Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
05/10/2018 02:00 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB104 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 142 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 10, 2018
4:02 p.m.
4:02:01 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 4:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Les Gara, Vice-Chair
Representative Jason Grenn
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Sponsor; Paul Prussing, Director of
Student Learning, Department of Education and Early
Development; Jane Pierson, Staff, Representative Neal
Foster.
SUMMARY
CSSB 104 (2d FIN)
EDUCATION CURRICULUM REQUIREMENTS
HCS CSSB 104(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with one
previously published fiscal impact note: FN1
(EED); and one new fiscal by the Department of
Education and Early Development.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda. He indicated
the committee would not be hearing SB 142 due to
scheduling. The Capital budget bill would be heard later in
the day.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 104(2d FIN)
"An Act relating to the duties of the Department of
Education and Early Development; relating to the
duties of the state Board of Education and Early
Development; relating to school curricula; and
relating to a system for managing student information
and records related to individualized education
programs for children with disabilities."
4:03:40 PM
Co-Chair Foster invited Senator McKinnon to the table.
SENATOR ANNA MACKINNON, SPONSOR, introduced herself. She
conveyed the bill sought to improve educational outcomes
for all Alaska students by providing them with access to
the best curriculum possible. The bill engaged the
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) to
find and approve the best curricula. It made the curricula
available in a pilot program to a limited number of
districts to try to test the program and provide the same
opportunity to use the best curricula in other school
districts around the state. It extended the requirement for
curricula review from 6 years to 10 years and established a
statewide computerized system for DEED for all individual
education plans (IEP)s.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to MOVED to ADOPT proposed House
committee substitute for CSSB 104(FIN), Work Draft 30-
LS0786\C (Laffen, 5/10/18) (copy on file).
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Foster asked if anyone had questions for Senator
McKinnon.
Representative Wilson asked for clarification regarding the
two fiscal notes before the committee. Senator McKinnon
responded that the new fiscal note was dated 5/9/18. She
explained that $19.5 million reflected a reduction from $30
million in the original fiscal note. There was a smaller
fiscal note for the addition of one staff that was still
relevant.
Co-Chair Foster recalled that the note was originally $30
million corrected down to $24 million. Because of the
changes made in the newest version of the bill, it was
reduced to $19 million.
4:06:53 PM
Representative Wilson responded that the fiscal note she
was given funded three positions. She wondered if the three
positions were not requested in the new version of the
fiscal note of $19.5 million.
Senator McKinnon clarified that there were three fiscal
notes to the bill. The fiscal note that was replaced went
from $30 million to $24 million to $19.5 million. The other
two fiscal notes, fiscal note 4 (OMB Component 2796),
remained the same and added three specialists to help
implement the program. She made a correction that there
were only two fiscal notes to the new committee substitute.
Co-Chair Foster recognized Representative Ortiz and
Representative Pruitt.
Vice-Chair Gara understood that the smaller fiscal note was
for three position to help study available curriculum and
to help make it available to Alaska school districts. He
asked if the $457,000 fiscal note was the correct note.
Senator McKinnon relayed that there were two positions. One
for education and one for math. There was also one support
position. She offered that the department could also speak
to their fiscal note. Vice-Chair Gara was fine with the
explanation.
Co-Chair Foster invited the department to comment on the
fiscal notes.
4:09:47 PM
Representative Wilson asked whether the three positions
would continue if the project did not move forward after 3
years.
PAUL PRUSSING, DIRECTOR OF STUDENT LEARNING, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, introduced himself and
responded affirmatively. The department would continue to
review the curricula at the department on a 5 year basis to
keep the list current.
Representative Wilson commented that the project was a
pilot project and might not produce the intended results.
She wondered if the three positions were tied to the
success of the program. Mr. Prussing reported that the
program was a total of 6 years; 3 years of the pilot
program and 3 years after that to continue the program. The
curriculum specialists would establish a foundation of
support into the future beyond the program. The positions
would help districts to align their program and help with
its implementation.
Representative Wilson asked how the proposed curriculum
specialists different from past curriculum specialists. Mr.
Prussing indicated the positions would be very similar to
the positions the department had in the past. The new
positions would be more focused on the implementation of
the curriculum and the curriculum review process. The
previous specialists were focused on helping districts
align their curriculum already adopted to the state
standards.
Vice-Chair Gara thought the employees would also be working
to find curriculum models from other states that Alaska's
school districts could possibly choose. He believed it was
not only about aligning curriculum but also about searching
for curriculum that might benefit school districts. Mr.
Prussing responded, "Correct." He remarked that it was the
reason the department would be continuing the work into the
future even after the pilot program.
Co-Chair Foster invited his staff to walk through the
changes to the bill.
4:13:47 PM
JANE PIERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER, read the
changes from a prepared statement:
Changes from SB 104 version 30-LS0786\P to version C
Page 2, line 4-5 Language was added to state that the
board may include curricula delivered through virtual
education
Page 2, Line 8-9 and may include in the review
curricula delivered through virtual education,"
Page 2, Lines 11 -12 states that the department may
identify the best mathematics and English and language
arts curricula delivered through virtual education.
Page 3, Line 7 The pilot program will now only include
four districts. 2 urban (1) math and (1) English and 2
rural 1 Math and 1 English. Therefore, "five" was
deleted and "four" was inserted
Page 3, line 8 after "including" "at least" was
deleted because there are now only four schools in the
pilot program, not five.
Page 3, Line 16 delete "five" and insert "four"
Page 3, Line 18 "professional development" was added
so that the incentive program includes "professional
development"
Page 4, Line 5-7 Deleted "$20,000,000 and insert
$9,500,000, plus the unexpended balance of AS
14.07.180(e)(4) - The three-year pilot program.
Page 4, Line 29 delete "five" and insert "four"
Page 5, Line 12-13 A new subparagraph (5) defining
"virtual education" as means instruction delivered
through telecommunications or other digital or
electronic methods."
Page 5, Line 16 deleted "$30,000,000" and inserted
"$19,500,000"
Representative Wilson asked if accompanying materials,
including text books, would be virtual, if it was
determined that the best curriculum came in a virtual
format. Ms. Pierson believed that it would include the
actual program and the delivery. It could be that a virtual
program was deemed better than a book program. She
indicated that the word "may" was used rather than "shall."
The board and the districts would decide.
4:17:40 PM
Representative Wilson asked if anyone had considered what
would happen for a school district that did not have
internet capabilities. She wanted to make sure that every
district would have the opportunity to use the chosen
program. Ms. Pierson responded that the bill was about
finding the best program that everyone could use. She
reemphasized that the use of the word "may" left things
open for the department and the districts to find what
worked best.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Work Draft 30-LS0786\C
was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Foster invited Senator McKinnon to make further
comments.
Senator McKinnon thanked the committee for considering SB
104. The bill was an idea which had progressed through the
committee. She thought the bill was a better product for
doing so.
Vice-Chair Gara walked through the fiscal notes associated
with the bill. There were two fiscal notes. The first was
OMB component 2796 from DEED. The appropriation was
education support and administrative services and the
allocation was student and school achievement for the
positions previously discussed. The estimated cost for the
positions was $457,600 of general funds. The first year
would be $4,000 higher.
Vice-Chair Gara explained the second fiscal note did not
have an OMB component number. It was a fund capitalization
for the curriculum improvement and grant program. The
amount was a one-time appropriation of general funds in the
amount of $19.5 million.
4:21:08 PM
Representative Wilson asked about the fiscal note with OMB
component number 2796. She referred to page 2, Section 7
where it talked about requiring the department to make
available to school districts an electronic system for
managing student information relating to individual
education programs for students with disabilities. The
estimated cost was $100,000. She asked how it would impact
districts. She thought the Fairbanks North Star Borough
already did something similar.
Senator McKinnon explained that currently the state did not
have a standardized system in place. Everyone was
collecting information differently. The program would be a
state-supported program so that districts were not
disadvantaged, and it would streamline the process. The
state would be able to support the exchange of one student
moving from the other. She noted that in the original
introduction it had been conveyed that a principal would
stand at a copy machine inserting 27 pages. Depending on
their location in Alaska, the receiving end might or might
not receive the fax. The allocation of funds was so that
the state could support the system ensuring that districts
were not disadvantaged. It would allow for districts to be
migrated to a standardized system so that as students moved
between districts around the state there was a standardized
set of information that could flow back and forth. The
districts would not have to restart the individualized
education programs.
4:23:06 PM
Mr. Prussing relayed that in a previous meeting there was a
handout that listed the advantages of the process which he
read (copy on file):
Advantages for a Statewide Special Education Online
System
Parents
• Parents have complete access to student files at
all times
• Transfers of student files and service
requirements are much quicker (if not immediate)
• Transfers of sensitive student information is
more safe and secure
• Student services will not be interrupted due to
potential incomplete files
• Schools may immediately resume services for
students with disabilities when they transfer
Teachers
• A standardized and consistent system for
statewide training
• Immediate use of outside transfer paperwork with
standardized format
• All teachers working with the student have access
to the key information necessary to assure
• services across the schedule
• Reduction in time, effort and training on
multiple issues of compliance with regulatory
• requirements (proposed system is highest ranked
in compliance alignment)
• Teachers may work from multiple locations and
operating systems (Mac/PC)
Schools
• Site level data and statistics are readily
available in real time
• Quick analysis of program progress and student
goal achievements
• Consistent tracking of student data for special
education
• Simplified records transfer protocols
(quick/secure)
• Simplified staff training from single source
materials and statewide support opportunities
• Improved staff integration with special education
student resources
Districts
• Cost savings for the district over a stand alone
cost
• Simplified data collection from pre-established
state and federal reports
• Access to student data trends and progress levels
• District assessment of special education programs
and training needs from site to site
• Online records storage system for more
comprehensive files without storage location
security and space issues
• Statewide training and support opportunities over
annual district specific training
• District to district transfers of data are
essentially seamless with immediate capabilities
State
• Desktop monitoring of files ability to spend on
site time working to improve student services
rather than paperwork compliance
• Realtime data collection for federal requirements
eliminates many issues for individual data
collection needs of the state
• One system to specialize in and achieve user
mastery
• Statewide changes required may be implemented in
one action across the state
• Standardized and uniform training in all district
systems would be a possibility
• Utilizes the data system most used in the state
• Utilized the system with the highest number of
already trained users
Mr. Prussing noted that there were several advantages of
going to the system.
Representative Wilson was trying to understand if the
districts already had a system and whether the new system
would complicate things for the districts. She wondered if
parents would be signing something acknowledging they were
made aware that students would not only be in their
school's database but in a state database. Mr. Prussing
relayed that the department would have access to the
school's database. It would not be housed within the
department but rather in a secured database. He elaborated
that there was one system that the majority of the schools
were already using that had the needed capability. He was
confident that it would amount to less work for most of the
districts. The smaller districts that might not already be
using the system would be able to get good technical
assistance.
Representative Wilson asked if the bill had to do with all
students or only special education students. She asked if
parents would have to sign off on personal information
being released in another database.
4:27:00 PM
AT EASE
4:27:30 PM
RECONVENED
Mr. Prussing clarified that the actual data would stay
within the school districts. The only time the data would
be transferred was if a student transferred to another
school. Under the Federal Education Rights to Privacy Act,
the parents would have to be notified and approve of the
transfer of information. There were safeguards built into
an IEP in special education would remain in place.
Representative Wilson asked if it applied to special
education students or all students. Mr. Prussing responded,
"Just for special education."
Representative Wilson conveyed that IEPs had to be written
every year. They were not ongoing. She wanted to make sure
that no shortcuts would be taken for special needs
students.
Co-Chair Seaton drew attention to the fiscal note dated
05/09/18. On the second page it appeared that there were
four districts that had not been updated in several spots.
He pointed to line 4 of Section 3 where it noted five
districts, but the program funding summary listed five
districts in the first pilot year 2019-2020. He asked that
the fiscal note reflect the current committee substitute.
4:29:37 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to report HCSCSSB 104 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED. Although she thought the
bill was a good idea, the cost of an additional $20 million
was not affordable under the state's current fiscal
climate. She wondered where the money would come from. She
was uncertain if adding three additional positions would
cause the numbers to improve. The state had already had
similar positions in place before and, the numbers had not
improved at that time. She was also concerned that if the
state was not going to have enough money in the state's
Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR), the money would come
out of the earnings reserve account. She suggested getting
the districts together to utilize their resources. She
thought many of them already knew of the best math and
English curricula. She also mentioned $40 million in
Medicaid costs that were not covered. She thought the
timing was poor and could not support the bill.
Representative Ortiz agreed that the state was in a fiscal
predicament. However, he argued that the bill was a clear
message that education was a priority. He commended the
bill sponsor for bringing the bill forward. He thought it
would provide more educational opportunities for kids
across the state. He would be supporting the bill.
Vice-Chair Gara did not doubt that better curriculum would
have an impact on educational outcomes. It was difficult
when teachers, guidance counselors, and curriculum
specialists were being lost, to say that curriculum
specialists did not make a difference. He suggested the
educational system should be a full package. He thought the
bill was part of the system. He argued that it was also
important to make sure there were enough teachers and
educators in the state to ensure a first class education
for students in Alaska. He did not believe the state could
choose only parts of an education system and expect it to
work. He liked the attempt to get school districts better
curriculum. He felt that it would only work with and
adequate number of educators.
4:33:55 PM
Representative Thompson agreed that the state needed to
improve its curriculum and the education of Alaska's young
people. However, it was going to cost the equivalent of
upwards of $75 additional base student allocation (BSA) for
the entire state. He opined that the state was
overspending. Although he liked the bill, he could not
support it.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Foster,
Seaton
OPPOSED: Wilson, Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton
The MOTION PASSED (7/4).
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HCS CSSB 104(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one previously published
fiscal impact note: FN1 (EED); and one new fiscal by the
Department of Education and Early Development.
Co-Chair Foster indicated there was a possibility of coming
back later in the evening to address amendments for SB 142.
He recessed the meeting [note: the meeting never
reconvened].
AJOURNMENT
4:35:58 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 104 CS WORKDRAFT HFIN v.C.pdf |
HFIN 5/10/2018 2:00:00 PM |
SB 104 |
| SB 104 Explanation of Changes ver P to ver C.pdf |
HFIN 5/10/2018 2:00:00 PM |
SB 104 |