Legislature(1993 - 1994)
01/17/1994 03:00 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 250 - CENTRALIZED CORRESPONDENCE STUDY Number 007 CHAIR TOOHEY asked for testimony from Anchorage regarding HB 250. Number 026 DAVID SADLOWSKI, Member of Parent Outreach for Centralized Correspondence School (CCS), stated via teleconference from Anchorage that he supported HB 250 with exception to Section 14.17.022. He noted that the formula does not recognize secondary funding, as it refers only to using elementary school level funding. He added that the enrollment at Alyeska Central School (ACS) was 50% secondary and increasing. He stated that secondary not only costs more, but also requires more parent/teacher interaction, and teachers would require additional and more advanced material. He stated that there was no other CCS in the state that was limited to the elementary school funding formula. He felt it would be irresponsible not to recognize the state correspondence program for what it is. Number 121 REP. VEZEY asked Mr. Sadlowski if he was aware of the number of students that were enrolled both in a CCS program and also in a state school district as well. Number 170 MR. SADLOWSKI said he was unaware of people who were enrolled in both schools. Number 184 CHAIR TOOHEY thanked Mr. Sadlowski for his testimony and referred to the next witness as there were no further questions. She asked if Ms. Patricia Merwin was on line. Number 190 PATRICIA MERWIN, via teleconference from Soldotna, expressed that as a home educator the primary goal and responsibility for her was to provide "prime level learning opportunity." She stated her increasing concern over the "glaring" inequity in the state funding for ACS and the decrease in services and curriculum choices in their program. In support of her concern, Ms. Merwin quoted statistics that she obtained through her own research in regards to the Kenai Peninsula School District. She stated that the borough has a correspondence school that is funded at 100% of the foundation formula for large secondary schools. She also discovered that other districts fund their high school correspondence programs at the same level. Against those statistics, she contrasted the ASC secondary program funding level at 65% of the elementary level foundation formula. She urged the committee to change the current funding for CCS so that secondary students can be funded at 65% of the formula for secondary level, not elementary level. MS. MERWIN stated that, to her knowledge, there were no other secondary students in the state that were being funded at the elementary formula. Ms. Merwin also stated that she had heard that there might be a Computer Assisted Response Evaluation System (CARES) used to cut costs. She asked the committee if she could respond to that information. Number 299 CHAIR TOOHEY urged her to continue. Number 303 MS. MERWIN felt the CARES program was an inferior product to use as a cost-cutting measure. As a teacher of CARES programs, she felt the CARES courses did not meet the needs of the student. She argued that rote work, fill-in-the- blank, and multiple choice promoted "student regurgitation of course material - a preprogrammed pattern" with, hopefully, a 70-80% success rate. She urged the committee again to fund ACS at 65% of the foundation formula. Number 410 REP. VEZEY asked for a clarification between the primary funding level as opposed to the secondary funding level. Number 422 CHAIR TOOHEY referred to Darby Anderson to answer the question. Number 431 DARBY ANDERSON, Superintendent, Centralized Correspondence School (CCS), testified in Juneau that the secondary program provides approximately $1000.00 additional funding for students at the elementary level. REP. VEZEY indicated that this answer was in response to the elementary rate not the secondary rate. MS. ANDERSON continued to say, if funded at the secondary level, a student would receive 65% of $1000.00. REP. VEZEY concurred that it was $650 per student. CHAIR TOOHEY thanked Ms. Merwin and asked for another teleconference testimony. Number 456 DONNA EMERSON, Elected Chair of the Parent Group for CCS in Funter Bay, stated via teleconference that on behalf of other parents of the 1700 students enrolled in the CCS, they needed secondary recognition for funding to effectively provide for the needs of students. She continued to say that they were the only secondary public school system not counted in the secondary formula. Number 525 CHAIR TOOHEY thanked Ms. Emerson for her testimony and asked for any questions. She then asked Ms. Darby Anderson to testify. Number 540 MS. ANDERSON testified in support of HB 250. She expressed concern on one issue in regard to equity of funding to secondary students. She felt because of the "unique form of delivery" in regards to teaching students of correspondence schools (i.e., they are taught in parent facilities by parents) that it should be 65% not 100% of the secondary level. She indicated a $1,200,000 savings to the state at 65% of the secondary level and she encouraged the committee to look at the value of the program and the cost that would be saved by supporting the secondary students. Number 633 CHAIR BUNDE thanked Ms. Anderson, apologized for being late and duly noted that he arrived at 3:25 p.m. He took over as chair for the meeting and asked for committee member questions. Number 644 REP. BRICE stated he was concerned with the difference between the April 14 and December 14 fiscal notes and asked Ms. Anderson to explain the change. Number 653 MS. ANDERSON stated that the increase in funding level was due to a 17% increase in student enrollment. Number 664 REP. VEZEY asked if primary enrollment had increased 25%. Number 676 MS. ANDERSON answered that overall enrollment had increased by 25%. Number 677 REP. VEZEY asked the number of CCS schools in Alaska. Number 686 MS. ANDERSON answered that based on year old information, there were 22 school districts that offered local correspondence programs, and an estimated 1600 students enrolled. She further stated that the state provides $100,000 worth of materials for the school districts that deliver the local programs. Number 699 REP. VEZEY asked what the net saving would be if all students were brought into the CCS program and were funded at 65% of the secondary formula level. Number 718 MS. ANDERSON said there would be savings in terms of direct dollars, but it does not necessarily mean for the long term. Number 729 REP. VEZEY stated there would be a potential savings of 35% if a student were taken off full funding and put in the CCS program. Number 734 MS. ANDERSON replied that was correct. Number 745 REP. VEZEY stated that he had a " hard time understanding why we pay the state centralized correspondence school approximately $2900 dollars a student, but we're paying somewhere around $4000 to $5000 for that student to have correspondence at school district level." Number 759 MS. ANDERSON stated that it was a legislative decision made when the formula foundation was established. Number 769 REP. KOTT asked why there was a variation in the number of students enrolling in CCS. Number 779 MS. ANDERSON indicated that the numbers would stabilize. Number 787 REP. G. DAVIS wanted to know where the projected increase of students was coming from. Number 795 MS. ANDERSON did not have a breakdown on where the new students would be coming from. Number 812 REP. TOOHEY inquired about summer school for senior students only. Number 818 MS. ANDERSON stated that two years ago the legislature decided that as a cost saving measure there would be only senior summer school. Number 835 CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Anderson to address the issue of parents contracting with Nebraska and the state contracting with Nebraska, stating that it was cheaper for the parent to contract for secondary education. Number 852 MS. ANDERSON addressed the question by stating that not all secondary students do their all their studies through Nebraska. Number 870 CHAIR BUNDE stated that the saving presupposes that the students did all the work through Nebraska. He then asked why we're not getting all work through Nebraska if it's cheaper. Number 872 MS. ANDERSON made the comparison of students attending East High and their teachers being from and teaching from Nebraska without direct contact. Number 893 CHAIR BUNDE offered for discussion CSHB 250 8-LS0863/U (version U) that reduces the increased funding requested in the fiscal note and allowing for future increases. Subsequently, REP. KOTT offered CSHB 8-LS0863/D (version D). Number 952 REP. VEZEY made a motion to adopt CSHB 250 8-LS0863/U (version U) as a working draft. There were no and with no objections. Number 988 CHAIR BUNDE opened the floor for discussion. Number 989 REP. BRICE questioned whether to let the legislation sit in committee, as he felt it was a fairly "toothless" piece of legislation. MS. ANDERSON concurred by saying that changing "study" to "school" would not effect the funding status. CHAIR BUNDE asked, if within the state hierarchy, would the change to "school" give the CCS a stronger foundation in regards to future increased funding? MS. ANDERSON said that legally there would be no difference. Number 031 REP. KOTT expressed the concern that the bill would conform CCS's to districts and that it was contrary to the aim of consolidating districts, and he felt that the administrative and internal cost associated with the district would grow out of proportion in the out years. He further questioned as to whether it was the student increase the committee was addressing or additional administrative costs and burdens. Number 053 MS. ANDERSON stated that HB 250 allowed a fund balance of 10% or less that would make CCS equal to a district but not actually make it a district. Regarding CSHB 250, she stated there would be no additional administrative costs as a result of the initial bill or the substitute. Number 072 REP. KOTT stressed that unrestricted funds available to other districts would not be available to CCS under CSHB 250. Number 081 MS. ANDERSON also clarified that the fund balance was about $5000. Number 091 CHAIR BUNDE closed testimony on CSHB 250 and added that in view of the fiscal challenges facing the state, he felt it was appropriate to remove secondary education, even though there were good arguments supporting it because the money just wasn't there. He subsequently moved to kill the bill. REP. KOTT motioned to rescind the adoption of CSHB 250 and adopt CSHB 250 8-LS0863/D (version D). Number 129 CHAIR BUNDE asked for any objections. There being one objection, a roll call vote was taken. Rep. Toohey Yea Rep. Bunde Yea Rep. G. Davis Yea Rep. Vezey Yea Rep. Kott Yea Rep. Olberg Nay Rep. B. Davis ABS Rep. Nicholia Yea Rep. Brice Yea With the majority vote, CSHB 250 (version U) was rescinded. CHAIR BUNDE opened CSHB 250 8-LS0863/D (version D), as offered by Rep. Kott, for discussion. REP. KOTT moved to adopt version D as the committee draft. There being no objection, it was so adopted. Number 192 CHAIR BUNDE opened CSHB 250 (version D) for discussion. Number 194 REP. KOTT stated that version D would accomplish what the people would need. By converting Centralized Correspondence Study to Correspondence School it would convey opportunity for those who have had problems getting (at least) into the military. By deleting district status it would decrease bureaucracy in the state as it would not have the authority that goes along with being one of 54 districts. The committee substitute (CS) would combine the current CSS programs in the local districts with the Centralized Correspondence School program. The CS would reduce CCS and local school districts to 60%. With the overall reduction, it would raise the fiscal note to approximately $330,000 right off the top, but there being 700 students in the school district, it had not been taken into consideration the reduction that would be conveyed financially to the school districts. Rep. Kott felt that would offset the fiscal note. TAPE 94-01 SIDE B Number 083 CHAIR BUNDE stated it was not his intention to pass HB 250 out of committee without further discussion on the fiscal impact. Number 090 REP. OLBERG expressed concern that students in rural areas would be penalized to the benefit of urban students in CCS programs, as urban students could walk down the street to a district school. He objected strongly to the entire tone of the substitute bill. Number 132 REP. BRICE asked Rep. Olberg if it was the flat reduction to 60% that he was concerned about. Number 148 REP. OLBERG stated that he preferred the first CSHB 250 (version U). He felt that the percentage was incidental and his concern rested with the students who wouldn't have an option being "lumped in" with students who would. He felt the CSHB 250 (version D) discriminated against rural students. Rep. Olberg felt that the CCS program could not reach the rural student (in Eagle, Alaska) as well as the district correspondence program could. Number 225 CHAIR BUNDE asked Rep. Olberg if, in his objection, was he addressing the practice of school districts receiving funding for students who physically do not attend, thereby getting more money for that student than it costs to educate that student (double-dipping). Number 238 REP. OLBERG indicated that there was no determination that it cost less to educate a student at Healy Lake (for example) than it does to educate a student in Delta Junction. Number 245 CHAIR BUNDE couldn't speak to those specifics, but did cite that the Aleutian district had a sizable number of students that they educate through correspondence and yet they still receive local funding. Number 261 REP. OLBERG stated that there were higher costs associated with rural students, citing the cost of flying a plane into Funter Bay. CHAIR BUNDE proposed that most rural students have mail service. REP. OLBERG could not guarantee that all had mail service. Number 284 CHAIR BUNDE felt that students would have equal access if indeed they had mail service. He stated he did not view the bill as a rural vs. urban issue. Number 302 REP. VEZEY clarified his understanding of version D. He stated that the district correspondence programs would remain intact to compete with CCS programs, and that the bill would reduce funding for the student to 60% of the formula funding. Number 334 REP. KOTT clarified by saying that essentially those students attending in the 22 school districts' district correspondence programs were receiving 100% based on the formula ($61,000). He asked why it was that districts are funded at 100% when it had already been proven that the state was putting out good students at 65%. Number 381 CHAIR BUNDE interjected his desire to refer to a teleconference call from Anchorage. Number 389 CLAUDIA WALTON expressed confusion over the committee substitutes offered, via teleconference from Anchorage. She continued by saying that she supported the original HB 250. She clarified her understanding of the logistics of the bill by saying that CCS had students located geographically in a school district; however, not all those students were enrolled. She said there were two levels of funding: one level funded the CCS students who were enrolled in local school districts and were also contracting with CCS, and the second funded students who were only contracted with CCS. She felt that decreasing funding for local school districts would not decrease spending. Ms. Walton also mentioned school districts that go directly to out-of-state correspondence programs and receive the full 100% funding. She felt the net result would be a reduction in the number of CCS students, and there would be unaccountable funds for CCS students being funded by the state at 100%. Number 562 CHAIR BUNDE stated that a fax of CSHB 250 was at that time being sent to Ms. Walton and that the bill would not be moved out of committee that day. Number 581 REP. TOOHEY stated she was as confused as Ms. Walton and referred to Ms. Anderson by asking if there were any connections between CCS and the school district at all. Number 586 MS. ANDERSON answered that a student that is enrolled in CCS cannot also be enrolled in a local public school. She said a school district could contract with CCS for services. REP. TOOHEY asked if the school districts could contract an entire program through CCS. MS. ANDERSON answered only at elementary level funding, at 100%. REP. TOOHEY felt that was "double-dipping." Number 614 MS. ANDERSON offered a scenario of a fifth grade student in a very rural area that was performing poorly in the school district. As a supplementary measure, CCS was contracted out and the student still received additional on-site teaching services through the district. Therefore, the student utilized the 100% funding level. Number 627 CHAIR BUNDE added that there were a number of cases of school districts that provided their own centralized studies programs not through CCS. Number 633 REP. G. DAVIS voiced the opinion that different schools have different rationale as to why their costs are at 100% rather than 65%. He stated that some students do not belong in the school districts and need options (CCS), and that having the choice benefits the teachers, the administration, and the state on cost per student basis, and it benefits CCS. He suggested further research. Number 698 CHAIR BUNDE said that one problem was that the legislature did not get an accounting of how the money was spent and felt that measures should be taken to have an accounting system for tracking. It would highlight any double-dipping. Number 737 REP. TOOHEY felt that by spreading out the CCS system so thinly, the purpose would be lost. She stated her general confusion over the committee substitutes. REP. OLBERG expressed his concern regarding double-dipping. Number 774 MS. ANDERSON said that the state board did have proposed regulations that private school students could attend public schools for a portion of the day and receive funding under foundation formula. Number 785 CHAIR BUNDE referred to further testimony from Ms. Merwin. Number 787 MS. MERWIN asserted that the state would save 35% for every student that chose to be educated by CCS. She then asked Rep. Kott where he obtained his 60% figure for the substitute. Number 830 REP. KOTT said that the 60% figure would be an "even wash" for all students. Number 848 MS. MERWIN asked if perhaps the 60% figure was too low. Number 855 REP. KOTT stated that at 60% there would be a 50% reduction in the program cost under the original house bill. He felt that at 65% from the original bill, it would not have passed through committee. Number 869 MS. MERWIN touched on the angle of discrimination against rural students by funding them at lower levels. She equated the discrimination with the plight of Martin Luther King, Jr. Number 883 REP. OLBERG suggested that students entering in to CCS have a grasp of the costs before they start, realizing that it is not equal. Number 897 REP. TOOHEY asked where she felt the connection between Martin Luther King Day and the day's testimony was. Number 900 MS. MERWIN stated that Martin Luther King, Jr. stood against discrimination at any basis and felt that there was a discrimination factor within the foundation formula. She asked why it is that a small percentage of secondary students could be denied secondary funding when every other secondary student in the state is offered secondary funding, including the option of correspondence studies. CHAIR BUNDE responded by saying that where one chooses to live in Alaska necessitates choices. Number 934 REP. NICHOLIA asked Rep. Kott if his legislation would leave opportunity for parents of students in CSS to sue the state for discrimination in regards to the 65% costs. Number 943 REP. KOTT answered that anything is possible in this "law- suing society," but suspected that it wasn't likely. He said that although the bill needs more modification, it does not change the fact that the 60% across-the-board eliminates the discrimination factor. Number 966 REP. TOOHEY said that, as she understood it, the school districts did not have to offer correspondence programs. She felt that, legally, correspondence did not have to be offered by the state. Number 986 MS. ANDERSON stated that it was under statute that the state provide a centralized correspondence program. Number 990 REP. TOOHEY inquired if there were stipulations on that program as to whether the recipients must live in rural areas. Number 994 MS. ANDERSON said that any Alaskan is eligible. Number 999 REP. OLBERG guessed that the statute could change. Number 002 CHAIR BUNDE opted to hold the bill over for further discussion. He thanked all who participated. Number 011 Seeing no further business before the committee, CHAIR BUNDE adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|