HOUSE BILL NO. 16 "An Act relating to funding for school districts operating secondary school boarding programs and to funding for school districts from which boarding students come; and providing for an effective date." EDDY JEANS, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION SUPPORT SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, spoke of Resolution 0125 from the state Board of Education in support of HB 16. He reported on the number of small boarding schools and their enrollment. He related an example from Nenana regarding the hold-harmless provision, which is a stopgap while the pilot program is in place. Vice-Chair Stoltze asked how many schools are involved. Mr. Jeans responded that there are three. Representative Hawker questioned the need for a requirement that all students go to a boarding school. He wondered about the overriding policy that fewer than 10 students are not viable. Mr. Jeans responded that he does not want to see communities left out. 2:10:21 PM Co-Chair Chenault asked how long before it is no longer a pilot program. Mr. Jeans reported that the program is not in effect right now. The three schools are currently generating resources to support themselves. The bill allows DOE time to gather information about how to deal with boarding schools. Representative Kelly voiced a concern about going below 10 students. He said he supports the boarding school concept and the test period, but not beyond that. He suggested that boarding schools need to have high caliber discipline plans like in Galena. He referred to page 2, line 4, and said he wants to have parents involved. He stated opposition to line 2. Mr. Jeans related that the per-pupil stipend mirrors a current program already in place regarding airfare. Stipends on the spreadsheet that support the fiscal notes are the same as currently in place. They do not add up to 100 percent. Representative Kelly suggested that parents pay all of the stipend. 2:17:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, sponsor of HB 16, agreed that the government should not hold the costs. Under the bill the stipend would cover about 1/3 of the costs. He agreed that the benefit to Alaska is great. He requested support for the bill. Representative Joule spoke of a personal experience with boarding schools and his family. He said he is very pleased to see this bill, but noted that it is not a broad enough look. He suggested that the state step up to the plate to help. He spoke of regional learning centers and how they contribute to communities. 2:24:23 PM Vice-Chair Stoltze related a personal story about a family growing up poor. He asked if students could work off their stipends. Mr. Jeans replied that DOE does not regulate tuition amounts. Nenana has scholarships to help families. Representative Coghill added that families could work for the tuition in Nenana. Representative Hawker pointed out that taking the $1.2 million fiscal note and dividing it by 231 students arrives at a per student cost of $5,311. He noted that the language that says the stipend should be determined by the department on a regional basis is troublesome. He suggested that it be more specific. Mr. Jeans responded that the boarding home program has been in regulation since 1985, and costs have remained at about $185,000 for five years. He opined that the department has not abused the stipend. Mr. Jeans explained that there is statutory authority to operate this program. Representative Hawker read from the statute about who is eligible to claim costs incurred from the per pupil stipend. He interpreted it to allow anyone to run their program as they want. 2:31:10 PM Representative Coghill replied that was not the intention, nor the practice of the department. He said he was open to suggestions. Representative Foster commended the Rasmuson Foundation for the grant. Mr. Jeans replied that he did not know the dollar amount of the grant, but it accompanied a business plan. Representative Weyhrauch asked what the State Board of Education is doing to develop policies for boarding schools. Mr. Jeans said the board has not developed policies, but does support this pilot program. All three of these school districts started the programs on their own, and the board passed a resolution and found them worthy of a second look. He explained the evaluation system. 2:35:51 PM Representative Hawker asked if there is a defined public program. Mr. Jeans replied only the three boarding schools that are currently operating are eligible: Galena, Nenana, and Bethel. Representative Hawker observed that there is nothing that shows what will be had because of this program. He inquired about the pilot project. Representative Coghill replied that the purpose of the pilot project is to evaluate whether to participate in boarding school programs at this level. Student access, career moves, and No Child Left Behind Standards will be used to evaluate success. Representative Hawker spoke against open- ended commitments. He asked for accountability and a definition of a work product. He concluded that funding is important, but it needs missions and measures. 2:40:47 PM Representative Coghill explained there are ways to measure progress. He noted that this is part of the question, "Can we do it better?" Vice-Chair Stoltze pointed out that that charter schools need to display credibility, also. Missions and measures are already in place. Representative Coghill explained that he did not mean to disparage charter schools. 2:45:31 PM Co-Chair Meyer concluded that there would be some measurements of success, such as benchmark exams. Representative Weyhrauch WITHDREW Amendment 1. Representative Weyhrauch MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2: Page 2, line 17 Delete "2010" Insert "2006" Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion. Representative Weyhrauch explained that Amendment 2 would provide an earlier sunset date for the legislation. Representative Coghill stated that he would like to see a five-year period before a review. He estimated that there would be discussions during the entire five years. Representative Joule point out that budget subcommittees raise the issue of how programs are doing every year. He felt that the current process would allow sufficient review. He spoke against the amendment. 2:49:50 PM Co-Chair Meyer questioned if the department would be able to provide a report in 2010 regarding school performance. Mr. Jeans stated that it would be their intent to provide the State Board of Education a report detailing performance statistics on a yearly basis. Representative Weyhrauch WITHDREW Amendment 2. Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. Representative Hawker maintained an objection to the idea in the amendment. He reiterated that the there are no clear expectations outlined in regards to the pilot program. He expressed concern with the lack of accountability. Representative Hawker said he would not object to moving the bill out today. 2:52:23 PM Co-Chair Meyer reiterated that there would be means and standards to measure the return of the programs. Representative Holm noted that there are several intangibles. Co-Chair Meyer agreed. 2:53:31 PM Representative Kelly agreed with Representative Hawker about accountability. He stressed that schools need to demonstrate what they are replacing and that the schools are performing. He maintained that there should be high performance measures in terms of graduation rates and GPA. He stressed there should be better returns than "average". Co-Chair Meyer agreed that there is concern that the state's money be well spent. 2:55:35 PM Representative Coghill agreed with the need for accountability. Communities have reached into their pockets to go the extra miles. Students and parents have made sacrifices. He urged the Committee to step up to support boarding schools. Boarding schools have the same requirements as other schools. He questioned why boarding schools should have to outperform other schools. Representative Kelly clarified that there should be a measurement of improvement from the local school the student left behind. 2:58:25 PM Representative Hawker clarified that he is not asking boarding schools to outperform other schools. He reiterated the need have performance measures. Representative Foster MOVED to report HB 16 out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. HB 16 was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal impact note #1 by the Department of Education and Early Development. 3:01:03 PM