Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/10/2015 07:30 AM Senate LEGISLATIVE BUDGET & AUDIT
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Agenda: Public Input on School Funding Study | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
LEGISLATIVE BUDGET AND AUDIT COMMITTEE
March 10, 2015
7:33 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Hawker, Chair
Representative Sam Kito
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Cathy Giessel
Senator Click Bishop
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Vice Chair
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Pete Kelly (alternate)
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Mark Neuman (alternate)
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Lora Reinbold
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
AGENDA: PUBLIC INPUT ON SCHOOL FUNDING STUDY
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
JUSTIN SILVERSTEIN
Augenblick, Palaich and Associates (APA) Consulting
Denver, Colorado
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as a member of the consulting
team reviewing the Alaska educational funding formula mechanism.
JOSEPH REEVES, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards (AASB)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of the school
funding formula.
DAVID MEANS, Director of Administrative Services
Juneau School District
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of the school
funding formula.
MARK MILLER, Superintendent
Juneau School District
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of the school
funding formula.
LINCOLN SAITO, Chief Operating Officer
North Slope Borough School District
Barrow, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of the school
funding formula.
DAVE JONES, Assistant Superintendent
Instructional Support
Kenai Peninsula Borough School District
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of the school
funding formula.
DAVID PIAZZA, Superintendent
Southwest Region School District
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of the school
funding formula.
P. J. Ford Slack, Interim Superintendent
Hoonah City School District
Hoonah, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of the school
funding formula.
PEGGY COWAN, Superintendent
North Slope Borough School District
Barrow, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of the school
funding formula.
TODD POUGE, Superintendent
Alaska Gateway School District
Tok, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of the school
funding formula.
BOB CRUMLEY, Superintendent
Chugach School District
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of the school
funding formula.
MARY WAGNER, Superintendent
Sitka School District
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of the school
funding formula.
JACK WALSH, Superintendent
Craig City School District
Craig, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of the school
funding formula.
DAVID NEES
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of the school
funding formula.
LISA PARODY, Executive Director
Alaska Council of School Administrators
Alaska Superintendents Association
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of the school
funding formula.
DAVID HERBERT, Superintendent
Saint Mary's School District
St. Mary's, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of the school
funding formula.
ACTION NARRATIVE
7:33:32 AM
CHAIR MIKE HAWKER called the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee meeting to order at 7:33 a.m. Representatives Hawker
and Kito and Senator Hoffman were present at the call to order.
Senators Bishop and Giessel arrived as the meeting was in
progress. Also in attendance were Representatives Seaton and
Reinbold.
^Agenda: Public Input on School Funding Study
Agenda: Public Input on School Funding Study
7:34:00 AM
CHAIR HAWKER announced that the only order of business would be
public testimony on the school funding study.
CHAIR HAWKER offered an introductory explanation to the funding
study. He emphasized that this was not a budget hearing, but it
was required by the study of the state's funding formula, which
was being undertaken by the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee as a result of House Bill 278. He reported that the
legislature was directed to conduct two studies of the school
funding process, a micro approach looking specifically within
the formula to determine if it was still current and
functioning, and then a macro approach looking at the
methodology of the school funding formula. After comparing
these to other methodologies nationwide, it was essential to
determine if improvements were necessary for the formula. He
clarified that the testimony today would be directed at the
macro approach. He reported that a Request for Proposal (RFP)
had been issued for the macro study, the responses to this RFP
had been evaluated, and a contractor, Augenblick, Palaich and
Associates (APA) Consulting, had been selected. He reported
that APA Consulting in Denver, Colorado, had extensive
experience analyzing public education systems nationwide. He
shared that this contract included that the Legislative Budget
and Audit Committee "would hold a public hearing for the
purposes of providing members of the public an opportunity to
comment on the current Alaska K - 12 funding formula." He noted
that APA Consulting was listening to gather foundational
information pertinent to their work under the RFP on the funding
formula. He emphasized that this hearing was for discussion on
the actual funding formula mechanism, and it was not a budget
hearing or a forum to discuss school programs. He suggested for
anyone interested to submit written testimony, as well.
7:40:06 AM
JUSTIN SILVERSTEIN, Augenblick, Palaich and Associates (APA)
Consulting, explained that there would be up to 10 members of
APA Consulting working on the study. He reported that the
company had been founded in 1983 as an education consulting firm
focusing on school finance policy, although it had now expanded
to include the running of the Regional Education Lab for the
central states. He shared that APA Consulting had worked in all
of the states reviewing school finance issues and had helped
many states write their actual finance formulas. He stated that
they were interested in hearing the context surrounding the
current school funding system and its impact on the schools and
the school districts.
7:42:33 AM
JOSEPH REEVES, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards (AASB), paraphrased from a prepared statement, which
read:
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak
this morning. For the record, I'm Joseph Reeves,
Executive Director of the Association of Alaska School
Boards.
AASB represents school boards across the state, and
individually and collectively we have a keen interest
in any revisions to the K-12 foundation formula.
Alaska's foundation formula was created by the
legislature and has undergone numerous revisions.
Education is a cornerstone in Alaska's Constitution in
Article 7, Section 1 and provides a guarantee that ALL
of Alaska's children have access to a public
education. To meet this constitutional mandate the
foundation formula was designed to ensure that the
public education system would be available to those
children and that they would ALL be treated equitably.
It is a complex document taking into account:
• Numbers of students;
• School size;
• District cost factor or the cost of doing business
across our vast state;
• Special needs students;
• Vocational education;
• Bilingual students;
• Intensive needs students;
• Correspondence.
The mathematical computation through the formula is to
arrive at the Basic Need to deliver education in each
school district. The formula was designed to meet the
federal disparity test to further ensure equity across
all districts. To accomplish this, federal impact aid
distributed through P.L. 874 (or payment in lieu of
taxes) is taken into account. The formula recognizes
the importance of local support for public education
by including a Required Local Support (RLS) element
for those communities with a tax base. And as you
know, the Ketchikan Court has called this aspect of
the formula unconstitutional. Rather than eliminating
this important aspect of the formula, AASB supports
its retention in the funding formula.
Mr. Chairman, AASB encourages the Committee to ensure
the contractor adheres to a study process that
includes the following:
• The study be transparent and afford multiple
opportunities for stakeholder input.
• The study should use relevant data from all across
Alaska, especially when considering the District cost
factor.
• The studies should promote educational best
practices, and,
• Result in a formula that is equitable and provides
an adequate education for ALL of Alaska's children.
AASB members have adopted a total of 45 resolutions
pertaining to education funding at the local, state
and federal level. Of those, nine address issues that
directly relate to the foundation formula. I'm
including copies of those resolutions in the written
testimony I'll provide to the committee.
Specifically, the study should consider changes to the
foundation formula that include the following:
• At a minimum, the Base Student Allocation (BSA)
should be established at least one, and preferably
three years ahead;
• There should be appropriate adjustments to the
District Cost Factor to ensure equity in school
funding;
• Include a factor for Career and Technical Education
(CTE) outside of the block grant;
• Include an instructional technology factor;
• Insure partial funding for schools whose student
count drops to with seven to nine students for up to
two years;
7:47:08 AM
CHAIR HAWKER asked for further explanation to the distinction
for 10 students.
7:47:15 AM
MR. REEVES explained that the previous foundation formula had
designated this, pointing out that the funding formula allowed
for a school cost factor, except when the student count went
below 10, and then only each student in the school was counted
with no additional funding for school cost.
MR. REEVES continued:
Provide for funding of student transportation other
than via school bus.
Re-configuring Alaska's K-12 foundation program is a
daunting task. To make an informed report and final
decision, the contractors and the Legislature should
work in close proximity to Alaska's education
community. That includes our 53 school districts and
their boards of education. They are eager to be asked
their opinion and to help you do your work.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
7:48:27 AM
CHAIR HAWKER asked if this testimony format was working for Mr.
Silverstein and his associates.
MR. SILVERSTEIN replied that this was a good start for context,
and would allow APA Consulting to better align the different
points and concerns.
7:49:03 AM
CHAIR HAWKER reiterated that this was not an undertaking for a
re-write of the school funding formula, but was, instead,
testimony to allow the consultants to better evaluate the
funding formula, and perhaps make recommendations to the
committee.
7:49:39 AM
DAVID MEANS, Director of Administrative Services, Juneau School
District, shared that he had been a school business official in
two different school districts during the past 30 years, and had
been in this role when the current funding formula was adopted
in the late 1990s. He expressed his support of the current
funding formula in the broad perspective. He pointed out that
Alaska school districts were diverse in size of student
enrollment, wealth per capita, and geographical size and
accessibility, and that the funding formula had to account for
these diversities. He stated that the data needed to be
measurable, readily obtainable, and verifiable. He noted that
student enrollment and wealth each fit the aforementioned data
requirements. He declared his general support of the current
funding formula and suggested review of the funding for students
eligible for intensive needs funds under special education. He
reported that, as the formula was counted on the fourth Friday
in October, many students requiring services were moving in and
out of districts after the October count date.
7:52:51 AM
MARK MILLER, Superintendent, Juneau School District, shared that
he had spent the last three days with the best and brightest
educational minds in Alaska and he had not heard anyone say the
schools had more than they needed. He noted that, although the
levels of hurt varied from school district to school district,
the overall message was clear that schools were "all in a tough
spot." He acknowledged that the schools were aware this could
get tougher, but that they would all get through this together,
"because that's what we do in Alaska." He shared that the
concern surrounding the funding formula, and its proposed re-
write, was that it cannot and should not be a discussion to rob
one school district to pay another school district. He stated
that equity was often in the eye of the beholder, and was
extremely difficult to define geographically and regionally. He
offered his belief that the key to the formula was to allow for
stability in good times and bad times. He lauded the state for
putting aside funds during the good times, so there were funds
in the bad times. He declared that the formula had to offer
stability and equity.
7:57:20 AM
LINCOLN SAITO, Chief Operating Officer, North Slope Borough
School District, discussed his background in education since
1970. He offered his belief that the funding formula was
disturbing, and he suggested a review of the formula. He
reported that educators used to count their students by severity
of need, and that would generate the formula. He stated that
this had changed so that all the special education areas were
lumped together in a "1.2 factor times our ADM." Even at that
time, he knew this would impact rural Alaskans. He stated that
it had been a generous formula, and he declared that the formula
would make a difference "in who gets what and where it comes
from." He explained that changes were made and although the
rural areas did not see any change for the amount of funding,
they saw a change for its distribution. He encouraged a review
of the late 1980s before there was the third change in the
formula, and a comparison of the funding for the rural and urban
areas. He stated that there were a lot of needs that came along
with language and culture that "make for deficits in our ability
and our need to improve our teaching and to develop our
curriculum so that it's relevant so that we can turn on people
and not alienate people from Rural Alaska." He suggested to
look at where the money could come from as there was a "strong
feeling of injustice with impact aid." He stated that the
federal impact aid, issued because of the use of federal lands
in each taxable region, was used by the state and distributed in
the formula. He offered his belief that the federal government
and the school districts should have their relationship for
distribution of this impact aid and it should be left out of the
formula. He asked that this issue be studied by the
consultants. He expressed his concern for "the intensive needs"
as it was very expensive and it took a long time for the barge
to have open water to bring in materials and school supplies.
He stated that, as one intensive needs child was equal to eight
[other students], this was "a powerful piece of formula." He
expressed his agreement with earlier testimony regarding the
potential disproportionate funding with an October [student
count]. He offered his belief that the funding formula should
take into consideration these area differentials for special
needs students.
8:06:44 AM
DAVE JONES, Assistant Superintendent, Instructional Support,
Kenai Peninsula Borough School District, summarized his points
from a prepared statement:
Good Morning Chair Hawker and Members of the
Committee. My name is Dave Jones and I am the
Assistant Superintendent of Instructional Support for
the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District. Thank
you for this opportunity to comment on the current
Alaska state K-12 funding formula.
After spending nine (9) years in school finance
positions in Montana and Wyoming, I moved to Kodiak to
become the Director of Finance for the Kodiak Island
Borough School District in July of 1997. I moved to
the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District in October
of 2007 and am fortunate to continue in their employ
today. That means I testify in front of you today
with roughly twenty-seven (27) years of experience in
school finance, with close to eighteen (18) of those
years in Alaska.
So do we throw it all out and start over, or do we
keep what we have and do some additional fine tuning?
That seems to be the question before us.
To properly answer that question I think we need to
look at the history of our current K-12 funding
formula. It started with the 1998 McDowell "Alaska
School Operating Cost Study" and resulting
implementation of SB 36 as the new basis for
educational funding. The McDowell Group noted "This
study makes major advances in the objective
measurement of school costs and offers solutions that
result in progress toward equity".
Additional research and study followed and ultimately
led to the ISER "Alaska School District Cost Study
Update" in January of 2005. This led to the
Legislative Education Funding Task Force spending the
summer of 2005 in the Anchorage LIO instead of fishing
like the rest of us. (As you look around your
committee today, you should note that Representative
Mike Hawker Chaired that committee, Senator Bert
Stedman was the Vice-Chair and Senator Lyman Hoffman
served on that committee as well). Their work led to
the passage of HB 273 and I believe completed the
heavy lifting needed to adjust our funding formula and
continue our progress toward equity.
It took me awhile to get to the point, but I believe
we keep our existing funding formula and fine tune it.
With the time, effort and money we have already
invested we should retain it and continue to improve
it. We live in a unique and complex state, and we
should not be deterred by a unique and complex funding
formula.
I will suggest that the funding formula could use some
fine tuning in the following three areas:
Alaska Statute 14.17.600 Student Count Periods
The first area deals with the student count periods
found in Alaska Statute 14.17.600. School Districts
are funded for a fiscal year based on the number of
students enrolled for a 20-school-day period in
October which is already four (4) months into the
actual fiscal year. A districts largest expenditure
is teacher staffing which occurs with the offering of
contracts sometime during the spring depending on the
funding year. It is very disconcerting to have to
make such a large financial commitment prior to the
start of the fiscal year, and not know if we can
actually pay the bill related to that commitment until
we are well into the fiscal year in October.
One possible solution to this dilemma is to use prior
year student enrollments for funding purposes instead
of the current year enrollment. The State of Wyoming
uses this type of model. For any school year the
enrollment may be recomputed to allow for a
significant increase in enrollment during that school
year. A "recalculation" is allowed if during the
first 60 days of the school year the enrollment of a
district has increased by either 100 students or 10%
over the same time period during the previous school
year. There is no "recalculation' for a decline in
students which gives the districts time to plan and
budget for the decline.
Alaska Statute 14.17.450 School Size Factor
The second area for fine tuning I would suggest is a
minor adjustment to Alaska Statute 14.17.450 School
Size Factor. Section (b) reads as follows:
(b) If the ADM in a school is less than 10, those
students shall be included in the ADM of the school in
that district with the lowest ADM as determined by the
most recent student count data for that district.
The intent of Section (b) is to provide the district
funding associated with those students less than 10
since they do not qualify for funding as a separate
school. However, if the school with the lowest ADM
falls in the lowest category of "At least 10 but less
than 20", the district could receive no funding or
reduced funding for those students. To illustrate,
let's assume that a school came through the count
period with nine (9) students, and the school with the
lowest ADM in the District was at ten (10). The nine
(9) students would be added to the ten (10) students
for a total of nineteen (19) students. The combined
amount of students would fall within the "At least 10
but less than 20" category and would be given the same
base allocation resulting in zero funding associated
with the nine (9) students.
To correct this problem I would suggest that the
language in Section (b) be changed as follows:
(b) If the ADM in a school is less than 10, those
students shall be included in the ADM of the school in
that district with the lowest ADM of at least 20 ADM
or more as determined by the most recent student count
data for that district.
This change would assure that districts would receive
funding for those students that were less than ten
(10) and did not qualify as a school.
Alaska Statute 14.17.420 Funding For Special Needs
Alaska Statute 14.17.420(a)(1) reads as follows:
(1) Special needs funding is available to a district
to assist the district in providing special education,
gifted and talented education, vocational education,
and bilingual education services to its students; a
special needs funding factor of 1.20 shall be applied
as set out in AS 14.17.410(b)(1);
Prior to the 1998 McDowell "Alaska School Operating
Cost Study" and SB 36, for funding purposes, districts
individually identified students that fell into the
four categories listed in Alaska Statute
14.17.420(a)(1). SB 36 eliminated individual student
identification and instituted a 20% block grant to
provide for funding related to the four categories.
My concern is that since the passage of SB 36 in 1998,
KPBSD's general student population has decreased
significantly, but during that same time period, we
have experienced a substantial increase in the number
of special education students. From FY02 to FY13 our
total student enrollment dropped by 911 students for a
9.3% overall decrease. During the same time period,
our special education enrollment increased by 182
students for a 14.53% overall increase. It is my
understanding that these type of changes have been
similar for districts across Alaska.
I would hope that during their study, Augenblick,
Palaich and Associates (APA) could examine this area
and either validate or correct the 20% block grant
funding level.
I will be available to assist this body or APA as
needed or requested.
Thank you once again for this opportunity to provide
input.
CHAIR HAWKER clarified that the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee was gathering information and was not engaged in any
re-write of the foundation formula at this time; however, there
was nothing to prevent other legislators from undertaking the
opportunity to re-write the foundation formula.
8:17:48 AM
DAVID PIAZZA, Superintendent, Southwest Region School District,
stated that the education funding formula should contain a
factor for local contribution; however, the current method and
percentage of utilizing federal impact aid funds needs to be
studied and revised. He reported that 75 percent of impact aid
monies to the Southwest Region were held back for basic need.
He suggested that a factor for the operation of facilities
should also be considered, and it should be based on numbers of
buildings, square footage, and the age of the structures. He
relayed that the area cost differential should be studied and
re-calculated, as fuel prices, labor costs, and shipping costs
should all be considered. He offered an anecdote for the
overall cost for a teacher housing unit. He noted that,
although some communities had seen a drop in fuel prices, not
all the areas had benefitted.
8:20:26 AM
P. J. Ford Slack, Interim Superintendent, Hoonah City School
District, shared her recollections for the discussions about the
new funding formula from many years ago. She said that she
still found the funding formula to be very complex, similar to
the federal tax system. She suggested that the funding formula
be simplified, noting that this would especially help the small
school districts. She reported that she had formerly been the
Alaska Director of Special Education and she expressed her
agreement with the previous speakers that the issues for special
education students had greatly increased. She lauded the state
support to school districts with care for special education
students and personnel. She said that, although she had
experienced a decrease in the student enrollment, there was a
rapid increase in the special education population in the Hoonah
schools. She clarified that this was not from over
identification to special education needs, pointing out that
families had adopted special education students. She reported
that one-third of the student population in Hoonah was
identified as special education students, and this increase
required personnel that the school district did not have. She
directed attention to the infrastructure of the facilities,
specifically the mechanical infrastructure, stating that there
were many challenges to construction because of the various
weather patterns and systems. She offered an anecdote for the
maintenance in her school district. She acknowledged the
"intense and incredible support" from the larger school
districts for the smaller school districts in Alaska, and stated
a need for more collaboration within the formula among the
districts.
8:25:44 AM
PEGGY COWAN, Superintendent, North Slope Borough School
District, expressed her agreement that the formula was complex
and directed attention to a constant concern for travel within
the larger school districts, pointing out that the North Slope
Borough School District covered 89,000 square miles. In order
to provide the same opportunities and benefits as other school
districts, travel became a "big portion of our expenses." She
offered an example for student activities and professional
development for staff, noting that a weekend volleyball
tournament for seven small schools cost $50,000 for tournament
travel. She pointed out that this did not include the travel
costs for the other sports, even though the district did not
offer as many sports as other areas. She declared that sports
were an important opportunity and should be available for
students. She noted that Barrow High School had to go off slope
to play teams its size, and that the school district had to pay
for other teams to come play. She shared that the district had
had one district wide in-service for professional development in
20 years because of the travel costs. She noted how expensive
it was to fly in new teachers to the villages and to house them
in the rural areas. She directed attention to the expense for
broadband internet access.
8:30:49 AM
TODD POUGE, Superintendent, Alaska Gateway School District,
stated that within the more than 500 schools and 54 school
districts in Alaska, there were many opinions for the budget.
He expressed his support for the current funding formula, as it
met the needs for his district. He expressed concern for the
negative impact from any changes, and listed the changes for
which he had concern. He stated that any change in the school
size factor would be an issue, as his district had three
successful, community supported schools with fewer than 25
students. He opined that should a school close, often the
community "is not far behind." He directed attention to the
district cost factor, noting that his district encompassed
36,000 square miles, and that fuel, electricity, food, staff
training, shipping, and travel, all pieces of the district
budget, were more expensive in Rural Alaska. He suggested that
another factor in the budget should include low income students,
as more one star schools were in low income areas, and that it
takes more funding to bring the needs of low income students up
to receive an adequate education.
8:33:55 AM
BOB CRUMLEY, Superintendent, Chugach School District, offered
his belief that, from his small school district perspective, the
current formula was as equitable as possible and he offered his
support. He cited support for the aspect of the formula funding
schools with 10 or more students, noting that any increase to
this number would be devastating to his schools and communities.
He offered some suggestions to improve the formula, mentioning
that the time spent in application for impact aid was not worth
the small amount received and was therefore not beneficial for
participation. He stated that, as Chugach School District did
not receive any travel support from the state, it would be "nice
to have some support for travel." He declared district support
to increased funds for broadband, as there was a patchwork for
the communities. He explained that Special Education and
English as a Second Language (ESL) were "extraordinarily high
growth areas" in the district. He shared that deferred
maintenance for school properties was also an issue. He
expressed concerned with the ripple effect for any changes which
could leave them worse off than where the district was
currently.
8:38:02 AM
MARY WAGNER, Superintendent, Sitka School District, shared that
she was also a council member on the Alaska State Council on the
Arts. She noted that the current funding formula attempted to
account for equity through the cost factors, and, although
cumbersome, it was effective to meeting the equity standard.
She observed that there were "a lot of moving parts associated
with calculating the various cost factors which impedes
transparency." She suggested improvement for the areas related
to projected enrollment for the upcoming year, as it was due in
early November, which was too early to fully analyze the current
year student count. She suggested inspection of the current
year student count for trends in enrollment and for meaningful
conversations at the school board level regarding projected
enrollment for the subsequent school year. She pointed out
that, as the current timeline eliminated this possibility, the
district would pick a very conservation number to report to the
Department of Education and Early Development which then
impacted the funding allocated to public schools, and to her
district. She pointed out that the foundational element of the
school board budget was the student enrollment, and yet the time
line prohibited any time for any school board involvement. She
suggested the following areas to add to the current funding
allocation: technology, arts education, and student activity
funding, all of which were core to a quality educational program
and contributed to the inequity between districts. She declared
that these were important components in the discussion regarding
adequacy and equity in educational funding. She pointed to the
high cost for flying to and from Sitka, as there was limited
ferry service. She noted that any school classes missed due to
travel meant a reliance on technology to continue academic
progress. She stated that all of these cost factors were vital
to connect students to learning, while providing meaningful
education that prepared students for life beyond graduation, and
that, as each school district experienced vastly different
challenges, these factors were worthy of consideration.
8:42:09 AM
JACK WALSH, Superintendent, Craig City School District, stated
his support of the current foundation formula, and he
acknowledged that, as there were unique considerations in the
state, the formula tried to address equity and adequacy to
ensure quality and the needed services. He pointed to the
unique geographical and cultural components and he reflected on
the challenges to rural schools. He opined that it was
important to allow for adjustments to the average daily
membership (ADM) after the count period, especially in the areas
of intensive needs. He expressed support for the money set
aside for career and technical education, and suggested that
this could be expanded. He said that the state needed better
services in the areas of counseling and mental health. He
agreed that there was a need to think very carefully about small
communities and small schools scattered throughout Alaska, as
they made a big difference in the lives of families. He
suggested that raising the minimum student count in a school put
a lot of really significant schools and communities at risk,
noting that some of these were the highest quality schools in
the state.
8:47:27 AM
DAVID NEES shared that he had been a member of the recent House
Sustainable Education Task Force. He added that a giant cost
factor was that school districts had not been allowed to
consolidate, which would save money on staffing and
superintendents. He noted that there were almost as many school
superintendents as there were representatives and senators in
the legislature. He suggested a review of consolidation to see
if this would save money. He offered that the foundation
formula worked fairly well, but that the actual distribution to
the schools may require review.
8:49:34 AM
LISA PARODY, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School
Administrators, Alaska Superintendents Association, encouraged
the committee to continue to provide an open and transparent
process moving forward, and to seek input from the education
stakeholders. She offered support for consultation, and
declared that the council wanted to be part of that process.
She said that continuing to provide quality, distance education
programs and innovative education models particularly to rural
areas would require technology, broadband, and bandwidth.
8:51:54 AM
DAVID HERBERT, Superintendent, Saint Mary's School District,
opined that the current foundation formula, although not
perfect, was working as a fair and equitable method to
distribute education funds throughout the state. He expressed
his concern for modifications to the formula which may bring
serious unintended consequences with a negative impact on
education funding in Alaska. He declared that the formula had
been vetted over many years. He expressed his understanding of
the current economic conditions in the state, but urged the
state and the committee to be cautious for any modifications.
8:53:29 AM
CHAIR HAWKER closed public testimony. He noted that the
consultants would contact someone within each of the school
districts, and the committee would do its best to keep everyone
informed of the progress, as well as the opportunity to review
the critical preliminary benchmarks.
MR. SILVERSTEIN said that it was good to hear most testimony
that the formula was not in such disarray that it would be hard
to study. He said that APA Consulting had received some good
information to begin some targeted looks and that they would be
in touch with the school districts and the stakeholders.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO asked if the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee would receive a draft report or presentation before
the final report.
CHAIR HAWKER replied that this would be scheduled.
8:55:55 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee meeting was adjourned at
8:55 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Agenda_LBA_10Mar15.pdf |
JBUD 3/10/2015 7:30:00 AM |