Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 106
02/10/2010 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB317 | |
| HB206 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 317 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 206 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 206-HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSM'T/POSTSECONDARY CLASS
8:32:18 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 206, "An Act establishing a career assessment
requirement in public schools; and relating to postsecondary
courses for secondary school students."
8:32:44 AM
CHAIR SEATON opened public testimony.
8:33:06 AM
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards (AASB), stated concern for HB 206, and said there is
nothing to substantiate that an 80 day count period would be a
benefit for improving the drop-out situation. There appears to
be an assumption that following the October 20 day count, there
is no effort made by schools to maintain attendance, and a push-
out factor may even come into play. He said that young people
are a valuable commodity, and to infer that, once the count is
complete, a school may no longer maintain an interest in a
student is an insult to the profession. Many directions are
taken to deter drop-outs, and every district and school does
whatever they can to engage each student. He relayed his own
experience of growing up dyslexic, and coping with the school
system. The best means for helping a young person develop
appropriately is to emphasize the role of the community; a
proven statistic. Expanding to an 80 day count period will not
change this situation. A ten year snapshot of attendance, from
the Unalaska School, indicated that, in nine out of ten years,
enrollment has dropped in February. He suggested that this may
be the norm for many of the small rural schools, where families
choose to relocate in the fall. For small schools, with limited
administration, it becomes a burden to accomplish all of the
winter requirements including: mid-year reports, budget
development/revision, and student assessments. Further, the
WorkKeys program is still not fully understood, or the relevancy
of the assessments clear. Finally, he drew attention to page 2,
lines [16] and [24], and paraphrased the two sentences which
read:
(a) A secondary student who passes all portions of the
examination required under AS 14.13.075 may enroll in
a postsecondary institution in the state that is
approved by the commissioner if
(b) The school district in which the student is
enrolled in secondary school shall make arrangement
for the fees for the appropriate postsecondary courses
in which the student enrolls under this section.
MR. ROSE said that stating "may," in the first sentence poses no
problem, but the second sentence stipulates "shall," which does
present a concern. He said:
When you say to the district "shall," ... and you say
it's only "in state," you've removed the point of
negotiation. ... There is not the incentive to try to
negotiate to try to get individual school districts to
be able to negotiate something on behalf of their
kids. ... If [the may, or shall] removes us from being
able to fashion a program that is more economically
advantageous to the student, and the school district,
I don't really think we want to do that; I don't think
it's your intent. So, I raise that issue to consider
that language.
8:43:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON interpreted the cited language to mean
that the school shall make arrangements for the fees, not
necessarily pay the fees; it is left open as to how the fees
will be paid.
MR. ROSE referred to the sponsor statement.
CHAIR SEATON indicated that the sponsor statement was applicable
to the original version of the bill. If further clarification
is needed, it will be considered, as the intent is not to be
limiting. Additionally, he said push-out is a term that the
department coined as an alternative to drop-out. A seventeen
point list was developed, with reasons identified for why a
student might feel pushed out. It was not meant as a criticism
of the educational system.
8:46:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON acknowledged that many districts have
expressed opposition to the 80 day count, and asked whether any
district is in support of the change.
MR. ROSE said the recalculation language, allowing adjustment
for an increase in enrollment, is considered a favorable move,
but the 80 day count is not supported. He reiterated that there
is no data to support that an expanded count is an effective
means for improving drop-out rates.
8:47:55 AM
CHAIR SEATON said many of the comments have been similar to the
one received from the Northwest Arctic Borough School District,
and directing attention to the committee packet, he paraphrased:
In reality the count is below the level, in rural
Alaska, due to PFD (permanent fund dividend) checks
distributed in ... October, [and the parents and
students] often traveling for shopping ...
CHAIR SEATON requested that districts continue to provide the
committee with information to indicate how enrollment fluctuates
in specific areas. Some districts have reported an inability to
pursue drop-outs, and choosing to focus on students who remain
in school. Also, prior students have testified to a lack of
professional/personal interest in their education even though
they left school prior to age 16. Incentives may be needed to
interest schools in bringing students back into the school
system.
MR. ROSE said that AASB will circulate an informal survey to
provide applicable information to the committee.
8:50:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ recalled her experience as a member of a
rural advisory school board for the Chatham School District,
which is a Rural Education Attendance Area (REAA) comprised of
four schools. She stated her belief that an 80 day count would
have negative effects on small schools, and indicated that she
could support an expanded count period, but not one that extends
to 80 days.
8:51:39 AM
CHAIR SEATON informed the schools districts that the committee
would like to have comprehensive information regarding why
students leave, and do not return; not just a numbers report.
He expressed concern for accountability of students who drop-out
prior to the legal age of sixteen.
8:52:56 AM
DAVE JONES, Assistant Superintendent, Kenai Peninsula Borough
School District, testified on HB 206 with concerns on each
aspect of the bill, beginning with the use of WorkKeys and how
it is to be utilized. If WorkKeys replaces the High School
Graduation Qualifying Exam (HSGQE) it may be acceptable,
however, if it is to be given throughout the year, requiring
proctoring, additional staff may be needed. He agreed with Mr.
Rose regarding the interpretation of the language [page 2, line
25], " shall make arrangement for the fees" to mean that the
school will be liable for the fees. Additionally, the sponsor
statement indicates that a student is to start college with six
credits. This raises a concern for the cost involved for
compliance, and he said a fiscal note has not been attached to
indentify funding. Referring to the 80 day count period, he
said the expanded effort may not affect the drop-out, or
graduation, rates. Options are employed, in the Kenai district,
for retention of traditional, as well as non-traditional
students, and every effort is made to help students continue
their education, which include: credit recovery programs,
alternative classrooms, and correspondence courses. He
suggested that specific districts may need to be examined, for
appropriate practices, and stated opposition to blanket
legislation that affects every district. Returning to the 80
day count period, he stated concern that it would result in a
decrease of funding, and have negative effects on small schools
with minimal enrollment, such as the Cooper Landing School. A
one year grace period, for enrollment decreases, would need to
be implemented to assist these small schools, but the ability to
adjust for increased enrollment does provide a highlight in the
bill
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that the bill is structured to provide
funding based on the previous year count, which does provide a
grace period for the smaller schools. The intent is to ensure
forward budgeting for the schools. He asked Mr. Jones to
provide the committee with information regarding student
attendance in the district's alternative programs.
9:01:42 AM
KAREN GOODWIN, Director, Administrative Services, Northwest
Arctic Borough School District, directed attention to the
committee packet, and the written testimony titled "Testimony:
HB 206 High School Assessment/Post Secondary Class, On behalf of
Dr. Norman Eck, Superintendent, Norwest Arctic Borough School
District," dated 2/8/10, and offered to respond to any
questions.
9:02:19 AM
CHAIR SEATON noted that the testimony reports how significant
numbers of students travel from the district, around the current
20 day count period in October, and asked why the 80 day count
wouldn't be a benefit for recapturing those numbers.
MS. GOODWIN clarified that the PFD distribution allows families
a means to afford to relocate. The extended count period would
only serve to complicate the reconciliation of numbers between
districts.
9:04:24 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked why, if students are traveling, during the
initial count, but return, the extended period would recapture
that count and it would prove beneficial for the schools forward
funding calculation.
MS. GOODWIN concurred that the 80 day count is a benefit to the
districts, for forward funding purposes.
9:06:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired about the status of transient
families, perhaps seasonal workers, migrating in and out on a
regular basis.
MS. GOODWIN responded that seasonal employment does effect
enrollment, and, on committee request, agreed to provide further
information/data.
9:08:04 AM
WOODY WILSON, Superintendent, Wrangell School District, stated
concern for the various points of HB 206, and characterized the
WorkKeys assessment as neither being useful for college bound
students, nor in alignment with the Alaska state teaching
standards, which will not be met by its use. Referring to page
2, line 17, and the "in state" language, he noted, and agreed,
with Mr. Roses testimony, that it may prove limiting. Regarding
page 2, line 24, and the language indicating "that the school
district shall make arrangements," he reported that Wrangell has
22 senior students, taking 197 credits, through a variety of
post secondary institutions. If the University of Alaska
Southeast (UAS) tuition schedule is applied, the full cost of
these credits would be $131,835.00, to the school district. The
underclassmen are taking an additional 419 credits, which
indicates that many of the students will graduate with six or
more credits, without further legislative mandates. He said:
We're just concerned that, somehow, [HB 206] may upset
the apple cart. ... We think you're on the right
track, asking students to [take a minimum of six
credits]. Research proves that six credits helps ...
kids enter college and be successful there. ... Also,
I would like to say that I appreciate the study that
your committee is doing, in education, that's
refreshing.
MR. WILSON referred to the 80 day count and said that
reconciliation of enrollment records would become difficult. He
explained that, when a student is counted for one day, in the 20
day period, one twentieth of the BSA is applied. If the moves
to another district, tracking occurs, and each applicable day is
compensated for, which requires a great deal of administration.
An 80 day count would require four times the administrative
effort; however an extension up to 40 days may be helpful. He
opined that the drop-out rate will not be changed by altering
the count period, and suggested that effort be focused in other
areas such as truancy enforcement. He reported that neither
Health and Social Services, nor the police department, have
proven to be supportive to the school districts regarding truant
students. When an underage student is not attending school, a
law is being broken, and the onus should not be bourn entirely
by the school district. A co-operative is needed to bring these
students into compliance.
9:15:18 AM
CHAIR SEATON referred to the chart titled, "Wrangell High School
College Class Enrollment 2009-2010,"and noted that the district
is making arrangements for the payment of the college fees. He
asked what would be different under HB 206.
MR. WILSON conjectured that the proposed language would provide
a legal means for UAS to request full tuition costs from the
Wrangell School District, and suggested there would be no reason
for the president of the university to not enforce that
requirement.
CHAIR SEATON offered to pose the question to the incoming
university president.
9:17:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked how the costs are currently being
paid.
MR. WILSON reported that the district has made arrangements with
postsecondary facilities to make courses available to students
at $25.00 per credit. The district provides the books, and
existing faculty teach the courses. Some students complete the
first year of college for $25.00 per credit, which represents a
huge benefit to the family. Under certain circumstances the
credit may be paid for via federal funds, or Native
corporations. To a follow-up question, he said the teachers are
approved through the university, to teach the classes, and an
articulation agreement exists to ensure curriculum and testing
standards.
9:19:14 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether the district currently pays for
students to take the SAT (Scholastic Achievement Test), and the
ACT (American College Testing) tests.
MR. WILSON replied, no, however, preparatory classes are
offered, which involves teaching fees.
9:19:54 AM
CHAIR SEATON queried whether language in HB 206 would prevent
the district from continuing the status quo, regarding these
tests.
MR. WILSON said, no.
9:20:17 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that WorkKeys may be used to provide a
continuous improvement model. He recalled the testimony of Mr.
Jones, who suggested that WorkKeys has been helpful in the Kenai
district. He asked whether the administrative burden would be
the same for WorkKeys, as it is for SAT and ACT tests.
MR. WILSON speculated that the WorkKeys may require less
administration.
9:21:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON closed public testimony, and stated that
it would be reopened at a subsequent meeting.
9:22:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said the original bill, which she
initially supported, has undergone a great amount of change, and
she stated reservations for supporting the current version. The
WorkKeys assessment may be a plausible replacement for the
HSGQE, but, as HB 206 now reads, WorkKeys appears to be another
layer of testing, which does not impact the need for the ACT/SAT
assessments. Directing attention page 2, and proposed AS
14.03.074, she questioned what is being accomplished, unless it
represents a mandate for districts to pick-up all or part of the
college fees. Currently, students who have completed the
requirements, and are enrolled, may take UA classes. The
question is who pays and under what terms, but the bill is not
clear on that point. Section 2 deals with the count periods,
which may need to be considered further. She opined that at
this point the bill may only increase administrative burdens on
districts, without improving outcomes for students what-so-ever.
If the committee would like to have schools "step-up and be more
engaged," perhaps truant officers for the schools would be
helpful.
9:26:23 AM
EDDY JEANS, Director, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), explained
the current counting and reconciliation process. A unique
student identifier is used to prevent a student being counted,
and paid for by the department, more than once. The
reconciliation process is somewhat cumbersome and takes about
two months. As mentioned by Mr. Wilson, a student who attends
in more than one district, during the 20 day count period, is
accounted for in each district monetarily, and the department
scrutinizes the dates appropriately to ensure correct
compensation. The larger districts have sophisticated student
accounting systems, and recording the number of students, at any
time, should not present a problem. A greater burden will be
p[laced on smaller schools, who have counting systems that are
not advanced, and are more labor intensive. The department
receives the information in a variety of forms, enters the data,
and proceeds with the reconciliation process, which, he agreed
will take longer to perform with an expanded count.
9:29:39 AM
CHAIR SEATON theorized that the data could be done in two or
more batches, versus waiting until after the 80 day period to
begin the reconciliation process.
MR. JEANS said currently the process begins when all of the data
has been received from each district. He said that it would be
possible to begin reconciling earlier, if the count were
extended. However, he estimated that because it takes two
months to reconcile the 20 day count, an 80 day count would have
the department performing a continuous reconciliation for the
entire school year.
CHAIR SEATON assumed that every district has some method of
computerization to accomplish this task, and asked about
standardizing the process to eliminate EED performing manual re-
entry.
MR. JEANS said, if the legislation passes, the department would
certainly make an effort to streamline the process.
9:32:46 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked about the necessity for the reconciliation.
MR. JEANS responded that the count becomes the base for forward
funding the subsequent year, elevating the importance for
accuracy.
CHAIR SEATON questioned the time line that districts would need
to have the reconciled numbers for budgeting purposes.
MR. JEANS said districts will be developing budgets prior to the
completion of the reconciliation. Thus, districts will not know
what to expect for funding levels, and will need to base
projections on best estimates. Planning begins, in many
districts, in November, the budget process begins in January,
and completed budgets are due to the local municipalities by
April 1.
9:35:14 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked what type of variance a district might
experience between what is originally submitted to the
department and the final reconciliation.
MR. JEANS indicated the variance is probably not huge, but the
process is time consuming.
CHAIR SEATON surmised that at the end of an 80 day count period,
a district would have a reasonable indication of what to expect,
for budgetary purposes. He said it would be helpful to know the
level of confidence that districts have in the numbers they
submit.
MR. JEANS said he would anticipate the variant to be greater
over an extended period, as there will be more student movement,
and the reconciliation will become more difficult, and lengthy.
He offered to provide further information to the committee.
9:38:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked how much staff time is dedicated to
reconciliation.
MR. JEANS reported that one staff administers the foundation
program, until reconciliation time, when as many as three staff
are directed to the project, for the two month duration.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired whether the positions are
dedicated to the project.
MR. JEANS said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if additional staff needs are
anticipated, should the count period be extended.
MR. JEANS said he has not anticipated adding staff, but the time
required will be extended.
9:39:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON queried how extended absences, such as
for illness, are handled when the schools perform the count
during the 20 day period.
MR. JEANS explained that the funding formula is based on student
enrollment, not attendance; absent students are counted.
However, the 10 consecutive day rule does apply, and students
are dropped from enrollment, if contact has not been made.
9:41:09 AM
CHAIR SEATON recalled a comment from the department indicating
that there are fewer students attending public school in the
second half of the school year, than in the first half. He
asked for an outline of the factors that cause this phenomenon
to occur on an ongoing basis.
9:43:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON requested more information regarding
the WorkKeys program standards, and stated her understanding
that the exit exam standards are different. Further she
questioned whether WorkKeys is helpful for college bound
students.
CHAIR SEATON said that the appropriate EED representative would
be invited to make comments on the assessment alignments. He
reported that WorkKeys is being used in some states as the
assessment for students attending community colleges; however,
universities still require an ACT/SAT score.
9:48:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ recalled the previous statement regarding
the exodus of village families, following the distribution of
PFD's, and requested further clarification on why that affects
the schools.
MR. JEANS indicated that if the student remains enrolled, it
does not affect the count, but some families relocate and re-
enroll their student elsewhere. Following additional comments
on the topic, he offered to provide additional information to
the committee.
9:51:06 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that HB 206 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 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 317 version S.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 317 |
| HB317-EED-ACYA-2-5-10 (2).pdf |
HEDC 2/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 317 |
| HB317-EED-ESS-2-8-10 (2).pdf |
HEDC 2/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 317 |
| 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 numbers with ISER.pdf |
HEDC 2/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 317 |
| HB 317 letter of intent.pdf |
HEDC 2/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 317 |