Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/07/2002 03:03 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
March 7, 2002
3:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Fred Dyson, Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Vic Kohring
Representative Sharon Cissna
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative Reggie Joule
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 464
"An Act relating to statewide school district correspondence
study programs."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 464
SHORT TITLE:SCHOOL DISTRICT CORRESPONDENCE STUDY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)JAMES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/19/02 2313 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/19/02 2313 (H) EDU, HES
02/19/02 2313 (H) REFERRED TO EDUCATION
02/22/02 2370 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
02/27/02 2416 (H) REFERRALS CHANGED TO HES, EDU
02/27/02 2416 (H) REFERRED TO HES
03/07/02 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
RICHARD SCHMITZ, Staff
to Representative Jeannette James
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 214
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 464 on behalf of its sponsor,
Representative James.
ED McLAIN, Ph.D., Deputy Commissioner of Education
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
801 West Tenth Street, Suite 320
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 464, answered
questions pertaining to language in statutes.
ART GRISWOLD
HC 60, Box 4493
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 464.
WANDA FULTON
P.O. Box 522
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 464, Version O.
LINDA GILES
297 Icehouse Lane
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 464, Version O.
A. PARKER
P.O. Box 1462
Sterling, Alaska 99672
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 464.
DONNA CLAUS
P.O. Box 109
Chitina, Alaska 99566
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 464, Version O.
LORRAINE HAMBRICK
P.O. Box 520180
Big Lake, Alaska 99652
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 464, expressed her
opposition to proposed regulations pertaining to home school
programs. Testified in support of the bill.
BEN PHILLIPS
P.O. Box 2157
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 464, testified in
opposition to proposed regulations pertaining to home school
correspondence programs.
CAROL SIMPSON
448 Klondike Avenue
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 464, Version O.
JIM BAIRD
1358 Viewpoint Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the current wording
of HB 464.
STACIE WARNER
P.O. Box 3495
Seward, Alaska 99664
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 464.
KELLY LARSON
P.O. Box 875462
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 464.
KATHY VANDER ZWAAG
HC 60, Box 3280
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 464, testified in
opposition to proposed regulations pertaining to statewide
correspondence programs.
GLEN BIEGEL
5957 Barry Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 464, delineated
potential negative effects of proposed regulations pertaining to
home school programs.
GINA CREEDON
P.O. Box 15053
Fritz Creek, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 464.
GAYE WRIGHT
4687 Chena Hot Springs Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 464, Version O.
CATHERINE BISHOP
P.O. Box 2986
Seward, Alaska 99664
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 464.
SHARYLEE ZACHARY
P.O. Box 1531
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 464.
DANIELLE BACHMAN
HC 05, Box 9964U
Palmer, Alaska 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 464.
LILLIAN CONNOR
P.O. Box 15053
Fritz Creek, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 464, testified about
her ease in taking tests as a home schooled student.
MIKE PRAX
1015 Meadow Rue
North Pole, Alaska 99705
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 464, testified in
opposition to proposed EED regulations.
AMY PITZER
P.O. Box 791
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 464, testified in
opposition to greater regulation of home school programs.
SHARI LEWIS
P.O. Box 1205
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 464, Version O.
LAUREN BACHMAN
HC 05, Box 9964U
Palmer, Alaska 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 464.
GREG MERCHANT
P.O. Box 15426
Fritz Creek, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 464, expressed
concurrence with testimony of other witnesses.
FLOYD WRIGHT
4687 Chena Hot Springs Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 464.
AMANDA MERCHANT
P.O. Box 15426
Fritz Creek, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 464.
JENNIFER BACHMAN
HC 05, Box 9964U
Palmer, Alaska 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 464.
BARBARA MARTINEZ
3875 Geist Road, Number 164
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 464.
MICHELE PFUNDT
P.O. Box 1162
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 464, Version O.
DAN MIELKE
HC 30, Box 12910
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 464.
JENNIFER DELZER
436 Droz Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 464.
DEB GERMANO
P.O. Box 1511
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 464, expressed support
for parental choice and state standards, but raised concern
about issues pertaining to school districts.
JOHN PORTSCHELLER
Tok, Alaska 99780
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 464, expressed concern
that the bill fails to address the broader issue of EED's
efforts to extend its purview.
MICHAEL DAMMEYER
3351 Lucille Street
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed support for HB 464.
JULIA AUBREY
P.O. Box 58648
Fairbanks, Alaska 99711
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 464.
HOLLY HALVERSON
669 Florence
North Pole, Alaska 99705
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 464, offering her own
experience.
JOAN DANGELI
P.O. Box 34711
Juneau, Alaska 99803
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed support for HB 464, but raised
concern that it might not address all the regulations proposed
by EED.
KEITH SIMILA
3492 Meander Way
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 464, expressed
appreciation and suggested it perhaps could be strengthened.
PAMELA EBERHARDT
2343 Kevin Court
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 464, Version O.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-20, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR FRED DYSON called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.
Representatives Dyson, Coghill, Stevens, and Kohring were
present at the call to order. Representative Cissna arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HB 464-SCHOOL DISTRICT CORRESPONDENCE STUDY
CHAIR DYSON announced that the committee would hear HOUSE BILL
NO. 464, "An Act relating to statewide school district
correspondence study programs."
Number 0213
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS moved to adopt version 22-LS1494\O, Ford,
3/4/02, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version O
was before the committee.
Number 0249
RICHARD SCHMITZ, Staff to Representative Jeannette James, Alaska
State Legislature, presented [Version O] on behalf of
Representative James, sponsor. He noted that Representative
James's office has received a number of e-mails, faxes, and
letters from parents of children enrolled in statewide
correspondence schools. These schools are unique in that they
are correspondence "cyber" schools that work around the state
but are run by one district. He said these seem to have
afforded parents a great deal of satisfaction and success in the
few years they've been in operation, and they're very popular.
He referenced new regulations proposed by the Department of
Education and Early Development (EED) that alarmed many of these
home school parents. He explained that this legislation seeks
to clarify and "set in stone" principles to direct the operation
of statewide correspondence schools.
Number 0339
MR. SCHMITZ offered that the overriding principle behind this
legislation is that parents should have the greatest degree of
authority to educate their own children. Accountability [for
the education of these children] is necessary because state
money is being spent; this accountability is available through
statewide testing. He explained that provided these test
results are within the state averages, and not below, the
programs would be viewed as being in compliance with state
statute.
MR. SCHMITZ referred to line 9 of the bill and said the current
statute calls for review of these schools every ten years. The
new regulations call for annual approval. Complaints were
received that indicated this requirement would be burdensome.
He noted that charter schools are approved every ten years.
This ten-year approval would not apply to schools that fell
below the state average [test scores] for two consecutive years.
MR. SCHMITZ reported that [Version O] changes the language
slightly [from the original version] to identify these schools
as "at-risk" under state statute, requiring more frequent
approval. If the program was performing at or above the state
average, it would be reviewed every ten years. He offered that
this would be aligned with the call for government to do things
"faster, better, cheaper." "These programs seem to do that," he
said. "They deliver education to children very successfully for
a lot less cost - or at least some less cost - than they would
be in a traditional program." "The other thing that
Representative James feels strongly about is that ... not every
child learns the same way," he said. This is another option.
He alluded to the many new educational programs available; some
of these work and some don't. He said statewide correspondence
programs seem to be "working very well." He concluded, "If it's
not broken, they why fix it?"
Number 0518
MR. SCHMITZ drew attention to another provision in the proposed
EED regulations that Version O addresses. School districts
should have a great deal of authority to determine whether
parents are meeting district requirements. "Obviously, you
don't hand out stuff and then, ... in four years, hand them a
diploma," he said. Some parents need more frequent contact with
the district than others. [Version O] gives the authority to
districts to determine the frequency of contact with parents.
"As long as they're passing their Benchmark exams, then there
shouldn't be a problem," he stated.
MR. SCHMITZ reported that curriculum materials and religious
materials had been an issue raised [in feedback received].
Currently, programs prohibit the purchase of religious materials
with school district funds; the materials actually used in home
school programs are not [mandated by districts]. The new
regulations appeared to say, he suggested, that religious
materials could not be used. He referred to AS 14.03 and said
everyone knows about it, and that it defines religious material.
MR. SCHMITZ said these home schools are public because they
receive public funding. He offered the analogy of a traditional
public school student completing homework at home: no
restrictions are placed on the materials used by the student at
home. "If there's a crucifix on the wall in the home, that
isn't the state's business," he said. Some work performed by
traditional public school students is done at home; all of the
work by these correspondence school students is completed at
home. "The home is still the same," he stated. "That's sacred,
and ... what goes on within the home ... should be up to the
parent that's doing the teaching." He added that a check is in
place: students are passing the exams and showing that they are
completing the required work. The materials being used should
not be an issue, he said, adding that no one is requiring public
schools to purchase religious materials. But if a parent
chooses to use religious materials [that should be permitted].
He pointed out a letter received by his office from Joan Dangeli
that recounts her experience with a math curriculum she used for
two years without realizing it was religious in nature.
Number 0755
CHAIR DYSON said, "Your point is, then, the department ruled
that that was illegal."
MR. SCHMITZ replied that Ms. Dangeli's letter indicated this
program used by the Nenana [CyberLynx Correspondence School] was
ruled to be religious. He said the way to prevent public
schools from having to determine which materials are religious
is to allow parents to make that decision. He said this is the
goal of HB 464.
Number 0765
CHAIR DYSON said, "As I read your bill, it makes those
determinations at a district level instead of a department
level. You just said you wanted it to be at a parent level. Am
I confused?"
MR. SCHMITZ replied, "You're right. And I was probably ranting
a little bit." He said that the determination would be at a
district level. He offered that this determination should be
made at a district level because the local district is more
familiar with each family, and it becomes like "a family
relationship." He noted that districts can follow state statute
to place appropriate restrictions without constant oversight
from Juneau.
Number 0821
CHAIR DYSON inquired about the significance of subsection (b)
[page 2 of Version O].
MR. SCHMITZ responded that the drafter added this language,
which has to do with the language set in statute to clarify what
schools are being addressed by the bill. In further response,
he expressed his understanding that this does not apply, for
example, to the Juneau School District's correspondence program,
which serves only students in the Juneau School District.
Number 0868
CHAIR DYSON asked, "'Statewide school district' wouldn't apply
to the Juneau one that just takes kid within [the] district?"
MR. SCHMITZ replied that the bill isn't designed to apply to
[this type of correspondence school]. He suggested that
Interior Distance Education of Alaska (IDEA) or EED personnel
might explain the difference between the two types of programs
more clearly.
CHAIR DYSON asked if the two type of programs would be treated
differently under Version O.
MR. SCHMITZ answered that the bill is not designed to address
"cyber" programs within a district. It is designed to address
district programs offered to children all over the state.
CHAIR DYSON said, "But they would still only be administered
under your bill by the school district in which the school
resides."
MR. SCHMITZ agreed.
Number 0941
CHAIR DYSON asked what "partisan" means in AS 14.03.090.
ED McLAIN, Ph.D., Deputy Commissioner of Education, Department
of Education and Early Development, expressed his understanding
that "partisan" refers to a political definition. He said he
would check this with legal counsel. In further response, he
said a social studies teacher could, for example, use literature
from a political campaign for instructional purposes. Promoting
one political position over another is not permitted, however.
Number 1025
CHAIR DYSON inquired what "sex bias" means in AS 14.18.060,
which read in part:
Sec. 14.18.060. Discrimination in textbooks and
instructional materials prohibited.
(a) School boards shall have textbooks and
instructional materials reviewed for evidence of sex
bias in accordance with AS 14.08.111(9) and AS
14.14.090(7). School boards shall use educationally
sound, unbiased texts and other instructional
materials as they become available. Nothing in this
section prohibits use of literary works.
(b) The board shall establish by regulation
standards for nondiscriminatory textbooks and
educational materials. Each school board shall
provide training for all its certificated personnel in
the identification and recognition of sex-biased
materials.
DR. McLAIN offered his understanding that this addresses
instructional materials' portrayal of preferences or stereotypes
of sex roles - for example, all workers in a factory shown as
men or all people shown at home as women. Both sexes should be
represented in a variety of roles.
CHAIR DYSON continued, "So that doesn't prohibit materials that
might be, say, abstinence-based?"
DR. McLAIN replied, "I would not read that as to be abstinence-
based." He offered to get an attorney's opinion.
CHAIR DYSON asked, "So ... 'sex bias' just means [a] preference
of females over males or males over females. It doesn't have to
do with lifestyles, ... number of marriages, ... marriage
partners, ... abstinence, promiscuity, or anything like that?"
DR. McLAIN said he would seek a definitive answer on that
matter, but that his own reading would be the same as
Representative Dyson's.
Number 1155
ART GRISWOLD testified via teleconference. An Alaskan resident
since the 1950s, Mr. Griswold said he has eight children, three
in a home school program. He encouraged members to view HB 464
positively because it provides stability to the home school
system. The [provision for ten-year review] allows programs to
build programs with longevity. He noted that he'd taken his
children out of public schools because they were not
accomplishing "what they wanted to do." His daughter, a high
school student, was not offered the variety of courses in the
public school that the home school program offered. These
courses included auto mechanics, communication, journalism,
aerospace, and her regular courses. He offered that his
daughter has a higher grade point average (GPA) in the home
school program than she did in the high school in Delta. She
has taken and passed the high school equivalency exam. He also
has two sons with similar experiences. He expressed his support
for Representative James's bill.
Number 1296
WANDA FULTON testified via teleconference in support of HB 464
[Version O]. Noting that she is with the IDEA program, Ms.
Fulton added that she supports the state's role in establishing
standards for high school graduates. She also conveyed concern
with regulations that restrict the curriculum allowed to home
schooling parents.
Number 1342
LINDA GILES testified via teleconference. A home school mother
of two children, she expressed her support of HB 464 [Version
O].
Number 1373
A. PARKER testified via teleconference. She expressed her
support for HB 464 and concurred with Ms. Fulton's testimony.
Number 1394
DONNA CLAUS testified via teleconference. A home school parent
for 12 years, she said, "Until IDEA came along, I was sort of a
lone ranger. We live 180 miles from the nearest school. ... We
would home school even if we lived in the city." Her children
have won numerous awards in Alaska and nationally, she offered.
He family is planning a two-month trip to Antarctica via their
own plane to teach science, geography, and other subjects. She
noted that without the IDEA program, this type of experience
would not be possible. She expressed her support for HB 464
[Version O].
Number 1444
LORRAINE HAMBRICK testified via teleconference in support of the
bill. She stated that she is opposed to regulations [proposed
by EED], particularly the proposed regulation of curriculum.
She noted that home schoolers' test scores indicate they are
meeting the standards. She has been a certified teacher for 15
years and a home school teacher for 13 years. The IDEA program
allows parents to choose appropriate curricula; her children
take Tae Kwan Do and music programs. She said she makes efforts
to save the state money given to her to home school. She added
that she thinks the regulations are unfair to target home school
children who don't participate in state tests; public-school
children who miss testing are not excluded from public school
the following year. Ms. Hambrick said home school parents
sacrifice time and money to home school their children. She
gave several examples of creative teaching methods she has used
to teach concepts to her students; these methods were created
using knowledge of the individual student.
Number 1575
BEN PHILLIPS testified via teleconference. The father of seven
children enrolled in the Galena school system, he noted his
dissatisfaction with the proposed EED regulations pertaining to
home school programs. These regulations would cost the Galena
School District more in administration costs; the state would
pay more in administration costs as well. He expressed his
opinion that these regulations attempt to control not reading,
writing, and math, but parents' teaching of religion in the
home. Participants in the Galena program "are keenly aware" of
the prohibition of the purchase of religious materials with
state money; this is currently well policed, he added. He said,
"If the state board of education would be willing to apply the
same degree of potency to their own programs, ... not only would
the ... other state schools not be facing money problems, but
these frivolous regulations would never have even been
proposed." He offered that home school parents are well aware
of AS 14.03.090, which addresses partisan, sectarian, and
denominational instruction. He concluded by saying, "We just
think it's thinly veiled discrimination."
Number 1685
CAROL SIMPSON testified via teleconference, noting that she
works for the IDEA program as a field representative and an
administrative assistant. Ms. Simpson said she has been home
schooling for many years; many of these years were as an
independent home school teacher, and five years have been with
the IDEA program. She said the regulations proposed by EED go
well beyond the scope of Alaska statute and the clear intent of
the legislature. She added, "The committee substitute of HB 464
continues the legislative tradition of promoting school choice
and innovation by limiting regulations which would unfairly
single out these programs ... by holding them to a higher
standard than other public schools."
MS. SIMPSON added that the bill eliminates the yearly
application not required of other types of schools. She
continued:
[House Bill] 464 also continues the legislative
tradition of providing parental authority and local
school district control by permitting programs to set
their own guidelines for [the] purchase of materials
and [to] set their own parameters for the monitoring
of students by program personnel. The CS of HB 464
appropriately links the requirements imposed on
statewide correspondence programs with the school
accountability law. By this standard, statewide
correspondence programs are very successful. For
instance, last year IDEA students had an "advanced" or
"proficient" score, which ranks them in the top half
of the 54 school districts in the state at every grade
and every subject area, higher than the state average
in most.
As a home schooler, I've appreciated the partnership
with the school district, the input of a certified
teacher, and the guidance of IDEA in continuing to
teach my children at home. [House Bill] 464 sets
parameters to foster that relationship without
stifling it, allowing for the continued success of
IDEA and programs like it. The detailed
overregulation recently proposed would drive many
students and statewide correspondence programs back to
home schooling independently. [House Bill] 464 allows
programs like IDEA to continue to serve home schoolers
to the best of their ability and, more importantly, to
the best of the home schoolers' ability.
Number 1770
JIM BAIRD testified via teleconference. He noted that he has
been a Fairbanks resident since 1976; he has been a secondary
teacher much of that time; his wife is a certified elementary
teacher; and his two daughters have been home schooled for five
years because he and his wife didn't want their daughters
attending the middle or high schools in Fairbanks. His family
used the Fairbanks correspondence program for four years and
switched this year to the IDEA program. Mr. Baird indicated his
satisfaction with the IDEA program. He said:
I know from firsthand experience how high schools work
- how engaged or disengaged students are, and the
validity or lack of validity of the grading system
there. Apparently, lots of other people know, too,
because now students have to pass an exam to graduate
from high school. [A] growing number of home
schoolers nationwide indicates that this is not just
an Alaskan issue. Alaskans have a chance to be
national leaders in home schooling. [The] current
wording of House Bill 464 will help this happen.
The Benchmark tests and the graduation exam ...
measure success. We don't need help from the folks
who have regulated what they like to call the "brick-
and-mortar schools" into the fix that they are
currently in. If the aim is education, Benchmark
tests and the graduation exam are a basic, common
measure. Let us try as many new ways as possible to
help our students. We know what doesn't work. Let's
get going on what will. Please adopt [the] current
wording of House Bill 464 and help with its passage.
Number 1840
STACIE WARNER testified via teleconference. She urged members
to adopt HB 464. She explained that her primary concern is with
the "unnecessary, increased oversight" of [home school] parents'
teaching ability and the progress of the students. Her three
children are enrolled in the IDEA program. She indicated that
the IDEA program personnel have imbued confidence in her
teaching ability. She said:
The Galena School District IDEA program has provided a
wonderful, professional, and balanced support in our
home schooling endeavors. I believe the balance that
the IDEA program has between instructional flexibility
and the trust in the parental-teacher role, combined
with the availability of a certified teaching
assistant, when requested by a parent, is a wonderful
balance for a ... home school or correspondence study
program. I believe that any further requirement above
the ... annual independent learning program approved
by a certified teacher - two progress reports, one
mid-year and year-end, on top of the Terra Nova and
Benchmark tests - are sufficient to monitor and
supervise the progress of my children's [education].
MS. WARNER noted that students in a traditional public school
may have two more quarterly reports; their classroom teacher is
responsible for monitoring daily progress. She monitors her
children's daily progress, as their classroom teacher, through
the reports and required tests as well as her own records of
their progress. She expressed her opinion that the certified
teacher's role in a statewide correspondence program should be
more akin to a principal's role, whereas she is her son's daily
teacher. Further regulation is unnecessary to monitor student
progress, she said; the proposed regulations are "above and
beyond" those required of traditional public school students.
She concluded by saying [the proposed regulations] would add
unnecessary expense to the correspondence study school district.
Number 1967
KELLY LARSON testified via teleconference in concurrence with
Ben Phillips. She urged members to support HB 464. She said
her biggest complaint with the proposed regulations is with the
provision addressing nonpartisan curriculum. She told members,
"I don't see what the problem is if I'm purchasing the
curriculum with my own money, and my children are scoring at or
above average. I don't see what difference it makes whether
it's religious or not - as long as I'm footing the bill." She
added that the cost of the proposed regulations would be taken
directly from the students themselves.
Number 2020
KATHY VANDER ZWAAG testified via teleconference. Noting that
she works for the CyberLynx program and that her daughter is
taking some correspondence courses, she thanked the bill's
sponsors for their responsiveness to home school parents. The
state board did not garner input from parents when creating the
proposed regulations, she said. She furnished her opinion on
the following points: the annual application is "bureaucratic
nonsense" and takes time from the focus of education; the
monthly monitoring of students is unnecessary, and Benchmark
testing is sufficient for children who have shown success in the
home school program; program [personnel] should decide the
frequency of monitoring; and the school district should decide
[which curricula are appropriate for students].
Number 2090
GLEN BIEGEL testified via teleconference. Noting that he has
two children enrolled in the IDEA program, he expressed his
belief that the school would be closed down or would lose 80
percent of its students. He represents the Alaska charter
school association and Alaskans for Educational Choice, he said.
Referring to a nine-page, in-depth review of the regulations
proposed by the [State Board of Education and Early
Development], he suggested the regulations are "school-ending"
because 6,000 students will be essentially out of a public
school, and Alaska will have 6,000 [fewer] public school
students next year if these regulations are allowed to go
through without the intervening support of a bill like HB 464.
Number 2198
GINA CREEDON testified via teleconference. She indicated that
her children are enrolled in the Connections program, and that
the IDEA program has improved Connections by virtue of the
competition it has provided. She said, "I think anything that
reduces the ability of the statewide programs to compete with
the district programs hurts the kids. ... Anything that sucks
up my time with anything other than teaching children is likely
to cause me eventually to quit public home schooling." She
pointed out that this would cost the state $3,200 per child; if
the Galena program is curtailed, it will cost the state
approximately $20 million; and if every home school family
[chooses independent home schooling], it will cost the state
almost $30 million. She explained that these families would
continue to teach their children at home, but the program might
be [less effective] without correspondence programs. Saying the
proposed regulations are "expensive and stupid," she urged
members to pass the bill.
Number 2247
GAYE WRIGHT testified via teleconference. She home schools
three of her children; they previously attended Christian
schools, but the tuition was too expensive. She offered that
the IDEA program requires accountability through progress
reports and individual learning plans. She said these proposed
regulations have nothing to do with accountability and teaching
students, and have everything to do with control. She
referenced comments by Dr. McLain at last week's Joint Committee
on Administrative Regulation Review hearing on the proposed
regulations; she said he'd indicated that parents could use
Christian materials, but that their children would receive no
credit for classes using these materials. She offered that
children would not take classes for which they would receive no
credit. She urged members to pass HB 464 [Version O].
Number 2310
CATHERINE BISHOP testified via teleconference in support of HB
464. An IDEA parent for three years whose child scored in the
98 [percentile] and 95 [percentile] in language arts and math,
respectively, on the Benchmark tests, she told members:
I have watched this program grow from 150 students to
3,500 students. The effort that it has put into
making this program succeed is outstanding. This
wonderful program is the product of years of parent-
teacher-administration input. It works the way it is;
it doesn't need to be fixed or changed. Thank you for
considering HB 464. Without its adoption, I feel that
we will be unduly restricted and discriminated against
in our attempts to educate our children.
Number 2343
SHARYLEE ZACHARY testified via teleconference. She said that
her family began home schooling ten years ago because their
daughter needed special attention that the public school was
unable to give her. They began using what is now the Alyeska
program, and she'd found it confusing. Ms. Zachary said the
IDEA program has been helpful in allowing her to choose
appropriate curricula for her three daughters; it has enabled
her family to do things with their children that otherwise they
wouldn't have been able to do. Her family's income is low
enough to qualify for food stamps; they do not use them. They
do, however, buy Christian materials with their own money. She
indicated she thought religion was being taught in public
schools.
TAPE 02-20, SIDE B
Number 2400
MS. ZACHARY said she believes public schools are advocating
forms of witchcraft and alternative lifestyles that she does not
support. She said she teaches her children to respect all
people. She urged members to support HB 464.
Number 2367
DANIELLE BACHMAN testified via teleconference. A ninth grader
enrolled in the IDEA program, Ms. Bachman said she'd enrolled in
IDEA three years ago after leaving middle school, where she was
not receiving the education that she needed. She is taking
advanced courses, and has a 4.0 GPA. She said the program is
important to her because it provides her with violin lessons,
advanced-level books, and additional time with her family. She
expressed her belief that HB 464 will help programs such as IDEA
provide students opportunities to learn and excel in the world.
Number 2328
LILLIAN CONNOR testified via teleconference. A home school
student, she said, "Moms have just enough time to teach, and
shouldn't be burdened with more paperwork. I just took the
test, and it was so easy I got to twiddling my thumbs while I
waited for the other people to finish. Maybe the big schools
need more paperwork."
Number 2296
MIKE PRAX testified via teleconference, thanking Representative
James and Representative Dyson [as cosponsor] for HB 464. He
offered his belief that the bill does not go far enough, but is
a good start. He said:
I think you should do whatever you can to reduce
central control of education. ...Those of us that are
stepping out ... are finding out that the market is a
much better control of education than the state board
of education and the state regulators. Also, I think
that you should do whatever you can to reduce the
number of people who are involved in running state
education. That's going to save you money in the end
- and ... do whatever you can to reduce state
spending. This is a tremendous program. The
competition between the different cyber schools and
the different home schooling programs that are
available makes it fit individual needs much closer,
and you wind up with a much better product at much
less cost. And it is the wave of the future and you
should get on board. We accept the responsibility for
raising our own children; we have the authority.
Thank you for your concern, but we don't need the
regulation.
CHAIR DYSON pointed out that Representative Coghill is also a
cosponsor of HB 464.
Number 2246
AMY PITZER testified via teleconference. The mother of six
children, five enrolled in the IDEA program, she offered that
the program allows her children additional opportunities such as
music lessons. She suggested that most home school parents
would return to independent home schooling if too much
regulation were imposed. She indicated Alaska is one of least
restrictive states for home schooling.
Number 2189
SHARI LEWIS testified via teleconference. A home school parent
in the IDEA program, she noted her appreciation for the freedoms
afforded her in home schooling. Saying this bill will enable
her to educate her children the best way she can, Ms. Lewis
encouraged passage of [Version O] and agreed with the testimony
of Ms. Creedon, Ms. Simpson, Mr. Phillips, and Ms. Larson.
Number 2165
LAUREN BACHMAN testified via teleconference. A seventh grader
enrolled in the IDEA program, she expressed her support for HB
464. She said home schooling works well for many families. She
explained:
By home schooling, I am developing into a better
student and individual, with one-on-one enrichment
with my teacher. Through IDEA we receive an allotment
for pursuing optimum education. Because of this, I
weekly receive private viola lessons from an awesome
teacher who plays in the Anchorage symphony. In
addition, I am able to use new, high-quality textbooks
that my parents have selected, tailored to my advanced
needs. When selecting textbooks, it matters not
whether a book is secular or religious, simply that
each book is the best in excellence ... and the most
current academically. Looking at my test scores from
Benchmarks and CAT [California Achievement Test] tests
proves that I am progressing. Outstanding education
is being received by myself and other students in the
state because of correspondence schools like IDEA.
Please do not take that away from me.
Number 2116
GREG MERCHANT testified via teleconference. Stating his
concurrence with preceding witnesses, he expressed hope that
members would pass this bill.
Number 2104
FLOYD WRIGHT testified via teleconference, conveying his
agreement with previous testimony. He said:
The requirements that are being proposed ... to
maintain a certain standard, ... I think that, as much
as possible, those standards should be maintained. ...
There are some students that are never going to
perform well, and many of those students are being
taken out of the public schools because the parents
feel that they know their kids better and they will be
better capable of teaching those students at home,
one-on-one, than they will ever get in the public
school. They may never be "A" students, but they will
probably be better off at home school than just being
left behind in the public school.
And according to the way this ... regulation was being
written, the programs such as IDEA that I am involved
with would be penalized because some students are not
meeting the state standards. All across the state,
you are not holding the same standard to the public
schools - if they don't meet up to the state standard,
well, that's okay, they're a public school. I am in
favor of House Bill 464.
Number 2034
AMANDA MERCHANT testified via teleconference. A ninth grader
who has been home schooled most of her school years, Ms.
Merchant indicated she hadn't received good grades in public
school, but is receiving higher grades in the IDEA program. Her
parents are able to choose her curriculum. She said, "I hope
that you pass House Bill 464 because then it would keep home
schooling the way it should be."
Number 2005
JENNIFER BACHMAN testified via teleconference. A home school
teacher with the IDEA program, she noted that her family is able
to select curricula to meet the special needs of their children;
other programs such as [Alyeska Central School] and traditional
classrooms have failed to do this. Hours are spent researching
a curriculum for their children that meets her family's high
standards. She offered that HB 464 helps to continue the
excellent education that IDEA is providing for her children.
She thanked members for supporting Alaska's children through
this education bill.
Number 1960
BARBARA MARTINEZ testified via teleconference in support of HB
464. She has six children and was a professor at the University
of Alaska Fairbanks. She indicated that her children's teachers
suggested she home school them; two of her children were far
ahead of their peers academically, and one child was behind.
She stated that the IDEA program is a wonderful program for her
children. "I ... really want to support any kind of legislation
that would prevent the school board from using their
administrative abilities to erode the freedom to home school,"
she said. She offered that money spent on home schooling goes,
in large part, directly to the student; very little is spent on
capital expenditures; this is unlike district schools, she
intimated. Ms. Martinez expressed her opinion that this is a
wise expenditure of funds. She added that the ten-year
application cycle allows the programs the stability they need.
Home school families spend a lot of money to purchase materials
and forego income. Programs like IDEA allow parents to choose
materials as well as offset the costs to home school families.
Number 1860
MICHELE PFUNDT testified via teleconference. A parent-teacher
with the IDEA program, she urged members to pass [Version O]
because it makes sense administratively. If the [statewide
correspondence programs'] administrations are required to apply
annually, this will result in higher costs to districts and the
state. She offered that these funds would be better utilized in
the hands of the home school families. This bill will give EED
administrative direction. She added that EED views home school
programs as "in-risk"; she expressed her belief that EED lacks a
foundation for this viewpoint.
Number 1799
DAN MIELKE testified via teleconference in support of HB 464.
He and his wife home school their two children through the IDEA
program. They are pleased with the flexibility provided in the
program. He offered his concurrence with other witnesses'
testimony supporting this legislation. He urged members to
support HB 464.
Number 1774
JENNIFER DELZER testified via teleconference in support of HB
464. She noted that preceding witnesses had covered well the
issues of control, cost, and individual students' success. She
opposes the proposed [regulations] that address correspondence
schools, she told members. Her kindergarten son has experienced
great success in the IDEA program. She said:
If the proposed regulations are intended to ensure
quality of education, then let me assure you ... that
all those involved in this matter are ... in
agreement. I also agree that students should meet
state standards; requiring state Benchmark testing is
an appropriate way to measure if standards are being
met.
MS. DELZER disagreed with the proposed [regulations'] means of
attaining those [standards]. She asked:
Why should it matter what curriculum I choose to
educate my child, ... as long as the student is
meeting state ... requirements? What it comes down to
for me is the taking away of my freedom. This country
was founded upon the pursuit of freedom. ...
Increasing ... regulation of programs like IDEA only
further chips away at those freedoms which allow us to
attain the goals for which we strive.
MS. DELZER urged members to support HB 464 and to not support
the [proposed regulations]. "Allow me the freedom to continue
to educate my children without undue intrusion," she concluded.
Number 1678
DEB GERMANO testified via teleconference, noting that she was a
Kenai Peninsula Borough School District board member but was
speaking on her own behalf. She offered that [Version O] puts
the responsibility to approve curricula in the hands of the
local district, to which she does not object. She pointed out
that she supports parental choice; one of her children attended
a charter school. She expressed concern about the perception
that public schools are unable to [meet the educational needs of
students]. She acknowledged that there are individual schools
that are not meeting needs. She asked participants to take into
consideration the fact that school districts have many mandates,
many unfunded. Parents who are home schooling do not have to
deal with many of these mandates on a daily basis. She pointed
out that capital expenses such as buildings are necessary to
serve children.
MS. GERMANO drew attention to the possible use of public funds
to lobby [if IDEA personnel requested parents to respond to HB
464]. Some parents she has spoken with expressed concern that
home school students have more opportunities through statewide
correspondence programs than children in traditional public
schools with limited resources. She offered that the Kenai
district is unable to provide all students with private lessons
or athletic club memberships. She encouraged members to look at
all sides of this issue. She expressed her support for state
standards and parental choice.
Number 1537
JOHN PORTSCHELLER testified via teleconference. He expressed
his concern that HB 464 fails to address all the necessary
issues. He referred to EED's proposed regulations as an almost
insidious effort to extend its reach into the realm of home
school programs. He offered his opinion that this is not
necessary. Alaska provides an opportunity for higher quality
education for many of its students [through freedoms afforded to
home school families] by correspondence programs. He offered
that the focus of discussion should be on limiting the reach of
EED; he expressed his uncertainty that HB 464 addresses that
broader problem. "[House Bill] 464 does provide us with some
excellent avenues of securing some benefits to us in regard to
correspondence programs," he said. He reiterated the need to
address the broader problem and the failure of HB 464 to do
that.
Number 1458
MICHAEL DAMMEYER testified via teleconference in favor of the
bill. He expressed appreciation to members for their support.
CHAIR DYSON pointed out that Representative Kohring is now a
cosponsor of HB 464.
Number 1434
JULIA AUBREY testified via teleconference in support of HB 464.
She explained that home schooling provides her an opportunity to
give her son one-on-one instruction that he could not receive in
the public schools. She urged member to pass the bill. In
response to Chair Dyson, she said she is in the IDEA program and
had become informed of this hearing through an e-mail.
CHAIR DYSON noted that [Joan Dangeli], who was present, had
indicated she'd sent that e-mail.
Number 1390
HOLLY HALVERSON testified via teleconference, noting that her
children have attended traditional public schools but have
supplemented their education with correspondence courses. Her
children have experienced varied success in state testing and
public school coursework; she said she receives no communication
of her daughter's failing math grades or extra help from her
daughter's teachers. She is planning to pull her daughter out
of school and enroll her in a correspondence program; she
offered that these programs demand more accountability than
traditional programs. She expressed her belief that her child
would have experienced more success and would not have "slipped
through the cracks" in a correspondence program.
Number 1245
JOAN DANGELI came forward to testify, noting that she is a
CyberLynx home schooling parent.
CHAIR DYSON asked if she had informed parents of the hearing.
MS. DANGELI replied that she found the bill in BASIS [the
legislature's online Bill Action and Status Inquiry System].
She'd notified home school families via e-mail through a home
school association network. She pointed out that she initially
sent out an e-mail to receive feedback on the impact of the
proposed regulations; she was unable to receive information from
EED personnel until March 6. She added that the bill might not
address all the proposed regulations such as parental grading
and home-designed course restrictions. Expressing concern about
restrictions to home-designed courses because of the need for
these courses in rural Alaska, Ms. Dangeli said the regulations
dictate courses such as physical education, and that living in
rural areas demands that these courses be home-designed due to a
lack of resources. She offered to prepare a document to outline
the impact of the regulations on home school families.
MS. DANGELI noted that she'd taken her son out of public school
because certified teachers said he could not learn; he'd
remained at preschool level for 3.5 years. She expressed her
belief that he showed much more ability at home; she was upset
with his being certified as unable to learn. The proposed
regulations requiring grading by a certified teacher puts
parents back in a system in which they have little control, she
explained. The proposed regulations would move Alaska in the
direction of Washington State's regulations, some of the
strictest in the nation. Ms. Dangeli added that upon her review
of the proposed regulations, she'd thought they locked a parent
into the public system - even if it's not working. She
concluded, "I was glad that I could follow my instincts that ...
my boy could move forward ... with CyberLynx. And he has, with
a much harder program than the public school ever required of
him." She offered that the program demands much of parents, and
she expressed confusion at the need for the regulations. She
stated her support for the bill.
Number 1048
CHAIR DYSON drew attention to the letter submitted to the
committee by Ms. Dangeli.
MS. DANGELI said strong evidence supports the success of home
school programs; some children are making progress who sometimes
couldn't in the traditional public system.
Number 1008
KEITH SIMILA reported that he and his wife have home schooled
their children. He referenced a letter he'd written that he
would submit to the committee. He expressed concern that the
bill may not address the regulation pertaining to materials and
their management of these materials by the district. Mr. Simila
indicated the transfer of materials from parents to the district
would be burdensome to families and the districts. Currently,
materials below a certain value are retained by the families;
often these materials are reused with other children. He
concluded:
I appreciate the bill ... being proposed. ... Maybe
there's some additional things that could strengthen
it to help alleviate some of the other concerns that
parents have with the regulations. Of course, the
best thing ... would be if the department of education
would pull the regulations entirely. But absent that,
a bill such as this is definitely appreciated.
Number 0897
MR. BIEGEL returned before the committee and characterized the
regulations as an attempt by EED to address problems in specific
schools. Some of the home school classrooms' students are not
performing well and are participating in field trips that are
[beyond the scope of the curriculum]. He asserted that EED's
fix for this problem includes directing that 80 percent of funds
used in the classroom will be redirected for administration;
removing special assistance from students in need of help and
giving it to children who are doing quite well; and reassessing
the grades given by parents by teachers at the district level.
These "fixes" proposed by EED would be rejected in a traditional
public school setting, he suggested, and are "anti-schooling"
changes.
MR. BIEGEL expressed uncertainty about the motivation behind the
proposed regulations - whether they are a result of lack of
knowledge about home schooling or are an attempt to eliminate
these programs. He expressed his hope that the intent is not to
eliminate home school programs, but offered that the result
remains the same. "The board of education changes make no
sense," he concluded. "They would never treat other public
school[s] this way." He referenced his written testimony that
outlines four ways in which [statewide correspondence] schools
are shut down, and three significant changes to how the
legislature implemented this law. He indicated that home school
families would not be subject to just one person's
interpretation but subject to what they actually say. He
offered to answer any questions.
Number 0616
PAMELA EBERHARDT indicated she'd received an e-mail notice of
this hearing through the Juneau home educators' association. A
home school teacher with two sons in the IDEA program, she
voiced her belief that EED is proposing to overregulate the
statewide correspondence programs. Test scores of students in
these programs are similar to those of traditional public school
students. She said:
I don't believe that we should have to prove the
results of our home schooling beyond the test scores.
The proposed regulations would cause a need ... for
the programs to hire more paper pushers, resulting in
less money ... going to our children. My biggest
concern is in the area of choosing curriculums. I
believe it's very important for us, as home schooling
parents, to have the freedom to choose the materials
that we teach our children with.
MS. EBERHARDT reported that she'd begun researching curricula
and learning styles two years before she started home schooling.
Over five years, she has tested and found materials very well
suited to her children's learning styles. She noted that she
will continue to use these curricula because they are
successful, and she doesn't want anyone to dictate which
materials she may use. She offered that IDEA's teacher's
workshops, resource rooms, curriculum fairs, and the field trips
have enhanced her home school program. She urged members to
protect home schooling from overregulation by passing HB 464
[Version O].
CHAIR DYSON called an at-ease at 4:34 p.m. [End of Tape 02-20,
Side B; no testimony is missing.]
TAPE 02-21, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR DYSON called the meeting back to order at 4:35 p.m. He
announced that HB 464 would held over and that the committee
might hear additional public testimony on March 14.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee meeting
was adjourned at 4:37 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|