02/05/2014 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB245 | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s) | |
| HB220 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 245 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 220 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 5, 2014
8:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lynn Gattis, Chair
Representative Lora Reinbold, Vice Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Harriet Drummond
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 245
"An Act repealing the required local contribution to school
funding; making conforming changes; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
University Board of Regents
Courtney Enright - Ketchikan
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 220
"An Act repealing the secondary student competency examination
and related requirements; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 245
SHORT TITLE: SCHOOL FUNDING: REQ'D LOCAL CONTRIBUTION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) T. WILSON
01/21/14 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/10/14
01/21/14 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/14 (H) EDC, FIN
02/05/14 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 220
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL SECONDARY SCHOOL EXIT EXAM
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HIGGINS, MILLETT, GARA, GATTIS,
WILSON, THOMPSON
01/21/14 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/10/14
01/21/14 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/14 (H) EDC
02/05/14 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 245, as Primary Sponsor.
DAN BOCKHORST, Manager
Ketchikan Gateway Borough
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 245.
ELIZABETH SWEENEY NUDELMAN, Director
School Finance and Facilities Section
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded in official capacity, during the
hearing on HB 245.
MIKE COONS
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 245.
DIANE HUTCHISON, Member
Fairbanks North Star Borough City Assembly
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with unofficial support for HB
245.
DAVID NEES
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 245.
POSIE BOGGS
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 245.
BARBARA HANEY
North Pole, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 245.
COURTNEY ENRIGHT, Appointee
University of Alaska Board of Regents
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as appointee to the University of
Alaska Board Of Regents.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE HIGGINS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 220, as Prime Sponsor.
JULIE MORRIS, Staff
Representative Pete Higgins
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided fiscal comments, during the
hearing on HB 220, on behalf of Representative Higgins, Prime
Sponsor.
LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions, during the hearing
on HB 220.
MIKE COONS
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 220.
SALLY DYBDAHL, President
Hoonah School Board
Hoonah, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 220.
MARY NANUWAK
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified, during the hearing on HB 220.
ERNIE MANZIE
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 220.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:01:54 AM
CHAIR LYNN GATTIS called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:01 a.m. Representatives Gattis, Reinbold,
Seaton, Drummond, and LeDoux were present at the call to order.
Representatives P. Wilson and Saddler arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
HB 245-SCHOOL FUNDING: REQ'D LOCAL CONTRIBUTION
8:02:42 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 245, "An Act repealing the required local
contribution to school funding; making conforming changes; and
providing for an effective date."
The committee took a brief at-ease at 8:02 a.m.
8:03:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON, Alaska State Legislature,
introduced HB 245, paraphrasing from the sponsor statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
House Bill 245 would reform the inequitable and
onerous state mandate for local contributions for
organized areas in the state of Alaska.
The State of Alaska has a duty under Article VI,
Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska
to "establish and maintain a system of public schools
open to all children of the state". The Fiscal burden
placed on local governments that must bear that burden
is enormous and consuming. The State of Alaska
provides only partial funding to organized boroughs,
home-rule cities in the unorganized borough, and
first-class cities in the unorganized borough to carry
out the State's responsibility for education by
deducting a "local contribution" of 2.6 mils from the
level of state aid as stated in 14.17.410(G)(2).
In the area of Alaska outside organized boroughs,
home-rule cities in the unorganized boroughs, and
first-class cities in the unorganized borough, the
State carries out its duties for education through
State "educational service areas" established under AS
14.08.031, which exempt them from the required local
contribution. There are presently 19 State educational
service areas, referred to as regional educational
attendance areas (REAAs).
In 1963 Alaska State Legislature passed, and Governor
Egan signed into law, the "Mandatory Borough Act",
dictating that certain regions of Alaska; those
encompassing Ketchikan, Juneau, Sitka, Kodiak Island,
Kenai Peninsula, Anchorage, the Matanuska Susitna
valleys and Fairbanks to form organized boroughs by
January 1, 1964. Furthermore, Section 1 of the
Mandatory Borough Act promised that, "No area
incorporated as an organized borough shall be deprived
of state services, revenues, or assistance or be
otherwise penalized because of incorporation.
HB 245 removes the "required local contribution"
penalty imposed by the State of Alaska on organized
areas and again fulfills its Constitutional
responsibility.
8:06:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON added that HB 245 does not include
contributions received by districts, from the federal
government, under the Impact Aid law [now Title VIII of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA)]. She
also pointed out that the Mandatory Borough Act (MBA) was not
entered into willingly by Fairbanks residents, who voted against
having it imposed. Further, she interpreted the intent of the
MBA to be a vehicle for the areas to develop and maintain parks
and services, such as fire and police departments; the cities
would be self-funding and not reliant on the state to support
these entities.
8:06:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON provided a historical view of the mil
procedure, paraphrasing from a statement, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
A Little History Lesson
First Foundation Formula
(Basic Need) - 1/2 (Federal Impact Aid) - 3.5 mil
levy = State Allocation to District
1969 North Slope Oil Leases
Windfall surplus begins flowing in to the State
Treasury
Pressure Builds from Organized cities and borough
for greater state assistance
Legislature begins debates on amending the
foundation formula
Second Foundation Formula
State support starts out at 90 percent of basic
need and throughout the 1970's slowly increases
to 100 percent by 1980.
Oil Price Crash/Local Contribution
1986 oil prices crash to $9.00 a barrel and the
State panics
State needs as much money as possible and a new
formula for education funding is proposed.
1988 Local Contribution is back and at the 4 mil
rate.
SB 182 (2012)
In order to put all organized districts back on
an equal playing field the required local
contribution was reduced to 2.65 mils and it was
based on the Full and True Value.
8:08:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON explained that the 2.65 mill rate was
expected to function as an equalizer. Property taxes have, and
continue to be, the vehicle for collecting this revenue and many
boroughs and cities contribute above the required rate. She
opined that it should be incumbent on the state to provide full
educational funding based on the established formula. Directing
attention to the fiscal note, contained in the committee packet,
she indicated that the impact on boroughs and cities equates to
$206 million.
8:09:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON observed that the bill addresses property
tax contributions and does not include impact aid. He asked if
50 percent would still be subtracted from the REAAs, effectively
causing those areas to contribute in a greater proportion while
exempting municipalities.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON clarified that the impact aid is
subtracted, currently at the 100 percent level for REAAs, and
that would be made the same for eligible municipalities. She
directed attention to the committee packet handout provided by
the Alaska Department of Education & Early Development (EED),
titled "FY 2014 Foundation Projection," dated September 2013,
page 9, to point out the labeled columns "D", "Eligible Federal
Impact AID," and "E", "Impact AID Percent," respectively, and
said that passage of HB 245 would place every area at the 100
percent level; column "E." She pointed out that there are very
few communities that do not receive some amount of federal
impact aid.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated his understanding that many areas
are contributing some amount to local schools, and the bill
would restrict this contribution to an amount not to exceed 23
percent; possibly resulting in a reduction of allowable local
contributions.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON explained that the contribution cap
would remain in place, hence, some areas would need to reduce
the amount currently being collected, but could still exceed the
required amount. She said:
All this would do, would be basically backfilling that
portion that the state, by constitution, should be
[paying].
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that, currently, nearly all
districts are exceeding the local contribution requirement;
"eating into that 23 percent." He expressed concern stating:
If the required local contribution, which is greater
than the 23 percent is taken away, and only the 23
percent is available, that means that the ability of
local residents to contribute to their schools is
reduced.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON used Fairbanks as an example and said
the city contributes $48 million, although the requirement is
only $26 million, and the cap allows for an additional $13
million. Under HB 245, she explained, the $26 million would
become approximately $20, after deduction of the impact aid.
She continued:
[The city] would be able to give $13 of that $20, to
go up to the cap amount. The additional $7 million
dollars that's left over ... they would give ... back
to tax payers, but they could [fund] other things that
the municipality needs.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON emphasized her understanding that this
measure would allow an expansion of funding possibilities.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON described his understanding that HB 245
would restrict Fairbanks from contributing over the cap,
resulting in the loss of $7 million.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON clarified the hypothetical Fairbanks
example that the state would be required to contribute the
amount currently being paid by the cities 2.6 mil levy; $26
million. Additionally, after receiving the full funding by the
state, the city could also contribute $13 million. She
theorized that schools would receive more funding in most areas.
If a community is already funding to the cap, there would not be
a change, but other areas could realize a community option for
contributing to the cap or using municipal taxes for other
purposes; the tax is already being collected.
8:16:55 AM
DAN BOCKHORST, Manager, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, stated
support for HB 245, paraphrasing from a written statement, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Every good law should have at least the following
three characteristics:
1. it should be fair;
2. it should reflect sound public policy;
3. and, of course, it must be constitutional.
The law imposing the Required Local Contribution fails
on all three points. For that reason, the Ketchikan
Gateway Borough strongly supports HB 245, repealing
the Required Local Contribution.
8:17:58 AM
Let me explain.
First, the Required Local Contribution is far from
fair.
It creates two distinct classes of citizens:
1. Those in 34 municipal governments required by
State law to operate school districts; and
2. Those in the remainder of the state - comprising
19 other school districts in Alaska.
It imposes a crushing fiscal burden on the 34
municipal governments, shifting to them about twenty
percent of the State's constitutional duty to
adequately fund schools in those districts.
At the same time, the State exempts from the other 19
districts from the Required Local Contribution.
There is no rational basis for the disparate treatment
of the two classes. Some of the most economically
distressed areas of Alaska are among the 34
municipalities subject to the Required Local
Contribution, while some of the most prosperous
regions of Alaska are among the 19 districts that
enjoy exemption from the Required Local Contribution.
The Required Local Contribution also fails the
fairness test in that it breaches a promise to the
citizens of Alaska, expressed in State law in 1963,
that boroughs will not be deprived of State revenues
or otherwise penalized because of incorporation.
Second, the Required Local Contribution fails the
sound public policy test.
The Required Local Contribution is a grinding public
policy that punishes organized boroughs - the
foundation for local government in Alaska.
The framers of our constitution intended that the
State would create inducements for boroughs.
8:20:05 AM
The Alaska Supreme Court has held that our
constitution encourages the formation of boroughs.
Jay Hammond -- former State Representative, State
Senator, and Governor - offered a far different
perspective when he wrote:
Attractive enough on paper, in practice, the organized
borough concept had little appeal to most communities.
After all, why should they tax themselves for services
received from the state, gratis?
Governor Hammond told it like it is. Consider the
following six facts:
1. Today, 55 years after statehood, more than half
of Alaska still lies outside the boundaries of
organized boroughs.
2. Few have freely chosen to incorporate. Residents
of mandatory boroughs make up 95% of all borough
residents today. This fact alone makes the need
compelling to honor the 1963 promise in State law of
equal and fair treatment of boroughs. HB 245 would do
much to restore luster to that promise.
3. Today, 55 years after statehood, those who have
freely chosen to form boroughs are outnumbered by
those who have freely chosen to not be in a borough by
a margin of more than 2 to 1.
4. Seven years ago, voters in one region with
resources described by the State Attorney General's
office as "the envy of most organized boroughs"
rejected borough incorporation by a margin of more
than 9 to 1.
5. Having written and sponsored the 1963 Mandatory
Borough Act, former Representative John Rader,
repudiated the measure years later.
6. Today State officials speak in terms of the
"misery of boroughs" rather than the vision of those
who wrote our constitution.
These circumstances are the "canary in the coal mine"
telling you that the Required Local Contribution is
terrible public policy that weighs heavily on
students, taxpayers, and other citizens of organized
boroughs.
Third, the Required Local Contribution is
unconstitutional.
After six years of study and analyses -- after six
years of attempts to accomplish what is proposed by HB
245 - the Ketchikan Gateway Borough filed suit last
month over unconstitutional aspects of the Required
Local Contribution.
The law setting out the Required Local Contribution
dedicates public funds to a particular purpose,
thereby violating Article 9, Section 7 of our
Constitution - the "Anti-Dedication Clause."
The Required Local Contribution also operates in a
manner such that the dedicated funds are never subject
to legislative appropriation, which violates Article
9, Section 13.
Further, the Required Local Contribution law
circumvents the Governor's veto authority, in
violation of Article 2, Section 15.
8:24:18 AM
In conclusion, the Required Local Contribution:
is not fair,
is poor public policy, and
is clearly unconstitutional.
Therefore, I urge passage of HB 245.
8:24:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted that the Anchorage contribution
totals appear to be close to the cap, as indicated on the
previously cited EED handout. She asked what the funding source
would be to make up the difference under the proposed
legislation, pointing out that several hundred million dollars
would need to be found in the current, deficit budget.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON stated her belief that municipalities
should not be required to pick-up where the state fails to meet
constitutional obligations; despite deficit conditions. She
said funding alternatives could be considered, such as
reinstating the now defunct head-tax. At a recent community
discussion in Nenana regarding whether or not to organize as a
borough, she reported, the topic was discussed regarding the 2.6
mil requirement. The general sentiment of the group questioned
why Nenana should organize considering the imposition that would
require collection of a levy to cover costs that are currently
being paid for by the state. The issue created a stumbling
block for the community, as citizens discussed options for
better local services, and the costs involved, and the debt that
could be incurred as a municipality, due to the education costs
passed on by the state. She said:
That really is the issue at this point:
Constitutional[ly] what do you believe - is it the
responsibility of the state to fulfill this mandate,
or is it only the responsibility of the state when
they have funds.
8:27:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she served as Mayor of the Kodiak
Island Borough, and recalled discussions that arose regarding
REAAs not being required to contribute local funds for education
and the seeming unfairness of the situation; however, the
constitutionality was never questioned. The impact on the state
budget could be a concern, but, having reviewed the Ketchikan
Gateway Borough v. State of Alaska, Case No. 1KE-14-16 CI
(2014), she opined that the courts could find in the city's
favor and the state would be required to comply.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON clarified that impact aid does
represent a variable and it would be erroneous to say that the
REAAs do not contribute; however, means exists to bring equality
throughout the state and remove the penalty to organize areas
and form boroughs. She stressed that the question is not about
affordability, but rather state responsibility; HB 245 does not
advocate mandatory boroughs but removes a major barrier. She
stressed that organizing an area should bring focus to the
services a borough can provide not a penalty that puts a newly
formed area immediately into a financial hole. To a follow-up
question she said Alaska appears to be unique, among the United
States, in the requirements and mandates it places on organized
areas.
8:30:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked for a definition of basic
education needs, suggested that the state may be meeting those
requirements, and opined that other costs may be considered add-
ons.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON indicated that basic educational need
requirements are a purview of legislative oversight; residing
within the jurisdiction of this committee.
8:32:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to the previously cited EED
handout to clarify the Anchorage area contributions.
8:33:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the scope of HB 245 would
require the state to build schools, which would change the
current 70:30 bonding structure and eliminate the 60:40 local
contribution for building and zoning schools.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON responded that the bill has no impact
on bonding or capitol project funding structures or maintenance
requirements. The bill requires the state to fully fund
districts based on the education formula; the municipalities
would continue to fund building/maintenance in accordance with
current practices.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered that the state has been found by
court to be adequately funding basic education. He noted that
additional, supplemental components have been added to enrich
the educational experience and provide learning options.
However, limiting the ability of borough tax payers to
contribute to local schools based on a percentage of the cap
could require the state to "back-fill" as much as $200 million,
which he predicted would not occur. Further, districts not yet
contributing to the cap maximum already have the option to
increase the local budget. Overall, he opined, it appears that
this bill would reduce funding to the education system.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON emphasized that no district would
receive less funding, should HB 245 pass. The distinction lies
in where the money is sourced, and she said it's a matter of
"who's going to pitch in more," the state or the municipality.
The constitution stipulates that it is the responsibility of the
state to provide a basic education, funding aside, and residents
were promised that this service would be a benefit of organizing
an area as a borough. The Fairbanks North Star Borough would
prefer to not be in that standing, considering the services
currently being received, she opined, and further stated that
Alaskan government is unduly placing a financial burden on
municipalities. The state may have funding problems but passing
deficits onto communities is not fair, resulting in collection
of property taxes which in turn subtracts dollars from local
economies, she finished.
8:39:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned the variable percentages used
by districts to calculate the municipality v. state share of
school building costs, and asked whether that should not also
become part of the argument.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON acknowledged that the required building
contribution ratios have changed over the years, but the
question is not addressed in this bill.
8:41:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON noted that if the bill were to pass and
the state fully fund education, the municipalities would not be
mandated to contribute, and she opined it would be wonderful for
the cities to have more money. However, consideration must be
given first to the effects this legislation would have on the
state budget and subsequent control of the schools; and second
the legislature is required to consider funding of all programs,
including schools. She suggested that the municipalities would
probably need to pick up the deficit in another service area.
Unintended circumstances tend to arise, and she stressed the
need to proceed with caution. It is important for the committee
to consider policy, but the legislative as a whole must address
budgetary concerns.
8:44:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON opined that the municipal contributions
do not entitle the cities to have added local control of the
schools. She then reiterated the previously detailed points
that this legislation addresses: a state constitutional
responsibility reneged upon, an unfair mandatory borough act,
and the resulting financial burden placed on municipalities.
She underscored that it is not a matter of funding, but
fulfilling a promise made to the residents of the state.
8:46:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if there is a means to skirt the cap
and asked whether it is a state or federal mandated.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON expressed her understanding that prior
to the cap, differing amounts were collected and some areas
could not afford to contribute. The federal government stepped
in to help equalize the situation.
8:47:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON pointed out that the state laws are
changed on a regular basis and promises once made are sometimes
amended. She held firm that unintended consequences arise and
the financial reality of the state must be considered.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON stated her belief that the constitution
holds a separate standard than other statues that are amended.
8:49:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the Alaska Municipal League
(AML) supports the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON had no comment, as the AML has not
weighed in on the issue.
8:49:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the fiscal note, indicating
designated reserves and endowments, and asked about the
plausibility and source for funding HB 245, should it pass; $200
million above the endowment amount would be needed.
ELIZABETH SWEENEY NUDELMAN, Director, School Finance and
Facilities Section, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), said funds are not currently available to
meet the requirements of the bill. To a follow-up question
regarding the source of the funding, as required by the proposed
legislation, she offered to provide further information.
8:51:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked for the total dollar amount that
is paid for a kindergarten through twelfth grade education; all
contributors combined.
MS. NUDELMAN offered to provide the information, and suggested
that the website for the department provides the information, as
well.
8:53:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what considerations would be given
to fund this legislation should it pass.
MS. NUDELMAN suggested that the question is one for the
legislature to take up. The constitutionality has not been
determined.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the governor's budget
provides funding.
MS. NUDELMAN said HB 245 was filed after the governor issued his
budget.
8:55:05 AM
MIKE COONS, stated support for HB 245, paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
I fully endorse Representative Tammie Wilson's HB 245.
I have read the bill and except for a couple non-
substantive proposed changes in wording, I fully agree
that changing from, shall to may for
cities/municipalities and boroughs paying additional
education funding is one of the tenants of
conservative thought, less government and more local
control.
8:56:00 AM
In point of fact, should this bill pass and be signed
into law, I would suggest that the local communities,
if they want to continue with funding, change who pays
for education from the property taxes. I would
suggest that those of us who do not have children in
school, either because the children are grown up and
out of the district, parents use private or home
schooling or like myself, no children, make education
at the local level, truly a user fee. Then I would
suggest this then leaves the boroughs the opportunity
to help protect the public with having a Sheriff form
of law enforcement. The last numbers I heard was that
60 percent of my property tax goes to education, I
would have no problem with paying for a Sheriff
Department. I would dare say the cost would not come
to that previous 60 percent, which then gives me a
decrease in property taxes and gives me better public
safety on top of the State Troopers!
As to those who will scream and holler about their
increased property taxes for their children, I respond
with the following. In many cases at assembly
meetings, I have heard the parents demand for full
funding of education and many times I've heard, "I'll
pay more taxes to get my kid's education!" This is a
good opportunity for those people to; as Vice
President Joe Biden likes to say: "Get some skin in
the game." Now is a good time to put up. I would
dare say that the additional offshoot to this would be
more parental/taxpayer involvement in their child's
education.
I am sure that NEA will have lot's to say negatively
about this. For this will potentially make School
Boards trim the budgets to be more student friendly
than NEA Alaska friendly. This bill along with HB 196
will undoubtedly reduce or take away NEA's power over
the School Districts. Add to that, Senator Dunleavy's
proposed Constitutional Amendment SJR 9 and we
potentially have a "perfect storm" to really do
something substantive toward better local control,
less NEA Union control and a more student defined
approach to education that will have students more
ready for life vs being pegs filling holes like Common
Cores approach and the new standards are pushing for.
In closing, costs can be and if all bills on education
are passed this session the cost of education should
drop while performance standards are increased.
8:59:06 AM
DIANE HUTCHISON, Member, Fairbanks North Star Borough City
Assembly, indicated that the city has not as yet taken a formal
stance on HB 245; however, she said her intention is to
introduce a letter of support for the assembly's approval. She
continued, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
I am Diane Hutchison and I currently serve on the
Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly and was the
Presiding Officer the past two years. The Assembly
has not yet taken a position on this bill, but I can
relay to you that a Resolution co-sponsored by myself,
the Borough Mayor, and the current Presiding Officer
will be brought for a vote at our next regular
Assembly meeting next Thursday, asking our Assembly to
join the Ketchikan Gateway Borough's lawsuit as an
amicus curiae party. Following the vote on that
resolution, I plan to co-sponsor a resolution in
support of Rep. Wilson's bill - brought forth with
appropriate wording regarding the previous
resolution's vote.
The reasons I personally support the lawsuit and Rep.
Wilson's bill are as follows:
For FY 2014 - the FNSB budgeted local contribution to
the schools was around $48M and out of that $48M,
almost $27M is the required local contribution and the
budgeted additional supplementary funding is over
$21M.
I believe that the $27M in required local contribution
is a defacto State tax on the residents of the FNSB
that is not imposed on all residents of our state.
After Ketchikan Gateway Borough presented to our
Assembly in December, I asked how many people in the
room paid a state income tax - no one raised their
hand, but when I asked how many paid local property
taxes (including the required local contribution to
the school district, everyone in the room raised their
hands. The point is that every time the state
mandates more basic need proportional funding on the
municipalities that support school districts, the
municipalities have to tax their residents to pay a
State "mandated tax".
I believe this State "mandated tax" is
unconstitutional, unfair and a disincentive for any
unincorporated area to ever form a Borough again.
Last year, our Borough passed bond issues to fund
construction of a new school and fund major
renovations on others. These were projects that we
had come to Juneau and asked for capital funding - the
new school to replace a junior high that has been
seismically condemned and we are trying structural
reinforcements just to keep it usable for the students
to be safe. The funding was denied by the legislature
as it often is. We came as a local government with
our hands out to Juneau, when we could be paying for
these projects ourselves, without indebting future
generations to pay off bond issues - if the state
would fulfill its obligation to fund basic need and
let us fulfill our obligation to the local taxpayers
of supplemental education funding, investing in local
capital projects and reducing some of the tax burden
on people who are strapped by their property taxes and
high energy costs.
9:03:40 AM
We just heard yesterday that Flint Hills Resources
(the FNSB's 4th largest taxpayer), is discontinuing
its refining operations in North Pole. I am in full
support of SB 21 - we need to get increased throughput
in TAPS and I think that SB 21 will help do that - BUT
that does not relieve the State of its constitutional
duty to fund basic education - for everyone in the
State, no matter what area of the state they reside
in.
Thank you for listening and for your service to our
state. I hope you will give HB 245 serious
consideration because I believe the taxpayers in the
State of Alaska - in all areas of the State, will
start realizing how big of an issue this is. PLEASE
REMEMBER - THE ONLY NON-CORPORATE TAXPAYERS IN THIS
STATE ARE RESIDENTS OF MUNICIPALITIES WHO AS
INDIVIDUALS PAY FOR STATE SERVICES THROUGH THEIR
PROPERTY TAXES WHENEVER THE STATE TRIES TO SHIFT ITS
BURDEN TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND FORCES THEM TO BECOME
STATE TAX COLLECTORS. IT IS A MATTER OF FAIRNESS TO
ALL THE RESIDENTS OF THE STATE AND THE PROMISE THAT
BOROUGHS WOULD NOT BE PENALIZED OR DEPRIVED OF STATE
SERVICES BY BECOMING BOROUGHS - BUT THAT IS EXACTLY
WHAT HAPPENS EVERY TIME THE LEGISLATURE TRIES TO
BALANCE THE STATE BUDGET ON THE BACK OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENT.
She opined that this is an unconstitutional action, as
brought by the bill sponsor.
9:05:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON opined that the greatest issue appears to
be that REAA's are funded via impact aid versus municipality
tax. He suggested that a statewide property tax could be
invoked as an equalizer, and asked if that would be an
acceptable alternative.
MS. HUTCHISON responded yes, and said a statewide property tax
would be appropriate. Otherwise incorporated state properties
are the only contributors.
9:07:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON reminded the committee that the bill is
focused on ensuring that the state is upholding a constitutional
mandate; not discovery of funding sources.
9:10:42 AM
DAVID NEES stated support for HB 245 and referred to a 1961
Anchorage newspaper article regarding the Anchorage school
district. At that time, he reported, Anchorage had a mill rate
of 11.1 and the budget was split 47 percent from the state and
47 percent local contributions. He said the bill places
responsibility back on the state's shoulders. He said how this
bill is funded is for the legislature to solve, and opined that
it would be good to handle this now, prior to being mandated by
court order.
9:12:12 AM
POSIE BOGGS stated support for HB 245 and said the requirements
as stated in the constitution should be followed. She
continued, asking the committee to consider the cost that
illiteracy represents. The impact of students not fulfilling
learning requirements creates a cost to the state.
9:14:38 AM
BARBARA HANEY stated support for HB 245, and said it is
important for the state to fulfill its obligations.
CHAIR GATTIS announced HB 245 was held over.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
University of Alaska Board of Regents
9:17:57 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the next order of business would be
a confirmation hearing for the University of Alaska Board Of
Regents.
COURTNEY ENRIGHT, Appointee, University of Alaska Board of
Regents, introduced herself as a lifelong Alaskan, from
Ketchikan, currently attending the University of Alaska
Fairbanks (UAF), pursuing a degree in mechanical engineering as
well as a master's in business administration. During her
attendance at each of the major Alaska University system
campuses she has experienced difficulty in transferring credits
and observed the need for the university to strengthen this area
of support for the students. A cohesive system is paramount to
a student's success, she said. Secondly, she referred to an
initiative, "Shaping Alaska's Future," and expressed her
interest in helping to vision the future for the state.
9:19:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked about available time in her class
schedule to take on the duties required of a regent.
MS. ENRIGHT said time management is the key and, having
prioritized regent activities for the last six months, she has
found the schedule workable.
9:19:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked what she considers to be the
priorities for improving the current university system.
MS. ENRIGHT responded that higher education needs to be made
more appealing. Additionally, unifying the 12 campuses in the
university system would be important.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD inquired about the efficiency of the
university budget.
MS. ENRIGHT opined that there is room for improvement, and said
reducing duplication that currently occurs in the system could
provide a cost saving.
9:21:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND expressed confidence in the candidate.
9:21:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON expressed support for the candidate.
9:22:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER noted that the thrust has been for the
university to expand class offerings, and he asked whether any
need to be retracted.
MS. ENRIGHT suggested that there are too many courses to
actually provide excellence in the areas offered, but by
providing more focused effort the system could be improved.
9:23:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed support for the candidate.
9:23:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to forward the name of Courtney
Enright to the joint session of the House and Senate for
confirmation. There being no objection, the confirmation of
Courtney Enright is advanced from the House Education Standing
Committee.
9:23:41 AM
CHAIR GATTIS reminded members that signing the report regarding
appointment to boards and commissions in no way reflects
individual members' approval or disapproval of the appointee,
and that the nomination is merely forwarded to the full
legislature for confirmation or rejection.
9:23:55 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:24 a.m. to 9:26 a.m.
HB 220-REPEAL SECONDARY SCHOOL EXIT EXAM
[Contains discussion of HB 278 and SB 111]
9:26:34 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 220, "An Act repealing the secondary student
competency examination and related requirements; and providing
for an effective date."
9:26:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETE HIGGINS, Alaska State Legislature,
introduced HB 220, and provided a personal anecdote about his
dyslexia and the struggles he faced to attend dental school. He
said if the High School Graduation Qualifying Exam (HSGQE) had
been in existence at that time, he would not have been able to
complete high school. He suggested that there are many students
who may not be able to pass this exam, and it would be a
travesty for them to only receive a completion certificate at
the end of a twelve year school career. The HSGQE was
established due to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), of 2001,
and since its inception has represented a cost burden to the
state as well as a barrier for students.
9:30:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that tests are a matter of course
throughout life, even as professionals, and asked how he passed
his dental boards.
REPRESENTATIVE HIGGINS said the boards are designed to meet
disability needs. He explained how persons with dyslexia can be
served by not having time constraints placed on exams and by
providing a private space for the test to be taken.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired whether the problem is the actual
exit exam or the method used for proctoring.
REPRESENTATIVE HIGGINS responded that the purpose of the exam
does not accomplish expectations and other exams would be more
meaningful, such as the Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT),
American College Testing (ACT), and the WorkKeys exam.
9:32:21 AM
CHAIR GATTIS interjected that, at the time the HSGQE was
established the expectation was for it to be a means to ensure
that students would be graduating with basic skills, and there
was general community support and reported that she served on
the task force which saw this exam put into place; however it is
clear that the original premise is not now being fulfilled.
9:33:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER stated his understanding that the exam
was not originally considered an assessment tool but rather a
guarantee of a minimum level of competency attained by high
school graduates, and was of particular interest to the business
community.
9:33:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked about the genesis of the exam.
REPRESENTATIVE HIGGINS stated his belief that NCLB was the
impetus for adopting the exam.
9:34:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted that the State Board of Education
unanimously supports repealing the HSGQE. Teachers in her
district have been weighing in with support and stating the time
that the exam takes, which they look forward to utilizing in a
more productive way, and noted that special needs students can
require a week of extra help in order to pass.
REPRESENTATIVE HIGGINS agreed.
9:36:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON stated support for HB 220 and said that
she had voted for the original implementation of HSGQE, which
she now regrets. It has been shown that student's needs are too
diverse for this test to be productive, and the ramifications of
failing can be far reaching, such as preventing young people
from enlisting in the military.
9:37:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed support for HB 220. He said it
should not be considered only in the light of special needs
students. Other reasons include the fact that the majority of
high school students take the exam in the tenth grade. He
reported that surveys indicate how some tenth graders, once they
have shown proficiency by passing the test, respond with a lack
of interest in continuing study through twelfth grade and
graduation.
9:39:00 AM
JULIE MORRIS, Staff, Representative Pete Higgins, Alaska State
Legislature, directed attention to the negative fiscal note, and
pointed out that this is funding that could be better directed
for use elsewhere in the education budget.
9:40:31 AM
LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education and
Early Development (EED), said that the State School Board and
the administration support this bill.
9:41:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to Section 6 and the
implementation date of July 1 and suggested having it be enacted
sooner.
MR. MORSE said the date is important to ensure that students are
not caught in a time frame that would prove problematic.
9:43:06 AM
CHAIR GATTIS theorized that a student who has completed all
other requirements but failed to take, or pass, the HSGQE might
stall in anticipation of the requirement being repealed, and
receive a diploma, following the governor signing the new law.
MR. MORSE stated his understanding that the bill would be
effective from the time it is signed and forward. Transitional
language has been suggested for the bill to cover this scenario.
9:44:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to AS 14.03.075(c) and
paraphrased the language, which states [original punctuation
provided]:
(c) Notwithstanding (a) of this section,
(1) a student who is a child with a disability
and who does not achieve a passing score on the
examination required under (a) of this section, with
or without accommodation, is eligible to receive a
diploma if the student successfully completes an
alternative assessment program required by the
student's individualized education program or required
in the education plan developed for the student under
29 U.S.C. 794;
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether the department retains
records as to how often an alternative method is used and
results in a diploma.
MR. MORSE responded yes, and said that the first time a student
takes the exam accommodations are made, such as having portions
of the test read aloud. Alternatives go beyond what are
considered accommodations and allow certain modifications of the
exam, such as the use of computerized spell check. He said
tracking occurs because of the approval that must be obtained
from the department, and he offered to make the information
available to the committee.
9:46:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated opposition to the concept of
eliminating the exit exam. However, assuming that it is
eliminated and considering the hardships that it has apparently
caused over the years, she suggested offering a retroactive date
to provide diplomas to those who may have been impinged upon by
the requirement since its inception.
MR. MORSE offered that taking such a step would require a legal
opinion and represent a legislative policy question.
9:48:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether there is any reason to
maintain the exam: does it represent something particular to
the student or perhaps a value to the business district.
MR. MORSE stated that the assessment measures basic competency
skills and has served to ramp up the curriculum to meet the
needs of every student. In that light, it has fulfilled a
purpose, but today it is no longer relevant. To a follow-up
question, he said a replacement test will come under discussion.
9:50:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked to have the administration provide
the committee with proficiency standards information to
determine the effectiveness of the HSGQE.
9:51:34 AM
CHAIR GATTIS opened public testimony.
9:51:51 AM
MIKE COONS stated support for HB 220, paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
I support HB 220 as written. However, in the other
body the companion bill, SB 111 has changed with
transition language added:
TRANSITION: STUDENT TESTING IN PROGRESS. Until June
30, 2017, a school district shall continue to
administer the competency examination under former AS
14.03.075 and regulations adopted under former AS
14.03.075 in effect on August 31, 2014, to a student
who seeks to qualify for a secondary school diploma
under former AS 14.03.075, as it read on August 31,
2014.
* Sec. 7. This Act takes effect September 1, 2014.
My problem with this is, that this severely impacts
young adults from moving forward now as adults. Yes,
I realize this will be the last class to take the exit
exam, it is a logistical matter more than anything
else. I'm sure there will be those students who will
look at this as an opportunity to see how well they do
for upcoming SAT's they plan to take. There will be
others, like I was at 18 who will take it because we
know we must and what the heck see how well I do and
not be worried about it.
Then there will those who weren't going to pass the
test anyway and within that are those who have not
passed all required classes and may not get a diploma
under any circumstances. So, let this exit exam die a
quiet death with minimal impact on the students. For
to do the "transition", this then impacts those trying
to go into the military since most require a diploma
for enlistment and those students who will look at
this as just another hoop to jump through. Myself, if
I were not going into the military, I'd take the test,
if I didn't pass the math, I'd get my transcripts for
the entire High School years and submit that to any
future employer instead of a "sheep skin diploma".
I strongly believe that when I see a problem to not
only identify it, but to come up with an alternative
or fix to that problem, thus; delete the Transition
Student Testing In Progress and instead insert:
Procedures for graduation.
Sec. 14.03.075. College and career assessments. (a) A
student shall be issued a secondary school diploma
upon completing all required course study throughout
High School with a 2.0 GPA or higher. (b) A student
who fails to qualify for the issuance of a diploma
under (a) of this section will be held back so the
student can retake the needed courses to meet the 2.0
GPA requirement, upon successful completion the
diploma will be issued.
As to the SB 111, line 30; change the September 1,
2014 back to July 1, 2014.
9:55:38 AM
SALLY DYBDAHL, President, Hoonah School Board, stated support
for HB 220 and said more relevant approaches should be taken.
She noted the negative effects the exam has had on potential
Hoonah graduates.
9:56:43 AM
MARY NANUWAK, speaking for herself, stated support for education
and noted problems which exist. The state and federal laws
being discussed, she opined, sometimes create inequality. She
expressed appreciation for the committee members working on the
issues.
10:00:53 AM
ERNIE MANZIE stated support for HB 220 and said there are other
assessments which accomplish more relevant evaluations of
students for college, and industry purposes. He provided a
personal anecdote, about his son's struggles to pass the HSGQE,
to underscore his statement.
10:04:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether there was any value to
having his son pass the exam.
MR. MANZIE answered that there was no educational value, only
that he was then able to receive his diploma.
10:05:37 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced HB 220 was held over.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:06 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 220 State Board Resolution.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| HB 220 HSGQE Relevancy.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| HB 220 HSGQE_ContractualCosts.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| HB 220 Section Analysis.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| HB 220 Sponsors Statement A.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| HB 220 Statewide HSGQE Results.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| HB220 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| HB 245 Hearing Request.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 245 |
| HB 245 Sponsor statement.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 245 |
| HB 245 Supporting document Bockhorst.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 245 |
| HB 245 Supporting documents - analyses of legal issues.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 245 |
| HB 245 Supporting documents - local contributions - Ketchikan.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 245 |
| HB245 Fiscal Note - Comm Reg Affairs.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 245 |
| HB245 Fiscal Note Designated Reserves Endowments.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 245 |
| HB245 FiscalNote DEED.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 245 |
| Edc Confirmation - Enright resume.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
Confirmation: |
| HB220-public comment.PDF |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| HB245 Ketchikan vs AK.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 245 |