Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/28/2003 02:30 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. 154
An Act relating to admission to and advancement in
public schools of children under school age; and
providing for an effective date.
EDDY JEANS, MANGER, SCHOOL FINANCE AND FACILITIES SECTION,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, noted that HB
154 had been prepared at the request of the Governor. He
stated it was determined that some school districts were
claiming four year olds in the kindergarten program and
counting them for two years. This came to the Department's
attention when they started doing the student level
electronic data reporting so the Department then knew how
old the students were that were being claimed for the State
foundation funding. The Department of Education & Early
Development attempted to address this through the regulatory
process. These concerns deal with AS 1403.080© - the right
to attend school. Provision © states is that a child under
school age may be admitted to the public school if the child
meets the minimum standards described by the Board and as
long as that child has the mental, physical and emotional
capacity to perform satisfactory at the educational program
being offered. He interjected that it is the term
"educational program", which the Department is attempting to
define.
Mr. Jeans continued that through the regulatory process, the
Department basically adopted the statute with the exception
of the "education program being offered" and instead
inserted "grade level being offered". The discussion was
centered around whether a school district can develop an
educational program and start serving whoever they want or
was the intent to allow school districts to enroll a child
that is ready to begin their school career at an earlier age
than five. The Department believes that it was the latter
and that it would be an exceptional child that starts their
educational career early.
Mr. Jeans explained that the Department took the regulations
to the State Board of Education and they were adopted in
September 2001. He stressed that this is not a new issue.
School districts did adopt the standards for enrolling a
student and some of the districts have continued to
blanketly enroll all four year olds.
Mr. Jeans stated that it is not the intent of the
legislation to block a child from getting into kindergarten
if they are ready; however, the Department would expect them
to advance to the next grade level in the subsequent year
and not stay in kindergarten for two years.
Mr. Jeans spoke to the $3.9 million dollar fiscal note,
which lists the school districts with the dollar amount
associated with them. He pointed out that there are a
number of school districts that generate a substantial
amount of money through the provision. That dollar is large
in terms of State funding. He pointed out that these school
districts also receive federal impact aid money for early
entering programs.
· In the Bering Straight School district, 99% of the
students qualify for federal impact aid dollars,
which amounts to $5,000 dollars per child.
· In the Lower Yukon School district, 81% of their
students qualify for federal impact aid dollars.
· In the North Slope School District Borough, 67% of
the students qualify for the federal impact aid
dollars.
· In the Northwest Arctic Borough School District, 64%
of the students qualify.
Mr. Jeans noted that it the legislation passes, the schools
districts will continue to generate these federal impact aid
dollars in the amount of $5,000 dollars per child.
Representative Croft asked if the legislative would change
how the student was enrolled and if they would still qualify
for the federal aid. Mr. Jeans clarified that A.S.
1403.080, which is the right to attend public school free of
tuition, is what qualifies students for State foundation
funding. A school district can offer an educational
program, in which they do not claim those students for State
funding. If they do that, under the federal impact aid law,
they are then offering a preschool program, and even though
they are not receiving State money, they will still receive
federal impact aid dollars.
Representative Croft asked if they would let the student go
free of charge if an extra program was provided. Mr. Jeans
said yes.
Mr. Jeans maintained that this is an issue of fairness. If
some school districts are allowed to enroll all four year
olds, then all school districts should be allowed to do the
same. The costs to enroll all four year olds would be
between $50 & $60 million dollars. He reiterated that the
Department is not zeroing in on specific districts.
Co-Chair Harris asked why only some school districts have
chosen to take advantage of the federal impact aid dollars.
Mr. Jeans explained that the provision that is being
utilized under AS 1403.080© allows the child to be early
entered into school. Line 9 indicates "For the educational
program being offered". He pointed out that this is a broad
term and is what some school districts have utilized to
define the program. The Department did go to the State
Board of Education and adopted regulations, which changed
that wording to "For the grade level being offered". That
language would help to clarify that the intent of the law
would not be just any program but rather students that were
ready to start kindergarten. Even with that amendment on
the books, some school districts continue to enroll all four
year olds. Consequently, the Department comes before the
Legislature for clarification.
Co-Chair Harris addressed school district costs. He thought
that there are a few school districts heavily impacted by
the legislation.
Mr. Jeans commented that HB 154 would clarify that it is not
the intent to fund all four year olds through the foundation
program. Without the legislation, there will be more
districts that expand their program to include the four year
olds because they have space available. When there is space
available in a school, they want to fill it up. Once the
students are funded through the foundation program, they
must be counted for space for school construction.
Co-Chair Harris asked if the Department would have a problem
phasing the program out over a two-year period. Mr. Jeans
responded that the Governor's office wants to see it
resolved this year and that the districts have been on
notice. The Department has attempted to deal with it
through the regulatory process. The Department of Education
& Early Development regulations clarified that the previous
State Board adopted this piece of statute in September 2001.
The same school districts keep claiming the four year olds.
ROBERT BOYLE, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ASSISTANT
SUPERINTENDENT, NORTHWEST ARCTIC SCHOOL BOROUGH, KOTZEBUE,
quoted various studies regarding childhood school
involvement in early childhood success. All of the
different studies speak of the value of early education
programs particularly for children in social and
economically distressed areas. The districts that are
currently involved are districts that have severe and
chronic social and economic status differentiation from the
city schools or schools that have more economic
opportunities on a daily basis. The early childhood
opportunities for families and children within these areas
are non-existent. He stressed that these children live in
disadvantaged areas.
At this time, the process is directly reflective of the
socio-economic status of these children and not their
cognitive abilities. The school districts do what they
believe is appropriate in attempting to serve their
children. Mr. Boyle emphasized that it is not a process of
attempting to generate funds or to fill empty seats. He
stressed that this is an "educationally correct, sound thing
to do".
The studies previously sited go into great detail of how
this early intervention process is successful in reducing
the costs of education programs later, down the road. The
reduction of costs for retention of students, who end up in
social service programs is compensated over the cost of the
four-year-old programs.
Mr. Boyle reiterated that the question of "fairness" is not
the issue. The studies are about "quality". The fairness
issue comes down to what services, opportunities and
educational stimulation is available to students in these
regions.
Mr. Boyle reiterated that the school districts oppose HB
154. Currently, the funds are being used appropriately and
that use greatly enhances the State's long-term investment.
He added that as written, HB 154 is contradictory in regards
to the "achievement" of each child. He claimed that it was
"social promotion".
Co-Chair Williams asked if Mr. Boyle's same argument had
been presented to the State Board of Education. Mr. Boyle
responded that he was new to the position and was not around
in 2000.
KERRY JARRELL, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DIRECTOR,
BUSINESS AND FINANCE, BERING STRAIGHT SCHOOL DISTRICT,
UNALASKLEET, spoke in opposition to HB 154. He stated that
the proposed legislation would not provide the anticipated
savings. Services terminated by this action will have a
severe impact on the most needy and vulnerable children in
the State.
Mr. Jarrell pointed out that in many rural Alaska
communities, there are very few opportunities for young
children to participate in early childhood education
programs. Outside of the schools, very few of the
communities have any kind of public or private preschool
programs. The districts recognize the dilemma in these
places. The districts have struggled to insure that all
children in the region have access to early childhood
programs of some type. In an area in which 80% of the
children fall below poverty level, access to a quality
educational experience to remedy the poverty and isolation,
is of paramount importance. He reiterated that this is not
a new program. The Bering Straight School district has been
offering the service for 13 years and as a result has been
able to insure that all three year old children have access
to a limited program of education where before there was
nothing.
The reduction of the funds sought in HB 154 will eliminate
that program. He pointed out that some believe that the
current language would allow other districts to begin to
offer programs for four-year-old children. Mr. Jarrell
suggested that was not the case. Establishing a program is
costly and time consuming. It took the Bering Strait
district several years to work through those initial issues.
A school district would not set up a program like that in a
short amount of time. The result of HB 154 will be short
time saving but those savings will be "overshadowed" by the
increased costs in special need services and the likihood
that more children will fail to succeed in school.
Mr. Jarrell reiterated that these children are the most
needy and vulnerable children in the charge of these school
districts. They have the fewest advocates and need the most
nurturing. He encouraged a no vote on the legislation.
Representative Joule asked Mr. Jarrell's position on phasing
out the program and he asked how that would affect each
district. Mr. Jarrell replied that phasing out the program
could at the very least provide time for requests and
application for grant funding to work with other
organizations to transition a program of some meaningful
educational value for the children. He stressed that the
program is so important that they request that the bill not
be passed from Committee. Mr. Boyle echoed the statements
made by Mr. Jarrell.
(TAPE MALFUNCTION)
BOB ROBERTSON, SUPERINTENDENT, LOWER YUKON SCHOOL DISTRICT,
spoke in opposition to the proposed legislation. He urged
that the Committee phase in the legislation to allow time
for the small communities to establish a program.
Vice-Chair Meyer inquired if 99% of the funding could be
offset through federal government aid. Mr. Robertson did
not know about the impact the bill would have on the federal
funding.
Representative Foster MOVED to adopt Amendment #1, #23-
GH1123\D.1, Ford, 4/9/03. Co-Chair Williams OBJECTED.
LARRY LABOLLE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD FOSTER,
explained that the amendment would allow the program to be
prolonged for two more years. The amount of impact aid is
$5,000 per child and that money would continue to be there.
The intent of the amendment provides the districts time to
look at other sources for grant money in order to continue
these programs. Mr. LaBolle noted that Representative
Foster was not opposed to the bill as current law is open
ended and that phasing it out over 2 years would provide the
time needed to respond.
Co-Chair Williams questioned why the State Board of
Education had vetoed the concern. Mr. LaBolle responded
that the Board had made regulations, which could accomplish
the same end. He did not know why the program was being
discontinued.
Representative Hawker asked the effect of the amendment
would have on the exiting fiscal note. Mr. LaBolle replied
that the amendment would freeze the program and would not
allow any new districts to make a program. There would be
no decrease to the cost for the up-coming fiscal year and in
the second year it would be reduced by 50%.
(TAPE CORRECTED)
Representative Hawker commented that FY04 would have a zero
fiscal note effect; in FY05 with only 50% eligibility would
provide a reduction of nearly $2 million dollars; in FY06,
there would be a second reduction of $2 million dollars as
the program is phased out.
Representative Hawker clarified that the funding in the
amendment would guarantee that the school districts would be
able to receive their basic need plus the percentage of the
difference of the basic need between the base fiscal year
and the second fiscal year. He thought that the definition
of basic need was a little vague and acted like a "hold
harmless" clause for basic need. Mr. LaBolle did know how
it would apply to the entire program but requested that it
be considered.
Vice-Chair Meyer suggested that the amendment should be
addressed conceptually. He advised that the Education
Subcommittee had left full funding in the budget for this
concern. If it were left at 100%, it would be satisfactory
and then gradually reduced. He acknowledged that the
Governor was counting on the savings this year. He inquired
what action Senate Finance Committee had taken on the issue.
Mr. LaBolle believed that they had not yet moved the bill.
Representative Foster MOVED to make Amendment #1 conceptual.
Representative Whitaker asked about the research done
regarding the need for this program. Mr. LaBolle reiterated
that the Assistant Superintendent of the Northwest Arctic
Borough School District had cited three important studies.
There have been many articles over the years regarding early
intervention in areas where there is severe economic
depravation, which does exist in many village areas. He
assured Representative Whitaker that there is a large body
of research regarding this concern.
Mr. Jeans advised that Representative Hawker was correct in
his observation that the amendment would provide a "hold
harmless" provision. A conceptual amendment would clarify
that. He added that this is not a new issue and that the
districts have been aware of the Department's position. It
has been around for a few administrations. He added that
the Senate had taken the proposed cut in their budget.
Co-Chair Williams asked the argument used by the State Board
of Education. Mr. Jeans responded that the statute is broad
and that the Department believes that the purpose of the
foundation program is to fund K-12 education. If the
Legislature wants to direct funding for pre-K, that would be
another discussion. The Department is attempting to bring
clarity to the statutes regarding the manner in which the
Department applies them.
Representative Hawker questioned the school districts
intention during the phase out period. Mr. LaBolle
responded that the districts would be working with other
agencies in their regions to come up with alternate sources
of funding for the program. School districts do receive
money from other resources. He referenced the old Title 1
program, which provides assistance to students that are
economically deprived. He noted the Indian Education funds,
some of which go to the actual village rather than to the
school districts. He indicated that the amendment would
provide an opportunity for them to go back and creatively
look at other sources of funding to be able to continue the
program. The districts bring forward approximately $5,000
on their own to help with these programs.
TAPE HFC 03 - 67, Side B
Mr. LaBolle explained that if the student was not being
claimed for foundation purposes, then the Department would
hold them harmless from the right to recapture federal
funds. Representative Hawker acknowledged that he did not
understand the mechanics of education funding.
Representative Hawker asked if it would be necessary to
defer the step down to FY05 rather than FY04. Mr. LaBolle
responded that it would be close to a "wash" if the
Department placed it at 50% and allowed the districts to
keep the impact aid funds.
Representative Croft pointed out that the State does not let
the districts keep the federal impact aid money. Mr.
LaBolle replied that was correct. He added that it would be
"cleanest" to maintain the 100% funding for one year and
allow the Department to recapture the impact aid money
involved. The total cost to the State would be more.
In response to Representative Croft, Mr. Jeans noted that
currently, if a school district were claiming a four year
old in the foundation program for State funding, the
Department would deduct that impact aid the student
receives. He noted that it is important to go back to the
starting point. These school districts generate about
$11,000 dollars per student and that amount is shared
between the State and federal impact aid. Right now the
State deducts a little over $4,000 per child, which
generates impact aid being claimed under the program. If
the State does not provide State aid, none of the impact aid
is deducted and the district would retain 100%. It would
change the funding from $11,000 per child to $5,000 per
child.
Representative Croft asked if the $5,000 dollars was a
separate line. Mr. Jeans replied that it is not on a
separate line and that the school district claims students
that are eligible for impact aid; the State receives
vouchers, which highlights the percentage that school
population is eligible for in federal impact aid. The State
relies on the school district to claim for foundation
funding and then makes the necessary adjustments.
Representative Croft clarified that the State does not
deduct from their foundation formula those students that
they are not claiming in the formula. Mr. Jeans stated that
they do not deduct the impact aid from students not claimed
for State aid.
Representative Croft commented that at present time, those
students are receiving both payments. He asked if the
Department's fiscal note reflects the savings in State aid
by not having those kids in school and the loss of 90% of
the $5,000 dollars federal aid. Mr. Jeans advised that the
Department reflected the State aid savings and not the
impact aid that would offset that number.
Representative Croft reiterated that the fiscal note does
not reflect the amount that would be lost. He asked if the
Department had an estimate of that amount. Mr. Jeans
responded that they would reflect the current year numbers.
Representative Croft thought that it would amount to 40% of
the savings. Mr. Jeans did not know the offset. He added
that their analysis took all four-year-old children that
were counted in the current year and backed them out of the
equation to determine how much State aid they represent.
Representative Croft asked about how many pre-kindergarten
students would the bill identify. Mr. Jeans replied 650
students statewide.
Vice-Chair Meyer spoke to the amendment extension. Co-Chair
Williams called an at-ease.
At Ease: 3:32 P.M.
Reconvene: 3:40 P.M.
Representative Foster WITHDREW Amendment #1. There being NO
OBJECTION, Amendment #1 was withdrawn.
Representative Foster MOVED to change the effective date on
Page 1, Line 12, to "July 1, 2004".
Co-Chair Williams OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Harris pointed out that the fiscal note would need
to be changed in the FY2004 line section.
Representative Joule commented that accepting the amendment
would provide time for the communities to form partnerships
to help with the effects from the cuts in State funding. He
emphasized that the action was extremely important for the
future of education in Alaska.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Hawker, Joule, Meyer, Moses, Whitaker,
Chenault, Croft, Foster, Harris
OPPOSED: Stoltze, Williams
The MOTION PASSED (9-2).
Representative Croft suggested that the effective date be
placed into the title of the bill. He MOVED a Title
Amendment on Page 1, Line 2, inserting language: "An
effective date for the Act of July 1, 2004". The change
provides the date to conform to Amendment #1.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CS HB 154 (FIN)
including the Title Change out of Committee with individual
recommendations and with the accompanying new fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CS HB 154 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with a new fiscal note by the Department
of Education & Early Development.
Representative Foster voiced his appreciation to the
Committee for passage of the bill and stressed how much the
bill would help the Bush area.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|