental and
his concern rested with the students who wouldn't have an
option being "lumped in" with students who would. He felt
the CSHB 250 (version D) discriminated against rural
students. Rep. Olberg felt that the CCS program could not
reach the rural student (in Eagle, Alaska) as well as the
district correspondence program could.
Number 225
CHAIR BUNDE asked Rep. Olberg if, in his objection, was he
addressing the practice of school districts receiving
funding for students who physically do not attend, thereby
getting more money for that student than it costs to educate
that student (double-dipping).
Number 238
REP. OLBERG indicated that there was no determination that
it cost less to educate a student at Healy Lake (for
example) than it does to educate a student in Delta
Junction.
Number 245
CHAIR BUNDE couldn't speak to those specifics, but did cite
that the Aleutian district had a sizable number of students
that they educate through correspondence and yet they still
receive local funding.
Number 261
REP. OLBERG stated that there were higher costs associated
with rural students, citing the cost of flying a plane into
Funter Bay.
CHAIR BUNDE proposed that most rural students have mail
service.
REP. OLBERG could not guarantee that all had mail service.
Number 284
CHAIR BUNDE felt that students would have equal access if
indeed they had mail service. He stated he did not view the
bill as a rural vs. urban issue.
Number 302
REP. VEZEY clarified his understanding of version D. He
stated that the district correspondence programs would
remain intact to compete with CCS programs, and that the
bill would reduce funding for the student to 60% of the
formula funding.
Number 334
REP. KOTT clarified by saying that essentially those
students attending in the 22 school districts' district
correspondence programs were receiving 100% based on the
formula ($61,000). He asked why it was that districts are
funded at 100% when it had already been proven that the
state was putting out good students at 65%.
Number 381
CHAIR BUNDE interjected his desire to refer to a
teleconference call from Anchorage.
Number 389
CLAUDIA WALTON expressed confusion over the committee
substitutes offered, via teleconference from Anchorage. She
continued by saying that she supported the original HB 250.
She clarified her understanding of the logistics of the bill
by saying that CCS had students located geographically in a
school district; however, not all those students were
enrolled. She said there were two levels of funding: one
level funded the CCS students who were enrolled in local
school districts and were also contracting with CCS, and the
second funded students who were only contracted with CCS.
She felt that decreasing funding for local school districts
would not decrease spending. Ms. Walton also mentioned
school districts that go directly to out-of-state
correspondence programs and receive the full 100% funding.
She felt the net result would be a reduction in the number
of CCS students, and there would be unaccountable funds for
CCS students being funded by the state at 100%.
Number 562
CHAIR BUNDE stated that a fax of CSHB 250 was at that time
being sent to Ms. Walton and that the bill would not be
moved out of committee that day.
Number 581
REP. TOOHEY stated she was as confused as Ms. Walton and
referred to Ms. Anderson by asking if there were any
connections between CCS and the school district at all.
Number 586
MS. ANDERSON answered that a student that is enrolled in CCS
cannot also be enrolled in a local public school. She said
a school district could contract with CCS for services.
REP. TOOHEY asked if the school districts could contract an
entire program through CCS.
MS. ANDERSON answered only at elementary level funding, at
100%.
REP. TOOHEY felt that was "double-dipping."
Number 614
MS. ANDERSON offered a scenario of a fifth grade student in
a very rural area that was performing poorly in the school
district. As a supplementary measure, CCS was contracted
out and the student still received additional on-site
teaching services through the district. Therefore, the
student utilized the 100% funding level.
Number 627
CHAIR BUNDE added that there were a number of cases of
school districts that provided their own centralized studies
programs not through CCS.
Number 633
REP. G. DAVIS voiced the opinion that different schools
have different rationale as to why their costs are at 100%
rather than 65%. He stated that some students do not belong
in the school districts and need options (CCS), and that
having the choice benefits the teachers, the administration,
and the state on cost per student basis, and it benefits
CCS. He suggested further research.
Number 698
CHAIR BUNDE said that one problem was that the legislature
did not get an accounting of how the money was spent and
felt that measures should be taken to have an accounting
system for tracking. It would highlight any double-dipping.
Number 737
REP. TOOHEY felt that by spreading out the CCS system so
thinly, the purpose would be lost. She stated her general
confusion over the committee substitutes.
REP. OLBERG expressed his concern regarding double-dipping.
Number 774
MS. ANDERSON said that the state board did have proposed
regulations that private school students could attend public
schools for a portion of the day and receive funding under
foundation formula.
Number 785
CHAIR BUNDE referred to further testimony from Ms. Merwin.
Number 787
MS. MERWIN asserted that the state would save 35% for every
student that chose to be educated by CCS. She then asked
Rep. Kott where he obtained his 60% figure for the
substitute.
Number 830
REP. KOTT said that the 60% figure would be an "even wash"
for all students.
Number 848
MS. MERWIN asked if perhaps the 60% figure was too low.
Number 855
REP. KOTT stated that at 60% there would be a 50% reduction
in the program cost under the original house bill. He felt
that at 65% from the original bill, it would not have passed
through committee.
Number 869
MS. MERWIN touched on the angle of discrimination against
rural students by funding them at lower levels. She equated
the discrimination with the plight of Martin Luther King,
Jr.
Number 883
REP. OLBERG suggested that students entering in to CCS have
a grasp of the costs before they start, realizing that it is
not equal.
Number 897
REP. TOOHEY asked where she felt the connection between
Martin Luther King Day and the day's testimony was.
Number 900
MS. MERWIN stated that Martin Luther King, Jr. stood against
discrimination at any basis and felt that there was a
discrimination factor within the foundation formula. She
asked why it is that a small percentage of secondary
students could be denied secondary funding when every other
secondary student in the state is offered secondary funding,
including the option of correspondence studies.
CHAIR BUNDE responded by saying that where one chooses to
live in Alaska necessitates choices.
Number 934
REP. NICHOLIA asked Rep. Kott if his legislation would leave
opportunity for parents of students in CSS to sue the state
for discrimination in regards to the 65% costs.
Number 943
REP. KOTT answered that anything is possible in this "law-
suing society," but suspected that it wasn't likely. He
said that although the bill needs more modification, it does
not change the fact that the 60% across-the-board eliminates
the discrimination factor.
Number 966
REP. TOOHEY said that, as she understood it, the school
districts did not have to offer correspondence programs.
She felt that, legally, correspondence did not have to be
offered by the state.
Number 986
MS. ANDERSON stated that it was under statute that the
state provide a centralized correspondence program.
Number 990
REP. TOOHEY inquired if there were stipulations on that
program as to whether the recipients must live in rural
areas.
Number 994
MS. ANDERSON said that any Alaskan is eligible.
Number 999
REP. OLBERG guessed that the statute could change.
Number 002
CHAIR BUNDE opted to hold the bill over for further
discussion. He thanked all who participated.
Number 011
Seeing no further business before the committee, CHAIR BUNDE
adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|