Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 106
02/05/2010 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB295 | |
| HB317 | |
| HB206 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 295 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 206 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 317 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 317-EDUC. FUNDING: BASIC/SPEC NEEDS/TRANSPORT
9:01:48 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 317, "An Act increasing the special needs funding
and base student allocation for public schools, and extending
the adjustment for student transportation funding; and providing
for an effective date."
9:02:09 AM
KATIE KOESTER, Staff, Representative Paul Seaton, Alaska State
Legislature, introduced the amendment, stating:
What this amendment does is it replicates the 1.50
percent increase in block funding, for the fiscal year
2012 (FY 12). If you recall, in HB 317, we increase
funding for the base student allocation (BSA) by $125
dollars for the next three fiscal years, and also
increase for the first fiscal year the block grants.
This would ... take that increase and extend it by an
additional year that would make the first year be a
1.50 percent increase, and the second year a 3 percent
increase. ... The actual amendment inserts a section
3, on page 2, following line 9, that mimics the
section preceding it with a different factor ...
instead of 1.215, it's 1.23.
MS. KOESTER said the additional aspects of the amendment serve
to renumber the sections appropriately.
9:04:55 AM
CHAIR SEATON moved Amendment 1, labeled 26-LS1378\E.2, Mischel,
2/4/10, which read:
Page 2, following line 9:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 14.17.420(a), as amended by sec. 6,
ch. 9, SLA 2008, and by sec. 2 of this Act, is amended
to read:
(a) As a component of public school funding, a
district is eligible for special needs funding and may
be eligible for intensive services funding as follows:
(1) special needs funding is available to a
district to assist the district in providing special
education, gifted and talented education, vocational
education, and bilingual education services to its
students; a special needs funding factor of 1.23
[1.215] shall be applied as set out in
AS 14.17.410(b)(1);
(2) in addition to the special needs funding
for which a district is eligible under (1) of this
subsection, a district is eligible for intensive
services funding for each special education student
who needs and receives intensive services and is
enrolled on the last day of the count period; for each
such student, intensive services funding is equal to
the intensive student count multiplied by 13."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, line 13:
Delete "sec. 2"
Insert "sec. 4"
Page 2, line 16:
Delete "secs. 2 and 3"
Insert "secs. 4 and 5"
Page 2, line 22:
Delete "Sections 2 and 3"
Insert "Sections 2 and 4"
Page 2, line 23:
Delete "Section 4"
Insert "Sections 3 and 5"
Page 2, line 24:
Delete "Section 5"
Insert "Section 6"
CHAIR SEATON, hearing no objection, announced that Amendment 1,
to HB 317, was adopted.
9:06:19 AM
CHAIR SEATON offered Conceptual Amendment 2, removing the third
year of the forward funding.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER objected for discussion.
9:06:54 AM
CHAIR SEATON explained that Conceptual Amendment 2 would remove
the necessity for a new legislature to pass a continuation bill
in the first half of a session. Currently, a newly formed
education committee would need to come to terms with the funding
formula, and craft an appropriate continuation bill, which he
opined could prove difficult.
9:08:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that adding a fourth year
would serve the same purpose, relieving any urgency, and provide
more security for the school districts.
CHAIR SEATON stated reluctance to extending it as far as four
years, due to all of the variables involved in the funding
formula. He opined that it would be prudent to have a shorter
projection period, which would allow adequate time within the
legislature to understand the situation and continue the forward
funding. Further, the historical aspect of the intent, and
reasoning, used to develop forward funding has a better
opportunity to be passed on to the upcoming legislative members,
but may be lost two legislatures removed.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER recognized that modifications to the bill
could subsequently occur. However, she maintained that the
education committee has the opportunity to indicate definite
intent for forward funding, and said it is important to have a
plan in place.
9:11:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER offered Conceptual Amendment 1, to
Conceptual Amendment 2, increasing the forward funding by one
year.
CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion.
9:12:00 AM
CHAIR SEATON reiterated his concern for the difficulty it would
pose, in projecting appropriate funding formula figures, and
predicted that nebulous fiscal projections would hinder the
movement of the bill through the legislative process. He
expressed hope that the intent would not become altered, in the
future, and forward funding would be continued. He maintained
his objection.
9:13:14 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Wilson and Gardner
voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 1, to Conceptual
Amendment 2. Representatives Buch and Seaton voted against it.
Therefore, the amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2 failed by a
vote of 2-2.
CHAIR SEATON, hearing no further objection, announced that
Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted.
9:15:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH opined that HB 317 will be a bill which will
continue to evolve.
9:16:35 AM
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards (AASB), expressed support for the failed amendment, and
indicated interest in having the forward funding extended to ten
years. The idea for forward funding that came through the
education task force has been crafted in a suitable way and is
supported by the association, as amended.
9:19:11 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed the committee's attention to the handout
titled "The Department of Education and Early Development -
School Finance. Response to House Education Committee Questions
of 2/1/2010," and asked the department to explain the five page
document.
9:20:02 AM
EDDY JEANS, Director, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), said that
the document addresses four questions, beginning with funding
comparisons for the Alaska Military Youth Academy (AMYA) to the
other residential school programs. Page 2 provides a breakout
of dollars generated through the foundation funding, as well as
residential funding provided by the state. He reminded the
committee that the legislature passed a residential funding
program for Galena, Lower Kuskokwim, and Nenana. The Mt.
Edgecumbe residential program is funded through the department's
operating budget. Question two regards how AMYA schedules the
residential program. He reported that the academy runs two 22
week residential sessions each year. Funding is received on the
basis of seven times the base student allocation (BSA) via the
funding formula, and pays for the residential, as well as the
instructional, programs. AMYA has a second allocation, which is
an adjustment to provide follow-up mentorship to the graduates.
Question three addresses the pupil transportation contract
adjustments for ties to the CPI (Consumer Price Index). Many of
the contracts allow for upward or downward CPI adjustments.
Pupil transportation is covered by a grant based on the number
of students, and even if the number of students decline on a
particular route, it still must be run, but state support will
be less. He stated support for the [proposed language of CSHB
317, Version S] regarding the adjustment to student
transportation funding. The final question deals with the 1.50
percent adjustment, intended to provide additional support for
career and technical programs. He said he reviewed the history
of funding for these programs. In 1998, when categorical
funding was in place, 8.5 million was allocated for vocational
education, and the total foundation program was $795 million, or
1.08 percent categorically identified for vocational education.
He said, "Even back then, those dollars were intended for the
additional costs of vocational programs, not the base cost of
those programs." Directing attention to page 5, of the handout,
he explained that adding 1.215 percent will identify roughly
1.07 percent of the total, or $14.7 million out of a $1.4
billion dollar budget. Increasing it by the additional three
percent, 1.230, means nearly $30 million would be provided out
of a $1.4 billion dollar budget, or 2.14 percent. He opined
that this would be a good direction to take if it is clearly
understood that these are dollars to offset additional costs of
running vocational education programs, on top of what is already
in place.
9:25:01 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked concurrence from the committee to have a
letter of intent crafted to specify that the career technical
vocational component is not being supplanted in the block grant,
by the increase proposed in the bill. With no objection, a
letter of intent will accompany the bill.
9:25:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH returned to page 2, of the 5 page handout,
and clarified that Mt. Edgecombe is funded through the
department's operating budget.
MR. JEANS confirmed his understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH recalled concern for loss of federal
funding, and the ability for the state to maintain the
facilities. He asked whether the department expects the other
residential programs to be funded similarly in the future.
MR. JEANS said Mt. Edgecombe is unique, as a state owned and
operated school, which is why the residential component shows up
in the department's budget. However, if Galena requested to
contract with the state to operate another state school, an
amendments could be made to the department's budget to fund the
residential component. The legislature passed a funding
mechanism to provide the residential costs for Galena, Lower
Kuskokwim, and Nenana, as a separate component outside of the
foundation formula. These three schools are not funded through
the operating funds, but rather out of the department's grant
budget.
9:28:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH noted that the AMYA tracks the post
graduates, to know whether the young adults have continued as
productive citizens. He expressed an interest in seeing the
AMYA tracking model expanded to other programs, which may
require a minimal fiscal note, but will result in important
feedback that will validate the efforts being made by the
department.
MR. JEANS agreed that the AMYA fiscal component for post
graduate progress tracking/mentoring is not expensive. He
reported tracking, will be implemented through the cooperative
agreements that the department is entering into with the UA
system, and Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD),
especially if students remain in the state. A unique student
identifier is also under consideration, which will also be
helpful for tracking.
9:30:57 AM
CHAIR SEATON commented that a recent news article indicated how
another state has employed a unique identifier to track
students, and expanded its use to track students across other
states.
MR. JEANS added that participants in the K-12 pilot program were
required to utilize the EED student ID [identification] system.
The progress of these students will be tracked and analyzed to
enable the department to determine the benefits of the program.
9:32:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH indicated an interest in establishing a
means for tracking homeschooled children. He said that they
often come into the system later, perhaps through the AMYA, and
there should be a way to correct the information to reflect a
student's history.
CHAIR SEATON agreed that the information is valuable and the
committee is interested in supporting the department's efforts
to implement a meaningful tracking system. He requested that
the department provide the committee with information regarding
any statutes that may need amending to allow these actions to be
put into place.
9:34:07 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to page 2, of the departmental
handout, and stated that the funding formula applies a built in
base student allocation escalator, of seven, to be applied for
the AMYA program. With the formula increases, forward funding,
and other legislative actions that have occurred, the escalator
needs to be reviewed. An unintended consequence is being
recognized where the funding mechanism, the multiplier, may no
longer correspond with the needs of the AMYA program. He asked
Mr. Jeans whether HB 317 would be the appropriate vehicle for
changing that funding program.
MR. JEANS recommended that it be addressed in another bill, and
also to have the academy express their needs directly to the
committee.
CHAIR SEATON said the academy would be invited to address the
committee, and provide a full overview of the program.
9:40:54 AM
CHAIR SEATON solicited response to the revisions made to the
bill, and announced that HB 317 would be held for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 295 Background.pdf |
HEDC 1/29/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| HB 295 Fiscal Notes.pdf |
HEDC 1/29/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 295 |
| Alaska Historic Preservation Act.ppt |
HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 295 |
| University of Alaska Land Grant Booklet link.docx |
HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 295 |
| HB 206 material.pdf |
HEDC 4/15/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 206 |
| Briefing paper for high schoolers taking postsecondary courses HB206.doc |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM HEDC 2/1/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 206 Post Secondary courses for High School Students - HB 206 |
| HB 317 materials.pdf |
HEDC 2/1/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 317 |
| HB317_EED_ACYA_1-27-10.pdf |
HEDC 2/1/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| HB317_EED_ESS_1-27-10.pdf |
HEDC 2/1/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| House Education questions on HB 295 .doc |
HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 295 |
| HB 206 Version P February 4, 2010.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/10/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/19/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/8/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/17/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 206 |
| HB 206 version P Sponsor Statement February 4, 2010.docx |
HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/10/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/19/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/8/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/17/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 206 |
| HB 317 version S.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 317 |