Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/13/2003 11:05 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 154-UNDER SCHOOL AGE STUDENTS CHAIR GATTO announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 154, "An Act relating to admission to and advancement in public schools of children under school age; and providing for an effective date." Number 0280 DEE HUBBARD testified via teleconference. She asked the committee about the meaning of the language in HB 154, specifically, starting on page 1, line 9, and going through line 10, saying "a district's educational program must prescribe". She asked if this mean that even if a child is not ready to advance to the next grade, he/she must advance; or does this mean that the program itself has to prescribe that stepping- stone capability. Ms. Hubbard commented that this appears to be another unfunded mandate for school districts. She told the committee she really appreciates the fact that districts can get children into school early. She has been seeing no money coming with all of these bills that have made dramatic requests of school districts over the past few years. School district money is drying up. She told the committee she thinks there should have been a fiscal note to tell the school districts what they will have to pay if a bill like this passes. Number 0435 CHAIR GATTO read [lines 9 through 11], which said, "A district's educational program must prescribe that under school-age students advance through the curriculum or grade level by the following school year." MS. HUBBARD asked if that means the student must advance, even if he/she is not ready, or whether this is about the district's prescribing stepping stones for advancement. CHAIR GATTO stated that this language refers to children under school age. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said the intent in the language is to address schools that have two-year kindergarten programs. If a child comes to kindergarten and is capable and ready to go to first grade, the school district must put that child in first grade rather than through a second year of kindergarten. Representative Wilson told Ms. Hubbard that districts get funding through the foundation formula for every child that is in the school system. MS. HUBBARD responded that while the district does get funding for children in the school system, there are still many unfunded mandates. She repeated her question by asking if the bill means that a child may remain in kindergarten or advance to first grade when he/she is ready. She asked if her interpretation is correct. Number 0648 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Mr. Jeans if the department is saying the funding for a second year would not be in place. What would be the penalty for an individual student? He asked if what the plan is for the entire program. Number 0670 EDDY JEANS, Manager, School Finance and Facilities Section, Education Support Services, Department of Education and Early Development, responded to the committee's questions on HB 154. He told the committee the intent of this piece of legislation is to address the current policy of some school districts that are claiming all four-year-olds for kindergarten funding in a two- year kindergarten program. This bill will eliminate the districts' ability to do that. It does not block a district's ability to enroll a four-year-old that is ready for kindergarten and expects to move on to first grade in the following year. MS. HUBBARD responded that she does understand what he is saying. She said she still has questions, but will take those questions to the next committee of referral. CHAIR GATTO commented that what he understands this to say is that if an under school-aged child is admitted to kindergarten, it is expected that that child will go on to first grade. If that expectation is not there, the child should never have been admitted into kindergarten in the first place. Chair Gatto pointed out that putting this language in statute [that these students are expected to move on to the next grade] eliminates the possibility of districts' trying to work around the system. MS. HUBBARD responded that is exactly what her problem is with this bill. If statute states that a child can only remain in that grade for one year, it is pushing a child on to the next grade even if he/she is not ready. She asked what good that would do. CHAIR GATTO replied that the whole point of putting an under school-age child in kindergarten at four years old is that the child is ready. This legislation is intended to prevent underage children who are not ready from being admitted into kindergarten. This bill would also eliminate a two-year kindergarten program that some districts have implemented through a loophole in the statutes. Number 0908 REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Mr. Jeans how many four-year-olds will lose funding statewide. MR. JEANS responded that he does not know because he does not know how liberally school districts have been applying this provision. He stated that this bill and fiscal note are based on the number of all four-year-olds the department funded this year. He said he believes that the number of true four-year- olds that are the exceptional children who will be ready for kindergarten will be a minimal number. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he needs to know how many four-year- olds the department is talking about before the committee passes this bill. MR. JEANS said he can provide the committee with the actual number of students that were claimed this year and which the department used to generate the fiscal note. Mr. Jeans pointed out that those four-year-olds that were claimed this year will not be losing anything, since they will be in kindergarten next year. The department will be providing funding for them as five-year-olds in kindergarten. What this bill does is prevent those districts that are enrolling all four-year-olds in their communities from doing it next year. Number 1057 CHAIR GATTO told the committee there are two amendments to HB 154. Number 1100 REPRESENTATIVE GARA moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 23- GH1123\a.1, Ford, 3/10/03, which read:. Page 1, line 1: Delete "admission to and" Page 1, lines 11 -13: Delete "A child under school age may be admitted to first grade or higher if the child meets the minimum standards prescribed by the board under this subsection." Number 1150 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected to Amendment 1. CHAIR GATTO commented that he agrees completely with Amendment 1 because it is simply redundant language that appears earlier in the bill. This amendment simply cleans up an error that someone missed when drafting the bill. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if there is another reason for the language, and said he would like to hear what the department's position is on Amendment 1. Number 1207 MR. JEANS responded that the Department of Education and Early Development supports this amendment. He noted that the original draft of HB 154 starting on line 2 says "may be admitted to first grade or higher that meets the minimum standards". If that language were to remain in the bill, the department could not allow a child that is four years old to enter kindergarten so the rest of that referring to the standards prescribed is covered in line 6 through 9. It was not the department's intent to block the district's ability to enroll a bright four-year-old in kindergarten. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded that he remembers testimony that the original intent was to allow those that could advance to advance, but not create a two-year kindergarten system. Number 1295 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection. CHAIR GATTO asked if there were any other objections. Hearing none, he announced that Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 1302 REPRESENTATIVE GARA began discussion of Amendment 2, 23- GH1123\A.2, Findley/Ford, 3/13/03, which read: Page 1, following line 3: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Section 1. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read: LEGISLATIVE INTENT. It is the intent of the legislature that public school funding that will be saved due to the amendment made by sec. 2 of this Act shall be redirected to head start preschool programs in areas of the state where the programs are needed. The current program of state aid to public schools is used to provide early education for children who are four years old in a manner that is unequal among school districts. This inequality, and the possibility that school districts might qualify for an additional $50,000,000 or more in public school funding by taking advantage of the current statutory language, necessitates the amendment made by sec. 2 of this Act. However, the legislature supports the goal of providing learning opportunities for preschool and pre- kindergarten children. This goal can better be accomplished through increased funding to the state's head start programs. Thus, any money saved by the amendment made by sec. 2 of this Act shall be redirected to state head start programs." Page 1, line 4: Delete "Section 1" Insert "Sec. 2" Renumber the following bill section accordingly. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said the testimony from the Department of Education and Early Development was not necessarily that the department wanted to save the $3.9 million that is currently being spent on educating four-year-olds, but that the intent was to prevent a future problem. The future problem that is feared is that if all school districts start utilizing this two-year kindergarten program within the foundation formula, it might turn out to be a $60 million fiscal note in a matter of years. Representative Gara said he is sympathetic to the administration's concerns of the program's mushrooming to a $60 million fiscal note, but not sympathetic to the idea of removing the existing program without providing something to take its place. He compared the bill to restructuring a house by taking out all the beams, and letting the house collapse because nothing is being constructed to take its place. He said right now the state is educating four-year-olds; that is not a bad thing. It is being done in a discriminatory manner, and that is a bad thing. The state is only allowing four-year-olds to be educated in those school districts that are taking advantage of a loophole in the law, and it is not benefiting four-year-olds in school districts that are not. REPRESENTATIVE GARA told the committee the earlier education of children, the better children do in school. If the state is going to withdraw this program, that benefits an untold number of four-year-olds; he said he has a problem voting on this bill without knowing how many children this will affect. He asked what will be put in its place. Representative Gara pointed out that this may not be a good program, but the department has only answered half the question. The question is what the state should be doing. Number 1429 REPRESENTATIVE GARA said Amendment 2 addresses the question about what should be done for early childhood learning. He said early childhood learning works, and the state's Head Start Program is underfunded. The Head Start Program is available for preschool children from families who cannot afford other preschool programs. It is underfunded to the tune of about 77 percent. He said the last estimate he saw was that the state funds Head Start at about 23 percent of the need. Representative Gara said he does not have any problem with taking the $3.9 million or whatever savings are achieved by enacting this bill and redirecting those funds to the Head Start Program. He said he heard from the school districts that the actual savings will be about $3.5 million. Representative Gara said he has no problem withdrawing these educational services if the state puts something better in their place for the same amount of money. Amendment 2 would state that it is the intent of the legislature to redirect the savings achieved by eradicating this program for four-year-olds so that it shall be used more efficiently by funding the Head Start Program. CHAIR GATTO commented that what the amendment says is that whatever funds are saved in this bill would be shifted to the Head Start Program around the state. REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that if the governor could not efficiently use the $3.5 million this year, then the funds would not have to be spent. The amendment would leave it to the discretion of the governor to efficiently use these funds up to the $3.5 million. Number 1542 Representative Gara moved to adopt Amendment 2 [text provided previously]. Number 1559 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected to Amendment 2. He pointed out that the program districts have been utilizing was not intended as the policy states in statute. If the legislature eradicates a program, that issue is up for debate. Representative Coghill said he believes the letter of intent [this amendment] is circumventing that whole policy discussion, which he believes the committee should not do. He said he believes the policy discussion before the committee is cleaning up that point in statute that says what the state will supply for educating those younger children who are capable of going on. That is a totally appropriate policy call. Representative Coghill told the committee the intent of the bill is to clean up the language so it will reflect the intent of the statute. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented that he agrees with the principle of getting more money into the Head Start Program. However, he believes there should be a bill on the Head Start Program to do that. He said he is uncomfortable doing that through a method of taking funds that were used in the K-12 system and routing it this way. The federal government is not fully funding Head Start now, so he does not believe state funds would have federal matching funds. Representative Seaton said he still does not have a full determination on that issue. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON told the committee one other issue to consider in this amendment is that this reduction is part of the governor's package of reductions. The budget presented by the governor includes this money being eliminated from this program; to have this money being redirected to Head Start would mean the legislature would have to find that $3.5 million or $3.9 million in the budget to fund this section. Although conceptually he supports early childhood education, he said he would have to oppose the amendment. Number 1746 REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER told the committee that she is supportive of the amendment and agrees that it is a policy decision; however, in the absence of that discussion, she believes this is a good amendment to the bill. She said she supports Head Start not just because there are parents who cannot afford other preschool programs, but because there is the issue of poverty of access. There are so many communities in Alaska that do not have any alternative. She said in the absence of a preschool or Head Start Program, there is nothing that can be done for the children who come to school lacking oral skills or who do not have a print-rich environment. She told the committee she is in favor of the amendment. Number 1787 REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he would work with Representative Seaton to find a way to fund the Head Start Program in a more appropriate manner. He still maintains his support of the amendment because the bill the committee is looking at is a non- comprehensive approach to how the state is going to educate young children. It takes away schooling from four-year-olds and does not give anything back. If the governor would propose an efficiency measure that would better educate four-year-olds, he said he would be happy to support it. Representative Gara told the committee that he does not feel that it is his role to support the exact budget number the governor has proposed. He said he supports budget reductions but not to the point that they withdraw educational opportunities from children. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gara and Kapsner voted in favor of Amendment 2 to HB 154. Representatives Gatto, Seaton, Coghill, Wilson, and Wolf voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 failed to be adopted by a vote of 2-5. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report HB 154, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. Number 1897 REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER objected, saying that a lot of the discussion is based on the fiscal implications of the bill. She said that many Representatives have said they wish to let the House Finance Committee deal with the fiscal implications. She told the committee that she believes the members are all on the House Special Committee on Education because they share a firm commitment to further education to Alaska's children to the best of their abilities. She said she does not think this bill furthers education to the best of the members' abilities. REPRESENTATIVE GARA agreed with Representative Kapsner that it is the members' job to find a way to educate Alaska's children better, not to find a way to educate Alaska's children worse. This bill, by not taking a comprehensive approach, educates Alaska's children worse. Number 2001 A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gatto, Seaton, Coghill, Wilson, and Wolf voted in favor of reporting HB 154, as amended, from committee. Representatives Gara and Kapsner voted against it. Therefore, HB 154(HES) was reported out of the House Special Committee on Education by a vote of 5-2.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|