Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/14/2002 03:03 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 464-SCHOOL DISTRICT CORRESPONDENCE STUDY CHAIR DYSON announced that the committee would consider HOUSE BILL NO. 464, "An Act relating to statewide school district correspondence study programs." [Before the committee, adopted as a work draft on 3/7/02, was Version O, 22-LS1494\O, Ford, 3/4/02.] TAPE 02-23, SIDE A Number 0001 RICHARD SCHMITZ, Staff to Representative Jeannette James, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative James, prime sponsor of HB 464, noted that he had three amendments for consideration that had been drafted in response to some issues people with the bill. He explained that Representative James was comfortable with all three amendments, which work in concert. MR. SCHMITZ informed members that Amendment 1 would change the title [which for Version O read, "An Act relating to statewide school district correspondence study and state supported home schooling programs."] Amendment 1, which would delete "and state supported home schooling programs", read: Title change to: "An act relating to statewide school district correspondence study programs." MR. SCHMITZ explained that it ties in with Amendment 2, which read: Delete (b) Add: (b) In this section, "statewide school district correspondence study programs" do not apply to charter schools, Alyeska Central School, or to school district correspondence study programs that enroll only students within its district of residence. Number 0338 MR. SCHMITZ expressed his understanding, based on a conversation with Department of Education and Early Development (EED) personnel, that four types of public schools are considered correspondence schools. One is Alyeska Central School, a state- operated school that distributes curriculum for home schoolers; the program offers few curricular options. The second type includes charter schools that offer correspondence; one in Anchorage provides some correspondence. He remarked, "Charter schools are their own animal." He offered that these schools have worked on regulations for a number of years to fine-tune [the programs]. In conversations with people involved with charter schools, Mr. Schmitz said he was made aware of concerns about unintended consequences for charter schools that would occur as a result of HB 464. He indicated that charter schools would be excluded [from HB 464 by adoption of Amendment 2]. MR. SCHMITZ explained that correspondence programs exist within a district; these programs serve only students within district boundaries. The remaining type of home school program is statewide correspondence programs, the subject of HB 464. CyberLynx, Interior Distance Education of Alaska (IDEA), and others are among the approximately ten statewide correspondence programs. These are, by statute, correspondence-study programs that are open to students anywhere in the state, offered by a school district. He added that certain rules apply to how these programs enroll students. In order to clarify HB 464, this language was developed by a "sort of committee" to ensure that the language applies only to [these statewide correspondence schools] and to allow other programs to operate without undue controls. He said the title change also goes along with this premise. MR. SCHMITZ turned attention to Amendment 3, which read [original punctuation provided]: Delete: (3) Add: (3) must provide that the school district conducting the correspondence program has the duty and authority to establish procedures for the purchase of correspondence curriculum materials, and to establish procedures for approving or disapproving individual education plans and home designed courses. MR. SCHMITZ indicated this pertains to paragraph (3), page 2, lines 2-4, and refers to the purchase of correspondence curriculum materials. The schools in question do not want the approval or disapproval of these materials within their purview; this is the job of the parents, he stated. However, districts do want control over the purchase of materials to ensure that state law is followed. Amendment 3 also establishes procedures for approving or disapproving individual education plans. MR. SCHMITZ indicated these plans are established by parents and district personnel in concert. He noted that the inclusion of home-designed courses had been added at the suggestion of Joan Dangeli. A home-designed course might be a physical education course that includes hiking, for example; if the district approves it, then it is allowable. This might also apply to music lessons. The purpose is to give these schools and parents who teach their children at home the greatest possible freedom to continue the success achieved up until now, he concluded. ED McLAIN, Ph.D., Deputy Commissioner of Education, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development, in response to Chair Dyson, said Amendment 1 wasn't a problem for EED. CHAIR DYSON moved to adopt Amendment 1 [text provided previously] and asked whether there was any objection. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. DR. McLAIN, in response to Chair Dyson, said he would have suggested language similar to Amendment 2, and that the department had no objection to Amendment 2. CHAIR DYSON moved to adopt Amendment 2 [text provided previously] and asked if there was any objection. There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted. Number 0680 DR. McLAIN, in response to Chair Dyson, said he wanted time to review [Amendment 3]. However, he conveyed his initial reaction that it may cause problems, may conflict with a statute that addresses the responsibility of school boards in general, may cause problems with accreditation efforts of the programs in question, and may have implications for acceptance of transcripts from those courses. CHAIR DYSON asked that these amendments be distributed to the Legislative Information Offices (LIOs) as quickly as possible. He announced that the committee would not adopt Amendment 3 [at this time] and would take public testimony. Number 0774 MR. SCHMITZ, in response to Representative Wilson, explained that HB 464 originated because of concern about proposed regulations for statewide correspondence study programs. The regulations were reviewed and conversations were held with concerned parties; a bill was drafted to address these concerns while protecting the state's interests and allowing for things to run smoothly. He said [statewide correspondence programs] are government programs that are popular with the people who use them; these programs seem to work and have a good reputation. Parents who educate their children at home are happy with these programs and fear that [proposed] regulatory changes will limit the programs' ability to work effectively. He noted that Section 1, [paragraph] (1), calls for these programs to be approved every ten years. The [proposed] regulations called for this approval every year, which creates, from the programs' perspective, a paperwork burden. Number 0856 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired, "So if they change things, it might be nine more years before somebody's going to check on it?" MR. SCHMITZ replied that the ten-year review is based on charter school requirements for approval. He pointed to the second provision in Section 1, [paragraph] (1), which requires a program deemed "deficient" or "in crisis" under statute to be [reviewed more frequently than every ten years]. Number 0900 CHAIR DYSON offered that part of the genesis of the bill was a reaction to concerns about [proposed] regulations. The approval is every ten years, but HB 464 makes the monitoring and oversight a district responsibility as opposed to a department responsibility. This responsibility is a major issue that the bill addresses. MR. SCHMITZ added that the bill gives the district the responsibility to monitor students as the district deems appropriate; this issue was raised by many parents. A student enrolled in the program might be the child of a new home school parent who might require more frequent contact with a district teacher than is required by a more veteran home school parent. The bill allows the district to determine [the appropriate amount of contact] and to establish procedures to do so. It allows the greatest amount of freedom while still having the accountability of passing statewide exams, he said. The proposed regulations would have been much more rigid. Number 0988 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON noted that some concern has existed about the number of [correspondence school] students taking the Benchmark and [High School Graduation Qualifying Exam (HSGQE)] tests. Some districts had many students who were not participating in these tests, she pointed out. MR. SCHMITZ replied that this bill does not address that concern, but does hold the schools up to a standard of passage. It would be in the programs' best interest to have as many of their students as possible take the exams. In addition, students cannot graduate without passing the [HSGQE]. Number 1109 SHARYLEE ZACHARY testified via teleconference. She referenced written testimony from her husband, noting that both his and her testimony had been faxed. She told members: The building-based schools have been set up to accommodate a large number of children with teachers, supplies, programs, et cetera, to reach the goal of education. Certain procedures and rules do need to be applied in order to work with so many children in a controlled and effective way. But this is only one method of schooling that can be used to reach the goal of education. Home schooling is an entirely different, yet just as effective, way of educating our children. It looks, feels, and functions differently because it can be designed according to the child and the family. During the schooling years, children will be at different levels in different areas. Yet when they graduate, the same goal is met as in the public school. Because of IDEA, our family has been able to educate our children with resources that we never had available to us before. And you might ask, "Why did you not put your children in the public school system?" While we do agree with a lot of things being taught in the school system, we see areas that are being taught that we feel are very dangerous for our children to be exposed to. I ... won't go into them, but those areas tear down the character building that we are trying to do in our children. If we send our children into the public school system, we are sending them into an area that will lead them to make extremely unwise choices in their lives. We teach our children to treat all people with respect and kindness, and they do. But that does not mean that they need to believe that what certain people are doing at certain times is okay. MS. ZACHARY, in response to Chair Dyson, offered her belief that the bill says because she wants to teach certain principles to her children at home through a Christian curriculum, her family cannot receive funds from the state. She added that if her family's children are enrolled in the [regular] school system, they can be educated in areas her family finds dangerous. Her family is penalized when trying to home school with curriculum that will only build the children's character, she suggested. Number 1276 CHAIR DYSON offered his impression that Ms. Zachary misunderstood the intent of the bill, which limits the department's regulations that could have included some censoring of materials. It also puts oversight of the program into the purview of the [administering] district. He indicated that Ms. Zachary ought to have more influence over the district [than the department], and that the district would be more responsive to her needs. He offered his understanding that according to [EED], any program receiving [state] money is not precluded from purchasing materials from any publisher; the only restriction is that state law prohibits the use of state money for promulgating or advocating a particular religious perspective. He stated that she is free to purchase materials in addition to state- funded materials. MS. ZACHARY thanked Chair Dyson for this clarification. She said she and others have been very concerned about that. Number 1363 CAROL SIMPSON testified via teleconference. She said she works for the IDEA program, and she is also a longtime home school parent. She told members [IDEA] is in favor of this bill and appreciates that it eliminates the cumbersome yearly applications. She offered that these applications are routinely denied each year; every year, the previous year's approved application is resubmitted and subsequently denied. She said Section 2 allows the programs to base its monitoring on [a family's needs]; Section 3 promulgates local district control of the materials being used and what educational concepts are covered. She added her belief that this is aligned with legislative intent and statutes already in place. Number 1387 CHAIR DYSON expressed his perception that Ms. Simpson has been actively assisting the bill's sponsor and his office with this bill. He noted his appreciation for her efforts. He asked if she had seen the amendments before the committee and was comfortable with them. MS. SIMPSON replied that she had a question about why the proposed regulations and the wording [in HB 464] say "statewide correspondence programs" and therefore exclude in-district correspondence programs. Noting her curiosity about the department's distinction between the two types of programs, she asked: what perceived problem prompted greater [proposed] regulation of the statewide programs? CHAIR DYSON responded that he had the same question and that the committee would seek an answer to it. Number 1439 TIM SCOTT testified via teleconference. He indicated his agreement with Amendments 1 and 2, and told members that much of what he wanted to say had already been said. In response to Chair Dyson, he said that from his perspective, he saw no problem with Amendment 3. Number 1472 RUSS BOWDRE testified via teleconference. He said his family has home schooled for over 20 years; he is in favor of the bill. He indicated he had a question about an amendment that had already been addressed. He noted his appreciation for Representative James's and others' efforts to push this bill forward. There is no need to change the regulations, he offered; if a need exists, this bill addresses the concerns of home schoolers. Number 1535 CHRISTINE AXMAKER testified via teleconference. A home school parent of three children, she has been home schooling for about nine years. She noted that she had faxed written testimony to the committee. Returning attention to Representative Wilson's comment about a lack of accountability, Ms. Axmaker pointed out that parents are accountable to the IDEA program on a regular basis through reports and annual tests. She offered that her children are "accelerated" and have scored well into the 90 percentile on all their tests. She asked, "Why are they messing with such a good program?" She concluded, "We want this bill to pass because we feel it will protect our rights; it will make it easier for us to continue doing what we do." Number 1589 JOAN DANGELI came forward to testify, noting that she is a Juneau home school parent with the CyberLynx program. She asked if the committee might consider inserting the word "grading" following the words "individual education plans" in Amendment 3. In response to Chair Dyson, she offered that the last line would read, "disapproving individual education plans, grading and home designed courses." She returned to the subject of accreditation and noted that she wonders how the state is receiving accreditation in rural areas. She expressed her understanding that rural parents home school their children due to the lack of educational options. CHAIR DYSON offered to try to get that question answered. He related his understanding that programs are accredited and that there is some way of assessing and monitoring the students. MS. DANGELI said her son participates in much more strenuous physical education than he did in [traditional public] school; he works very hard. Number 1693 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked Ms. Dangeli if she was requesting in her proposed change to Amendment 3 that the district establish procedures for grading, or that the district do the grading. MS. DANGELI replied, "That they be allowed to set their ... procedures for grading." She referred to the proposed regulation, [4 AAC 33.421(e)(2)], which references grades or standards met, determined and assigned by a certified teacher. She explained that her home school program allows for [grading by a] parent or [certified teacher]. She noted that she took on the task of grading this year because [program personnel] had so much to do. Grading in the program is "pretty straightforward," she said, and is based on weekly assessments in reading and math. She added, "I felt if it could be left at their discretion, and maybe kick in something if a child isn't doing good for two years in a row or something, then the district can have the option of saying, 'Okay, now we're going to do the grading....'" Number 1769 CHAIR DYSON asked Dr. McLain how long it would take him to research Amendment 3. DR. McLAIN stated his desire to check with the accreditation association. He indicated that although he would be gone for a week, someone else could present it on his behalf [on March 19]. He said the department will do its best to obtain an answer. This is a high priority for the department, he noted. CHAIR DYSON returned to the question raised by Ms. Simpson regarding the difference between in-district and statewide correspondence programs. DR. McLAIN explained that one key difference between the two types of programs is that a school district has, by statute, the responsibility for providing education to children residing in its district. He noted that this statute is very specific; he didn't have the exact citation, but said it was a matter important to [EED], he said. There is not a legal obligation for a district to serve students outside the district; he said when Galena was applying for impact-aid reconsideration, that was one of the points the district raised. He offered that [EED] used a lot of material from Galena when preparing the [proposed] regulations. "So this is not about Galena," he said. He stated that Galena is doing a good job, and [EED] wants to support that. However, Galena is not required to serve [the students outside its district boundaries]. He indicated [EED] does not want to see students left [outside the responsibility of a district]. Number 1868 CHAIR DYSON offered his understanding that [EED] views the two type of programs differently because a district has legal responsibility only for the students within the district. When school districts are [delivering instruction to students outside of district boundaries], the same obligation does not exist. DR. McLAIN replied that in addition to that, there are related issues such as representation. The Galena district has a very active site council; parents are able to have input. There is no requirement for Galena to do this. Other programs may or may not do that. Number 1897 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked Dr. McLain whether he had concerns about the language in the original bill wherein Section 3 discusses the approval or disapproval of curriculum materials, or whether his concern was about the individual education plan. DR. McLAIN replied that there is a statute that calls for school boards to approve materials and curriculum; he expressed his desire to find the statute to gain a precise understanding of it. He said he wants to discuss this with [EED] attorneys to determine how this language in the bill might conflict with statute. Additionally, accreditation is at issue. When Galena applied for accreditation, the issue of grading came up. Galena specifically identified the certified teacher as assigning the grades when "push comes to shove." This application spoke "very emphatically" about the close relationship between [the certified teacher and a home school family], he said. DR. McLAIN referenced a conversation with an accreditation representative in which the representative indicated that the [grading issue] is a critical [component of accreditation]. Dr. McLain noted his intention to ask this accreditation representative what impact "this sort of piece might have." He again referenced Galena's application for accreditation wherein Galena was asked, "Do you do things very differently?" The response from Galena was that its students are held to exactly the same sort of standards and requirements. He said: This would seem to be ... very much of a moving away. And so I don't want to see us - with all good intentions - walking into a place where the school is not accredited. As the last speaker brought up, the issue of accreditation is of interest, especially to those parents whose children may be intending to go to a postsecondary [institution] ... or to transfer into a traditional school. DR. McLAIN offered that credits are automatically accepted from accredited programs. As Galena is accredited, he noted, its students can [more readily move into other programs]; it is value-added to be accredited. He noted that he would hate to see a program lose accreditation and consequently have less worth. Number 1995 CHAIR DYSON asked Dr. McLain for his impression of the impact of the proposed inclusion of the word "grading" in Amendment 3. DR. McLAIN replied, "I think I'm going to be told that that will become ... problematic for the accreditation. But, again, I don't want to speak for them." CHAIR DYSON said the bill would be scheduled for the following Tuesday if possible. He asked Dr. McLain to have department personnel relay the aforementioned information to the committee. Number 2034 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked Dr. McLain if [Section 1, paragraph (1)] would add a financial burden to districts. If so, how should this be dealt with? DR. McLAIN replied, "I wouldn't be able to answer how that might impact ... the district. I think that would depend upon how the [district] did that internal review and updating." He offered his belief that some of these programs have been actively "trying to keep themselves up and going;" he speculated that these programs probably would not incur additional expense. He pointed out that [EED] is, based on comments it has received, looking at changing the proposed regulations to call for a five- year review. Number 2074 CHAIR DYSON expressed appreciation for the work of Representative James, her staff, and others. [HB 464 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|