02/03/2005 11:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview of Education in Alaska | |
| HB30 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 65 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
February 3, 2005
11:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Bill Thomas
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Les Gara
Representative Woodie Salmon
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW OF EDUCATION IN ALASKA
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 30
"An Act making appropriations for K-12 education operating and
school debt expenses; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 65
"An Act making special appropriations for the support of K-12
public education in the state; and providing for an effective
date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 30
SHORT TITLE: APPROP: K-12 EDU OPERATING/DEBT EXPENSES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HARRIS
01/10/05 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/04
01/10/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/10/05 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
02/03/05 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
ROGER SAMPSON, Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview of education in
Alaska.
TOM WRIGHT, Staff
to Representative John Harris
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsored HB 30 and presented it to the
committee.
EDDY JEANS, Director
Finance Department
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided the changes necessary so that HB
30 reflects the actual budget request.
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards (AASB)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 30.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR MARK NEUMAN called the House Special Committee on
Education meeting to order at 11:04:41 AM. Representatives
Wilson, Gatto, Thomas, and Salmon were present at the call to
order. Representatives Lynn and Gara arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
^Overview of Education in Alaska
CHAIR NEUMAN announced that the first order of business would be
the overview of education in Alaska.
11:06:22 AM
ROGER SAMPSON, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), explained that the "first initiative" is
tiered performance-based certification for Alaska teachers. He
said the system includes a performance component for those who
are newly seeking licensure to teach in the state of Alaska.
Furthermore, the [tiered performance-based certification] system
will [ensure that the teacher] understands his or her content
and can effectively deliver it. Moreover, there is the desire
to use research and best practices for recency and relicensing
purposes. He informed the committee that [the department] also
wants to simplify the over 20-year-old system.
MR. SAMPSON referred to the slide in the power point
presentation entitled, "Tiered Certification in Alaska: An
informational summary of the proposal to be opened for public
comment". This slide shows the current system and illustrates
that the proposed regulations do not impact type B or C
certificates, only type A teacher certificates. He explained
that the parenthesis behind these various types of type A
certificates specify the amount of time an individual under the
current system could have that type of license, which is one to
three years. The aforementioned is important to note when one
reviews the new tiering. Therefore, the [proposal] is to go
from type A certificates that are quite large in scope to three
types of licenses.
11:09:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether a provisional license for two
years includes the temporary [license] for one year, and
therefore is provisional for one additional year, or is the two
years in addition to the temporary license.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON answered that it would only be one
designation and thus it wouldn't be the total of both.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked then if a person could have a
provisional certificate and be in his or her third year.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON replied no.
11:09:50 AM
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON said that under the proposed system there
would be three tiers, three categories. This, he clarified, has
nothing to do with the Public Employees' Retirement System
(PERS) and the Teachers' Retirement System (TRS). The tiers are
identified as follows: tier 1 - initial, tier 2 - professional,
and tier 3 - master. Under the initial tier there is a
performance component and for each tier a demonstration of
knowledge [is required]. He reiterated that types B and C are
not impacted by these regulations. He then provided the
committee with a visual of what the certification columns would
look like, and highlighted that tier 1 is valid for three years.
Under this proposal everyone new to the state or with incomplete
requirements would be placed in the initial tier and have three
years to meet both the statutory and regulatory requirements.
The belief, he opined, is that this will increase the pool of
applicants. Tier 2 professional only has one change to the
current system such that the department or the state would have
the ability to identify what three of the six renewing credits
would be so that either the [state or the department] could
apply new research or best practices. Tier 2 is valid for five
years and a teacher could stay there for his or her entire
career. Tier 3 is the top tier and is valid for 10 years.
Commissioner Sampson explained that in order to move from tier
1, the initial tier, to the next tier, the teacher would be
expected to have completed Alaska multicultural studies, pass
the content examination, and sometime during that three-year
period of initial licensing the teacher will have to be able to
effectively deliver his or her content and expertise. The
aforementioned is the performance review. He noted that many
teachers in Alaska come from a different state and thus have not
completed Alaska studies.
11:12:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if a teacher from another state would
be able to substitute another state's multicultural credits for
the Alaska multicultural credits.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON informed the committee that there are 66
different multicultural courses that have been approved over the
years to fill that need. He explained that the department
reviews the course syllabus and the specific statutory
requirement makes sure that perspective candidates coming to
Alaska understand the diversity of rural and urban Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether people from Southern
California or Arizona who know quite a bit about diversity would
still have to meet Alaska's multicultural standards even though
they are very comfortable with the subject content.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON specified that the experience has been that
individuals coming into the state to teach need to take one of
the many Alaska courses in order to meet that requirement; only
rare exceptions have been made.
11:14:26 AM
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON turned to tier 2, the professional tier.
He explained that when it comes time for all of the existing
regular type A certificate teachers in Alaska to renew their
certificate, they would be dropped into tier 2, professional
tier. Therefore, those teachers would not have to meet the
requirements from the initial tier, tier 1, at any point in
their career. Therefore, existing regular type A certificate
teachers in Alaska would go to tier 2 and could stay at that
tier for their entire career, if they chose, just by meeting the
recency requirements. Commissioner Sampson highlighted that
there has been considerable concern regarding how to get all of
the teachers in Alaska to meet the federal criteria of highly
qualified under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). He
expressed concern with those teachers who are teaching multiple
content areas because the federal requirement for highly
qualified states that a teacher must have a major in the areas
in which he or she is teaching or pass a specific content
competency exam for each content area. However, some of those
exams aren't even available for Alaska because there isn't a
large enough population taking the exams to develop a cut score.
Therefore, each state is allowed to also have an instrument
called the HOUSSE (highly objective uniform state standards of
evaluation) in which credit is given for experiences that
teachers have had, such as working on curriculum development and
teaching for a certain number of years. He noted that the
department has been able to work with the US Department of
Education to establish a very high point value for completing
the performance review part. Therefore, Alaska has a huge
advantage because a teacher could meet the federal definition of
highly qualified through the performance review. Additionally,
a teacher would also be eligible to move to a master tier if he
or she scored very high on the performance review.
11:17:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if the federal government has
approved this [performance review, HOUSSE].
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON replied yes, but reminded the committee
that everything that has been done to this point is subject to
each state's site review, which is staggered between this year
and the next three years. He specified that everything that in
the accountability workbook will still be subject to review,
although everything in the [department's] accountability
workbook has been tentatively approved.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON surmised then that the federal government
is going to come to Alaska to observe and determine whether what
is in place meets the federal criteria.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON said, "That's correct." Therefore, each
state will go through an alignment review to make sure that
states are doing what has been approved with their
accountability workbook. Although some states will receive
their alignment review as early as this year, Alaska does not
have a date yet.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if a new teacher to the state could
get busy and reach tier 1 in one year.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON responded yes, and noted that this is a
performance-based system. In further response to Representative
Wilson, Commissioner Sampson explained that if a teacher has not
met the criteria during the three active years of [teaching],
that teacher would not be eligible to stay in that tier. "They
would not be eligible for a license," he specified. Therefore,
a new teacher to the state who didn't qualify after three years
would not have a license to continue. The aforementioned is
similar to the current situation in which teachers new to the
state have two years to complete multicultural and Alaska
studies, and if they don't complete those, they're not eligible
for a license.
CHAIR NEUMAN related his understanding that these [proposed]
changes in certification are to being done to bring state
schoolteachers in line with NCLB regulations.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON replied, "That's not correct, necessarily."
He highlighted that there is a positive benefit that with this
system, the department could help many teachers meet highly
qualified criteria that is required by NCLB. However, it's not
the primary purpose of this set of regulations for teacher
certification.
11:21:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked if the HOUSSE standards are the
answer, leeway from the federal government, for the problem of
teacher qualifications in Bush schools.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON replied yes, but added that it's not an
effective tool because it highly favors teachers with a great
deal of experience not those with only two or three years of
experience.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA surmised then that until there is some sort
of waiver from the federal government, the state is in violation
in some of the smaller schools where there isn't a teacher who
is highly qualified in math, science, social studies, and
languages.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON informed the committee that the state has
until 2006-2007 for districts to come into compliance on all the
highly qualified components. Initially, Alaska was alone in
regard to its rural issues and finding a different way to come
into compliance on all the highly qualified components.
However, now Alaska is receiving tremendous support from other
states that are experiencing similar difficulties with teachers
who work in resource rooms with children with disabilities
because they often teach five and six content areas.
11:23:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked whether a statutory fix for NCLB is
necessary or is there leeway in the statute to accommodate those
concerns.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON opined that the department believes a
statutory or federal regulatory change in NCLB is necessary.
11:24:16 AM
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON continued with tier 3, the highest in the
tiered system. He informed the committee that there are three
ways to get to tier 3. First, one can become nationally board
certified, which is a very rigorous program. There are only 53
teachers in Alaska who are nationally board certified, which
normally takes one to two years and is quite expensive. Second,
a teacher can reach the master tier by scoring very high on the
performance review process. He explained that there is a
possible score of six points on each of the nine performances
and to move to the master tier one has to score a five or higher
on each of the nine performances. If another national
certification process comes about and the department approves
it, [the department] would want that path available for teachers
to reach that master tier.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON highlighted that if these regulations
become law, the department is not suggesting that a performance
review is of the same rigor as national board certification.
However, the department believes that both, for licensing
purposes, are acceptable.
11:26:07 AM
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON reminded the committee that tier 3 is valid
for 10 years and a teacher could remain in that tier by meeting
the renewal requirements through the same process that got that
teacher to that point. He then informed the committee that when
existing type A teachers, of which there is a huge majority in
the state, renew their certificate and proceed to tier 2, they
will never have to do the performance review unless they so
choose. Commissioner Sampson explained that if a teacher's
current certificate is due for renewal in March 2005, these
regulations would not have been adopted and the teacher would
apply under the current system and his or her certificate would
be good until March 8, 2010. However, if these regulations are
adopted in June, July, or September, it would not be until March
of 2010 that the aforementioned teacher would drop into this new
system. Furthermore, that teacher would have five years to meet
any of the requirements for that and thus it would not be until
2015 that any of those requirements applied to that teacher,
technically. He reminded the committee that in tier 2 there is
nothing new for [a certificated teacher] to meet except that the
department might identify three of his or her six recency
credits.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON informed the committee that educators from
around the state came together months ago and started with a
document that is the Alaska teaching performance standards,
which includes many characteristic traits and skills that the
department believes effective teachers ought to have. Those are
identified in the Alaska Professional Teaching Standards. In
narrowing those down, the department reviewed whether those
skills, characteristics, and traits were observable and
measurable. From that the hundreds of skills and traits were
narrowed down to about 20 or 21. Those were then narrowed
further after review as to whether the remaining skills and
traits were measurable and observable in a short amount of time,
such as a 45-minute observation. The remaining skills and
traits were narrowed further regarding whether these skills are
generic to the course and the age of the students. He explained
that the aforementioned is referring to whether these skills are
desirable for teachers who teach high school, kindergarten, and
middle school teachers teaching science to band. When the
aforementioned parameters, which are generic to age and content,
were placed on the proposed skills and traits there ended up
being only nine performances of which only eight were designed
to be captured in an observation because one of them is
professionalism. There is no expectation that in a short amount
of time one could determine whether a person is demonstrating
professionalism. The eight performances came from the following
categories: planning and preparation; environment of learning;
instructional implementation; and professionalism.
11:30:39 AM
CHAIR NEUMAN opined that some of these [performance]
requirements might be beyond the teachers' control.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON said the committee didn't think so and
tried to be sure that the [performance requirements] were about
instruction rather than age or size of classrooms.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO commented that the strategies could be
entirely different depending upon the location, size of the
class, and subgroups of the class. What is being reviewed is
how well a teacher performs in the situation with which he or
she is presented.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON agreed, and added in order to obtain an
accurate assessment there should be information regarding the
classroom description and its demographics. Furthermore, during
a 45-minute observation in a kindergarten class one will see
multiple lessons delivered as opposed to a high school class in
which probably only one lesson will be delivered.
11:33:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA turned to the individuals who are the
reviewers, and opined that it will be problematic if the
reviewers know the teacher. He further opined that it would be
best for the reviewers to be individuals who don't know the
teachers being reviewed and are consistent with reviewers across
the state. Therefore, he asked whether the aforementioned
problem will be guarded against. He also asked whether a
professional staff of reviewers will be paid to go into the
classrooms, and if so, he inquired as to the cost of that.
11:34:26 AM
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON explained that there will be a call for
reviewers, whom he anticipated would be educators, both
administrators and teachers. He said he would hope that there
would be a pool of 100-200 reviewers. However, in order to be
considered part of this pool, the individual would have to go
through the intensive training on an annual basis and
demonstrate that they can effectively and consistently apply the
performance rubric while viewing teachers on the actual
videotapes. He noted that there would also be about four
department personnel who would be trained to the same rigor and
proficiency on an annual basis. Therefore, one to two people
from that pool would be brought to the department weekly to work
with one to two trained people in the department. When the
videos are reviewed if the scores of the two reviewers vary by
more than one, another reviewer reviews it and a score is
established. Commissioner Sampson informed the committee that
the model is taken from the Alaska writing project that was used
for years in the state to score student writing on a six-point
rubric.
11:36:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SALMON inquired as to how the aforementioned
would be accomplished for small rural schools.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON clarified that the observations are done by
viewing a videotape. Therefore, a new teacher in the initial
tier required to do the performance review would be required to
submit two 45-minute videotapes. The teacher would decide when
the videotaping would occur and could videotape as many times as
desired, but the videotape can't be edited. The general public
has criticized the aforementioned concept. However, the
department views its responsibility in relation to licensing
purposes and thus is responsible for ensuring that the teachers
in the state know the content and are capable of effectively
delivering it. The district's responsibility, through the
district evaluation process, is to ensure that teachers
consistently, effectively deliver their knowledge. Teachers, on
the other hand, have expressed concern that the two processes
are duplicative. However, Commissioner Sampson opined that the
department and the district serve different purposes.
11:38:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON characterized the aforementioned process
as a safety net for the teacher so that the reviewers aren't
biased.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON agreed, and added that the pool of
reviewers will have to meet some rules and criteria. For
instance, reviewers would never be allowed to score teachers
from the reviewer's school district or to score teachers with
which the reviewer has a relationship. It was felt that
building principals have relationships with the teachers such
that they might interfere with using a performance rubric for
scoring. Therefore, having a separate third-party reviewer was
suggested.
11:40:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA inquired as to the cost of the reviewers.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON informed the committee that the projected
approximate cost is estimated to be $283,000 a year. The cost
includes the cost of training, travel, and per diem. He noted
that all of those costs wouldn't be in addition to the current
system because there are already EED staff who are involved and
will remain involved in the licensing process. Furthermore, the
department doesn't know how many people in tiers 2 and 3 will
take advantage of the performance review. However, the
department does know that it does between 1,500 and 2,000
licenses per year, many of which are renewals.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA opined that the cost could be more than the
$283,000. He then said he didn't want this money to come out of
the foundation formula funding or to be charged back to the
school districts. Therefore, he suggested that this be a
separate funding component that isn't drawn from the school
districts.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON assured Representative Gara that [would be
the case]. He then pointed out that statute requires that the
division doing teacher licensing is to be solvent based on
teacher licensing fees. Commissioner Sampson mentioned that
teachers are concerned that this proposed system will increase
their cost of licensing to an excessive level. Although there
are some unknown variables, such as the budget of the
Professional Teaching Practices Commission and the number of
licenses that will be renewed, the fees will be borne on the
backs of the users. However, the desire is to not let the fees
become excessive.
11:44:21 AM
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON, in response to Representative Gatto,
stated that if there is the ability to take advantage of video
conferencing, it would be utilized.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON assured the committee that this proposed
teacher certification is much cheaper than nursing
certification.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON moved on to the proposed timeline and
informed the committee that the proposed regulations are to be
taken to the State Board of Education this March. The hope is
that the State Board of Education will be comfortable enough to
move the regulations out for public comment at that March
meeting. If the aforementioned occurred, the board could take
action at its June meeting. If approved, the regulations would
be sent to the Department of Law for review and could be in
place during the 2005-2006 school year.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON then provided the committee with a quick
summary in which he related the following information. None of
Alaska's type A teachers would have to do the performance
review, and when their certificate renews it will move to tier 2
professional. The teacher performance review is only there as a
way to benefit teachers such that they can meet the highly
qualified standards or move to a higher tier. Only tier 1, who
are people new to the state or a teacher without a regular type
A, are required to have a performance review. Again, this
doesn't impact type B and C certificates.
11:46:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS asked if an individual graduating from the
Alaska university system would have already met these
requirements. He also asked what tier such an individual would
be.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON clarified that regardless of where the
individual received his or her degree; a newly licensed teacher
will be tier 1. A teacher stays in tier 1 only as long as it
takes for the teacher to meet the criteria to move to a higher
tier, provided it is accomplished within three years.
REPRESENTATIVE SALMON asked if there is a pay difference between
the tiers.
11:47:13 AM
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON clarified that the department has nothing
to do with pay, that's left to each school district to
determine. He related that each of the state's 53 school
districts' salary schedules are different. However, there are a
few school districts in Alaska that pay an additional amount for
a national board certified teacher.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON returned to the tiered certification, which
he noted is part of a much larger picture. He then turned to
the partnership between the University of Alaska and the state's
53 school districts. There is a statewide teacher-mentoring
project, which was put forward in order to increase teacher
retention and student achievement. He noted that there are few
mentoring models that increase teacher retention while also
increasing student achievement. Furthermore, there was only one
mentoring model that illustrated increased student achievement
in as short a time as one year. The aforementioned model, with
14 years of research behind it, was chosen. Commissioner
Sampson shared a graph with the committee that illustrated that
the teacher turnover rate in Alaska is a bit higher than the
national [average]. He mentioned that most of the districts in
the state had to look out of state to find teachers to fill
vacancies. He then shared with the committee a graph that
illustrated that more teachers are leaving the profession than
entering it.
11:50:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO pointed out that the graph was provided by
the American Education Research Journal and the first graph
referred to the assistant superintendent in Alaska. He asked if
one person decides the facts are true.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON said, "It's coming out of teacher
placement." He then turned to a chart with regard to the Alaska
job fair, which illustrates that in 1997 the state reached a
peak with regard to the number of people looking for jobs. The
steady decline is reflective of the national shortage of
[teachers]. He indicated that this relates to early funding in
that those who are employed and doing a good job have to be
kept. Furthermore, the school districts have to have the
advantage of having access to the pool when there are openings
early enough to obtain good candidates. Commissioner Sampson
then presented the committee with a graph illustrating the need
for the mentoring program for teachers. He then provided the
committee with details of the mentoring program, which employs
23 full-time mentors who serve 377 teachers statewide.
Commissioner Sampson highlighted that Alaska is the first state
to implement a statewide mentoring program. He then highlighted
that research has shown that after being a mentor for two years,
half of the mentors return to the classroom while the other half
split and either move into leadership roles or remain mentors.
Therefore, the mentoring program is impacting more than just
those directly involved. He mentioned that there is also a
principal mentoring program as well.
11:58:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN inquired as to what Commissioner Sampson
views as one of the largest deficiency of the various programs.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON answered that it would be effective
strategies that meet individual needs of kids while teaching 25-
30 students. In further response to Representative Lynn, he
related that it has been most effective to have clear targets
such that a teacher can deliver a general lesson to a wide group
and vary the needs by the expectation of the result coming back.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON then turned to NCLB, which the department
supports conceptually. However, he noted that some pieces have
to be fixed. The following four major areas [are being]
targeted at the national level for change, both statutory and
regulatory changes. First, children with disabilities, once
identified, need to be treated differently [in relation] to how
effectively those children are learning. The achievements of
children with disabilities should be based on individual
education program (IEP) targets rather than adequate yearly
progress (AYP) targets. Second, [the department] needs to
determine how to calculate how students with limited English
proficiency are achieving because those students who don't speak
English proficiently wouldn't be expected to do well on an
English exam. Third, the highly qualified issue has already
been discussed and possible solutions mentioned. Finally,
[there is a need for] a growth model. He explained a chart that
he provided the committee which took four hypothetical schools
and used the AYP model, noting that the AYP mark periodically
moves. He emphasized the need to include something that
demonstrates growth is important. Therefore, the department is
proposing the growth model.
12:04:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SALMON recalled a graph Commissioner Sampson
shared which illustrated the survival mode [of new teachers].
He opined that new teachers in their own environment [wouldn't
send new teachers] into such a low [survival mode].
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON said that [no matter whether the new
teacher is in a rural or urban area], such a low occurs.
Although there are some schools and teachers that don't reach
the low [specified in the graph], generally teaching is a very
lonely job regardless of the location. He noted that the graph
was produced from national research that reviewed large and
small schools and schools in urban and rural areas. "Even in
many of our large schools, it's a very lonely job. You walk in
that classroom and that door closes," he related.
12:05:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON recalled a recent presentation by
Commissioner Sampson when he provided information regarding
students who lack English proficiency and the inability to meet
the AYP in some areas for such students. She requested that he
relate that to the committee. She then asked whether
Commissioner Sampson believes the federal government will
realize [the problems with NCLB] and make some changes.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON opined that Alaska is gaining some support
from larger states that may have more political clout than
Alaska. Commissioner Sampson highlighted that the
aforementioned changes that have to be addressed with NCLB
include addressing children with limited English proficiency.
Those with limited English proficiency will obviously not do
well on a test written in English, and therefore that needs to
be addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON surmised then that a school that passes
the AYP in all categories besides the aforementioned category
could be kept from looking like a good school because of not
achieving in that category.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON agreed, and informed the committee that
Alaska's diverse schools have up to 31 cells of different
categories of students. A single cell, with a small number of
students, could not hit the mark and could result in the entire
school not being listed as meeting AYP.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA highlighted that under NCLB schools are told
to get better, and once the schools reach what is specified as
better, the schools have to get better the next year. At some
point, a school that betters itself can't get better every year.
The growth model includes the same problem in that it contains
the same unattainable goal as AYP. He asked if there is a way
to alter the department's growth model to account for that.
12:09:32 PM
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON pointed out that the growth model is based
on individual students, no matter where they start. He then
noted his agreement with Representative Gara with regard to [it
being unrealistic to expect increased achievement every year
after reaching a certain high level]. Therefore, he opined that
the goal should be to maintain a certain realistic [high level].
REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS asked whether the problem with children
with limited English proficiency was aggravated when the
foundation formula was capped at 20 percent for special needs.
He recalled that the special needs in rural areas was as high as
35-40 percent.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON responded that he didn't know whether the
aforementioned cap impacted students with limited English
proficiency. The NCLB doesn't discuss quality or how it's
changed, but discusses "what is" and has nothing to do with
instruction per se. He recalled that in the past districts were
using funds for different purposes, some of which were to
enhance bilingualism and others to increase English proficiency.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON concluded by addressing the statewide
mentoring program. He informed the committee the department has
secured the funding for the mentoring program for this year and
next. Although this is more than a $3 million program, the
department isn't coming to the legislature asking for money. If
the mentoring program is successful after two years, the
department will come to the legislature highlighting what "it
will buy" and request the legislature's support of it.
12:12:47 PM
HB 30-APPROP: K-12 EDU OPERATING/DEBT EXPENSES
CHAIR NEUMAN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 30 "An Act making appropriations for K-12
education operating and school debt expenses; and providing for
an effective date."
12:13:35 PM
TOM WRIGHT, Staff to Representative John Harris, Alaska State
Legislature, stated that HB 30 in its current form is merely a
starting point. He opined that there will be numerous
discussions related to possible changes in the base student
allocation portion of HB 30, as well as the Public Employees'
Retirement System (PERS) and the Teachers' Retirement System
(TRS) costs and whether to include those in the foundation
[formula] or as a separate item. As it is now, he explained,
[the cost of PERS/TRS] is a separate item in [HB 30] and not
included in the foundation formula portion of HB 30. This
legislation includes school bond debt retirement for which there
will be some increased costs as will also be the case for pupil
transportation. He highlighted that the base student allocation
will determine how HB 30 appears when, and if, it moves out of
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired as to why there are so many
different issues included in HB 30.
12:16:21 PM
MR. WRIGHT said that all of the issues included in HB 30 are
related to education funding. He highlighted that HB 30, unlike
the governor's proposal, is one-year funding. Also, the
administration's proposal includes an appropriation for $425,100
to the Alaska Military Youth Academy.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that he does not know how to evaluate
HB 30 without first hearing from school districts [regarding
what is needed]. He emphasized that he wants school districts
to be able to add staff. He related that preliminary numbers
that school districts have submitted for increased foundation
formulas are $40 or $50 million more than the governor's
proposal. He inquired as to whether [Mr. Wright] would view the
aforementioned as out of range for a foundation formula funding
component.
CHAIR NEUMAN interjected that he has scheduled time for
testimony from school districts regarding their needs.
MR. WRIGHT stated that the House Special Committee on Education
has to decide what level to fund the foundation formula.
12:19:44 PM
EDDY JEANS, Director, Finance Department, Department of
Education and Early Development, (EED), said that he understood
the numbers put forward in HB 30 were intended to reflect the
governor's funding level of the current programs as they
currently exist in statute and not reflect the governor's
proposed increases. Therefore, changes would be necessary so
that HB 30 reflects the actual budget request. He explained:
The first one would be under special schools. The
actual dollar amount that should be reflected there is
$7,469,600; that's on line 13. Under pupil
transportation ... that number should be $55,027,100
and that would be on line 14 .... The number on line
5 would also have to be amended ... [to] $826,037,800
.... Mr. Chairman, on page 2, line 2, for the general
fund, that number would have to be amended to be
$793,299,500 .... Mr. Chairman, on line 5, the school
debt reimbursement program - that is actually the
fiscal year '05 number - the fiscal year '06 number
will be $86,463,479 ... that would be on line 5, page
2 .... The revenue sources would also have to be
amended, line 9 "debt retirement fund" would be
$59,463,479 and the school fund under line 10, would
be $27 million even.
12:22:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA related his understanding that the numbers
on page 1 through line 2, on page 2, are the current fiscal year
numbers, and the numbers for lines 6, 9, and 10 are the numbers
projected for the fiscal year (FY) 06 debt reimbursement
program.
MR. JEANS stated that the numbers given for all of the programs
reflect the FY 06 entitlement numbers based on the current
programs in statute. Therefore, in all cases it would be the FY
06 budget numbers.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA surmised then that the foundation formula
numbers remain as long as the base student allocation does not
change.
MR. JEANS stated that is correct.
12:24:45 PM
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards (AASB), said that AASB supports HB 30 because it has
valuable components of the overall education appropriation. He
explained that he recently returned from Washington, D.C., where
AASB has been working with the National School Board Association
and has had a chance to review some of the impacts of NCLB and
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Federal
funds over the last four years, he related, have resulted in the
$64 billion difference between what was authorized and what was
appropriated, nationwide. He said that he has yet to determine
what that means for Alaska, and therefore he said he will be
working with Mr. Jeans to try to come up with some numbers. He
continued:
The cost of some of these federal mandates have been
balanced on the back of state, local funding
mechanisms. Much of what we do at the local level
requires us to meet mandates, requires monies to be
spent that we are not receiving, which brings us back
to the point of the whole educational discussion that
we are having. We have been taking a look at some of
the trends ... that will show a relatively flat level
of funding from the years 1999, 2000, 2001 ... our
basic student allocation was at ... $3,960 from '01 to
'02, it was moved up $50 dollars and that was to
$4,010 dollars, a relatively flat trend. In fiscal
year '04-'05, we have started to make a move to
increasing the investment in public K-12 education
.... In '04, we didn't have PERS and TRS in the
foundation formula, in '05 we did and we are starting
to look at '06 and '07, and I really appreciate the
whole idea of capturing the cost of PERS and TRS.
12:27:00 PM
[Due to technical difficulties, the recording ends at 12:27 p.m.
and the remaining testimony was taken from the Legislative
Information Office's recording.]
MR. ROSE continued:
The point I'm trying to make is our experience has
been ... the year we're in right now ... we received
an $82 million increase. With that $82 million, $36
million of that went to PERS and TRS. The remainder,
$46 million, is what we experienced in terms of an
increase to public K-12 education. The numbers aren't
being discussed right now, but in the governor's
proposal for '06 he's talking about $62 million; $38
million of that is for PERS and TRS, and the
remainder, about $22 million, is what the difference
is from last year. The only reason I bring this up is
that if we continue on a trend such as this, we will
start to reduce the impact of the increase that we
received last year. And the proposal that has been
placed before us by the governor ... merits
consideration, a two-year funding package, ... which
we support ... as a starting place. Representative
Gara, you have mentioned we haven't heard from all of
the school districts yet ... but what we're finding by
running our numbers at the $62 million level [is] that
we are experiencing shortfalls across the state. ...
we want to create a trend line, if you will, that
increases the level of education funding commensurate
with what the needs are in our state. We've
experienced the flat period of funding; we have
started to climb in '04, and now [in] '05 we'd like to
continue that. And so, I want to bring you some
documents that will, I believe, take a look at ... a
trend line that I think is manageable for us into the
future.
[HB 30 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Education meeting was adjourned at an
unspecified time.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|