Legislature(2011 - 2012)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/28/2012 08:00 AM Senate EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Center for Alaska Education Policy Research Proposal for a Study of School Finance in Alaska | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 28, 2012
8:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Senator Joe Thomas, Co-Chair
Senator Bettye Davis, Vice Chair
Senator Hollis French
Senator Gary Stevens
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: CENTER FOR ALASKA EDUCATION POLICY RESEARCH
SCHOOL FINANCE STUDY PROPOSAL
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
DIANE HIRSHBERG, Associate Professor of Education Policy
University of Alaska Anchorage
Institute of Social and Economic Research
Center for Alaska Education Policy Research
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented School Finance Study Proposal.
ALEXANDRA HILL, Senior Research Associate
University of Alaska Anchorage
Institute of Social and Economic Research
Center for Alaska Education Policy Research
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented School Finance Study Proposal.
LAWRENCE O. PICUS, PhD.
Lawrence O. Picus and Associates, LLC
Los Angeles, California
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented School Finance Study Proposal.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:07:02 AM
CO-CHAIR JOE THOMAS called the Senate Education Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:07 a.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators French, Stevens, Davis, Co-Chair Meyer and
Co-Chair Thomas.
^Center for Alaska Education Policy Research Proposal for a
Study of School Finance in Alaska
Center for Alaska Education Policy Research
Proposal for a Study of School Finance in Alaska
8:07:23 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS announced the business before the committee was
a presentation from the UAA Center for Alaska Education Policy
Research regarding a proposal to study school financing in
Alaska in coordination with Dr. Lawrence Picus. The proposed
study would try to determine how much Alaska should invest in
its schools and it would look at the strengths and weaknesses of
the existing system. He identified the presenters and summarized
their professional credentials.
8:10:14 AM
DIANE HIRSHBERG, PhD., Associate Professor of Education Policy,
Institute of Social and Economic Research, Center for Alaska
Education Policy Research (CAEPR), University of Alaska
Anchorage, informed the committee that several years ago CAEPR
did a small project attempting to apply Dr. Picus's model in a
rural school district. Since then they had talked about how to
expand the model across the state. This year seemed to be the
right time to propose this research to help the legislature,
governor, and state education leadership make more informed
choices about funding levels for schools and to inform best
practices for distribution of those funds.
The proposed study would have two parts as follows:
1. Estimate how much Alaska should spend to meet the K12
educational needs of its diverse population using an
evidence-based school finance model, modified to reflect
the state's unique characteristics and work previously
done, particularly by Ms. Hill. Experts and key informants
in the state will review that initial draft and provide
thoughtful feedback. The model would be revised based on
that data and taking into account a range of Alaskan issues
including salary differentials, energy prices and health
care that vary by district. The result would be estimates
of the cost of an adequate education under a range of cost
scenarios.
2. Work with experts in the state to identify areas where
economies of scale could help small districts be more
efficient. CAEPR will have conversations with district
fiscal and operations staff and department of education
staff to find areas where this is already happening and
explore options for more efficient spending in other areas.
DR. HIRSHBERG said CAEPR would then present the model to the
commissioner of education, the legislature, and the governor.
She said that the study could be done over the summer and be
ready to present before the next legislative session.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked Ms. Hill if she had anything to add.
8:16:29 AM
ALEXANDRA HILL, Senior Research Associate, Institute of Social
and Economic Research, Center for Alaska Education Policy
Research (CAEPR), University of Alaska Anchorage, said she was
available to answer questions.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked Dr. Picus to provide a synopsis of his
findings.
8:16:57 AM
LAWRENCE O. PICUS, PhD., Lawrence O. Picus and Associates, LLC,
said that for several years his company had worked with a number
of states to design school funding systems to allocate resources
with a focus on improving student performance. He said he had a
general understanding of the Alaska funding formulas but not the
specific details.
DR. LAWRENCE said the primary question that the proposed study
aimed to answer was if the base foundation amount and the
adjustments provide districts adequate resources to put in place
a program of studies that would give reasonable assurance that
children would be able to learn the material to the state's
standards. He said the model thinks hard about how to allocate
professional development funds and how to work with individuals
in districts to be sure there is an understanding of what each
district needs to help children succeed.
8:19:44 AM
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked if this study would be similar to the one
that ISER did about 10 years ago, and if she was aware of the
differences of opinion in the legislature this year on education
funding.
MS. HILL said the current proposal was very different from the
previous study. The earlier school cost study grew out of work
done by the American Institute of Research to build the current
foundation formula. A former ISER professor contracted to review
the study and he identified some issues that reflected a
misunderstanding of the Alaska context. ISER subsequently was
asked to reevaluate the data that went into the geographic cost
differential in the current formula. Dr. Picus's model takes a
bigger picture look, asking how much districts should spend and
how to make that determination.
8:24:17 AM
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked about how to measure the result of using
the proposed model.
DR. PICUS explained that he looks for studies that used
experimental design, educational research that used other study
designs, and successful teaching experiences to come to
conclusions about programs and ideas that work. The next step is
to organize a school to provide those resources, focusing on how
to use the people in the school. The number of teachers,
additional support personnel, the administrative structure,
dollar resources for instructional materials technology,
operations, and maintenance all go into the mix to determine the
cost for each school in the district. Add the district costs to
come up with a total cost for the state.
DR. PICUS said Alaska was unique but in terms of distances and
remoteness, it was similar to Wyoming where his company had done
a great deal of work. He discussed the work he did previously
with Dr. Lawrence and Ms. Hill.
8:30:50 AM
SENATOR STEVENS asked him to comment on the role of school
boards and the issue of combining small school districts in the
context of economies of scale.
DR. PICUS said he tries not to study or make recommendations
about the structure or organization of school districts. He
could show the estimated costs in each of the districts and then
it would be a state policy decision about whether to make
changes and if any substantial savings would result. Even if
districts were consolidated, there would still be the immense
issues of distance, geography, and remoteness.
Responding to a further question about economies of scale, he
said he was talking about the diseconomies of scale that come
with very small organizational structures, and that the model
has to adjust for those diseconomies.
8:36:17 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked if he uses specific measures of success.
DR. PICUS answered that he looks at the state performance
assessment results and at both high and low performing schools.
He looks for schools that are improving and scores that are
rising, because that is where to find how to allocate resources
and be successful. A number of schools in Alaska could probably
be used as examples to find the right combination of resources
that would work in Alaska schools. In looking at what the state
sets as standards, he measures test scores, dropout rates,
attendance rates. He acknowledged those are issues in many
districts in Alaska.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS commented that CAEPR had its work cut out.
DR. PICUS said he understood that another challenge in Alaska
was that many districts in rural areas had substantial teacher
turnover issues.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked if he had thought about distance education
in Alaska. He offered his belief that there were many good
teachers throughout Alaska and their classes could be
transmitted to areas that couldn't afford a broad range of
expertise on site.
8:41:30 AM
DR. PICUS agreed that technology made it feasible to offer
alternatives in small communities, but that for distance
education to be successful it was necessary to provide a
mechanism to ensure quality assurance. The department of
education or some other state agency could vet the programs to
ensure that they met the standards that Alaska had established
for the particular area of study. He acknowledged that he did
not know if all school districts had Internet access, but it
could be an issue.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS questioned whether young Alaska students living
in remote rural areas would find distance courses relevant if
they emphasized different cultural and regional characteristics
and used different terminology. For example, a child living in a
small village might not relate to the concept of a city block.
He asked Dr. Picus if he had run into that situation in the
Lower 48.
DR. PICUS answered no, but that circumstance someone in the
classroom would need to translate the concept to something the
students understand.
8:46:36 AM
DR. HIRSHBERG added that when the study was finished, CAEPR
would have a recommendation about what the funding level should
be. It would be a separate conversation to continue with
technical assistance and ensure that districts and schools used
the money as intended. With regard to the discussion about
distance education, she said there were other flexible models
such as short-term boarding programs where students could go to
hub communities for a few weeks to get an intensive course in
chemistry, biology, or physics, for example. She reiterated that
the current proposal focused on ways to distribute resources,
and it was a separate conversation to look at how the money is
actually spent in the districts.
She expressed hope that the study would lead to additional
conversations, and noted that the conversations were happening
because of the Moore Case settlement. She said that because of
the new standards, the timing was right to generate the link
between the resources and the innovative programs that would
help students achieve.
8:50:10 AM
MS. HILL addressed Senator Steven's question about economies of
scale. She explained that the second part of the study wasn't so
much about economies of scale by combining districts as
eliminating diseconomies of scale. She cited two examples. First
was placing one fuel order for three adjacent districts rather
than placing three orders. The second was making the state's
longitudinal data system available to all small districts to
input student data and extract needed reports.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked if they were aware of the Finland
experiment. That country decided to concentrate on its human
resources and make the people of Finland the best educated in
the world.
DR. HIRSHBERG said they had not looked at Finland as a model,
but they were watching how countries around the world approach
education in rural, remote, and indigenous communities.
Referencing earlier questions about engaging local communities
and making sure that the education was culturally responsive
while preparing students to compete in a global society, she
said Greenland was involved in national education reform. That
country has a goal that all graduates will speak Inuit, Danish,
and English and be able to choose what kind of lifestyle to
pursue.
She said the infrastructure in Alaska was getting better because
of companies like GCI, AT&T, and ACS. They should be part of the
conversation because they were critical in the effort to provide
quality distance education opportunities for students in the
smallest, most remote schools.
8:56:24 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked if the study would look at the physical
aspects of buildings.
DR. PICUS said that is an integral part of student learning, but
that would not be part of the proposed study.
SENATOR STEVENS asked how distance education fit into the
current programs. He said he'd heard many people say it was the
answer, but his belief was that students also need the
opportunity to have mentors and teachers in front of the class
who teach and serve as role models.
DR. HIRSHBERG said it was not a focus of the CAEPR research per
se, but the role of distance education versus in person
education was an important conversation in the realm of
technology in education. A mixture works best, and most K12
schools do not have distance learning without an adult on site.
She said she didn't know how schools like LKSD were
accommodating student questions about advanced courses that were
delivered online, but it did need clarification.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS thanked the presenters.
9:00:44 AM
Seeing no further business to come before the committee, Co-
Chair Thomas adjourned the Senate Education Standing Committee
meeting at 9:00 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CAEPR Alaska school finance proposal final.pdf |
SEDC 3/28/2012 8:00:00 AM |
CAEPR School Finance Proposal |
| Funding_Program_Overview_2012.pdf |
SEDC 3/28/2012 8:00:00 AM |
Funding Program Overview |