Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/15/2002 01:36 PM Senate 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
SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
March 15, 2002
1:36 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyda Green, Chair
Senator Loren Leman, Vice Chair
Senator Gary Wilken
Senator Jerry Ward
Senator Bettye Davis
MEMBERS ABSENT
All Members Present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 256
"An Act relating to the certificate of need program; and
providing for an effective date."
MOVED CSSB 256(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 345
"An Act relating to medical assistance for rehabilitative
services for certain children with disabilities; relating to
agreements to pay medical assistance for covered services paid
for or furnished to eligible children with disabilities by a
school district; and providing for an effective date."
MOVED SB 345 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 264
"An Act relating to a reimbursement program for municipal bonds,
notes, or other indebtedness incurred for school construction;
and providing for an effective date."
MOVED SB 264 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 346
"An Act relating to statewide school district correspondence
study and state supported home schooling programs."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 256 - See HESS minutes dated 2/4/02, 2/13/02, 2/20/02 and
3/4/02.
SB 264 - See Community and Regional Affairs minutes dated
2/27/02.
SB 345 - No previous action to record.
SB 346 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Mr. Eddie Jeans
School Finance Manager
Department of Education &
Early Development
th
801 W 10 St.
Juneau, AK 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated opposition to SB 264
Mr. Greg Maloney
Director of Special Education
Department of Education &
Early Development
th
801 W 10 St.
Juneau, AK 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 345
Mr. Bob Labbe
Director, Division of Medical Assistance
Department of Health &
Social Services
PO Box 110601
Juneau, AK 99801-0601
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 345.
Ms. Joan Franz
1569 Northfield Rd.
Fairbanks, AK 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Asked questions about SB 345.
Mr. Jon Sherwood
Division of Medical Assistance
Department of Health &
Social Services
PO Box 110601
Juneau, AK 99801-0601
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about SB 345.
Pauline Bennett-Gannon
1076 Willow Grouse Rd.
Fairbanks, AK 99712
POSITION STATEMENT: Asked questions about SB 345
Whitney Highland
Staff to Senator Leman
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about SB 346
Dr. Ed McLain
Deputy Commissioner
Department of Education &
Early Development
th
801 W 10 St.
Juneau, AK 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns about SB 346
Mr. Tim Scott
Family Partnership
3339 Fairbanks St.
Anchorage, AK 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated support on behalf of Glen Biegel for
Amendment 3 to SB 346.
Mr. Russ Bowdre
PO Box 1048
Delta Junction, AK 99737
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 346 but made suggested changes.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-19, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRWOMAN LYDA GREEN called the Senate Health, Education &
Social Services Committee meeting to order at 1:36 p.m. All
members were present. The first order of business to come before
the committee was SB 256.
SB 256-CERTIFICATE OF NEED PROGRAM
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN announced that a committee substitute (CS)
labeled as Version P was prepared to SB 256, as well as an
amendment.
SENATOR WARD moved to adopt Version P as the working document of
the committee. There being no objection, the motion carried.
SENATOR WARD moved to adopt Amendment 1, which reads as follows.
AMENDMENT 1
TO: CSSB 256(HES), Draft Version P BY SENATOR GREEN
Page 1, line 1, following "program;":
Insert "establishing a temporary moratorium on the issuance
of certificates of need related to certain types of
psychiatric beds for children and youths;"
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN explained that Amendment 1 expands the title and
tightens up the purview of the bill.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
Amendment 1 was adopted with no objection.
SENATOR WARD moved CSSB 256(HES) as amended from committee with
individual recommendations and its accompanying fiscal note.
SENATOR WILKEN objected for the purpose of clarification.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN informed Senator Wilken that Version P is an
accumulation of the issues discussed over the last several weeks.
SENATOR WILKEN removed his objection, therefore CSSB 256(HES) as
amended moved from committee.
The committee took up SB 264.
SB 264-MUNICIPAL BOND REIMBURSEMENT
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN explained that SB 264 is an extension of the
school debt reimbursement program that began in 1999. It sets
aside $113 million of additional money for which school districts
can bond. The state will participate at the 70 percent level
while the school districts will participate at the 30 percent
level. SB 264 contains $50 million for projects in Anchorage, $15
million for projects in Fairbanks, $13 million for projects in
Mat-Su, $10 million for projects in Kenai and $20 million for
projects in smaller school districts in organized Alaska. She
then asked a representative from the Department of Education and
Early Development (DOEED) to testify.
MR. EDDIE JEANS, School Finance Manager, DOEED, informed members
that this bill requires districts to get DOEED approval for
projects prior to getting voter approval. DOEED is opposed to SB
264 as it believes the legislature needs to look at a more
comprehensive funding package for school construction and major
maintenance that deals with all of the state's needs as
identified on DOEED's priority list. He offered to answer
questions.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN said that SB 264 does not preclude the
legislature from funding other projects through other mechanisms
as well. She noted that it is very difficult to maintain existing
facilities in high growth areas; this bill is designed to address
that need.
There being no further questions or discussion, SENATOR WARD
moved SB 264 from committee with individual recommendations and
its accompanying fiscal note. There being no objection, the
motion carried.
The committee took up SB 345.
SB 345-SCHOOL SERVICES FOR DISABLED STUDENTS
MR. GREG MALONEY, Director of Special Education for DOEED,
explained that SB 345 allows school districts the opportunity to
capture more Medicaid funds for support services provided to
students with disabilities that are Medicaid eligible. The
services include medical needs, school psychology, counseling,
occupational therapy, physical therapy, speech and language
pathology and other services for which school districts are now
responsible but for which resources are not always adequate.
MR. MALONEY gave the following background of SB 345. Medicaid
provides assistance for low-income individuals with medical
issues. Medicaid has not always been associated with education
but since the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act as amended in 1997 (IDEA '97), it was incorporated
as a payer of first resort. Since IDEA '97 took effect, a number
of cases have required schools to provide more medical services.
The medical services costs are typically expensive and put quite
a burden on school districts. The purpose of SB 345 is not to put
a process in place, but to give DOEED and the Department of
Health and Social Services (DHSS) the green light to go forward
and explore how such a program could work. He noted this bill
will help the state to capture significant resources; he expects
almost $8 million to be captured of which about $4 million would
be directly available to school districts. SB 345 will not
require significant general fund contributions - the only cost
will be for DHSS staff support to help implement the Medicaid
system. Once SB 345 passes, DOEED would continue to work with
DHSS, school districts and other stakeholders to design a system
that is easily managed, easily audited and provides the necessary
resources.
MR. MALONEY said that many states have already implemented
similar legislation. Alaska can learn from mistakes other states
have made so that this program does not become a burden on the
department but captures significant resources for school
districts.
1:46 p.m.
MR. BOB LABBE, Director of the Division of Medical Assistance,
DHSS, said he shares Mr. Maloney's view that this is an
opportunity to provide additional funding to the schools through
the federal portion of the Medicaid program at no additional cost
to the state. He cautioned, however, such a program will create
a significant workload. He implemented a similar program in the
State of Oregon in the late 1980s and learned from experience
that trying to bring a medical program into an education setting
requires that a number of issues be addressed. Clear policies,
good audit trails, and a system that is not burdensome on the
day-to-day work of the educational staff is necessary. DHSS and
DOEED are seeking, in SB 345, the authority to work on a design
that will be efficient and effective and allow the state to
capture the maximum dollars with the lowest amount of overhead to
the districts. He advised that there will a need for ongoing
quality assurance because these programs are subject to federal
and state review. He held that SB 345 provides a source of
revenue when school districts' costs are increasing. He noted the
working group has met with the federal agency about putting
together a plan.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked what process a school district will use to
implement this program that will stress the fact that if the
federal portion falls off, the funds will not become a State of
Alaska obligation.
MR. LABBE said the working group envisions that each school
district would have the option of participating and would sign a
provider enrollment agreement. One condition of participation
would be that districts would submit actual, individual claims
for individual children and provide matching funds to DHSS for
those expenditures. DHSS would pay the bill and receive the
state's matching share from the districts. Districts will have
additional administrative costs, maintain and submit records, and
determine whether a student is Medicaid-eligible.
MR. MALONEY said the cost of special education nationally, right
now, is estimated to be about $50 billion. The federal share of
paying for those services is about 16 percent, or $8 billion. In
this time of shrinking resources, SB 345 provides an opportunity
to capture additional federal resources that schools can use to
provide services without adding more burden to the state. It will
not solve the problem but will help. In talking to his
counterparts in other states, he learned the Medicaid piece has
become a significant portion of budgets in those states. SB 345
will also provide salaries for professionals that are hard to
find in Alaska, such as speech pathologists, school psychologists
and other related service providers.
MR. MALONEY said if SB 345 passes, DOEED and DHSS would work with
a consultant, with the Governor's Council on Disabilities and
Special Education, and with other stakeholders in the system to
come up with a process that is not overly burdensome but results
in a significant capture of funds. He believes the additional
services that can be offered will be worth the effort.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if the process became a matter of routine
after the program was in place for several years in Oregon.
MR. LABBE said there was an ongoing need for quality assurance.
One concern he has had is that the Office of Inspector General
recently did an audit of a district in Oregon that may result in
penalties. Because of high staff turnover, people will
continually have to be trained. The Oregon department of health
converted its policy role of development into a quality assurance
role and sent a person out to inspect records and make sure all
was working okay. He said that with health care issues, new
technologies create questions about what is covered and what is
not. He maintained there will be initial costs for staffing and
to pay a contractor to change computer systems to process claims.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN indicated that this program is voluntary so no
district will have to participate. She asked if districts with a
larger population are likely to participate without too much
thought while smaller districts will need more help as a program
such as this could have a major impact on personnel and budgets.
MR. LABBE said designing a system that is administratively simple
is key because if a full time position is necessary to handle
billing for one or two children, it won't be worthwhile.
MR. MALONEY said currently DOEED collects some Medicaid funds for
schools through a time survey, allowable under the administrative
portion of Medicaid. That will not change. He said as a new
system is developed, the rural school districts will be
represented in terms of how they can take advantage of this
system. Some states have third party billing systems or a third
party non-profit agency do the billing. In some small districts
in Alaska, a number of services are farmed out to other agencies
for the sake of efficiency.
SENATOR WILKEN noted that, according to the sponsor statement, 42
other states have already done this. He asked what happened in
Alaska that suddenly allows us to do that.
MR. MALONEY explained that a few years ago a study called
"Educaid" was done by a consultant from Oregon. That study was
about the current Medicaid system. The consultant determined that
with the available resources, funding available to districts and
a number of other factors, the best way to use Medicaid funds was
to use the time survey, which was then put in place. Since then,
with the advent of IDEA '97, there has been more allowance at the
federal level for incorporating Medicaid funds into special
education services and budgets.
SENATOR WILKEN asked if this process began with IDEA '97.
MR. LABBE clarified that a Supreme Court case in the mid 1980s
directed that state Medicaid agencies could not deny payment for
services provided to a child on an IEP solely because that child
was in the school setting. He noted that Mr. Sherwood worked on a
plan in the early 1990s but there was no interest in pursuing it
at that time. DHSS got involved in 1996 at the time when
consultants around the country were estimating this would cost
"zillions" of dollars. He said that over the last year there has
been renewed interest.
SENATOR WILKEN asked if the districts will have to submit lists
of eligible students and allowable services to DHSS.
MR. MALONEY said the student will have to be Medicaid eligible
and that certain services will be allowable.
SENATOR WILKEN stated:
"It says that [for] each dollar expended for these
covered services, the district would receive $1.50 so
for every dollar spent you get a 50 percent investment
so why the premium, why isn't it dollar for dollar -
why do you make $1.50 for every dollar spent?"
MR. LABBE said that basically Medicaid would be paying for
services that are already being provided with school funds only.
Districts will have to cover the match portion but then get the
federal portion. Right now the federal portion amounts to about
60 percent. He noted Mr. Maloney's point that this program will
allow districts to provide services that are inadequately funded
is a good one.
After some discussion about the amount that districts will be
reimbursed from Medicaid, SENATOR WILKEN pointed out that the
sponsor statement is incorrect as it appears that the district
will be reimbursed 160 percent when it will be reimbursed for the
federal portion, which is about 60 percent.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if transactions are traded or whether
checks are actually transferred.
MR. LABBE said the district would be expected to submit a claim
that would be processed and DHSS would write the district a
check. After that, DHSS would submit a claim to the federal
government - that claim rolls up all of Alaska's Medicaid
expenditures, it is not an item by item submittal.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN apologized to those who wished to testify on the
school funding bill from the Mat-Su LIO and said she did not
realize they had been waiting. She then took public testimony on
SB 345.
2:11 p.m.
MS. JOAN FRANZ asked when a child receives occupational therapy
within a school district and the district bills for the service,
what will happen in terms of services when the school district
uses a school function model. She explained that the occupational
therapist's role in a school district is limited compared to that
of an occupational therapist in private practice, rehabilitation
agency or in a hospital setting. She asked if that child could
also use the Medicaid funds to cover other services that the
district will not offer because it is limited to a school
function model.
MR. MALONEY said the money captured from Medicaid would go to the
district and the district itself would be responsible for
providing the services required for any student covered under an
IEP. If the district contracts services for an occupational
therapist, those costs, presuming the district and/or
occupational therapist was enrolled as a provider, could be
captured back or claimed under Medicaid. He advised that the
district may also choose to hire an occupational therapist to
provide that service. It will be an administrative decision on
the part of the district as to how it will provide the
occupational therapy.
MS. FRANZ repeated the role of an occupational therapist in a
school is limited by the school function model therefore the
occupational therapist would not provide a lot of the services
that an occupational therapist in another setting would provide.
She questioned whether receiving services through the school
district will limit that child from receiving comprehensive and
rehabilitative services that Medicaid was originally designed to
cover.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN said she does not believe the current system
will change, so that if a child can receive services from the
district, that will continue, and if the child receives services
from a private entity, that will continue. The only thing that
will change is that the school district can bill Medicaid instead
of using foundation formula money. She asked Mr. Sherwood to
address the question.
MR. JON SHERWOOD, Division of Medical Assistance, said if a child
currently receives any other medical service outside of the IEP
and is authorized to do so, SB 345 will have no effect.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN said her concern is that children might not
receive the full gamut of occupational therapy services they may
need because a child could not receive the private services from
an occupational therapist within the school district.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN said she believes her earlier answer holds, that
the child will continue to receive whatever he or she is
receiving now.
MS. FRANZ said that is her hope because the educational model
limits what kinds of services a child can receive in a school
setting as compared to the services a child could receive
elsewhere.
MR. MALONEY said that nothing in the bill would prohibit that and
the definition actually broadens the definition to include
students with disabilities. He added that school districts are
required to perform complete evaluations under IDEA '97 and
whatever services are required to allow the student to make
progress on the general curriculum should be provided. He said
he hopes there is not a big difference between what is being
provided in each setting and, if there is, that is something
DOEED can help the parent learn more about.
MS. FRANZ said there has been a big difference, in her
experience, because of the definition of what services are
considered to support a child within an educational setting as
opposed to the child's medical needs.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked Ms. Franz to contact Mr. Maloney to
discuss the matter.
MS. FRANZ said that equipment ordered through Medicaid for a
child is usually custom fit for that child and belongs to that
child. She asked how that will work through the school district.
MR. MALONEY said that specific regulations speak to ownership.
Generally, if the school purchases equipment, it remains the
property of the school unless there is a specific need to use the
equipment at home.
MS. PAULINE BENNETT GANNON, an occupational therapist speaking on
her own behalf, told members that the school function model of
occupational therapy focuses on the child's ability to be in the
school while therapy services are secondary. She noted that the
idea of charging Medicaid for school services has come up before
and she believes at one time, DHSS looked at having school
districts provide more medical services. She thought the plan was
to do a pilot project to see how that would work. She pointed
out that typically, when one bills for Medicaid services, for
intense, individual therapy that doesn't lend itself to groups.
One focus of IDEA '97 is to incorporate students with
disabilities into the classroom using special education staff.
She said she is not sure the same types of services are being
provided and could be charged to Medicaid. [Portions of Ms.
Bennett-Gannon's testimony were indiscernible due to transmission
problems.]
TAPE 02-19, SIDE B
MS. BENNETT-GANNON questioned whether this bill will expand the
role of schools beyond education.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN repeated that school district participation will
be voluntary and that this bill will simply provide another
method of funding.
MR. MALONEY emphasized that SB 345 will allow for a process that
will include stakeholders throughout.
SENATOR WARD moved SB 345 from committee with individual
recommendations and its accompanying fiscal note.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN announced that with no objection, the motion
carried. She then took a brief at-ease.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN called the committee back to order at 2:28 p.m.
and turned the gavel over the Vice-Chair Loren Leman. The
committee took up SB 346.
SB 346-SCHOOL DISTRICT CORRESPONDENCE STUDY
VICE-CHAIR LEMAN thanked the committee for sponsoring this
legislation. He noted DOEED has proposed regulations for home
school programs that are supported by statewide correspondence
programs. SB 346 deals with some of the more troubling aspects of
those proposed regulations. SB 346 is a companion bill to
legislation introduced by Representative James.
VICE-CHAIR LEMAN explained the bill as follows.
· Section 1 holds correspondence schools to the same
certification standards as charter schools regarding the one
year versus 10 year certification period;
· Section 2 clarifies that correspondence and home school
programs have the ability to set their own parameters for
monitoring students; and
· Section 3 confirms that school districts have the authority
to approve or disapprove correspondence curriculum
materials.
He pointed out that DOEED submitted a fiscal note that he finds
inappropriate. SB 346 essentially directs DOEED to not create
regulations for certain areas. DOEED has stated in its analysis
said that new regulations will not add any costs. He informed
members that the bill has a referral to the Finance Committee
where the fiscal note can be addressed.
MS. WHITNEY HIGHLAND, staff to Senator Leman, gave the following
details about SB 346.
· Section 1 requires correspondence study programs to get
DOEED approval once every 10 years. The current approval
requirement applies only to correspondence study programs
and is on an annual basis. In-district correspondence study
programs are not required to get DOEED approval at all while
charter schools are required to get DOEED approval every 10
years.
· The second portion puts in the hands of the local school
districts and parents, instead of DOEED, the decision about
how often students will be monitored.
· The third section allows the local school districts to set
up procedures for approving or disapproving the curriculum
and home designed courses.
SENATOR WARD asked if parents will also be involved in setting up
the procedures for approving or disapproving the curriculum.
MS. HIGHLAND said they will be.
VICE-CHAIR LEMAN informed members that he has three proposed
amendments to deal with issues that have come up in prior
discussions. He asked that the committee deal with the amendments
prior to taking public testimony as they may resolve a lot of the
issues that people might otherwise bring up.
SENATOR WILKEN said the back up material says the school district
that is sponsoring the statewide correspondence program decides
the interval at which the student will be monitored and decides
the content of the curriculum.
MS. HIGHLAND said that is correct.
SENATOR WILKEN said if a student is physically outside of the
school district, the school district becomes the school board,
yet the school board has no responsibility for a student who
resides outside of the district. He questioned how to resolve
that issue and asked for clarification of whether a school board
has authority only over students within its district.
VICE-CHAIR LEMAN asked DOEED to respond to that question but
asked members to deal with the amendments first.
SENATOR WARD moved to adopt Amendments 1, 2, and 3 and asked for
unanimous consent.
SENATOR WILKEN objected and asked that the amendments be adopted
individually.
SENATOR WARD withdrew his motion and moved to adopt Amendment 1,
which reads as follows.
A M E N D M E N T 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR LEMAN
TO: SB 346
Page 1, lines 1&2, following "study":
Delete [AND STATE SUPPORTED HOME SCHOOLING]
VICE CHAIR LEMAN told members Amendment 1 is a title change
amendment.
SENATOR WILKEN objected to the adoption of Amendment 1 and asked
for an explanation.
MS. HIGHLAND explained that Amendment 1 basically streamlines the
bill to include only correspondence study programs. Currently
home schools are classified by DOEED as correspondence study
programs and home schools are not defined in statute.
SENATOR WILKEN asked a representative from DOEED to address
Amendment 1.
DR. ED MCLAIN, Deputy Commissioner of DOEED, told members that
"home schooling" is referenced in the statute as one of the
allowable reasons for a student to not attend public school under
the compulsory education law. Additionally, DOEED regulations
state that correspondence study includes state-supported home
schooling. He noted that DOEED does not have a problem with
changing the title.
SENATOR WILKEN withdrew his objection, therefore Amendment 1 was
adopted.
SENATOR WARD moved to adopt Amendment 2, which reads as follows.
A M E N D M E N T 2
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR LEMAN
TO: SB 346
Page 2, lines 2-4:
Delete all material
Insert "(3) must provide that the school district conducting
the correspondence program has the duty and authority to
establish procedures for:
a. the purchase and use of correspondence
curriculum materials purchased by the school
district, and
b. approving and disapproving home designed
courses.
SENATOR WILKEN objected.
MS. HIGHLAND explained that Amendment 2 changes the bill to
include the phrase "to establish procedures," which parallels
current statutory language. It goes on to specify that school
districts have the ability to establish these procedures only in
regard to those materials that are purchased by the school
districts, not materials that are privately purchased by parents
in the home. It also states there will be a procedure in place
to approve or disapprove home designed courses.
SENATOR WILKEN asked a representative of DOEED to respond.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MCLAIN said he has two concerns about
Amendment 2 that pertain to whether it will conflict with other
statutes that speak to the authority of school boards. He
cautioned members that a preliminary legal analysis says that it
may indeed conflict because school boards have the statutory
authority to approve curriculum materials. It is not clear
whether that authority can be delegated. He said further analysis
is necessary.
MS. HIGHLAND indicated that the statute says that school boards
have the authority to establish procedures; Amendment 2 does not
change that because school boards will not be delegating the
authority to establish procedures to certified teachers.
SENATOR WILKEN said he will maintain his objection until DOEED
has clarified its position.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MCLAIN said he could share with committee
members the concerns raised by DOEED's legal counsel. He said it
is difficult to give the committee a resolution because the exact
intent of Amendment 2 is unclear. He said the statute he
referenced relates to the authority of school boards, and says
that school boards have the authority to approve curriculum and
materials. Amendment 2 appears to allow parents or someone other
than the school board to approve curriculum or materials, rather
than the school board. He asked for clarification, and said that
if authority of approval remains with the school board, he would
not feel cautious.
SENATOR WARD asked Vice-chair Leman to describe the intent of
Amendment 2.
VICE-CHAIR LEMAN replied,
The intent, as I understood it, was this parallels
language that appears elsewhere in statute. That's my
understanding. My understanding was that the school
board itself would be establishing these procedures -
would be playing a very active role in the approval or
disapproval. In other words, I wanted to clarify that
it was the school boards and not some overarching
structure, like the state board of education.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MCLAIN said there is nothing in the current
or proposed regulations or current statutes to say that either
the state board of education or DOEED want to decide on the
curricular materials. He noted that pieces of the regulations
specifically state that the district board must do that approval.
DOEED has received many letters from parents saying they would
prefer to make those choices without district involvement. He
remarked if people are simply saying they do not want the state
to make that choice, that was not the state board of education or
DOEED's intention. They believe that is a local school board
responsibility. He acknowledged that if the intent of Amendment 2
is to maintain local board approval authority, he misunderstood.
He repeated that his concern lies with the possibility that
changing who has authority will conflict with the existing
statute.
VICE-CHAIR LEMAN said it is his understanding that many parents
and some school districts are concerned with what they see as an
additional hurdle they may have to jump in the proposed
regulations regarding the use of some materials. The intent of
Amendment 2 is to clarify that.
2:47 p.m.
SENATOR WILKEN asked Dr. McLain to respond to his earlier
question about whether a school board has jurisdiction only over
students who reside within the confines of the designated
district.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MCLAIN said the statute specifically says the
local school boards' responsibility is to the students who reside
within their districts. He noted, in response to another question
about the differentiation between in-district versus out-of-
district programs, on the surface there is the issue of
representation, i.e., people outside of a district do not vote
for school board members. Some programs, such as Galena, have a
very active site council. Site councils are not currently
required for statewide correspondence programs. He remarked,
So then, we're still left with the more basic, which is
the one that is of interest, the department and the
state, and that is that when the bottom analysis is
looked at, the statute is very clear that the board of
any particular district - their obligation is to
provide for the very best education they can for the
kids in their district. My concern here would be that
these programs where they are serving kids outside of
the district causes what I believe is an inherent
conflict because as these dollars come to that
district, and they're charged with the responsibility
by that statute to design the very best programs for
the kids in, there could be a tendency to take funds to
minimize services to the kids outside in order to do
their legislative - what they're required to do, which
is provide the best.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MCLAIN said that when talking with a variety
of the people who are running these programs, one reason they
cited is that the program is not profit making but is fund
generating. If times got tough, money could be taken from one and
placed in the other.
SENATOR WILKEN recalled discussing that issue when working on
education reform some years ago. He said if he remembers
correctly, Alyeska Correspondence School was started years ago
because of the representation problem. He asked if it is the
Chair's intent to pass this legislation out of committee today
and expressed concern that this legislation "starts at the middle
or at the end." He recalled that two years ago, the legislature
funded a couple of positions to work with the correspondence
schools to get a sense of why enrollment increased from 2,000 to
9,000 students. Out of that came the proposed regulations that
have prompted this legislation. He suggested holding a work
session to hear about what DOEED found and why it came up with
the proposed regulations.
SENATOR GREEN said the cart is already before the horse because
the proposed regulations have received such high exposure and
response. SB 346 simply responds to that exposure and response,
not to the earlier study. She asked how the definitions of a
school district and a school board differ. She noted that funds
to a school district are controlled by the school board. She
asked if the language could be clarified so that it applies to a
school district under a school board.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MCLAIN said it may be that some of the
comments made about the proposed regulations actually apply to
the current regulations. One issue DOEED received many comments
about was the proposed regulation that requires the school
district to approve the curriculum and about the issue of secular
materials. He said regarding district approval, some people
understood the proposed regulation to say the state would do the
approval. He said he has tried to state as clearly as possible
that the state does not intend to do the approval; DOEED always
refers to the local board to do the approval. He said when he
heard Representative James' bill in a House committee, this
language was described as a way to allow for parents to make
those selections and by-pass the board approval process. He
indicated that many of the letters that DOEED received spoke to a
desire to have parents be able to choose without the board. That
is not an issue that pertains to the proposed or current
regulations and would not be allowed under current statute. He
said that DOEED has amended some of the proposed regulations,
which will be published in April. He feels the public comment
process has been a healthy one. He repeated that if indeed
Amendment 2 is not meant to say that the board will not be
approving, he would like that clarified because aside from a
policy issue, that would conflict would existing statutes.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MCLAIN commented that the Northwest
accreditation agency has said if this legislation means the board
will not be involved in approval, school accreditation could be
put at risk.
SENATOR GREEN asked what words in Amendment 2 are cause for
concern.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MCLAIN said, during the presentation of this
language before a House committee yesterday, staff explained that
this language would replace the local board's duty and authority
to approve or disapprove curricular materials for correspondence
programs. So, rather than the board approving or disapproving
correspondence materials, it would establish procedures for the
purchase and use of those materials.
SENATOR GREEN asked how Amendment 2 will eliminate the board's
authority.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MCLAIN replied in SB 346, the language of
subsection (3) on page 2, lines 2-4, says the school district has
the duty and authority to approve or disapprove correspondence
materials. He said he is assuming the school district is
synonymous with the school board. That would not be a problem.
His concern is that many people who commented on the proposed
regulations do not want the school board or school district to
approve curriculum materials. They, as parents, want that
authority.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MCLAIN said the language in subsection (3)
indicates that school districts would maintain the authority to
approve or disapprove. Amendment 2 removes approval authority and
simply requires the school district to establish a process for
purchase. It seems to imply that no one would be responsible for
approval of curriculum and materials.
VICE-CHAIR LEMAN said he believes Amendment 2 offer three
possibilities for purchasing procedures in 3(a): 1) the local
school board will approve the purchase of and use of these
materials; 2) the local school board may approve the use but not
the purchase of materials; or 3) the local school board will not
approve the materials as part of the curriculum but parents use
them anyway. He then said:
The (b) part - approving and disapproving home designed
courses, if they established procedures, they clearly
have the authority to approve or disapprove those home
designed courses. So, I don't know - my reading of it
is it shouldn't raise the red flags you have. I believe
the authority is still there at the local board level
to do those things but that is my interpretation of it
and I believe it's consistent with what you want to do
and where you want to go. And if I'm misinterpreting
the intent, I hope that somebody who is either on-line
and helped with drafting this can communicate
otherwise.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MCLAIN responded if (a) and (b) were
additions to the current bill, he would have understood it as
Vice-Chair Leman stated - that the boards are approving or
disapproving the correspondence materials and that they are
establishing procedures for the purchase and use of those
materials and home design courses. However, Amendment 2 removes
lines 2-4, which removes the authority to approve or disapprove.
MS. HIGHLAND pointed out that AS 14.14.090 lists the duties of
school boards and cited, "In addition to other duties, a school
board shall establish procedures for the review and selection of
all textbooks and instructional materials." She said she does not
understand Dr. McLain's argument because Amendment 2 merely
restates what is already in statute.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MCLAIN asked Vice-Chair Leman if it is his
understanding that the school district or school board would
still be approving or disapproving the curriculum and materials.
VICE-CHAIR LEMAN said yes, for materials purchased by the school
district. He reminded Dr. McLain that Amendment 2 would offer
three possibilities so that parents could use materials in the
third category, but those materials would not be approved or
supported by the district.
MS. HIGHLAND said her interpretation of the school board's
authority to establish procedures does not give the board the
explicit right to make the actual selection of the materials.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MCLAIN said from his conversations with
DOEED's legal counsel and the accreditation agency, he believes a
conflict would arise if the board does not
approve the curriculum and materials. If that is not an issue, he
asked that it be clarified and suggested placing Amendment 2 in
AS 14.14.090. He expressed concern that if this legislation
passes, it might be misunderstood by DOEED or the public because
he does not believe the current or proposed regulations require
additional oversight by the board in terms of curricular
materials. That has always been a board function and is stated in
the original bill.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MCLAIN added that in the Galena School
District's application, the district spoke specifically to the
fact that its materials are approved by the board and its
teachers are involved in the instructional process. Those were
key aspects of accreditation.
3:05 p.m.
SENATOR WILKEN asked Dr. McLain to speak to the procedure used
now in regard to purchasing secular and religious materials with
state money.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MCLAIN said DOEED attempted, in the
regulations, to find a way to allow parents the flexibility to
use and share with their students to the fullest degree possible
without letting DOEED fall into the trap or allegation of
establishment. DOEED tried to say the only piece the department
wants to be involved in through regulations are those parts
associated with public funding, which would be four courses, the
required amount to be a full time student. Parents whose children
have a full array of educational experiences would identify those
four courses that are not in question. He then said:
I appreciate that Senator Leman's laying out the three
different - and so I would simply, as a pragmatist, say
then for those that are questionable, first off you may
not even - you may have four that aren't questionable
so go with those for the full funding and then you're
out of the woods. I use the example of students in
brick and mortar who have a variety of experiences that
they take outside of the brick and mortar school and
then for some of those they apply for transfer credit
or they apply to have those reviewed for credit or they
don't bother with them for credits. They are just
intrinsically worthy of learning and they are
worthwhile in themselves. So that's the second way that
those things can be done. Every district, whether it's
a Galena or a Nenana or an Anchorage or a Kenai, has
ways for students who have taken a course, even of a
religious nature, and be able to get credit for it.
That can occur. We wanted to facilitate that.
What Galena does, in the current piece that really
makes it work for them, is they have approved
curriculum that are up there on the web that anybody
can go and look at and so the example that was used was
if a student or a parent was taking Algebra 1, then
what's being taught is Algebra 1. It is not my concern
what that book is back at the home that the student may
be using as long as we haven't paid for it. But what is
being taught to, what's being addressed - and what I
think is very clean, is this district approved
standards based curriculum that anybody can go and look
at that says Algebra 1. So when the kid is asked the
question what is 2X + y = 7, they can talk through all
of that. It is of nobody's concern what else is on
their page that that piece is printed because we are
only talking then about the secular course, the secular
curriculum that is up there.
What I worry about, and they're protected because that
is a district-approved curriculum, that is the same
curriculum that is out there for anybody else in that
district. It is a nice clean way of everybody being
able to get what they need and not run afoul and not
have to be out there on thin ice. What I worry about
when it appears that we're removing the district
approval of the curriculum out of here is that we're
getting back into thin ice and I would just caution - I
do want to see these innovations continue. I do want to
see these options for our students and I think that I
understand Senator Leman's concerns, I'm just trying to
figure out how to be able to address those without
getting us into those challengeable areas.
VICE-CHAIR LEMAN commented that he offered these amendments up
front thinking it would make things easier, however they are
bogging down the committee.
SENATOR WILKEN asked if Amendment 2 creates any problems
regarding a school district approving or disapproving home design
courses or correspondence and curriculum materials that run afoul
of AS 14.03.090 - the prohibition of partisan, sectarian, and
denominational doctrines, or our standards based education
system.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MCLAIN said he would be listening for the
intent because he assumes that should this legislation pass,
correspondence schools will still adhere to the other statutes.
He repeated that if the intent is that boards approve curriculum
and materials, he would not be uneasy but he would still prefer
that it be placed in AS 14.14.090.
SENATOR WILKEN said it seems like everyone is in agreement and
that the problems lie with the wording. He asked that Amendment 2
be reworked and brought before the committee again.
SENATOR WARD moved to withdraw his motion to adopt Amendment 2
and asked for unanimous consent. There being no objection, the
motion carried.
SENATOR WARD moved to adopt Amendment 3, which reads as follows.
A M E N D M E N T 3
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR LEMAN
TO: SB 346
Page 2, line 5&6:
Delete all material
Insert "(b) In this section, "statewide school district
correspondence study program" applies to Alyeska Central School
and charter schools and school district correspondence programs
that enroll students statewide."
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MCLAIN informed members that DOEED has no
objection to Amendment 3.
VICE-CHAIR LEMAN announced that with no objection, Amendment 3
was adopted. He then took public testimony.
TAPE 02-20, SIDE A
MR. JIM FOSTER, Assistant Superintendent of Galena City Schools,
clarified that a school district must do all of its business
through the local school board. The problem with DOEED's proposed
regulation is that it drops two words off of the current law,
those being "establish procedures" in regard to the school
board's authority. Therefore, instead of establishing procedures
for the review and collection of materials, one could read this
to say the school board individually must review all of the
curricular materials, instructional aides, and anything else used
in the teaching process rather than ensure that the district
follows procedures established by the board. Other than that,
Galena City Schools stands in support of SB 346.
VICE-CHAIR LEMAN asked Mr. Foster to take a look at Amendment 2
and send his comments.
MR. TIM SCOTT, Family Partnership, informed members that Glen
Biegel, legal counsel to Family Partnership, was going to state
support for Amendment 3 but had to leave.
MR. RUSS BOWDRE, testifying via teleconference from Delta
Junction, said he is in support of SB 346 with a few changes. He
said he has no problem with the amendments. He referred to page
2, subsection (3), and said he would prefer the board to have
that duty, rather than the district, and to insert the words
"state funded" before "correspondence" on line 3.
There being no further testimony, VICE-CHAIR LEMAN announced that
SB 346 would be brought up again on Monday.
SENATOR WILKEN asked that DOEED look at the book, Rainbow
Resource Center, and asked what will change if the new
regulations go into effect. He said he would like to know what
the old law versus the new law will do to students in the state.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN announced the committee would meet on Monday to
take up SB 346. She then adjourned the meeting at 3:19 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|