03/02/2012 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: University of Alaska, Dr. Alex Hwu - Distance Education | |
| HB256 | |
| HB313 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 313 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 256 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 2, 2012
8:30 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Dick, Chair
Representative Lance Pruitt, Vice Chair
Representative Eric Feige
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Sharon Cissna
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Tammie Wilson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA~ DR. ALEX HWU - DISTANCE
EDUCATION
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 256
"An Act repealing provisions relating to the power and duties of
the Department of Education and Early Development to intervene
in a school district to improve instructional practices."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 313
"An Act relating to student counts and estimates for public
school funding; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 313(EDC) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SUPERINTENDENT PRESENTATION: SKAGWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT
- REMOVED FROM AGENDA
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 256
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL STATE INTERVENTION IN SCHOOLS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) DICK
01/17/12 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/6/12
01/17/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/17/12 (H) EDC, FIN
01/25/12 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
01/25/12 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/01/12 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/01/12 (H) Heard & Held
02/01/12 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
02/03/12 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/03/12 (H) Heard & Held
02/03/12 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
02/06/12 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/06/12 (H) Heard & Held
02/06/12 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
02/22/12 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/22/12 (H) Heard & Held
02/22/12 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/02/12 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 313
SHORT TITLE: STUDENT COUNT ESTIMATES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) FEIGE
02/03/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/03/12 (H) EDC, FIN
02/17/12 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/17/12 (H) Heard & Held
02/17/12 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/02/12 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
SHIH-HSUNG (ALEX) HWU, PhD; Director
Center for Distance Education
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview from the Center for
Distance Education (CDE).
ANNETTE KREITZER, Staff
Representative Alan Dick
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the sponsor to
present the changes incorporated in HB 256, Version X.
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 256.
ELIZABETH SWEENEY NUDELMAN, Director
School Finance and Facilities Section
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 313.
MICHAEL PASCHALL, Staff
Representative Eric Feige
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of the sponsor, Representative
Feige, testified during the discussion of HB 313.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:30:56 AM
CHAIR ALAN DICK called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. Representatives Feige, Seaton, P.
Wilson, and Dick were present at the call to order.
Representatives Pruitt and Kawasaki arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
^Presentation: University of Alaska, Dr. Alex Hwu - Distance
Education
Presentation: University of Alaska, Dr. Alex Hwu - Distance
Education
8:31:22 AM
CHAIR DICK announced that the first order of business would be a
presentation by the University of Alaska on distance education.
8:32:37 AM
SHIH-HSUNG (ALEX) HWU, PhD; Director, Center for Distance
Education, University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), began his
PowerPoint presentation on eLearning at UAF. He explained that
the Center for Distance Education (CDE) is comprised of 27-29
staff that operate and handle delivery of eLearning, or online
courses, for the University of Alaska. He stated that 10 of
CDE's staff work to develop courses, work with the training
faculty, and transition the courses from face-to-face to online
courses [slide 1]. He pointed out the department also has 10
student service personnel, including front desk, technical
services, advisors, and the secure testing center personnel. He
suggested that an enrollment of approximately 7,500 which
translates to about 26,000 student credit hours (SCH) is
currently being delivered. He reported the national trend has
been to have 10-14 percent of courses offered online. He
further reported that students like the flexibility of online
courses and would like more opportunities to explore their
educational options. He related that students are scattered
statewide with the majority of the students centered near the
Fairbanks UAF campus. He offered the CDE's student age
distribution: 53 percent are 19-25, 19 percent are 26-30, and
nearly 30 percent are 30 years and older. Since 2008, many
people are returning to college, he said.
8:34:48 AM
DR. HWU stated that the out-of-state demographic distribution
has increased by about 12 percent, but most students reside in
Alaska [slide 2]. He explained that within Alaska, about half
are from the Fairbanks-North Pole area, including the military
base, and about half reside outside that area. He stated that
sex ratio is 70 percent female to 30 percent male students,
whereas the national average is approximately 55 percent female
to 45 percent male [slide 3]. He reported the student age
distribution is predominately within the ages of 19-25. He
remarked that the adult learners take advantage of the
flexibility of online learning so they do not need to confine
their learning to day-time hours.
8:36:04 AM
DR. HWU used pie charts to indicate the growth of the program
[slide 4]. He explained that Fairbanks-North Pole figures are
growing, but outside Fairbanks is growing much faster. He
pointed out that the eLearning's goal is to serve the students
around the state. In response to Representative P. Wilson, he
clarified he was referring to the students outside Fairbanks as
the population that is growing more rapidly.
8:36:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether UAF is the center for
distance education for all three branches of the university
system.
DR. HWU answered only UAF. In response to Representative
Seaton, he explained that eLearning is comprehensive distance
learning, but the UAA and UAS have a non-centralized system,
which makes it more difficult for them to handle all of the
logistics of distance learning.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether someone from Homer who is
taking courses through the Kachemak Bay campus - which is a
University of Alaska (UA) rural campus - would be taking his/her
course through the UAF's eLearning or if it would be through the
UA system.
DR. HWU answered the course is probably offered through the UA
program.
8:37:58 AM
DR. HWU continued with his presentation to illustrate the growth
of the program from 2007-2012, and the demand that is being
placed on the program [slides 5-6]. He pointed out the CDE
program does worry about bandwidth since the courses require
students to use the Internet, but the CDE's program offers every
student the opportunity to finish their education regardless of
his/her location. The CDE has increased the student credit
hours from about 45 percent during the period 2007-2012,
compared to the overall UA's system growth of 3-5 percent in
distance learning. He pointed out that the CDE unit is 98
percent self-sustaining. He highlighted that the CDE's program
depends on tuition and fees with approximately two percent
derived from the state budget. He stated that as entrepreneurs
the CDE program must be able to react quickly to needs since
students consider what is best for them. He emphasized that
either the CDE providers help deliver the course in Alaska or
the students will go somewhere else. He explained that the CDE
is currently working on program development. Initially the
program offered courses, but now the CDE program is offering a
complete degree program online. The ability to complete a
program online enhances students' interests. He referred to the
graph labeled, "ABUS Enrollment Trend" which demonstrates that
initially the degree was offered in the spring 2009, but began
to increase by the spring 2010. In the coming year 600 students
are anticipated to enroll as compared to 195 two years ago. He
concluded that this gives students an opportunity to finish all
their required courses online.
8:40:24 AM
DR. HWU reviewed the Lower 48 demographics. He reported that
most of the out of state students are in the Northwest. He
stated that the CDE offers 184 courses [slide 8]. The CDE
currently offers three degree programs, including a Master's of
Innovation in Education Degree. He stated that the CDE works
with all the UAF departments and is considering the possibility
of expanding to offer mechanical engineering and fisheries. He
pointed out that many of the fisheries courses require hands-on
experience and are not suitable for distance learning due to the
need for expensive simulators. However, accreditation standards
are ensured through appropriate oversight by the professors.
The online course is handled differently than a face-to-face
course, yet the student can engage in an individualized manner.
The professors base the outcomes on what they believe students
should learn. The CDE finds activities and course content to
meet the objective. A course may not work on chapters 1-12
sequentially, but may bounce from chapter 2 and 15 if that
provides a better approach. He stressed that the same standards
apply, but the experience is different. He highlighted that
courses are built to allow students to really engage their own
learning style. Some people like to read while others like to
study in the middle of the night. Still others like to study
early in the morning. The regular courses do not allow that
flexibility while online learning paths do. The interactions
between faculty, classmates, and students still occur.
MR. HWU reported that according to national studies performed
over the past fifteen years, students learn at least the same or
better for online courses, with an assessed rate of three
percent higher. He said this means the courses and programs
must be of good quality. The courses are of excellent quality.
The research was obtained from the University of Phoenix online
courses and for profit classes totaling about 1 million in
enrollment per semester, which includes California, Texas, and
Florida. He recapped the course design and the personal
learning environment is structured. Every single course that is
developed requires a critical thinking component. He emphasized
the importance that is placed on problem solving matched to real
life applications. He also emphasized the importance of
building in safe failure components since students learn so much
from mistakes. Each course is carefully treated and the faculty
tries to dream big. He suggested that the faculty approaches
the topic by thinking about the ultimate Biology 103 course as a
starting point as opposed to using the status quo since that
means the course is based on technology that's 50-years old. He
pointed out that technology is so advanced that it is important
to take advantage of the faculty and students engaging together.
He stated he has numerous slides as part of the presentation,
but he has covered most of the material. The additional
information covered in the slides is for committee members to
review.
8:45:16 AM
DR. HWU said that CDE has been concerned with the students who
arrive at the university from throughout the state in need of
remedial courses. He highlighted that enrollment in
developmental math and English has been up substantially. That
indicates that the kids coming in from high school are not yet
ready for university courses. They spend the first two years
learning what they should have learned in the junior and senior
high school years. He expressed concern over this since it will
take these students six or seven years to complete college. He
has been working with the EED to find out how to bridge the gap
and help students prepare earlier by offering appropriate
courses in junior and senior high school. By doing so students
can finish college in four to five years. He said part of the
challenge has been to figure out how to do that since the
infrastructure has not been created to provide this approach.
Furthermore, rural school districts do not have the faculty to
offer four years of science, math, and English, which is
problematic. He stated that addressing these issues is part of
the effort the CDE has undertaken. He suggested that with
collaboration it is possible to reach that goal.
8:47:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether the gap exists because
students have not been able to get the extra course work or
because schools aren't teaching to a high enough level. She
inquired as to the reasons that students are not ready to
perform college level courses.
DR. HWU indicated that high school teacher turn-over is a
problem. The rural school districts may have one teacher to
cover grades 9-12. The resources are minimal to deliver the
necessary courses. He did not think a newly-trained teacher has
the depth to provide the mathematics or English in depth. He
stated that it is the nature of Alaska since communities are so
spread out. He pointed out that 140 school districts have less
than 20 students in their high schools. He did not think any
other state in the U.S. has had to face that big of a challenge.
Several factors cannot be controlled, such as teacher retention;
however, building high quality course content can be controlled
and these fundamentals ensure the outcome is reached.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether the state should provide
another teacher for distance learning.
DR. HWU acknowledged that having a highly-qualified teacher
would be a help. He also suggested training so teachers become
familiar and comfortable with the course work. He concluded
that having both approaches would help since it could provide
more than one way to resolve the problems. He reiterated that
he is genuinely surprised at the diverse group of students that
teachers must teach in rural Alaska since they must cover four
grades and seven different subject areas.
8:51:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he was intrigued by his reference to
different learning styles. He asked whether the course
materials are set-up to meet the varying styles. He further
asked whether the course is tailored for one learning style or
if there are multiple facets in a single course.
DR. HWU answered that all the online courses are managed by a
learning management system and they use Blackboard at UAF. The
course is developed in a complete manner, including You-Tube,
and base learning simulation so students can review the material
multiple times and may not need to take notes. The students can
decide whether they would learn best by watching a video as
opposed to reading so students approach the material in the
manner that best suits them. They may decide to read the
material and listen to the lecture or watch the lecture and take
notes, or not. Students may go to a lecture course and miss
something the professor said and not understand the concept;
however, with distance learning the students can re-watch the
lectures as many times as necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled he coordinated the learning
network with the high schools. He asked whether the courses can
be provided to high school students.
DR. HWU answered that the CDE can provide expertise in course
development. Additionally, they offer developmental math and
English courses, which are basically sophomore, junior or senior
math courses. The CDE can work with the EED to transition those
courses to offer to high school students throughout the state or
make it optional as a dual credit so the students can earn
college credits while they finish their requirement courses to
qualify for Alaska Performance Scholarship Program.
Additionally, CDE can scope the infrastructure for supporting
teachers and mentoring the high school students.
8:54:43 AM
CHAIR DICK remarked that if Dr. Hwu and his team structure high
school courses that it would provide a seamless transition from
high school to college. Additionally, the CDE could train
Alaska's teachers to be developing online courses.
HB 256-REPEAL STATE INTERVENTION IN SCHOOLS
8:55:31 AM
CHAIR DICK announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 256, "An Act repealing provisions relating to the
power and duties of the Department of Education and Early
Development to intervene in a school district to improve
instructional practices."
8:55:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt a proposed committee
substitute (CS) labeled 27-LS1117\X, Luckhaupt/Mischel, 2/27/12
as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion.
8:56:24 AM
The committee took a brief at ease.
8:56:55 AM
ANNETTE KREITZER, Staff, Representative Alan Dick, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, explained the changes
incorporated in Version X of HB 256. She referred to the first
change on page 6, lines 12-15, which she said adds the language,
" ... notwithstanding that a school or district has demonstrated
two consecutive years of improvement, the district may, in its
discretion, choose to receive restoration services for a third
year." She explained that this language allows a school or
district after two consecutive years of improvement to choose to
maintain or continue restoration services.
MS. KREITZER referred to page 6, line 30 through page 8, line 9,
which was rewritten to reflect sponsor's intention of setting
out year 1 and year 2 activities of the restoration. She
explained that by August 15 in year one the district
superintendent and Department of Education and Early
Development's (EED) commissioner can select at least one
independent expert. Additionally, the expert(s) will evaluate
the school in the areas requested by September 15 of year one on
implementation of the 1998 Alaska Standards for Culturally
Responsive Schools. She related that by October 15 of year 1
the expert(s) are required to produce a written report and
distribute it as well as post a summary on the Internet.
MS. KREITZER stated that by November 15 of year 1 the
superintendent and the department must select a qualified coach,
and the local school board and the EED will select a qualified
coach. These coaches will advise the district regarding the
needs identified in the evaluation. She related that on June 1
of year 1 the district will provide to the department, parents,
legislature and post on the Internet a summary of progress of
these efforts and the observations and recommendations of the
coaches.
MS. KREITZER related that in year 2, not later than September
15, the superintendent and local school board are required to
have a mandatory selection and hiring of two additional
qualified coaches to advise the district. Additionally, by June
1, the district will provide to the department, parents,
legislature and post on the Internet a summary of the progress
of these efforts.
MS. KREITZER referred to page 8, lines 10-11, and stated this
was slightly rewritten. She then referred to page 8, lines 18-
21, which adds a member of the state Board of Education (BOE)
and the four qualified coaches to the school improvement team
selected under (A) and (B) of this paragraph, and one member of
the local school board. She pointed out that concern was raised
about having a legislative member on the team so the legislative
member was deleted from the team.
MS. KREITZER referred to page 8, lines 27-31 and page 9, lines
1-2. She related her understanding that there was concern about
specifically what the team would be doing and how to ensure that
some benefit comes out of that effort. Thus this provision adds
a requirement that the school improvement team develop a three-
year plan to restore the school. The team may redirect district
funding to improve instruction. The superintendent must
implement the team's plan. Finally, at the end of each school
year, the team will evaluate and adjust the plan. She explained
that this gets to the concern the committee had to ensure the
separate components result in something more concrete and will
provide continual checks and balances.
MS. KREITZER referred to page 9, lines 3-4, which would add a
new section requiring the department to request proposals from
and provide grants - subject to appropriation - to schools or
districts in restoration. She concluded that these are the
changes to the proposed CS from Version E to Version X.
9:03:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related the coaches are provided from
district funds. He inquired whether those are subject to
legislative appropriation. He asked how the expenses will be
covered.
MS. KREITZER answered that it is implied that the department
will pay for the coaches but it is not specified in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recommended clarifying how the coaches
will be funded.
9:04:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Version X was before the committee.
9:04:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt Amendment 1, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
Page 7, Line4:
DELETE
[student preparedness]
Insert
Preparedness of students to learn
Page 8, Line26:
DELETE
[student wellnesss]
Insert
Preparedness of students to learn
9:04:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion.
9:05:11 AM
MS. KREITZER explained Amendment 1. She referred to page 7,
line 4, which she said goes to the areas that the independent
expert would review. She explained that the bill drafter
suggested the changes to better reflect the sponsor's intent.
She explained that the same change is made on page 8, line 26 to
student wellness, which was actually intended as the
preparedness of students to learn.
CHAIR DICK stated that his intention is to have the expert
assess whether parents are sending students to school that are
sleepy or are not ready to learn.
9:06:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
9:06:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt Amendment 2, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
Page 7, Lines 9-11:
DELETE
[1998 Alaska Standards for Culturally Responsive
Schools, prepared by the Assembly of Alaska Native
Educators;]
Insert
Alaska State Cultural Standards
9:07:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for discussion.
9:07:11 AM
MS. KREITZER explained Amendment 2. She stated that Amendment 2
corrects an error in the proposed CS, noting the bill drafter
inadvertently inserted in the evaluation that experts shall
evaluate the extent to which the districts have implemented the
1998 Alaska Standards for Culturally Responsive Schools, but it
should have read the Alaska State Cultural Standards.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
9:07:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt Amendment 3, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
Page 8, Line 5:
Following "June 1, provide to the ..."
Insert
State Board of Education
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion.
9:08:06 AM
MS. KREITZER explained Amendment 3. She referred to page 8,
line 5, which relates to the second year report provided to the
department, parents, and legislature on the summary of the
progress of their efforts; however, the bill sponsor thought
that at this point in time the state Board of Education should
also receive a copy of that report to provide them with an
update.
9:08:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
9:08:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to page 7, lines- 1-5, of sub-
subparagraph (i), which read," ... selection by the
superintendent of the district and the commissioner of at least
one independent expert in the area of business services,...."
She asked whether that language means the commissioner is going
to provide an expert in business services, an expert on board
governance, or will the commissioner pick out of this group one
independent expert.
9:09:39 AM
CHAIR DICK answered that the intent of this provision is to have
the expert evaluate all of the specified areas. These address
the concerns for areas that a district may be deficient such as
the business office, the board, and other items outside the
curriculum. He understood the question is if an expert's
expertise is limited to one of those areas. He suggested it may
need clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON agreed this sub-subparagraph needed
clarification for the intent and what the expert will handle.
She was unsure of the meaning of the term "human relations"
noting it could mean the relationships of the kids to the
teachers, the relationships of the board to the school, or the
relationship of the administration.
CHAIR DICK answered his intent was all of the above. He
certainly welcomed any clarifying thought.
9:11:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to line 2, and suggested after
expert, to delete "in" and insert "to evaluate" and on line 3
adding an "s" to area. The language would read, " ... the
district and the commissioner of at least one independent expert
to evaluate the areas of business services, board governance,
leadership...."
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 4.
On line 2 delete "in" and insert "to evaluate" and on line 3,
add an "s" to area. She said the language would read, "to
evaluate the areas of business services, board governance,
leadership, facilities...."
9:13:18 AM
CHAIR DICK said he would also be willing to include
administrative leadership since that would be the original
intent.
9:13:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to adopt a reworded Conceptual
Amendment 4. She restated her motion for adopting Conceptual
Amendment 4. She stated that on line 2, delete "in" and insert
"to evaluate" and on line 3 add an "s" to "area" and after
"governance," add "administrative". There being no further
objection Conceptual Amendment 4 was adopted.
9:14:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested defining human relations
since the term is very broad.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT offered his belief there may be a common
understanding of what the human relations is associated with,
which would mean the relations between the teachers, the
administrators, and the janitors. He related his understanding
that human relations would be under the umbrella of the typical
situation.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE suggested leaving the term in the CS. He
related his understanding that it would be the selection by the
superintendent of the district, the commissioner, and that this
language would suffice and give them some latitude to decide.
9:16:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked to have a future presentation by the
department as to how it will be integrated and facilitated.
9:16:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON commented that the changes may help
things since the district would have a clearer understanding of
what to expect with the independent expert(s) and the department
would have a better understanding of how to proceed. She
thought this would help the goal of collaboration to happen
automatically.
9:18:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked at what point would year one begin.
He offered his belief the bill added some provisions to be
proactive, but was unsure of when it takes place and under what
conditions.
9:18:34 AM
CHAIR DICK agreed he thought it was a little blurry, as well.
9:18:48 AM
MS. KREITZER referred to page 6, line 29, to subparagraph (B),
which read, "for the second school year after the designation of
a school as a low-performing school...."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he was unsure at what point this
provision would be applied, and whether it was during the
adequate yearly progress (AYP) or the first year that a school
misses the AYP. He was not certain if the low performance is
targeted for the year one to start action.
CHAIR DICK agreed, noting he had the same thought, but was
willing to allow the department to define.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified he would like the department to
explain the definition. He expressed concern that this could
affect the fiscal impact by implementing restoration activities
after the first year of low performance.
9:20:32 AM
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), explained that the department is focused on
kids and wants to maintain the focus. He suggested HB 256
directs the department and districts when things are not going
well and kids are not performing well. He remarked that the
bill adds some positive aspects. He referred to page 2, line
14, which read "the number and percentage of, and the reasons
for," which he thought was a good thought. He added that having
exit surveys is a good idea, and one the department did a
voluntary survey, but received zero responses, in fact, in one
intervention district the teachers were instructed not to fill
it out. He was unsure how to implement this without making it
mandatory. He recalled Representative Seaton's concern was that
the contract would somehow need to be affected to make that
happen. He said that the department does want to do this. He
commented that one possibility would be to make phone calls, but
he has not had good results.
9:22:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether a requirement could be
incorporated into the future contracts of the teachers'
associations.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that the other side of that is to
determine what empowers teachers to say, but both could provide
powerful data. He asked whether the requirement would be for
all districts and if districts could be encouraged to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON cautioned against interviewing every
teacher every year. They either stay or leave, but the
committee is interested in the reasons teachers leave. He
suggested the contract could contain a provision for an exit
survey provided by the department. He suggested this could be
done as a conceptual amendment.
9:24:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON stated it is difficult to get complete
honesty so the information is not always accurate on an exit
survey. She suggested that if the teacher leaves because the
principal is lousy and so indicates it may affect the next job
application as the teacher may get a poor recommendation.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded that it would need to be handled
by the department and not the district to segregate it from the
district and superintendent.
9:25:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI agreed with having the department
engaged to conduct exit surveys to provide more honest
responses. He likened it to the private sector in which a
person would not list a job, necessarily, if the boss didn't
like them.
9:26:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT agreed and interjected that teachers might
feel free to express their concerns in the appropriate context.
He offered his belief that if he left a job and had a bad
experience he would probably [not] list it on future
applications since it is unlikely the employer would give him a
good recommendation. He thought it would give the teachers an
opportunity to voice their concerns and supported the exit
survey.
9:27:06 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY suggested that phone calls have been made
and some responses have been received. He stated that if
districts were in a restorative process, the district could
report the personnel who had left and the department could
follow-up in-house.
9:27:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested adding contact information.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that the department has most of
those records.
9:28:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested that the information be confined
to districts in restoration. He inquired as to whether it
should apply to all teachers departing the schools. He
suggested having a contractual agreement inserted for teachers
upon exit to avoid problems by early detection and proactivity.
CHAIR DICK expressed concern about the time left in the
legislative session.
9:29:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT suggested that the education committee
could put this forth. He favored having every district report
so the department has good information. In response to Chair
Dick, he agreed a committee bill would be a good idea.
9:30:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented that the language requiring an
exit survey would be included in the information for reporting
to the legislature. He suggested doing a conceptual amendment
that teachers will fill out an exit interview by the EED.
9:30:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to page 2, line 14, which
read, "(8) the number and percentage of, and the reasons for,
turnover in certificated personnel and superintendents." She
added that (9) reads, "the number of teachers by district and by
school...." She inquired as to whether that captures all the
schools.
9:31:27 AM
CHAIR DICK stated (9) relates to teachers who are teaching
outside the teacher's area of endorsement. He suggested that
would encompass more.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON related her understanding that it would
apply to every school.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed Section 1 relates to the report
provided by the department, which covers all of the schools. He
related his understanding if the bill requires adding the
reasons for departing on an exit survey that he did not see a
provision in the bill to include the mechanism to do so unless
an amendment is made to require a provision in future contracts
that teachers must furnish the information when they depart.
9:32:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON thought he previously made a motion, but
offered to do it again. He made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 5, on page 2, line 15, to add that future district
contracts will be required to include a provision that teachers,
certified personnel, and superintendents will complete an exit
survey as designed by the Department of Education.
9:33:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI said it may be duplicative since the
Fairbanks and Anchorage school districts already complete
surveys now.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked whether the Fairbanks and Anchorage
school districts use an outside vendor.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI answered that it is internal.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT offered his belief that using the
department would provide separation from the principal and
people within their school since the department could obtain
better information.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI agreed and fully advocates for the
change.
There being no further objection Conceptual Amendment 5 was
adopted.
CHAIR DICK recalled previous questions on funding.
9:35:03 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY referred to page 4, lines 19-20, which read
"(4), prescribe by regulation a minimum course of study for the
public schools that includes elective and career and vocational
courses in addition to the core curricula;...." He offered his
belief that this would alter the graduation requirements. He
explained that the regulation for a minimum course of study
determines what students need to graduate, which is currently 21
credits. The intent may not be to make that change, but the
language essentially increases it to 22-23 units from 21.
CHAIR DICK related his understanding that he worked with Charles
Wolforth on this language. He did not think this should be
included.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said he appreciates the focus on career
technical education (CTE), but when it requires in addition to
the minimum course of study that language refers to the
graduation requirements. He suggested that may be a separate
topic not intended by the bill's sponsor.
CHAIR DICK asked Commissioner Hanley for a recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY recalled a prior version of HB 256, in which
part of the focus would be to ensure that CTE courses are being
offered. He said he is resistant to change the graduation
requirements.
CHAIR DICK agreed.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY suggested that in the midst of the
evaluations and advisors that it should be included in their
focus to incorporate cultural standards so as to focus on CTE.
9:37:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested deleting "that includes" and
inserting "ensuring," which would help since the scholarship
program allows for college courses, but many students would
benefit from career and vocational courses. She offered her
belief this language would help make sure the process is
happening. She asked for committee input.
CHAIR DICK entertained suggestions for an amendment.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY cautioned against adding this to the minimum
course of study unless the intent is to ensure that every
student attends a CTE course. He pointed out that some students
want to take the AP courses and then move on to college and not
every student needs the CTE courses, but the opportunity should
be available.
9:39:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT suggested after "that" to insert "could,"
which would be loose but would not require it.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON disagreed that each student must take
the courses, but the flexible language makes certain it is
available.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related that Section 4 says the department
shall do a number of things, including in paragraph (4),
"prescribe by regulation a minimum course of study...." He
offered his belief that establishes the minimum graduation
requirements. He suggested that CTE be separated and not put
into the prescribed minimum requirement section.
CHAIR DICK suggested taking the issues of the department out of
committee for discussion between his office and the
commissioner.
9:41:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT suggested striking the language in
paragraph (4)," ... that includes elective and career and
vocational courses in addition to core curricula;...." He was
unsure he was willing to move out a bill to address one issue
and potentially create a whole different issue. He did not want
to see that kind of collateral damage.
9:41:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON noted that the questions being
addressed are policy decisions and she asked for the committee
to remain involved in the process. She acknowledged that the
committee may want some things the commissioner does not want.
[HB 256 was held over.]
HB 313-STUDENT COUNT ESTIMATES
9:43:33 AM
CHAIR DICK announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 313, "An Act relating to student counts and
estimates for public school funding; and providing for an
effective date."
9:43:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT made a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 313, labeled 27-LS1223\M,
Kirsch/Mischel, 3/1/12.
9:44:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion.
9:44:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC FEIGE, sponsor, referred to the proposed
committee substitute by section. He stated that two sections
have been changed, but everything else is the same as Version A
of the bill. He referred to Section 4, which adds a provision
to prohibit a municipal assembly from taking funds away from a
district after having allocated the funds to the district. He
stated that in talking to some of the chief financial officers
in the districts he discovered one of their frustrations is that
they may do very well on managing their money, and most of these
districts actually spend less than what is planned into their
budgets. However, for some districts that lie within
municipalities or boroughs, the local government currently has
the option at the end of the year to reallocate or reappropriate
surplus funding remaining in the district's unrestricted funds
account, which is the local contribution funding. He
characterized this as something of a shell game with the public,
since at the start of the year local government announces it is
spending "x" amount on education, but at the end of year the
borough will remove funding allocated and use it for other
purposes. He offered his belief that it would be a great help
to the districts if the ability to reappropriate the funds was
curtailed.
9:46:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE referred to Section 7 and explained that
under current statute, the unrestricted reserve account is
limited to 10 percent. He explained the district can maintain
only up to 10 percent of what they have expended in the current
school year and those funds can be retained until the next
school year. This bill would raise it to 15 percent, which
would allow districts to manage their own funding and allow the
districts to maintain a greater reserve fund. He suggested that
this would allow them greater flexibility to manage fluctuations
in their cash flow and manage their funds instead of having
their funds managed for them by local government. Finally,
Section 11 would provide an effective date clause. The fiscal
note has not been changed, he said.
9:47:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related that last year the Kenai Peninsula
School District had to return some funds to the Kenai Peninsula
Borough (KPB) since they were over their legally allowed cap.
He asked how this provision will influence the district and if
the EED would take the excess funds by reducing the contribution
to the district in the same manner they do if contributions are
over the cap and state funding is reduced by that amount.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE answered that it would allow the KPB School
District to sit close to the ten percent cap so it would raise
that cap and give them more latitude to run up to that cap if
necessary. He suggested he was probably correct in terms of the
ability to reallocate or reappropriate the funds. He stated
that if they were at the cap local government would still not be
able to withdraw the funds.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that in the circumstance of the KPB
school district the state would reduce funding for the school
district on any amount over the cap.
9:50:12 AM
ELIZABETH SWEENEY NUDELMAN, Director, School Finance and
Facilities Section, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), answered that if a school district has more
than 10 percent in unreserved fund balance at the end of the
year, the state would reduce state funding, thus returning the
funds to the state.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that under the current circumstance
the borough had funded additional money above the minimum the
school district would return the funding to stay within the cap
to the borough. He related his understanding that under the
bill, the district would have paid the money, but the funds
would reduce the state funding for the schools. He recapped
that they couldn't transfer the excess to the borough and would
need to transfer it to the state.
MS. NUDELMAN stated that if they were returning the money since
they were at the cap and chose to return it to the local
government rather than the state that is correct.
9:51:46 AM
CHAIR DICK recalled times in which money was shoveled into one
end of the district, but the money was taken out the back end.
He related his understanding that this language would fix that
problem. He referred to Section 7, which seems to provide the
districts with the security of knowing what their budget will
be, but they need more flexibility since the student count could
fluctuate so they need the leeway in order to respond to the
unforeseen changes. He commented that these are both good
changes.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE suggested that the problem Representative
Seaton is raising could be fixed by a conceptual amendment.
9:53:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to Section 8. He asked whether
there were any changes.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE answered that Section 8 is the same as
Section 6 in Version A.
9:53:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Version M was before the committee.
9:53:57 AM
MICHAEL PASCHALL, Staff, Representative Eric Feige, Alaska State
Legislature, stated that the changes that Representative Feige
addressed are the only changes to the bill.
9:54:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE referred to Conceptual Amendment 1, on page
8, line 20. He stated that if the population of a district
increases by five percent it would be eligible for supplemental
funding for the current year from the EED. He reiterated the
threshold is five percent. He suggested that five percent is
relative and could be a lot of money or not. There was a fair
amount of resistance from some of the larger districts since it
was a significant amount of funding for some districts at five
percent. He explained that Conceptual Amendment 1 would lower
that to a three percent threshold. He asked members to keep in
mind that most student populations typically do not change more
than about one percent.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, on
page 8, line 20, which read, as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Change Sec. 6 AS 14.17.410(b)(1)(H) by deleting [FIVE]
and inserting three.
9:56:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT objected. He said the school district in
his community is large so he objected. He stated that in his
school district it would amount to 1,200 students, which is a
lot of money. He acknowledged that the figures do not change
very much. He suggested that the range is between 200 and 900
students. The potential would exist that several hundred
students could be involved and districts would not have the
funding. He agreed it is better, but he could not continue to
support this. He stated that between 200 and 300 students
represents less than one percent of the students, which may be
manageable in his school district. He suggested language that
said increases by the lesser of 200 students or a three-percent
cap.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Conceptual Amendment 1, on page 8, line 20 to read: increases
by "the lesser of two hundred students or three percent." He
suggested the bill drafters could correct the conceptual
amendment to match the intent.
9:58:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
She recalled Representative Pruitt had stated 200-900 students.
She asked for the percentage 200 students of the total school
district's population.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT reported the school district in his school
district has 44,000 students, so 220 students would be about
one-half of one percent. He computed that for 200 students at
the current student base allocation of $5,800 would represent
$1.1 million for his school district.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked for the figures for the overall
budget.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT answered it was about $700 million.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON stated that a small school system with
a tiny budget comparatively would be significant.
9:59:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked for the amount that the Anchorage
School District currently has in reserve.
MR. PASCHALL answered the Anchorage School District has about
$56 million in their unreserved fund balance. This issue has
been debated and the larger school districts - except for those
districts in which the local government removes the funding -
have the funding to cover the year. The Conceptual Amendment 1
to Conceptual Amendment 1 actually would increase the comfort
level. He stated that considering smaller school districts and
looking at percentages instead of dollars and the overall impact
varies by district. He suggested Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Conceptual Amendment 1 addresses the issue because the carryover
from this year to next year is at issue and may affect whether
the district can make it to next year. He remarked that next
year the money will be received. He acknowledged the Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Conceptual Amendment 1 was designed for the
smaller school districts where the percentages are more crucial.
He offered his belief that would satisfy the concern.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said that she was unsure.
10:01:56 AM
MR. PASCHALL answered that it is a cash flow and not an income
issue. He referred to the basis for HB 313, which is to change
the timing of the funding and not the amount of the funding. He
highlighted some objections were raised with respect to cash
flow. He stated that he reviewed the numbers and cash flow was
not an issue for the majority of the school districts. He did
not speak to Anchorage, but Fairbanks raised a similar
objection; however, he stated they have the cash flow to do
this. He stated that the Conceptual Amendment 1 to Conceptual
Amendment 1 addresses the concern and the bill sponsor is
agreeable. He anticipated that the second amendment would allow
for an alternative funding method in the current year.
10:03:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON withdrew her objection to Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Conceptual Amendment 1. There being no further
objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Conceptual Amendment 1 was
adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT withdrew his objection to Conceptual
Amendment 1. There being no further objection, Conceptual
Amendment 1 was adopted.
10:03:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Add a new section to read: "If a district is unable to
meet current year funding needs and is not protected
by the provisions of AS 14.17.410(b)(1)(H), the
district may apply to the department for supplemental
funding for the current fiscal year."
10:04:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion.
10:04:09 AM
MR. PASCHALL referred to page 8, following line 29.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE stated that Conceptual Amendment 2 would
assist small school districts where the addition of 1-3 students
does not cross the threshold; however, if they are special or
intensive needs kids the cost would be significant and the
addition would then exceed the threshold. He explained that it
would meet any other requirements for additional funding that
cannot be foreseen at this point. He characterized this
amendment as a catch-all and as a way for a school district that
may not have reserves and additional expenses to still seek
funding from the department.
10:05:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether this would be limited to
requests for additional funding under this chapter or it applies
for any reason.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE responded that the intent is to address
situations in which a school district does not have any
reserves, but has additional expenses due to changes in the
school population, and to provide an avenue to seek supplemental
funding from the department. He said it is not intended to be
used every year, but just for special cases.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed with the changes to the timing of
the formula, but his interpretation of the amendment is it
appears when a school district has a shortfall, no matter the
reason, that no restrictions apply for supplemental funding. He
suggested the language needs to be tightened to the change in
the student count timing.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE answered that this language requires an
application to the department, but it does not guarantee that
the department will approve and distribute supplemental funds.
He emphasized that there needs to be some provision in the bill
so the school district doesn't become bankrupt in the middle of
the school year.
10:07:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed if it is driven by the change in
the student count. He offered his belief that this language
represents a fundamental change if the legislature allows
districts to apply for supplemental funding due to shortfalls.
The school districts could then shift money between districts
without anything being related to the count.
10:08:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1
to Conceptual Amendment 2 to delete "needs" at the end of the
first line and add, "because of change in student counts" and
leave the existing language. Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Conceptual Amendment 2 would read, as follows:
If a district is unable to meet current year funding
because of change in student counts and is not
protected by the provisions of AS 14.17.410(b)(1)(H),
the district may apply to the department for
supplemental funding for the current fiscal year.
10:08:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE referred to [subparagraph] (H), which is
referenced in Conceptual Amendment 2 refers to the student
counts.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON withdrew proposed Conceptual Amendment
1 to Conceptual Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE declared that the intent is not to reward
bad behavior, but if a situation arises beyond the control of a
school district, especially a small school district, the
department can be engaged to assist. The department will
determine the merits of supplemental funding.
10:09:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 7, line 5, which refers
to the adjusted ADM.
The committee took an at-ease from 10:09 a.m. to 10:10 a.m.
10:10:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether this language is a new
subparagraph (I) or if it will be a new section.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE offered his belief that it would be a new
[subparagraph] (I).
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested if the language is a new
subparagraph (I), it would relate to the previous subsection on
page 7, line 5, which would pertain to the calculation of the
ADM for school districts. He explained that if a school
district is not protected by one provision it is protected by
the ADM calculation in subsection (b) in circumstances in which
the district cannot meet its needs. He highlighted that if the
proposed conceptual Amendment 1 to Conceptual Amendment 2 only
applies to subparagraph (H) it would only apply to the three or
five percent change in student counts; however, if the proposed
amendment is to subparagraph (I) it would also affect the
adjusted ADM calculation.
10:12:05 AM
MR. PASCHALL explained the intent of Representative Feige's
Conceptual Amendment 2 is to only apply to unique circumstances
such as if the school district is not protected due to the
greater than three percent student count change. In those
instances the school district could apply to the department. He
related a scenario in which one school district has a $26,000
reserve, which is five percent of their operating budget so the
most this school district could have in reserve is not enough to
cover hiring a single intensive need aide. This school district
would need to have some type of assistance in order to exist in
that unique situation. He agreed the language should only apply
to school districts with student count changes.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed the new subparagraph (I) goes
beyond the sponsor's intent.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE withdrew Conceptual Amendment 2.
10:14:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3,
which incorporates language in subsection (c), on page 5, lines
8-9, such that it would read:
The assembly may not reallocate or reappropriate for
another purpose the amount appropriated from local
sources to the district for school purposes unless the
unrestricted portion of its year end fund balance in
the school operating fund exceeds the amount set in AS
14.17.505(a).
10:15:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE stated that this addresses Representative
Seaton's earlier concern. He explained that if the school
district is at its maximum reserve amount then it can reallocate
funds.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON pointed out that some school districts
don't have a reserve account.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE explained that funds cannot be withdrawn by
the assembly. He further explained that what has happened in
some school districts is they have a surplus at the end of the
year. The local government, such as a borough assembly,
reallocates the surplus to a project, such as a sidewalk.
Conceptual Amendment 3 would prevent that from happening.
Furthermore, it prevents a shell game from happening. The
borough would announce it is spending $27 million on education,
but in reality reappropriates the funding at the end of the
year.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON clarified that Conceptual Amendment 2
is not being rewritten. She withdrew her objection to
Conceptual Amendment 3. There being no further objection,
Conceptual 3 was adopted.
10:17:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE suggested passage of the bill and redraft
the language attempted for Conceptual Amendment 2 for
consideration by the Finance Committee.
10:17:45 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 10:17 a.m. to 10:19 a.m.
MS. NUDELMAN offered to answer any questions.
CHAIR DICK asked whether the department has specific concerns
with the proposed legislation.
MS. NUDELMAN responded that she shared the concern with
Conceptual Amendment [2], as withdrawn, since it would allow
school districts to simply ask for funds. She agreed with the
discussion that the committee is having on that count. She
referred to the fiscal note with this bill. She explained that
when school districts receive funding because the count has gone
up, it increases the funding level under the old system. She
advised that the department will revisit the fiscal note at
three percent to reflect the increase.
10:20:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether she could estimate how the
fiscal note of $1 million at five percent would change.
MS. NUDELMAN answered that the fiscal note was estimate and it
could be scrutinized especially based on some of the amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON agreed the three percent is a
significant change.
10:20:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked for an estimate of the current amount
that is spent on education per year.
MS. NUDELMAN responded that the state entitlement represents
approximately $1 billion as a rough figure.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked whether the change would be $2
million at three percent.
MS. NUDELMAN said she would not disagree, but she wanted to
calculate the amount.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE highlighted that the committee is
considering $2 million in a potential $1 billion funding stream.
MS. NUDELMAN acknowledged she understood his logic.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE pointed out that the percentage is
negligible.
10:21:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether placing the Conceptual
Amendment 2 under (H) would that be more appropriate and not
relate to the ADM calculation.
MS. NUDELMAN responded that would be appropriate for schools who
fall into the three to five percent category, but she has not
given any thought to those schools that have a change in
enrollment that do not fall into the three or five percent
categories.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE pointed out the amendments are in response
to the public testimony as well as conversations with the
parties that manage the funds.
10:23:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE offered Conceptual Amendment 4 using the
previous language of Conceptual Amendment 2, as a subsection of
AS 14.17.410 (b) (1) (H), which read:
If a district is unable to meet current year funding
because of change in student counts and is not
protected by the provisions of AS 14.17.410(b) (1)
(H), the district may apply to the department for
supplemental funding for the current fiscal year.
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 4 was
adopted.
10:24:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 313, labeled 27-LS1223\M, Kirsch/Mischel,
3/1/12, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being
no objection, the CSHB 313(EDC), as amended, was reported from
the House Education Standing Committee.
10:24:24 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:24 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHB 256 Version X.pdf |
HEDC 3/2/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 256 |
| CS HB 256 V. X AM 1.docx |
HEDC 3/2/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 256 |
| CS HB 256 V. X AM 2.docx |
HEDC 3/2/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 256 |
| CS HB 256 V. X AM 3.docx |
HEDC 3/2/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 256 |