Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 106
03/02/2009 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB147 | |
| HB58 | |
| HB147 | |
| HB126 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 147 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 58 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 126 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 147-EDUCATION FUNDING FOR INSTRUCTION 8:04:37 AM CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 147, "An Act repealing the minimum expenditure for instruction requirements for public schools." 8:05:19 AM HANNAH HARRISON, Staff, to Representative Paul Seaton, Alaska State Legislature, paraphrased from the sponsor statement, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: HB 147 repeals AS 14.17.520, a ten year old provision in Alaska statutes requiring that 70% of a school district's operating expenditures be dedicated to the instructional component of the district budget, regardless of their geographical location, student population size, or any other factor. AS 14.17.520 is considered an accountability measure to ensure school districts are spending funds on instructional programs. The rising cost of education is affecting the way school districts address their spending. Fuel, electricity, and building maintenance expenses can radically change from year to year. There are two types of school districts that have been chronically unable to meet the 70% requirement: districts that have an operating budget of $3 million or less and those that spend 20% or more of their budget on operation and maintenance. Currently, if a school district is unable to meet the 70% requirement, they must file a waiver through the State Board of Education & Early Development which can either be approved or denied. Approval allows the district to operate with their submitted budget, but requires justification for their failure to comply with the 70% requirement. Denial of a waiver can require the district to revise its budget to meet the 70%. AS 14.17.520, has become outdated. The current statewide assessment system is a better accountability program to determine if school districts are meeting their student's needs through good instructional practices. The state assessment system measures student proficiency in reading, writing and mathematics from one year to the next. In fact, with the passage of SB 285 last year the department of education has the authority and responsibility to intervene in chronically low performing schools and districts. SB 285 requires the Department of Education to redirect school district resources to improve instructional practice intended to increase student proficiency. This accountability system provides a better use of school district and state resources to increase student achievement. Repealing AS 14.17.520 will remove the 70% requirement and waiver process, saving almost half of Alaska's school districts, the State Board of Education and EED staff a redundant yearly process that does not measure the effectiveness or ability of a district to deliver a quality educational program to its children. 8:08:59 AM CHAIR SEATON opened public testimony 8:09:29 AM RICHARD CARLSON, Superintendent, Klawock City School District, stated support for HB 147, paraphrasing from a written statement, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: While I represent the Klawock City School District, it is worth noting that the State Board of Education, the Alaska Association of School Boards, and the Alaska Association of School Administrators have all been vocally in opposition to the 70 percent rule. Klawock is a small, single site school, of 125 students, located on Prince of Wales Island in southeast Alaska. The student demographics include 74 percent Native Alaskan, and 66 percent are impoverished. If you take a look at the educational statistics, our school should not be a successful school; based on what statistics say about minority and impoverished students. However, our school district has bucked that trend. We have always made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), the drop-out rate is consistently around 2 percent, attendance rate is 95 percent, and test scores are impressive. Most of our students go on to postsecondary education. Recently we were named as one of the top high schools in America by U.S. News and World Report. By every measure we are a successful school district, and yet annually, I have to spend a good amount of time and energy justifying how I expend our money. Annually I have to write a waiver. And it's not just the process of writing the waiver. During the coarse of the year determinations must be made, for instance, on how much of our time is spent transporting students to swimming classes; that is considered counted towards the 70 percent. Or how much our activity director's time is dedicated towards activities that would qualify for the 70 percent, for example academic decathlon or music festival. It becomes extremely time consuming and burdensome. It's not so much the time it takes, I get paid to do that, but it goes more to the core of local control and who is in the best situation to determine how money is to be allocated; whether it is an arbitrary number set in statute, or whether it is people that serve the school district - school board members and community members. I would argue that it's the people closer to the school district who would be the more appropriate people to make that decision. At the Klawock City School District we have a mission statement that highly values providing a well rounded educational program and educating the whole student. In our mission statement there is an emphasis on developing leadership skills, team work, strong work ethics, and responsibility. Those are sorts of things that are learned in and outside of the classroom, and consequently, outside of the 70 percent criteria. We believe that we are in the best situation to determine what is in the best interest for our children, not some arbitrary number set in statute. On a more practical level, increasing energy costs, the cost of facilities, and the cost of state and federal unfunded mandates make it increasingly difficult to reach the [70] percent. Clearly we agree that accountability is critical, but we feel that there are many, many better ways to determine the success of a school district than to place an arbitrary number in statute. Therefore, we very much support HB 147 and the repeal of the 70 percent rule. 8:16:03 AM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON pointed out that some districts provide pay/benefits to school board members, and asked what the policy is in Klawock. MR. CARLSON reported that the members receive $75.00 per month, which many of them donate back to the district. To a follow-up question he stated that spouses do not receive travel benefits. 8:17:03 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER queried how heating cost for a classroom is considered under the 70:30 rule, and whether those guidelines are in statute. MR. CARLSON answered that the guidelines are not in statute, and that fuel counts against the 70 percent criteria. When the fuel prices skyrocketed the situation became untenable. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER suggested that a regulation change could be made to allow a portion of the heating costs to be included as a cost of education; arguing that a warm classroom is necessary for instruction. MR. CARLSON maintained that the issue comes back to local control and who is making appropriate determinations. 8:18:42 AM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ noted the districts declining enrollment and asked the superintendent to address the topic. MR. CARLSON stated his belief that southeast Alaska, and certainly Prince of Wales Island, is experiencing declining enrollment in general. The exiting senior class, and the incoming kindergarten numbers, indicates a loss of about five percent. The fixed costs of operating remain static, however, and it becomes increasing difficult to meet the 70 percent requirement. To a further question, he reported that Klawock has a staff comprised of 3 administrators and 14 certified teachers. 8:21:02 AM CHAIR SEATON directed attention to the committee packet and the waiver requests from the various school districts. He pointed out that these forms contain pertinent information regarding each schools budget. 8:22:19 AM EUGENE S. AVEY, Superintendent, Annette Island School District, stated support for HB 147, and opined that the existing statute has become a burden on small school districts. Annette Island School represents the southern most district of the state. He credited the dedicated teaching staff as the reason that the school has met AYP. The 70 percent regulation was originally placed in statute to raise the level of instruction, however, it has become overshadowed by the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). It is now an unnecessary mandate that places undue burdens on school districts that cannot possibly be met given the rising costs for energy, maintenance, shipping, and other operational expenses. Creative ideas are cultivated, by small school districts, in an attempt to meet this unrealistic requirement. At the Annette Island School District, outside assistance is employed to ensure that the minimum expenditure requirement is being met. As a past superintendent of another rural district, he reported that similar difficulties occurred and the requirement could not be met. The one-site Rural Education Attendance Area (REAA) and high impact AYP have been instrumental for Annette Island School District to achieve the mandate. He added that many schools cannot send teams to competitions, due to these expenditure requirements. At the recent Academic Decathlon competition a low turnout was experienced. This may possibly be schools cutting these activities to meet the minimum expenditure requirement and he posed the question, "But at what cost?" Students miss out when they are unable to benefit from participating in intramural events. The NCLB requirement has raised the bar and imposes standards that parallel the state statute under repeal. Reduce government bureaucracy, allow local officials to provide oversight, and trust that the schools have the best interest of the students in mind, he finished, and urged passage of HB 147. 8:28:34 AM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON reiterated her previous question regarding payment/benefits for members of the Annette Island school board. MR. AVEY said he believes it is a monthly stipend of $109, the spouses are not allowed travel privileges. Given the hours they work, and the activities that they contribute personal money to, he opined, "I don't think they're really paid .... ... Most likely it's a wash." To a question from Representative Munoz, he said that Annette Island is a single site district, with 275 students. The staff includes 30 certified teachers and 3 administrators. The high school has been recognized as a blue ribbon school, which applies efforts to not only meet AYP, but to focus on each child and their needs. 8:30:54 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER inquired if school board members receive health coverage or other benefits, including travel. MR. AVEY reported that the members attend one national conference per year, and participate in state fly-ins once or twice per year. He opined that the travel money is not lavish, but well spent. Further, health coverage benefits can be purchased, however, none of the members take advantage of that option. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON qualified her line of questioning as a means to locate the districts which reportedly pay their board members several thousand dollars. MR. AVEY noted that higher pay could be an attractive incentive. 8:33:38 AM CHAIR SEATON pointed out that the retirement system rewrite has been changed to exclude from Public Employees' Retirement System/Teacher's Retirement System (PERS/TRS) a school board member who makes less than $24,000 per year; rectifying a loop hole that has existed to the detriment of some school districts. However, there are school districts that pay board members as much as $2,100 per month, but it does not count towards the 70 percent requirement. 8:35:33 AM JACK WALSH, Superintendent, Bristol Bay Borough School District, stated support for HB 147. Bristol Bay is a small district, serving Naknek, South Naknek, and King Salmon, with a significantly declining enrollment; currently 144 students. In the history of Bristol Bay the population trend is cyclical, thus the decline may take an upward turn in the near future. The 70:30 issue has been a challenge for many districts, he opined. The Bristol Bay schools have met their AYP requirements under NCLB; however, with the NCLB bar rising, and enrollments declining, the margin of error is reduced, and meeting AYP may become more difficult in the future. He said it is important to understand that AYP does not directly relate to this legislation, and may or may not be impacted as a result of repealing the 70:30 statute. Student success and progress is a greater indicator of a district's accountability than anything else, he opined. Every year Bristol Bay requests a waiver, although the budget is above the $3 million dollar mark; approximately $3.5 million. The district employs fifteen teachers, four support staff, along with one full-time administrator and one part-time administrator, both of whom are certified teachers. Operational costs consume 10 percent of the budget; despite the decline in enrollment, the 90,000 square foot building must be maintained. Neither the transportation costs [nor maintenance costs] are reduced when enrollment declines. He opined that passage of HB 147 may be the best step towards helping the rural school scenario. 8:41:20 AM CHAIR SEATON asked whether a new school would reflect a savings in operating costs. MR. WALSH responded that, although the school is an older building, it is well maintained. Some costs may be saved, but measures have been taken to minimize heating costs by utilizing recovered waste heat from the electric company; no diesel is used and the building has no furnace/boiler. However, as the utility company upgrades to more efficient equipment, waste heat is being minimized, and he acknowledged that he may be looking for capital improvement money in the future to secure a different heat source. CHAIR SEATON indicated interest regarding how operational costs at new schools compare with older facilities and how these expenditures effect the 70:30 requirements. 8:43:45 AM MR. WALSH responded to the question from Representative Wilson, stating that Bristol Bay has a five member school board, which meets locally on a regular basis and participates in state fly- ins once or twice per year. Each member is allowed $50.00 per meeting, including per diem. A policy allows them to qualify for health insurance, although none of them subscribe. He said that there is no indication that board privileges are ever abused. 8:45:21 AM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if the administrative office is in Naknek. MR. WALSH said, yes. The nearest administrative office is 12 miles down the road, however. REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired about the districts ability to attract and retain teaching staff. MR. WALSH indicated that, despite the lack of infrastructure amenities, the staff continues to be stable, and locating good teachers has not been an issue. The district does provide a $1,500 moving allowance for teachers, and the new hire starting wage is $40,000 per year, he reported. The turnover is about 20 percent, but is primarily experienced in the administrative staff. REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if the local young people are encouraged to become teachers. MR. WALSH responded that many of the students have taken that path, and the staff includes several lifelong Alaskans as teachers. A Future Teacher's of America (FTA) program is being developed to encourage interest in the teaching profession. 8:48:45 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER queried if the 70 percent law has changed how district funds are distributed. MR. WALSH answered that fund distribution is effected, in order to maintain compliance. Whenever a new program and a maintenance project are considered, the 70 percent rule must be weighed against the need. Also, budget line items are often amended. 8:49:53 AM CHAIR SEATON asked what adjustments are made. MR. WALSH said that primarily maintenance has been set aside. The reading and writing performance for students, along with math, could use some academic specialists, however, it is a struggle to accomplish this goal. 8:50:56 AM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON noted that transportation for student activities appears to be an issue, and asked how that is accomplished. MR. WALSH indicated that $40,000 is included for student travel, and funds are raised in the community to help students attend activities. 8:52:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER suggested that employing a reading specialist would improve the schools instructional component to meet the 70:30. MR. WALSH agreed, and also concurred with Chair Seaton that the stimulus for such action is consideration for the students, but the measurement tool is AYP. 8:53:42 AM MR. WALSH, prior to his departure, stated support for HB 58 that will be subsequently addressed by the committee today. 8:54:04 AM DAVID HERBERT, Superintendent, St. Mary's City School District, stated support for HB 147, and reported that his district has met the optimal zero level for AYP. St. Mary's services 185 students, employing 14 certified teachers, and 3 administrative staff; two full-time and one half-time. Fuel costs are a major factor for meeting the 70:30 requirement, as the fuel barge makes delivery once per year, and whatever the cost is at that time will effect the year's budget, including the allotment for transportation. Additionally, this is a single site school district, serving a first class city, and has a budget just under $3,000.000. During the four years he has served as an administrator, he said that each year a waiver has been requested. The school board reviews all budget expenditures, along with an outside financial auditing firm. Each year effort must be expended on generating the documentation to submit a waiver. Students are being well educated, but the 70:30 requirement cannot be met, despite frugal practices. The department does not tend to deny waivers, although this year there were additional questions to be considered. He stressed that the funds are well spent and this regulation is no longer necessary. Finally, he said the board members attend the Alaska Association of School Board fly-ins and on occasion attend job fairs to hire teachers. 8:59:34 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked whether the superintendent would consider the additional questions indicative of harassment on the part of the department. MR. HERBERT explained that the waiver request format was changed this year, and upon approval, EED required additional questions regarding expenditure activity. He declined to conjecture why these questions were put forward by the department. 9:01:06 AM CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony and set the bill aside for further consideration following the subsequent agenda item. HB 147-EDUCATION FUNDING FOR INSTRUCTION 9:38:30 AM CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 147, "An Act repealing the minimum expenditure for instruction requirements for public schools." 9:38:57 AM EDDY JEANS, Director, School Finance and Facilities Section, Department of Education and Early Development (EED), stated official support for HB 147. He explained that the 70 percent requirement rule was passed in 1978, when the state first implemented an accountability system. At the same time an assessment system was also implemented. With the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), new assessment levels have been established, which is proving to be a better measurement of student achievement than the original effort established by the state. To expect that every district can meet the 70 percent requirement is now unreasonable. He identified two specific areas that are primarily affected: schools with a budget of $3,000,000 or less, and districts with operation/maintenance costs that require 20 percent of their budgeted funds. 9:41:33 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER inquired how the 30 percent instructional component is defined and reviewed. MR. JEANS responded that the definition is in regulation. It specifies the categories of expenditure requirements: instruction, special education, support services, and school operations. These are the areas that the department has understood as instructional expenditures. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked if it would be possible to review the inclusive elements and add fuel costs; could that be considered a valid waiver item. MR. JEANS said fuel costs are a reason that a district would make a request, however, the department has already identified a pattern, via the economy of scale, and know which schools will routinely be requesting a waiver. 9:44:08 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER referred to today's previous testimony, which indicates that a significant amount of work is involved in attaining a waiver. He asked whether the zero fiscal note implies that the department's workload to process waivers is insignificant. MR. JEANS affirmed that the department is providing a zero fiscal note, however, the scrutiny of district budget reviews will continue to be of a high level, and require substantial amounts of time. The overall reduction of departmental effort surrounding the waiver request is minimal. However, he allowed, the districts do expend considerable effort preparing the requests. Mr. Jeans cited the St. Mary's district, as an example. The districts students perform at a high level, which should be the performance measure rather than identifying whether an appropriate percentage of funds were used for instruction. Following a comment from Chair Seaton, he confirmed that the 2008 passage of SB 285 provided the department the authority, as well as a directive, to work with low performing schools/districts. 9:47:06 AM CHAIR SEATON referred to the previous questions of funding school board member travel and spousal privileges. He asked if this bill preserves the department's ability to provide oversight and appropriate determination of activities that may not promote student achievement. MR. JEANS opined that the existing legislation is straight forward; either a district meets the 70 percent rule or not. Flexibility is not built in to the regulation, and a report may be received that a district has misappropriated funds. However, he stressed, this is not the mechanism to address school districts possible abuse of funds. When a district has low student performance, the miss direction of funding is clear, and the department can then take action, as allowed under SB 285. Additionally, he recalled that the department has recommended to the state board to not grant a waiver; perhaps two or three instances. When this occurs the superintendants are able to appeal before the board to have the waiver granted. The department takes the waiver responsibility seriously, he stressed. 9:50:20 AM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked what alterations would be necessary to make a waiver acceptable, if it is initially denied. MR. JEANS explained that the waiver must match what the districts budget indicates. Exchange between the department and district also occurs when identical waiver request letters are received, in which only the date has been altered. This is not a rubber stamp process, he stressed. 9:51:34 AM CHAIR SEATON named the entities supporting HB 147, including EED, school board association administrators, and school superintendents. 9:52:37 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER stated that he is not able to support HB 147, and requested that it be held for an amendment to refine the instructional definition component, rather than repeal the law. CHAIR SEATON called for further discussion and suggested that a conceptual amendment be offered. 9:55:07 AM MR. JEANS clarified that the previously mentioned instructional component categories are listed in regulation, not statute. He cited the enumerated items, under regulation 4 AAC 09.115, which reads: 4 AAC 09.115. Minimum expenditure for instruction The department will calculate each district's required minimum expenditure for instruction under AS 14.17.520 based upon the district's school operating fund expenditures reported under the uniform chart of accounts required under 4 AAC 06.120. The instructional component of a district's budget consists of expenditures in the following functional uniform chart of accounts categories: (1) 100 - Instruction; (2) 200 - Special Education Instruction; (3) 220 - Special Education Support Services - Student; (4) 300 - Support Services - Students; (5) 350 - Support Services - Instruction.; and (6) 400 - School Administration. MR. JEANS pointed out that item (6), School Administration, includes principals but not secretarial staff. 9:55:56 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER withdrew his request to hold the bill for amendment, but maintained his objection to passing the repeal. 9:56:05 AM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ moved to report HB 147 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected. 9:56:37 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER expounded on the role of the public school system in the community, particularly rural or small communities, which, although important and good, are not aspects of education. There is nothing in statute that delineates between these roles. He maintained that the existing statute provides a useful tool that has helped to ensure the direction, and accountability of funding use for educational purposes. The school facilities/transportation are often the best and most vital in a community; perhaps even offering a nutritional program, and a place to stay overnight. Local school boards are under pressure to divert core funding from classroom instruction and have it sidelined to these other uses and needs of adults in the system. Although the existing law may be a crude tool, he insisted it is working, and he reviewed points of the day's testimony. The laws cannot define what is best for a student. The funding formula does not incentivize proficiency, it has been left to the accountability system imposed on the state. He recalled Mr. Jeans's statement regarding the dialogue with the districts, generated by waiver requests that will be lost with this repeal. Finally, he argued that SB 285 does not afford the legislature the same control or involvement. 10:01:32 AM CHAIR SEATON countered that better, modern instruments now exist to measure progress and accountability; outdating the means that this original legislation set forth. Every school should be seen for its individual needs, and be scrutinized by the local school board, rather than having a blunt tool with blanket requirements wielded. Maintaining the 70 percent rule would require allowing some of the categories to be re-directed, "just to fudge the numbers," he opined. Additionally, there is a huge discrepancy between schools and the maintenance required depending on the age of the building and the funding that has been provided to upgrade a communities facilities. "I think the tool is blunter than it should be," he finished. 10:04:25 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said that, regarding the construction and facilities costs, it is because of the existing statute that the committee is aware of the situation. Further, the zero fiscal note indicates that it does not cost to continue this regulation. He agreed that the school districts resent the paperwork involved, although the actual time spent writing the waiver is not lengthy. He pointed out that the tough part of requesting a waiver is making decisions and scrutinizing how to spend the money. That is precisely what makes this a valuable tool, he opined. 10:05:39 AM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON stated her support for the bill, and offered that if a school is making AYP, it is obvious that the funds are being well utilized. The majority of school boards want the best for their students, thus this is not a rural versus urban concern. She voiced support for local control in the districts, and opined that the sideboards are in place to deal with a school that does not perform. 10:07:38 AM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Munoz, Wilson, Buch, and Seaton voted in favor of reporting HB 147 from committee. Representatives Keller and Gardner voted against it. Therefore, HB 147 was reported out of the House Education Standing Committee by a vote of 4-2. 10:08:20 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 126 amendment.pdf |
HEDC 3/2/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 126 |
| HB 126 amendment II.pdf |
HEDC 3/2/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 126 |
| hb 126 materials.pdf |
HEDC 2/25/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/2/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/9/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 126 |
| workdraft HB 126.pdf |
HEDC 2/25/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/2/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/9/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 126 |
| HB 147 material.pdf |
HEDC 3/2/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 147 |
| HB 58 material.pdf |
HEDC 3/2/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 58 |
| new HB 126 material including new fiscal notes.pdf |
HEDC 3/2/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 126 |
| HB 58 fiscal note.pdf |
HEDC 3/2/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 amendment.pdf |
HEDC 3/2/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 58 |