Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/10/2003 02:56 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 165
"An Act relating to community schools; and providing
for an effective date."
KEVIN SWEENEY, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT spoke in support of the legislation.
He noted that the statute was adopted in 1975 to establish a
grant program. He explained that that purpose of the grant
program was to provide financial support to assist local
school districts in establishing community school programs.
He pointed out that every school district currently provides
community school services. He maintained that the amount of
grant funding represents a small percentage of the program
expenditures. He expressed the Administration's belief that
the statute had fulfilled its objective of beginning
community schools programs in each district and stated its
desire to end the grant program.
Mr. Sweeny provided members with a chart illustrating the
current prorated funding formula (copy on file). He also
provided a chart reflecting the percentage of state grants
compared to total expenditures for each district. He
pointed out the example of Valdez, where the State's grant
comprised only .5 percent of program expenditures.
Mr. Sweeny noted that the House Health Education and Social
Services Committee amended the legislation to retain a
statutory reference to a community schools program and
encouraged the continued community use of schools.
Co-Chair Harris observed that the Fairbanks school district
received a $50 thousand grant and expended $180 thousand,
which represented 27 percent as compared to other school
districts who further exceeded their grant amounts. He asked
what accounted for this difference.
Mr. Sweeney speculated that the Fairbanks district did not
account for costs of utilities or collected a different
amount in community fees or other local support. He
maintained the potential to fund larger portions of program
expenditures from sources within the community.
Co-Chair Harris pointed out that the current state budget
did not contain funding for the program and questioned what
would happen if the legislation were not enacted. Mr.
Sweeney estimated that in that case there would be a pro
ration of zero. He reiterated that the Governor feels that
the statute has served its purpose.
Representative Joule noted that some districts indicated a
ratio of 100 percent grant to expenditures. He asked if
this indicated that they received no other funding for the
program.
Mr. Sweeney explained that these were the amounts reported
as being spent on community schools. He again speculated
that some districts did not account for all of their
expenses.
Vice-Chair Meyer questioned if there are villages that are
receiving funding that would not be able to make up the
loss. Mr. Sweeney noted that within those districts
utilizing 100 percent of their grant amounts, the grants
ranged from $1,500 to $15,000, with an average of $2 to $3
thousand. He speculated that it would be difficult to
provide a service for this amount of money.
Vice-Chair Meyer pointed out that the appropriation
($500,000) represents a small amount in the State budget,
whereas it creates a greater impact on school districts' or
local government budgets. He asked why the State could not
simply continue the grant program since it seemed to be
working well.
Mr. Sweeney acknowledged that the program funding was a
small amount and pointed out that it was not currently fully
funded. He estimated that the full amount would be closer to
$3 million. He reiterated that the purpose of the grants was
to generate programs, and stressed that communities must now
begin to maintain these programs on their own.
JOYCE KITKA, VOLUNTEER, ALASKA ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY
EDUCATION spoke against the legislation. She distributed
program information to members (copy on file). She
maintained that the funding level estimates provided by the
Department of Education and Early Development were not
accurate and included funding for other programs. She gave
the example that the amount listed for Juneau's Community
Schools' budget also included funding for a before and after
school daycare program, which was not run by Community
Schools. She noted other errors of up to $600 thousand in
budget numbers reflected for various school districts.
Ms. Kitka stressed that Community Schools was the one State
program with the potential to reach every Alaskan. She
maintained that the program had been fiscally responsible
and had developed partnerships to facilitate funding. She
stressed that the State monies were used to leverage such
partnerships. She explained that adult programs often
subsidize youth programs. She emphasized that the program
has resulted in 342,000 activity hours logged, 464,300 youth
served, 400,000 adults served. She stressed that the
212,000 hours in volunteer time was valued at $3 million.
She concluded that this was an excellent return on a State
investment of $500 thousand.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Harris, Ms. Kitka
explained that not all school districts are able to fund
community education. She noted that the program provided a
wide array of education such as childbirth classes, summer
school classes, and tutoring. She noted that the classes
were offered to meet community needs such as drivers'
education, preschool and before and after school childcare
st
programs. She noted that federal funding (21 Century
Program) was close to elimination.
In response to another question by Co-Chair Harris, Ms.
Kitka explained that fees support larger programs, such as
adult education and gym rentals. She also noted that, as a
result of the paid programs, other classes could be offered
at a reduced rate, with the intention to provide free youth
services.
Representative Hawker observed that Anchorage has extensive
community school utilization. He estimated that with
approximately 90,000 participants in the Anchorage school
program, and a grant of $151 thousand, if each of the
participants paid $2 dollars it would more than equal the
grant. He asked if that was a reasonable amount to ask from
program participants.
Ms. Kitka deferred to the Anchorage school district on the
question. She expressed that her own district advisory
committee struggled with how much if anything to charge
youth for programs. She suggested that the amount was
relative to the needs of a community.
Representative Croft asked if the numbers represented any
duplication. Ms. Kitka noted that people are counted every
time they register. Representative Croft pointed out that
Anchorage reflected only 30 thousand contact hours and
suggested that the fees would have to be more like $5 per
hour, which may prevent some youth from participating
regularly in a service such as an open gym.
SUSAN BURKE, JUNEAU, spoke in opposition to the legislation.
She maintained that there is no reason to repeal authorizing
statutes. She suggested that the funding level was not the
central issue in regards to the legislation. She observed
that the funding decision had already been made in the House
Finance Committee.
Ms. Burke stressed that the true issue at hand was whether
the Committee could honestly predict that other legislatures
would never deem it appropriate for the state of Alaska to
provide financial support to community school programs. She
pointed out that appropriations could not go forward without
statutory authorization.
Ms. Burke responded to the argument that the level of
funding has not been sufficient to be meaningful to any
school district. She suggested that this argument should
support additional funding. She also spoke to the idea that
the statutes have fulfilled their purpose to establish the
programs. She pointed out that while the statue does address
the initial program development, it also suggests the
intention to support the operation of community schools.
She noted language that suggests that operational plans for
each program should be evaluated by the Department of
Education and Early Development every four years. She
concluded that there is not enough reason to repeal the
statues.
Ms. Burke acknowledged that funding levels change from year
to year and that this year's budget was unusually difficult.
She observed however that no one had stated that it was not
proper for the state to support community schools. She
emphasized that financial times and political leaders change
and pointed out the greater difficulty of reinitiating the
program, as compared to the lack of harm by maintaining the
statute. She noted that the existence of the statue did not
obligate the legislature to appropriate funds. She urged
the Committee not to take action on HB 165.
JULIE JONAS, FOUR VALLEYS COMMUNITY SCHOOL PROGRAM,
ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference in opposition to the
legislation. She pointed out that education funding is being
significantly reduced and emphasized the far-reaching
community benefits of the community schools program. She
noted that the Girdwood program sponsors soccer and service
learning programs. She stated that there is not a community
center in Girdwood, so the community school staff provided
that service. She urged the Committee not to repeal
authorizing statues for the program, even if funding was
reduced. She stressed that the community school program is
not just an afternoon school program. She maintained that
community schools hold a community together.
REBECCA REICHLIN, GIRDWOOD, spoke via teleconference in
opposition to the legislation. She stressed that funding
goes a long way and is well used. She noted that state
funding is used to leverage other local support. She listed
a number of programs supported by their community school
program, including: childcare, adult education, student
activities, tutoring, volunteer opportunities, and youth
services. She stressed that the program was increasingly
important at this time to support youth, educational
standards, and emergency preparedness. She encouraged the
legislature to identify sources of income as well as reduce
spending in order to balance the budget. She urged the
Committee not to repeal the statute.
JODY LIDDICOUT, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference in
opposition to the legislation. She noted that community
schools are behind many of the events that serve her
children. She stressed the number of volunteers associated
with the program and emphasized the huge value for a small
amount of funding.
DEBBIE BOGART, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, ANCHORAGE,
testified via teleconference in opposition to the
legislation. She responded to questions raised during
earlier testimony. She stated that the Anchorage School
District supports Community Schools remaining in statute,
with modified intent language that includes ongoing
operation.
Ms. Bogart pointed out that for 80 schools in the district,
there were only thirteen community school sites. She noted
that these sites averaged one thousand classes per quarter
offered, as well as children's enrichment programs. She
clarified that of the $1.3 million in expenditures listed by
DEED for her district, only $694 thousand was actually
attributable to Community Schools. She also noted that the
district does charge a user fee ranging from $1 to $6 [per
class] dollars. She explained that the fees are used to
repay the school district grant match, as well as for
operations and supplies. She also noted that classes pay a
minimal wage to instructors.
Ms. Bogart discussed the level of community involvement in
[Anchorage] programs: over 30,000 youth and over 28,000
adults participated, supported by 27,000 volunteer hours.
She calculated that if volunteer hours were compensated at
$15 an hour, the in-kind value would be $400,000. She
pointed out that communities were growing and becoming more
diverse. She maintained that Community Schools meets the
DEED goal of providing life-long learning and provides
needed community outreach. She also noted that programs drew
support from individuals without children, which in turn
helped to provide funding for the school system. She urged
the Committee to keep Community Schools in statute.
DARYL FARRENS, HOMER COMMUNITY SCHOOL COORDINATOR, HOMER,
testified via teleconference in opposition to the
legislation. He explained that the philosophy of their
community schools program is to make programs available to
anyone that wants to participate and therefore fees are kept
to a minimum. He stated that with the $32 thousand received
from the State, their program operated nearly seven days per
week. He noted that Homer raised 33 percent of their total
expenditures. He stressed that a cut in funding would
dramatically affect the amount and quality of community
programs offered.
CURT LEDFORD, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, SITKA, testified
via teleconference in opposition to the legislation. He
noted that his district's community schools program offered
before and after school activities, which served half of the
community's children. He stated that Sitka's program does
not receive district funding. He pointed out that the
program gave over $15,000 in scholarships to children for
summer classes.
HB 165 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
TAPE HFC 03 - 56, Side B
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|