Legislature(2013 - 2014)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/03/2014 08:00 AM Senate EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB100 | |
| SB113 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 100 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 113 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 139 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 100-EDUCATION GRANTS; CORRS STUDY; ALLOTMENTS
8:01:20 AM
CHAIR STEVENS announced that the first order of business would
be SB 100.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY, sponsor of SB 100, introduced the bill. He
said it is a bill that encompasses several concepts to help with
innovative delivery systems. He read the sponsor statement:
Students come to school from diverse backgrounds with
very different learning styles and issues unique to
their particular circumstance. As a result, no one
approach to education can meet the specific needs of
all Alaska's children. Sponsor Substitute for Senate
Bill 100 recognizes this challenge and makes several
changes to the current correspondence study programs
offered by 33 school districts.
Public correspondence/homeschool study programs serve
almost 10 percent of the total Alaska student
population. This approach to education is one of the
fastest growing options in the state. Its
individualized learning, low-cost approach appeals to
independent learners and policy makers alike. A focus
on student proficiency is at the center of SB 100.
Most programs provide a student allotment to purchase
educational services or materials to meet the
student's Individual Learning Plan (ILP). Under SB
100, a parent may purchase services and materials from
a private or religious organization with a student
allotment to meet the student's ILP. In addition, each
child's allotment may be rolled over to the next
school year. The funding received by the school
district for each student will go from 80% of the Base
Student Allocation (BSA) to 100% of the BSA, currently
$5,680.
Two educational grant programs are established in SB
100. Through one grant program, school districts may
combine local funds with grant dollars to purchase
technology, along with professional development. With
the assistance of this grant program, opportunities
for one-on-one learning will increase statewide.
The second grant program recognizes that sometimes an
innovative idea needs financial support to get
started. Under SB 100, a school district may apply for
small, one-time grant funds to help plan a different
approach to learning that has promise. Residential
schools, charter schools, correspondence schools,
virtual schools are just a few of the possibilities in
this grant program.
Sponsor Substitute of Senate Bill 100 embraces
innovative approaches to learning and encourages
school districts do develop such approaches in order
to meet the educational needs of a growing diverse
population of Alaska public school students.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY read the sectional analysis of the bill:
Section 1. Establishes two new grant programs: (1) a
personalized learning opportunity grant program in the
Department of Education and Early Development to
provide funding to the Alaska Association of School
Boards for the purpose of awarding subgrants to school
districts to provide technological equipment, support,
and training; and (2) an innovative approach to
learning grant to provide grants to school districts
to encourage innovative approaches to learning.
Section 2. Requires correspondence study programs to
include an individual learning plan, as described in
the bill, for each student enrolled. Prohibits the
Department of Education and Early Development from
imposing requirements on a student enrolled in a
correspondence study program if the student is
proficient or advanced except for requirements
described in sec. 2 of the bill. Provides for annual
student allotments to be paid to a student's parent or
guardian for the purpose of meeting instructional
expenses of a correspondence student. Allows for the
purchase of materials from a private or religious
organization under specified conditions and for a
carry-over of an annual allotment for a student from
year to year.
Section 3. Increases state funding for correspondence
programs from 80 percent of ADM to the full ADM of the
program.
Section 4. Provides for an effective date.
8:05:41 AM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY moved to adopt Amendment 1: On page 4, line 17,
following "purchase", insert "nonsectarian". He explained that
the amendment provides that public funds not be used to purchase
religious materials. Schools may use vendors that have a
religious background to provide courses to home school
correspondence students.
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
8:07:44 AM
SENATOR GARDNER inquired about Section [2], item (b),
"notwithstanding another provision of the law, the department
may not impose additional requirements other than the
requirements specified under (a) of this section, on a student
who is proficient or advanced . . ." She asked what requirements
this might be referring to.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked if the question was asking what concerns
brought about the need for this provision.
SENATOR GARDNER said yes.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY said education is switching from a Carnegie
Unit concept to one of performance. The concept of home school
correspondence is to allow as much freedom and flexibility
possible for the parent and Individual Learning Plan (ILP)
teacher. He provided an example. He maintained that an ILP
should support the outcome desired. The proficiency of the
outcome is what is important. He described the difference
between an ILP in a charter school and in the public school. He
said there is a list of prohibitions for home school
correspondence schools. The bill aims to help the programs and
the department focus on the outcomes, not the inputs.
SENATOR GARDNER requested to see the list of prohibitions.
8:11:22 AM
CHAIR STEVENS suggested that the bill removes school district
and department oversight when it comes to expenditures and the
learning plan. The constitution says that this oversight has to
be in the hands of the department and the school district.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY did not think it that was true. He maintained
that oversight is the district's responsibility and not the
department's.
CHAIR STEVENS suggested the legal issues be addressed.
8:12:39 AM
JEAN MISCHEL, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency, Juneau, Alaska, answered questions related to SB
100.
CHAIR STEVENS asked about the constitutionality of SB 100 and if
a change in the constitution would be required to remove the
responsibility from the department and the district.
MS. MISCHEL questioned which version of the bill he was
addressing.
CHAIR STEVENS said it was version I.
MS. MISCHEL said the language on page 4, lines 8 - 11, combined
with lines 17 - 21, creates a potential for violating both
Article 7, Section 1, and Article 4, Section 1. The difficulty
with removing departmental oversight rests with the concern that
if the parent who has control, under lines 17 - 21, over
purchasing of materials, if they choose to purchase religious or
sectarian materials in violation of that provision, there would
be very little way of knowing, without some oversight, whether
the parent has overstepped the constitutional boundaries.
MS. MISCHEL continued to say what the legislature has done under
Article 7 is given the department supervisory oversight over all
public schools. This bill is a large change from that structure.
With regard to whether or not the school district would continue
to have some oversight, there is some ambiguity. The department
often provides regulatory direction to school districts in
administrative code, as Senator Dunleavy mentioned. Lines 8-11
would restrict the department from adopting those regulations
that might provide additional guidance to the districts, which
receive their authority both through the legislature and the
department. Much of the district authority is restricted by that
in the bill because the department no longer has control over
the district. There is an ambiguity about whether the school
district would, in fact, continue to provide oversight. For
example, school districts now must approve textbooks for
correspondence students. She said she does not know if the
sponsor's intention is to remove the district's oversight over
textbook purchases and selections.
8:17:38 AM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY clarified that in the bill, any purchase must
be done in line with ILP and the teacher. He explained that
vendors are approved by school district boards; parents do not
seek purchases outside of the ILP and the teacher who has a
selection of vendors. The public school district approves of
purchases.
CHAIR STEVENS noted textbooks have to be approved by the
district currently.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY agreed and said that does not change under the
bill. Vendors need to be approved by the district.
CHAIR STEVENS asked what change the bill makes to the oversight
by the department.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY said there is a series of regulations that list
things that can and cannot be purchased or done. The state
determines the output - proficiency. The bill relies on the
teacher, parent, and ILP to determine what the inputs are
instead of department regulations.
CHAIR STEVENS summarized that SB 100 removes the department's
oversight of financial expenditures and the ILP.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY agreed. He said it places the oversight with
the district.
CHAIR STEVENS requested further comments on whether that impacts
the constitution as mentioned by legislative legal.
8:22:17 AM
MS. MISCHEL said she does not have a clear enough idea of the
legislative intention of removing the department from its
legislatively authorized oversight role. The description
provided by Senator Dunleavy is the current procedure that the
districts are restricted by the regulations that this bill would
override. From a constitutional standpoint, the legislature is
delegating its constitutional oversight function to a school
teacher, a parent, and a district, in a more limited sense,
because the regulations that restrict these district
expenditures would no longer be in effect. She reiterated that
she does not know the legislative intent for doing so.
MS. MISCHEL noted that the Constitutional Convention was filled
with conversations about Article 7 and why the last sentence in
Article 7, Section 1, is there. It is for the very purpose that
teachers and parents and districts, and even the department,
would not have to "get into the weeds" of deciding whether it is
government entanglement or an Article 1, Section 4 problem. The
framers of the state constitution discussed very clearly the
desire to spend public money for private school students when it
addressed their public health and welfare issues, a legislative
and state function.
She explained that other states that lack Article 7 prohibitions
have to determine whether there is a neutral affect or whether
the magnitude of the benefit, such as under the Sheldon Jackson
Case, is so great that it is a direct benefit to the school.
She said she does not know whether purchasing BYU courses,
currently, would be upheld by the Alaska Supreme Court. Under
the Sheldon Jackson precedent, they would have to go through the
3-step test to determine if the effect was neutral, whether the
magnitude was great, and whether there was an incentive to
purchase private materials.
She said it is an interesting question in this context because
when the constitutional conventioneers were discussing the
issue, they had the opposite question; "can we provide private
school students with a public correspondence program." Today's
discussion is the opposite of that. She concluded that under the
Sheldon Jackson analysis, the benefit may be neutral if there
are other public correspondence materials and courses that a
student or parent could choose.
8:26:55 AM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY remarked that the original question is
oversight. He emphasized that this bill is a public school
issue. The next step is an independent approach under the
guidance of a public school teacher governed by an ILP. He said
it has nothing to do with going to a private school. The bill
would stop the department from regulating schools because the
local level should be regulating them. The ultimate performance
model is the test for credit. The bill focuses on performance,
not on sending kids to private schools. It allows teachers to
purchase public materials, not sectarian, and not religious.
CHAIR STEVENS said he needs to understand what the advantage for
removing the department from oversight is.
8:30:06 AM
SENATOR GARDNER pointed out that there already is a system where
homeschoolers can enroll in a public homeschool system and get
access to materials through approved vendors. She asked what
else is new in the bill, besides the ILP.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY said most correspondence programs require an
ILP and the bill would require them all to have an ILP. The bill
would also require that if a child is proficient, no one meddles
with proficiency; whatever they are doing is working. For those
students who are not proficient, time and resources would be
spent to find out why they are not successful. The teacher and
parent would amend the ILP to address the lack of proficiency.
SENATOR GARDNER asked if that is not what should be done for all
students.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY agreed.
SENATOR GARDNER asked why it is limited to correspondence
homeschoolers in the bill.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY replied because SB 100 deals with homeschool
correspondence programs.
SENATOR GARDNER suggested input versus output is the same as
form over function.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY said it is looking at results.
8:32:54 AM
CHAIR STEVENS requested that Ms. Mischel explain Article 7.
MS. MISCHEL explained that it states that "No money shall be
paid from public funds for the direct benefit of any religious
or other private educational institutions." She pointed out that
one of the regulations that the department sets up for district
correspondence programs requires a reporting from the district
on who is attending and what the performance is. Without the
department looking at that it would be left up to the district
to do. The department would not have a role in reviewing the
report and making adjustments under SB 100.
8:34:24 AM
LON GARRISON, President, Sitka School Board, Sitka, Alaska,
testified in favor of SB 100. He said he especially liked the
one-to-one digital initiative program which would have a
tremendous impact to the district. He said he is also in support
of innovation - options which offer the public various choices
of public education. He noted Sitka has a thriving home school
program. He concluded that Alaska is unusual and is on the right
path for offering various paths to education, including home
school programs.
8:38:04 AM
SUE HULL, Past-President, Alaska Association of School Boards
(AASB), Fairbanks, Alaska, testified in favor of SB 100. She
suggested that adding tools to the choices for students for
personal learning is a good idea, as is the one-to-one proposal
for technology. The bill would enable large districts like
Fairbanks to move forward with access to programs. The district
can show that is it currently spending more money now than would
be required to adopt a lease program.
She also testified in favor of the second provision in the bill,
innovation grants, and the third provision related to
correspondence programs. She opined that the change in funding
makes it more attractive for districts to participate. She
concluded that options are the future.
STEWART MCDONALD, Superintendent, Kodiak Island Borough School
District, Kodiak, Alaska, testified in support of SB 100. He
shared the profile of the students who would be affected by the
bill. Some students live in remote sites and it is expensive to
provide them correspondence courses. He said he is in favor of
the increase in funding. He also liked the innovation grants. He
shared the suicide rate in his district and maintained that
innovative programs help to reduce this rate. He concluded that
after 5.5 years of innovative programs, there have been no
suicides.
8:45:20 AM
JERRY COVEY, Education Consultant, JSC Consulting, Anchorage,
Alaska, testified in support of SB 100. He predicted that the
Governor's proposal and SB 100, or a similar program by AASB,
would merge to provide the type of service that covers the
state. He spoke about the oversight issue. He said he sees it as
mastery of learning versus the Carnegie Unit. The current
education system is built around process versus outcome. He
expected the oversight issues with the constitution will resolve
themselves. He opined that the bill creates an opportunity for
school districts to deliver education in the proposed fashion.
SENATOR GARDNER asked about the one-to-one approach.
MR. COVEY said he looks at the approach as a way to work with
school districts that puts technology in their hands. It has
significant reporting expectations.
SENATOR GARDNER said the Governor, the State School Board, and
the sponsor have proposals. She inquired how they differ.
MR. COVEY said he probably was not the best one to answer that
question.
8:49:16 AM
STEVE NOONKESSER, Technology Director, Southwest Region School
District, Dillingham, Alaska, testified in support of SB 100. He
said he would like to address the first provision in the bill.
He noted his district was an original member of the Consortium
for Digital Learning in 2006. The focus at that time, and
currently, is the access to resources - quality learning tools.
He said in order to take advantage of the opportunity, the
district took several steps, guided by AASB and the grant
process. The district had to ensure that the networks,
infrastructure, and support were ready to handle the increased
loads and demands. They installed new hardware and, most
importantly, trained staff. He stressed the importance of a
three-legged approach; readiness and support, hardware, and
training. He concluded that Section 1 of the bill does that, as
well as puts leadership and management on AASB and focuses on
tablet technology, which fits in with a district focus on early
literacy.
8:51:37 AM
PETER HOEPFNER, President, Cordova School Board, Cordova,
Alaska, testified in support of SB 100. He said technology is
the way of the world and the district wants its children to be
prepared for the future. He gave an example of a student who was
able to keep up with AP courses via technology while away from
school for six weeks. Cordova has been a one-to-one district
since 2005.
CHAIR STEVENS said he is impressed by Cordova School District.
8:54:36 AM
BOB WHICKER, Director, Consortium for Digital Learning, Alaska
Association of School Boards (AASB), Juneau, Alaska, answered
questions regarding SB 100. He called personalized learning
opportunity grants the answer for all kids to move forward with
learning. He added that the one thing that is different with
this bill is that AASB is ready to take this on in Alaska. Other
states are not as ready as Alaska is.
SENATOR GARDNER reiterated her question about the differences
between the three proposals.
MR. WHCKER replied that he answered this question for the Alaska
Society of Technology Educators last week. He described the one-
to-one as a program that targets every student. It includes
using internet as an option. The Governor's proposal is a
demonstration program that moves things forward in distance
delivery, which the one-to-one can do also. He said that there
are many initiatives out there, but all are pieces. The one-to-
one creates the environment for all the rest to move forward.
8:58:30 AM
MICHAEL HANLEY, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED), Juneau, Alaska, answered questions related
to SB 100. He said the bill is very similar to the Governor's
proposal last year, in purpose and intent. The Governor this
year chose a more focused, targeted, and modest proposal to
build on current strengths. The Digital Teaching Initiative is
designed to focus on best practices already in place and provide
a critical professional development component through teaching
academies. He saw the programs as complementary to each other;
however, the Governor's initiative is more focused.
CHAIR STEVENS requested more information about removing the
department's role regarding the monitoring of expenditures and
ILP's and putting it on the district.
COMMISISIONER HANLEY said there are a few items in the bill that
need further examination. He quoted the line "notwithstanding
another provision of law the department may not impose
additional requirements on students" and stated that the
department does not monitor individual students; they work with
districts and set requirements that districts need to follow.
The wording removes perceived barriers from students who are
proficient; the department focuses on what is required of
districts.
He referred to page 4, line 12, and noted that all students are
currently required to have ILP's in correspondence programs.
Regulations state how the ILP must be developed - with a
certified teacher and parents, and have common, recognized
curriculum. He read, "The department or district that provides
the correspondence study program may provide an annual student
allotment to a parent or a guardian of a student enrolled in the
correspondence study program for the purpose of meeting
instructional expenses for the student enrolled in the program
as provided in this section." He said that part is key because
he sees public money for a public purpose for educating
students. The sentence above is concerning because it removes
restrictions that are in regulation, such as family travel, and
family gym memberships. The "notwithstanding" provision removes
that restriction, but it still is required to meet instruction
expenses for the student, so it would be public money for a
public purpose.
CHAIR STEVENS asked the sponsor what his intention is.
9:04:22 AM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY said his intention is to focus on the outputs
instead of the inputs. He noted a discussion with the
commissioner regarding the concern that some of the money may be
used for non-educational materials or trips.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY agreed.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY maintained that "the line below" seems to
satisfy the commissioner and himself. He said he wants as much
flexibility at the district school teacher level to come up with
programs and ILP's that meet the individual needs of children.
He opined that unnecessary regulations interfere with having
acceptable outputs. The bill personalizes instruction under a
public school system.
9:06:03 AM
CHAIR STEVENS asked if the commissioner is comfortable with this
component of SB 100.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said yes, because of the lines relating to
instructional expenses, which seem to negate several items that
are removed from regulation. The department could still monitor
instructional expenses for a district.
SENATOR GARDNER inquired if the language "notwithstanding"
includes anything else the district might want to do or
currently does that would be prohibited under that provision on
page 4, line 8.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said no. He said the department has
identified the sections that would be removed. He offered to
provide that information to the committee.
CHAIR STEVENS held SB 100 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01_SB100_BillText_VersionI.pdf |
SEDC 3/3/2014 8:00:00 AM |
SB 100 |
| 02_SB100_Sponsor Statement_VersionI.pdf |
SEDC 3/3/2014 8:00:00 AM |
SB 100 |
| 04_SB100_Sectional_VersionI.pdf |
SEDC 3/3/2014 8:00:00 AM |
SB 100 |
| 05_SB100_iPad for Literacy Project.pdf |
SEDC 3/3/2014 8:00:00 AM |
SB 100 |
| 06_SB100_Budget Proposal.pdf |
SEDC 3/3/2014 8:00:00 AM |
SB 100 |
| 07_SB100_Letter of Support.pdf |
SEDC 3/3/2014 8:00:00 AM |
SB 100 |
| 08_SB100_Brief Description on Grant Program.pdf |
SEDC 3/3/2014 8:00:00 AM |
SB 100 |
| 09_SB100_Personalized Learning Opportunity Summary.pdf |
SEDC 3/3/2014 8:00:00 AM |
SB 100 |
| 01_SB113_Stipends_BillPacket_AsOf_28Feb2014.pdf |
SEDC 3/3/2014 8:00:00 AM |
SB 113 |
| 02_SB113_FiscalNote1_28Feb2014.pdf |
SEDC 3/3/2014 8:00:00 AM |
SB 113 |