Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/13/2002 08:04 AM House EDU
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 342-EDUCATION FUNDING Number 1090 CHAIR BUNDE announced the next order of business to be HOUSE BILL NO. 342, "An Act relating to appropriations for operating expenses for primary and secondary public education; and providing for an effective date." Number 1099 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS presented HB 342 as the bill's sponsor. He explained that HB 342 provides for early funding of education; this has been considered [by the legislature] in the past. He recounted his frustration as school board president in determining the school district's budget for the upcoming year with funding from the borough and the state. He'd also served as borough mayor, caught between demands of the school district and the legislature's slowness in funding. House Bill 342 would require the governor to submit a separate appropriation bill to the legislature for education before the fourth day of each regular session. It asks the legislature to pass and send to the governor a bill funding the following fiscal year by April 1. School districts would be required to have budgets to the municipality by May 1. Number 1182 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS offered that the problem lies in districts' having to base upcoming budgets on assumptions of funding. The state is facing changes in education and teacher shortages, he said. He expressed surprise at the opposition to HB 342, which he attributed to political strategy. Surmising that other opposition has to do with the Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR), he remarked, "The CBR is not going to be there much longer, so maybe we don't need to worry about it for too much longer." REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said the present system gives school boards very little time to plan; education requires planning. An enormous amount of the state budget goes to education, and this bill would "ease things up considerably." The district would know how much money it had early in the bargaining process. He echoed Representative Wilson's sentiment, asking, "What's best for kids?" Number 1284 EDDY JEANS, Manager, School Finance and Facilities Section, Education Support Services, Department of Education and Early Development (EED), stated that HB 342 has no fiscal impact on EED. He commented that Representative Stevens had covered the issue well. Number 1309 MR. JOHNSON returned to submit AASB's position on HB 342. He paraphrased from a written statement and said: Our association is supportive and appreciative of the work that the bill's sponsor continues to undertake on behalf of education and the children of our state. That being said, our association is not in support of early funding for education at this point in our state's history. We do not believe that public education will be well served by HB 342. Our members believe strongly that adequacy of school funding is paramount to the urgency of knowing a funding level by April 1 of a given year. Many of us recognize that our schools are transitioning from an accreditation-based system to a standards-based system in an effort to support the concept of "no child left behind," the mantra of our President; that our school systems are currently mid- stream in this transition, at a time when recent history has shown that our funding level hasn't kept pace with inflation over the past decade - making it extremely difficult for schools to meet the needs of all children; and finally, that our schools are balancing a variety of unfunded and underfunded mandates, as well as many additional responsibilities that require more resources to achieve the desired result. Education initiatives currently being undertaken in Alaska beg for additional funds for school districts to do their job well. Our association, as well as the majority of Alaskan citizens, believe that education is the highest priority. In times of scarcity, the educational needs of our children are best served by adequate funding, not by an accommodation of early funding that, by definition, could easily short-change education given the current fiscal condition of our state. Number 1412 REPRESENTATIVE GUESS asked Mr. Johnson if he would still disagree with this policy if the legislature guaranteed that education funding would be the same whether funded on May 15 or April 1. MR. JOHNSON replied that if the amount were determined and set, AASB could agree to that. Nonetheless, this is not how the system works. The final days and hours of the [legislative] session are key in determining funding allocations. He offered that education is well served to be "at the table" and involved in that funding conversation. MR. JOHNSON explained that municipalities' funding is unknown [until the end of session], so districts are told to plan budgets on the same municipal funding as the previous year; in June, this amount may be changed when funding is known. He added that supplemental education funding might be available at the end of the session [and might be precluded by early funding]. He reiterated, "We would prefer, as an association, to be at the table at the end of the session ... advocating for what we believe is right for children." Number 1500 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE inquired whether AASB would perceive itself to be at the table if the date were moved to an earlier time. MR. JOHNSON answered that the association would be invited and present at the table in the earlier funding scenario. He acknowledged that the legislature's task of balancing competing needs is enormous. He said: From our perspective, if you were to simply dispatch [with] education by April 1 of each year, it would be very easy to say, "Our situation is so challenging in the state, ... take flat funding and be happy with that." We don't think that puts us in the best position ... at the end of the session. Number 1550 CHAIR BUNDE queried, "You want to stay alive to the last minute in hopes that you can bargain politically to increase funding?" MR. JOHNSON replied, "Absolutely." Number 1582 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS noted that the intention of HB 342 is not to underfund education. He cautioned that last-minute bargaining in the legislature might not serve education well. Number 1624 REPRESENTATIVE GUESS agreed with Representative Stevens that this [legislation] is good education policy. She remarked, "If we want to be able to hold people accountable for how they're spending money, they need to be able to have the time to plan appropriately for their budget. It saddens me that this isn't going to move forward because it's not good politics." REPRESENTATIVE GUESS emphasized that the CBR argument is the weakest argument. She indicated that the legislature might want to reevaluate the way it does business - with the final 72 hours determining much of the funding. She concluded, "Unfortunately, because of testimony like we heard today, no one will risk making good policy because of the politics that we choose to have in this body." Number 1700 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE offered that an early deadline might be helpful by isolating the issue of education and focusing the efforts of the lobbying. He acknowledged that school boards, administrators, and teachers have been an effective lobby in mobilizing the state and subsequently the legislature. He offered his opinion that the early funding date might help education's position. CHAIR BUNDE said, "What you're saying [is] rather than being at the end where everybody is at the table, ... your voice may not be as loud because of all the voices there." Number 1800 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER offered that the legislature is facing "one heck of a fiscal dilemma." He reported that many other states and some Canadian provinces have made up to 25 percent across-the-board budget reductions, including education. This [funding deadline] might be a better idea for the next five years [as the state faces budget shortfalls], he suggested. Number 1858 DAVE JONES, Director of Finance, Kodiak Island Borough School District, testified via teleconference. He noted that the Kodiak district is currently in the budget process. He characterized the district's position regarding state funding as "uncertainty" that affects the district's ability to educate students. MR. JONES told members that Quality Schools funding and Learning Opportunity Grant (LOG) funding are not part of the Foundation Formula. This funding may or may not be funded each year. Teachers who are hired with these grant monies are placed in an uncertain position each year - they can wait [to seek other employment] in hopes that the funding is renewed, or they can seek a more secure position funded with Foundation Formula monies. Number 1898 MR. JONES noted that the April 1 commitment would eliminate six weeks of uncertainty, and it would reduce staff turnover. He explained that the middle school and high school principals have each requested one new teacher to help students pass the High School Graduation Qualifying Exam (HSGQE). An April 1 commitment of Foundation Formula funds by the legislature would put his district in the "recruitment wars" six weeks earlier; in today's market, those six weeks are critical for recruiting the better teachers. By May 15, he noted, many teachers have already committed to teaching positions for the following school year. MR. JONES reported that he is the president of the Alaska Association of School Business Officials (ALASBO). He stated that he'd told the ALASBO board of directors about HB 342, and had received only positive comments about it. Statewide, he offered, people would like to have the extra six weeks to plan. Mr. Jones said he would like to see this passed to help Alaskan districts educate students. Number 1999 CHAIR BUNDE reminded members that they'd heard comments in support of earlier funding in the House Special Committee on Education hearings on recruitment and retention of teachers. Number 2007 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked, "What happens if we fail to pass a bill by April 1?" REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS expressed his understanding that this would be a suggestion to the legislature, and it is not binding to the legislature in any way. Number 2032 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said, "This really is a dilemma." She added that politics truly is involved with fiscal decisions made by the legislature. The legislation would give districts certainty in planning budgets, but the uncertainty of funding issue is a reality. She asked: How do districts know they've received as much as possible? She concluded that there is no quick answer to this dilemma. CHAIR BUNDE added that "pink slips" don't add to teacher morale or retention. Number 2113 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS noted that one year during his tenure as a school board member, all first-year teachers were pink- slipped. The district intended to rehire most of these teachers, but the pink slips were distributed nonetheless, because of budget uncertainty. In light of the teacher shortage in the state, more funding certainty would serve districts well. He said, "'We're giving you a pink slip.' If I were a teacher, the first thing I'd do is check around Seattle. ... Many people are doing that." REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS offered that other states pay teachers as much or more than Alaska. He referenced the comment by Mr. Jones indicating districts could be in the job market six weeks earlier - a tremendous advantage. The "cream of the crop" may be gone after that, he concluded. Number 2185 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN drew attention to the state's dependence on oil revenue, characterizing the prognostication of oil prices as a "crapshoot." He suggested Alaska could not expect a sudden increase in oil prices, and pointed out that the state, in recent years, has been spending more than it has been taking in. He offered his experience at the end of session, that discussion doesn't focus on increasing education spending by cutting other expenditures. Typically, he noted, the discussion instead centers on "holding the line" on education funding. He predicted that this would not change in the future, and he suggested that waiting until the end puts education funding in greater jeopardy. He noted the uncertainty of recruiting good teachers. He suggested an early start will help the state. Number 2263 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER informed members that his son is teaching in Oregon. After teaching in Anchorage for five years and being pink-slipped two or three of those years, his son left the state. CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony on HB 342 and sought the wish of the committee. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to report HB 342 from committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, HB 342 was moved out of the House Special Committee on Education.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|