Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/01/2003 03:14 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. 174
"An Act relating to the state centralized
correspondence study program, to funding for
educational programs that occur primarily outside
school facilities, and to the duties of school boards
of borough and city school districts and regional
educational attendance areas; and providing for an
effective date."
EDDY JEANS, MANAGER, SCHOOL FINANCE AND FACILITIES SECTION,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT provided
information about the legislation. He compared the House
State Affairs Committee version and the Governor's Bill as
introduced. He noted that the Governor's bill would
eliminate the program beginning July 1, 2003 whereas the
House State Affairs' Committee Substitute would eliminate
the current summer program with a one-year delay in the
effective date eliminating the statewide correspondence
program. Both bills contain a provision under 14.70.430,
which deals with state funding of correspondence study
programs in the foundation program. These and similar
programs are funded at 80 percent. Some charter schools,
which are home-based programs, have challenged the
Department because they do not see themselves as
correspondence programs. The Department has taken the
position that, for foundation formula purposes, programs
outside of a brick and mortar school are correspondence
programs. The legislation would bring clarity by expanding
the definition to include home-based programs.
Mr. Jeans discussed two central issues: first, cost
savings. He noted the argument that eliminating the program
would not save the state of Alaska money, but rather cost
money as students seek accredited programs in brick and
mortar schools. He suggested that the Department believes
that many of the students will find correspondence services
elsewhere in the state. He added that there is a potential
savings through space lease reductions, but noted that the
Department might have other uses for the space. He discussed
the second issue: policy. He gave a brief history of the
Alyeska Central School (ACS or Alyeska), which was initiated
in 1939 and has provided valuable services. He pointed out
that at that time there were only two options, municipal
school districts and state operated schools. He stated that
in 1977, Regional Education Attendance Areas (REAA) were
initiated, so that every area of Alaska was covered by a
school district. Each school district has the responsibility
of educating students within their boundaries. Approximately
seven years ago, the State began allowing students to take
advantage of correspondence programs. He referenced SB 36,
which supports correspondence programs. Today there are 12
[correspondence] programs including ACS. He suggested that
[ACS] students would attend another program. He addressed
statewide enrollments, and observed that the bill addressed
open enrollments. He noted that Alyeska would allow certain
exceptions to enrollment, such as disability, but that these
were case by case. He suggested that they had other rules
for closing enrollment.
Mr. Jeans addressed accreditation and noted that Craig,
Delta, Galena, and Yukon schools districts had applied for
accreditation and been awarded conditional accreditation.
He explained that conditional accreditation provides
transferable credit for students.
TAPE HFC 03 - 73, Side B
AYIARE VOORHEES, STUDENT, testified via teleconference in
support of the amended bill. She stated that, although they
would prefer for the school to remain mandated, she
appreciated the response of the State to requests to allow
the school to remain open for the year.
NANCY ROCHAR, PARENT, testified in support of the Alyeska
Central School. She suggested that it was the only school
that upheld the no child left behind regulations currently.
She pointed out that all teachers were certified in the
subjects that they teach. She maintained that services are
not duplicated, and suggested that it was the only program
with direct teacher involvement. She acknowledged that
other programs, which offer cash inducements might be more
popular, but maintained that other programs were deficient
in teacher involvement. She suggested that this cut
produced no cost savings to the state of Alaska. She
pointed out that not every student had Internet access, and
that Alyeska also utilized regular mail correspondence. She
commended the success and quality of the program.
JANET WALKER, PARENT, testified via teleconference in
support of the Alyeska Central School. She noted that her
family lived in the wilderness of Alaska. Therefore, Alyeska
was essential since it offered programs that were not on the
Internet. She acknowledged that while there were other
correspondence schools, Alyeska was the only one that was
fully accredited and provided online adult education. She
suggested that to close the school would cost the state of
Alaska up to $300 thousand. She urged members to keep
Alyeska open.
GREG MILLER, CHARTER SCHOOLS, ANCHORAGE testified via
teleconference. He stated his experience as an attorney in
representing charter schools. He addressed Section 5 to the
Committee Substitute, which pertained to AS 14.70.430, which
set the level of 80 percent for charter schools. He noted
that the change expands the definition of correspondence
schools, and suggested that it raised a much larger issue.
He stated that it would in essence treat any school not in a
regular facility as a correspondence school. He suggested
that this was not an appropriate definition and should
rather relate to the mailing of materials between the school
and students. He noted three potential impacts of the
language change: first, that charter schools that were
outside of a "school facility" as a correspondence school;
second, home school study programs would now be considered
correspondence schools; and third, alternative school
district programs would now be affected. He concluded that
this sentence raised a larger issue.
KYM WOLCOTT, ANCHORAGE, parent of Alyeska Central School
students testified via teleconference in support of Alyeska
Central School. She suggested that ACS had no parallel in
service in the state. She discussed the services provided
by ACS, and questioned how students may be absorbed into
districts that are already overcrowded and under-funded.
She challenged the Administration to support quality
education and not close ACS.
RYAN WOLCOTT, student, Anchorage, testified via
teleconference in support of the Alyeska Central Schools.
He said that the teachers at Alyeska provided him with the
support he needed to achieve an education. He suggested
that there was not a cost savings and requested that the
members consider saving the school.
VICTORIA MARTIN, PARENT, ANCHORAGE testified via
teleconference in support of the Alyeska Central School.
She pointed out that Alyeska was currently accredited and
had been a part of the state since 1938. She suggested that
every child could be supported by the Alyeska Central School
and expressed the negative impact on her family of closing
the school. She noted that she had testified on numerous
occasions.
SEAN RUDDELL, STUDENT, ANCHORAGE testified via
teleconference in opposition to the bill. He stated that
the amendment was not acceptable.
DEBBY CHALMERS, ALYESKA CENTRAL SCHOOL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
(ACSEA) testified in support of the Committee Substitute.
The teachers and parents support a one-year transition
period. She observed that the school has a very complex
program and infrastructure, which has been developed over
many years.
CECILIA MILLER, ACSEA, testified in support of keeping the
Alyeska Central School open for all the children that need
to be served. She asked that there be at least a year for
transition. It would benefit the State for the best. This
will impact kids that are off to college.
JOHN PADEN, COUNSELOR, ALYESKA CENTRAL SCHOOL, spoke in
opposition to the proposed legislation. He noted that when
the bill was first heard, the idea of saving of money was
the major consideration. He observed that the elimination
of the program might not reduce the lease costs of the
Department. He noted that the two main issues were money
and duplication of services. Parents and students with
Alyeska recognize that it is unique. The real issue is a
policy one. He maintained that the legislation is an
affront to those children and families. Extending Alyeska
th
would be better than closing it on June 30. Allowing
Alyeska to continue would be the best solution.
KEVIN SWEENEY, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, summed up the Administration's
arguments in support of the bill. He realized that this was
an emotional issue, but observed that the educational system
has changed since the implementation of ACS. At its peak ACS
served more than 2,000 students. It now educates just over
one-quarter of that amount. He pointed out that other
districts now offer the same type of service, which could
accommodate the program. There are currently over 8,000
students registered in statewide correspondence programs.
The State has encouraged these school districts to expand
their correspondence program.
Mr. Sweeney stated that the intent is to see the programs
continue to grow and attract students. He observed that the
primary argument against the closure of ACS is that the
program is unique and is the only program that offers
accreditation. He disagreed with those arguments. He
stressed that programs, which are run outside of Juneau,
have shown great promise. These programs have assured the
Department that they will adapt to the needs of the students
and they want to attract students. He asserted that school
districts are ready to provide teacher interaction and
"snail mail" service.
Mr. Sweeney pointed out that the temporary accreditation is
not an issue that is unique to correspondence programs. All
the credits that students earn [under temporary
accreditation] are counted as accounted credits. The
Governor's approach is to avoid duplication and support
competition among school districts.
Discussion on HB 174 was HELD until later in the meeting.
HOUSE BILL NO. 174
"An Act relating to the state centralized
correspondence study program, to funding for
educational programs that occur primarily outside
school facilities, and to the duties of school boards
of borough and city school districts and regional
educational attendance areas; and providing for an
effective date."
MICHEAL JEFFREY, PARENT, BARROW, testified in support of the
Alyeska Central School. He commended the school's
reputation and accreditation. He maintained that temporary
accreditation did not reflect well with prestigious
colleges. He referred to the Committee Substitute and
suggested that it would provide a compromise and allow
parents to attempt to keep the school going in some form.
He suggested that Alyeska's certified teachers presented a
cost savings to the state of Alaska. He urged the Committee
to pass the Committee Substitute for HB 174.
HB 174 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|