Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
02/25/2015 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Department of Education and Early Development Presenting the Alaska Public School Funding Formula Overview | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 25, 2015
8:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Wes Keller, Chair
Representative Lora Reinbold, Vice Chair
Representative Jim Colver
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Liz Vazquez
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT
PRESENTING THE ALASKA PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDING FORMULA OVERVIEW
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
ELIZABETH NUDELMAN, Director
School Finance and Facilities
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview of the Alaska public
school funding formula.
LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding the public
school funding formula.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:03:09 AM
CHAIR WES KELLER called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:03 a.m. Representatives Seaton, Vazquez,
Drummond, Kreiss-Tomkins, and Keller were present at the call to
order. Representatives Reinbold and Colver arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
^PRESENTATION: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT
PRESENTING THE ALASKA PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDING FORMULA OVERVIEW
PRESENTATION: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT
PRESENTING THE ALASKA PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDING FORMULA OVERVIEW
8:03:49 AM
CHAIR WES KELLER announced that the only order of business would
be an overview of the Alaska public school funding formula.
8:04:41 AM
ELIZABETH NUDELMAN, Director, School Finance and Facilities,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), referred
the committee to pages 8 and 9 of her handout, which lays out
the calculations she will cover today. She pointed out that the
school funding formula calculates funding for each district.
8:06:22 AM
MS. NUDELMAN explained that average daily membership (ADM) is
the number of student enrolled in October. Adjusted average
daily membership (AADM) is an increased count after going
through the formula, she stated, and she will start with ADM,
calculate AADM, and come up with funding for each district.
CHAIR KELLER said when different adjustments are made to the
formula and "we change the funding," it is difficult to trace
the money directly to any program.
8:07:48 AM
MS. NUDELMAN agreed. She said the current state funding formula
was adopted under Senate Bill 63 in 1998. The calculation
begins by calculating the AADM, calculating basic need (also
referred to as entitlement), looking at the components of
funding basic need, looking at additional funds above basic need
(such as additional local contribution), and then adding the
quality schools grant to come up with the total budget. She said
the ADM is the number of enrolled students during the 20 school-
day count period, ending on the fourth Friday of October. Along
with that, districts provide a projected count for the following
year. This funding is for children who are six years of age
before September 1 and who are under the age of 20 and have not
th
completed the 12 grade. Additionally, a child with a disability
who has an active Individualized Education Program (IEP) may be
eligible between the ages of three and 21.
8:09:58 AM
MS. NUDELMAN said the six steps to calculate entitlement are
adjusting the ADM for school size, applying the district cost
factor, applying the special needs factor, applying the
vocational and technical factor, adding intensive services
counts, and adding correspondence students counts to get to the
district adjusted ADM. To adjust the ADM for school size, she
directed attention to page 7 of the committee handout, and she
said, "an ADM in a school that is under 10, that ADM is added to
the smallest school with an ADM greater than 10." She referred
to a size chart for a school with an ADM of 10 to 100 and said
that "the grades K-12 are combined and adjusted once and funded
as one school." She explained that for a community with an ADM
of 101 to 425, the formula aggregates [grades] K-6 and 7-12 and
adjusts those separately so the funding is distributed as if
there were two schools. In a community with an ADM of over 425,
each facility administered separately as one school is adjusted.
8:11:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for an example.
MS. NUDELMAN responded that the Juneau School District once had
one high school and now has two. The two are administered as
separate entities, and the formula is applied to each.
8:13:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised that if there are two schools in
a community with fewer than 425, they would be counted as one
school.
MS. NUDELMAN said it would be counted as one K-6 and one 7-12.
8:13:31 AM
MS. NUDELMAN pointed to slide 8, and said "the criteria for the
schools placed into the funding formula for an alternative
school with an ADM of 175 or greater and administered as a
separate facility, the ADM is adjusted separately, as a separate
school." She noted other criteria: if it is the first year that
the school is operating with an ADM between 120-175, there will
be an adjustment of 1.33; if the ADM is 175 or greater "but
drops below," the adjustment is 1.33; if the ADM continues to be
lower than 175, the school is then counted as part of the school
in the district with the highest ADM. She reiterated: "Above
175, our alternative schools are counted separately; items 1 and
2 give some flexibility, or hold harmless, for a lower average
daily membership under some conditions, for some time. And
number 3 tells us if the school continues to be under 175, it's
included in the largest school in the district." She said a
charter school with an ADM of 150 or greater is adjusted as a
separate facility unless it is in the first year of operation
and its ADM is from 75 to 150. In that case, it will receive an
adjustment of 1.45. If the charter school has an ADM of 75 or
greater in the prior year but has dropped below that, the
charter school receives the 1.45 adjustment, she added.
8:16:03 AM
MS. NUDELMAN said she will use the Nome Public School District
as an example. She noted the example on the committee handouts.
The Nome elementary school (K-6) ADM is 384, the junior/senior
school ADM is 252, the Anvil City Science Academy ADM is 65, and
the Nome Youth facility ADM is 14, for a total ADM of 715. She
turned to page 10 to point out the K-6 adjustment and said there
is a base for the first 250 students, so the base adjustment
increases the 250 ADM to 326.10 AADM. "For those ADM in that
category above 250, we would take the 384 minus 250 which would
leave 134 ADM, and for those 134 ADM the adjustment is 0.97,"
she explained. The adjustment would create an AADM for grades K-
6 of 456.08, and what follows is that the funding will increase,
she stated. She noted that smaller schools have a greater
increase than the larger schools.
8:19:47 AM
MS. NUDELMAN moved to grades 7-12 where the ADM is 252, and the
formula is similar, because [the ADM] is in the same 250 - 399
range [as the grades K-6]. Subtracting 250 from 252 means "we're
only 2 ADM over our base, so we multiply that by .97 [and add
that figure to the base of 326.10] and the outcome is 328.04."
So, there were 252 students in the junior/senior school in
October, but before continuing with the formula, the count is
increased to 328 to accommodate school size. The Nome Youth
facility has an ADM of 14, and schools with a count of between
10 and 19.99 have a base of 39.6. Ms. Nudelman said that the
total school size adjusted ADM is 900.42 [for the Nome School
District], and school size is "just the first factor in our
formula."
8:22:22 AM
CHAIR KELLER said there have been many suggestions that the
adjusted ADM be called something else as it may be misleading,
because it is not the true number of students. He asked what
percentage of the total formula has been adjusted at this point.
MS. NUDELMAN said the answer is on page 8 of the handout. The
ADM of Nome is 715, and it was adjusted to 900.42. Statewide,
[the ADM] is 117,562 and [the AADM] is 142,656.
8:24:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ ask the purpose of these calculations.
MS. NUDELMAN explained that the State of Alaska has a public
school funding formula that distributes funds in a rational and
studied manner to allow schools to cover expenditures, hire
teachers, heat their buildings, and educate Alaska's children.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ said she does not understand why the
state doesn't just use [the actual number of students] instead
of "this circuitous pattern of adjustments."
MS. NUDELMAN said state school funding could be approached in a
variety of ways. This formula is Alaska's choice and is designed
to purchase the same available education for students equally
throughout the state. The adjustments allow for geographic and
size differences, she explained. One teacher may be spread
across 10 or 20 students depending on where the school is
located. There are geographic cost factors as well, and where
fuel is costlier, for example, the formula can accommodate it.
8:27:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ said she appreciates that the formula was
set in statute in 1998, "and this is what you have to work
with."
MS. NUDELMAN said that it has been noted as a strong formula and
has undergone scrutiny. When looking across the United States,
two factors are considered: if the formula is equalized and if
it is adequate. Alaska's formula has been well documented to
meet those demands.
8:28:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD stated that "average daily membership"
is erroneous terminology. "I mean, membership in what?" The
formula is rife with error and does not seem logical, she
opined. She asked how the projected count is made.
MS. NUDELMAN said the projected count takes place at the
district level and is accomplished by examining the demographics
of the next year's cohorts.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked if [schools] are funded based on
those projections.
MS. NUDELMAN said the projections are used to anticipate a
deposit to the public education fund, but they are not used for
actual funding.
8:30:16 AM
CHAIR KELLER asked the consequences of overestimating.
MS. NUDELMAN said funding is based on the actual reporting.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked how many students are eligible for
state funding by age and the state's total current enrollment.
MS. NUDELMAN said projected enrollment is on page 8 and is
128,405.23, including correspondence students.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked if "the minimum required local
contribution" is required and how that relates to a recent
lawsuit questioning that requirement.
8:32:50 AM
CHAIR KELLER suggested waiting until Ms. Nudelman comes to that
topic.
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER noted that the formula is complex and
asked how many accountants are employed to work on it.
MS. NUDELMAN said one staff member is in charge of running the
foundation formula, with an additional person, herself,
providing oversight. The state has an online system for
districts to provide information. Once the district sends that
data into the department, there are about a 1.5 FTE [fulltime
equivalent] staff to administer the program annually.
8:34:29 AM
MS. NUDELMAN moved to the provision that provides for "hold
harmless," which was established for districts experiencing an
enrollment reduction. To determine eligibility, the district's
sum total of the school size adjustment is compared against the
prior fiscal year to determine if a decrease of 5 percent or
greater has occurred. If so, then the prior fiscal year will
become the base, she stated. This provision flows over three
years. The first year, 75 percent of the school's decrease is
added back, the second year, 50 percent is added back, and the
third year, 25 percent is added back. After that, the school
district is funded at its reported size, she explained. She
explained this hold harmless provision using the Nome example.
8:36:34 AM
CHAIR KELLER stated that public school membership is in general
decline. He asked about the use of the hold harmless provision.
MS. NUDELMAN said page 8 shows the districts operating in the
hold harmless categories: Bristol Bay, Alaska Gateway, Chatham
and others. Ms. Nudelman turned to district cost factors, which
are specific to each school district and provide multipliers
ranging from 1.0 to 2.116. This multiplier increases the Nome
example to a figure of 1,305.61.
CHAIR KELLER asked if there is a cost factor study pending.
MS. NUDELMAN said there were two studies that HB 278 assigned to
the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee. She said she is not
sure of the timelines for those studies.
8:39:15 AM
MS. NUDELMAN said the next factor in the formula is the special
needs funding, which includes non-intensive special education,
vocational education, gifted/talented programs, and bilingual
and bicultural programs. This is block funding at 20 percent, so
for Nome, the adjusted membership of 1,305.61 is multiplied by
1.2 and is now 1,566.73. This is elevating the ADM to provide
funding for the special programs noted above. The next increase
is to support career and technical education in secondary
schools, and it excludes administrative expenses and instruction
in general literacy.
CHAIR KELLER asked if this is tracked and audited.
MS. NUDELMAN said the districts are informed of the provision,
but the department does not audit it.
8:41:59 AM
MS. NUDELMAN said the career and technical education multiplier
is 1.015 and it brings the AADM of Nome to 1,590.23. The next
calculation is for intensive services funding. A school district
will receive funding for students who are receiving intensive
services, and the number of those students who qualify is
multiplied by 13 and added to the AADM. Nome has 8 students that
meet this criteria resulting in an addition of 8 times 13, or
104 ADM. Adding 104 to Nome's AADM produces an AADM of 1,694.23.
8:44:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked about the costs associated with
students needing intensive services in Nome.
MS. NUDELMAN said that the base student allocation is $5830.00
this year [so they cost 104 times $5,830].
CHAIR KELLER said, "Roughly $600,000."
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked if a student enrolls and funds are
allocated, "how long does that money stay at that school?"
MS. NUDELMAN said the funding goes to the district after the
count period is finalized, and no further changes are undertaken
by the EED to adjust funding for the district's annual count.
Situations have occurred where an intensive student moves from
one district to another and arrangements are made.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD surmised that the funding is year by
year, but if the school receives the money, it can keep it even
if the student leaves.
MS. NUDELMAN said each year the funding goes to the school that
has the student in the count, but each year is a new year.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD turned to slide 14 to ask about the
block funding of 20 percent for gifted and talented students.
MS. NUDELMAN said the funding is increased by 20 percent to
allow the districts to use discretion for the needs of special,
vocational, accelerated, and bilingual education. She noted that
some states use a categorical funding count for each of those
categories. The block funding in Alaska allows districts to
distribute the money for such uses.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked what percentage of students
receive this funding and how it is used per student.
8:48:52 AM
MS. NUDELMAN said each district's funding is increased by 20
percent, and the funding formula aggregates funds for districts,
but it is discretionary once it gets to them.
CHAIR KELLER suggested that a district may not have a gifted
program, but the funding will still be provided.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD deduced that each gifted student gets 20
percent more funding.
MS. NUDELMAN said that is not correct. The district's funding
would be increased by 20 percent, and that allows for the gifted
student programs to have some resources, but the same funds can
be used for the bilingual/bicultural programs. The 20 percent
covers multiple needs, and the district allocates the funds to
whatever programs it decides.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked what percentage of students are in
those categories.
MS. NUDELMAN said she does not have those figures because it is
a block grant.
8:51:32 AM
CHAIR KELLER said there is no way to audit these funds because
they come from block grants. He asked about the total figure.
MS. NUDELMAN said page 8, columns Q and R, shows the [20
percent] increase, and multiplying it by the base student
allocation would show the dollars attributed to that factor in
the formula. She cautioned that this formula is not categorical,
and funds are not directed to any particular student, but rather
to each district. Funds are provided to educate all students
despite whatever categories a student aligns with. A student in
one grade may require less services than when he or she is in
another grade, she clarified.
8:54:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked for a definition of an intensive
special needs student.
MS. NUDELMAN said the criteria are outline in regulation.
Briefly, eight elements are used to demonstrate higher needs and
higher funding needs for intensive students. There would be an
IEP [individualized education program] reviewed at the district
level. The district reports to the department that a need exists
in accordance with regulations, she added.
8:55:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked if students with IEPs are intensive
needs students.
MS. NUDELMAN said an intensive needs student will have an IEP
plus additional information that demonstrates the need.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked if a student can have an IEP but
not be an intensive needs student. Ms. Nudelman said yes.
8:56:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER asked how many auditors for special needs
funding are in EED. He recalled millions of dollars being
withheld from the Matanuska-Susitna School District over an
audit. The department has sent out field auditors in the past to
ensure intensive needs students qualify. He said, "We have one
whole office that deals with lawsuits over intensive needs and
then these kind of funding things." He asked how audits work.
CHAIR KELLER said a committee bill is forthcoming to address the
intensive need funding question. Some of the students need to be
in private residential situations, and there have been questions
about how the money flows through the district to the private
institutions, he offered.
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER said that has to do with super intensive
needs requiring a private setting, but he is talking about the
compliance and auditing of school districts.
8:59:19 AM
LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education and
Early Development, responded that in the past things were rocky
in legal determinations of intensive students. Things have
smoothed out in the last four or five years, he said. There are
still disagreements, but special education specialists in
another division determine which students have intensive needs.
The EED no longer sends monitors out to ensure compliance,
instead, EED developed very clear criteria, and that information
needs to be in the IEP, he explained. He said about three of the
special education staff work on those determinations intensively
for about a month, but there is no one full-time employee
overseeing this process. If all of the criteria are met, funding
will be provided. The department can question a district and
request more information on a student, and he said there have
been no disagreements with the EED "for a couple of years." None
have gone to court in four or five years, he added. He opined
that the qualifying criteria have become clearer.
9:02:51 AM
MS. NUDELMAN moved to step 6, the last step in adding factors to
the foundation calculation. Districts offering correspondence
programs receive funding based on 90 percent of correspondence
ADM. Nome, for example, has 9 correspondence students and that
figure is multiplied by 0.9, so 8.10 is added to the running
total of 1,694.23, which equals 1,702.33. "We now have the final
adjusted average daily membership," she said. The AADM is
multiplied by the base student allocation (BSA). For Nome, that
generates $9,924,584 in basic need for the Nome School District.
9:04:49 AM
CHAIR KELLER noted that many people believe that correspondence
students getter a bigger piece than [necessary].
9:05:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD suggested that a correspondence student
would cost much less [than 90 percent of a regular student].
MS. NUDELMAN noted that the correspondence student number is not
used in any other aspect of the formula. The legislature
increased the factor from 0.80 in 2014 in House Bill 278.
9:07:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked where the funding for
correspondence students goes.
MS. NUDELMAN said the money goes to the school district; the
districts run correspondence programs in variety of ways. Some
have outlying communities with a few students reporting to a
teacher, for example, while other programs are larger, including
the statewide program. Along with all the other funding, the
district makes choices on how to spend those dollars.
MS. NUDELMAN said slide 23 recaps her Nome School District
calculations, and she pointed out that the 724 ADM for Nome was
adjusted to 1,702 AADM, creating a basic need of $9.9 million.
The next step is to determine how basic need is funded, and
there are three components: required local contribution, federal
impact aid, and state aid. She explained that the "current year
full and true value," as provided by the state assessor, is
multiplied by 2.65 mils (or the lessor of the equivalent of 2.65
mils but not to exceed 45 percent of basic need) in order to
calculate local contribution. There are three school districts
where the value exceeds 45 percent of basic need: North Slope,
Skagway, and Valdez, she added.
9:11:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER clarified that the minimum contribution
only applies to organized areas, cities, and towns that have a
school district.
9:11:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked if the local contribution is
required or voluntary.
MS. NUDELMAN said Alaska statute makes it a requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked about a district that decides it
cannot come up with the required amount, and she asked about a
Ketchikan court case.
MS. NUDELMAN said the statute directs EED on that issue, and in
order to receive state aid for foundation funding, the local
contribution must be made. The Ketchikan court case asks if the
required contribution is a designated tax, she explained, but it
is an active case and she deferred further comment.
9:13:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that the court case is challenging
legislative statute, so legislators will need to address it if
the ruling holds.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ requested an update on that litigation.
CHAIR KELLER agreed to contact the Department of Law.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ requested that the update include an
explanation about what is being litigated.
9:15:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked how the local requirement is
determined.
MS. NUDELMAN repeated that the state assessor provides EED with
the mil rates, which is then multiplied by 2.65 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked why there are many districts with a
zero required effort as "they obviously have land."
MS. NUDELMAN said the statute does not provide for the
calculation in unorganized areas of the state.
9:16:39 AM
MS. NUDELMAN said Title VIII federal impact aid payments
received from March 1 through the last day of February are used
for calculations of state aid. She recalled a committee hearing
last week that discussed the impact aid program, "and we walked
through the receipts that went to the district and what was
eligible for the state to look at from those receipts and used
to fund basic need in place of state aid." She explained that
the required local contribution is divided by the budgeted local
contribution to come up with an impact aid percentage. For Nome
public schools, $2,103,120 is divided by $1,449,000 to derive an
impact aid percentage of 47.74.
9:18:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked about "budgeted local."
MS. NUDELMAN said "budgeted local" will change to "actual local"
when the budget is finalized. It is the final local contribution
from a municipality, which will include the required local from
the formula and any additional local funding that was
contributed, so the final calculation will be "what was required
over the actual final local," and the percentage, 47.74, is the
portion of the impact aid that is offset and used in the formula
for basic need. She stated that the larger the local effort,
"the smaller that percent will become and the less impact aid
will be offset and used in the formula rather than left in the
district."
9:19:48 AM
MS. NUDELMAN reviewed the Nome example. After calculating the
eligible impact aid, $71,946 multiplied by 47.74 percent, the
last step is taking 90 percent of that number, "so an additional
10 percent is left in the districts, and 90 percent of our
calculation is offset," which is $30,902. On slide 32, she
showed the basic need for the Nome School District, about $9
million, and she said funding comes from required local effort
(Nome municipality) of $1.4 million, impact aid of $30,912, and
state aid of $8,889,623 (sent to the district in monthly
installments). Two other items in the formula are the additional
local contribution and the quality schools grant, she added.
9:22:30 AM
MS. NUDELMAN said the additional local contribution is
calculated as two mils of the tax base or not to exceed 23
percent of the district's current year basic need. In the Nome
example, 2 mils is $757,773, and 23 percent of basic need is
$2,356,492, so Nome could contribute up to an additional $2.35
million. The quality schools grant takes the AADM and multiplies
it by $16.00, and in Nome that equals $27,237, which is added to
the state aid for a total state entitlement. Finally, there is
"a statutory rule that if the appropriation does not meet all
needs, districts will be reduced, pro rata."
9:23:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked about the block funds for special,
vocational, and bilingual/bicultural education. She estimated it
to be $34 million, and asked how it is distributed.
MS. NUDELMAN said it is a component of the basic need and is co-
mingled with the other funds dispatched to a district. One
twelfth of each district's state aid is distributed monthly.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked if the funds go to the district,
not to the student.
MS. NUDELMAN said that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said $34 million is a considerable
amount of funds, and she asked for further information on its
distribution.
9:26:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said she understood that a child with an
IEP can enter school at three years of age. The Anchorage School
District added three new preschools for a total of 14, and she
said she did not know how many preschools [are in the state].
She asked if the preschools receive state funds.
MS. NUDELMAN said the purview of the state funding formula is
restricted to students who are 3 years old and have an IEP to
receive specialized services via the formula.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked if every single preschool student
who in a public education program has an IEP.
MS. NUDELMAN said she does not believe so. The funding formula
provides funding. "If there is another situation with a 3-year-
old with preschool that does not fall under an IEP and is not
funded by the public education formula-that would be outside of
this discussion," she stated.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked how many students ages 3, 4, 19,
20, and 21 years get state public education money.
MS. NUDELMAN offered to provide that information.
9:28:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the impact aid goes to the
borough or to the state.
MS. NUDELMAN said impact aid is received from the federal
government directly by the districts. It is considered "federal
direct." The districts make direct application for the funds.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the 47.74 percent reduces the
amount of state aid and if the rest of the money stays with the
school district.
MS. NUDELMAN said he is correct.
9:30:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if quality school grants are
directed at any type of program.
MS. NUDELMAN said the grants are for intervention strategies for
students who are not meeting education achievement, especially
in reading, writing, and math. The money could be used for
summer school or after school tutoring, for example.
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER asked about the changes in funding that
the legislature made last year.
9:32:54 AM
MS. NUDELMAN said House Bill 278 provided a three-year plan
around the public funding formula. In 2015, the base student
allocation (BSA) was set at $5,830, which was a $150 increase,
and in 2016, it will increase to $5,880. In 2017, the BSA goes
up to $5,930. These increases are now in law, and the
entitlements for FY2015 and the foundation funding increase for
the BSA are in the governor's budget, she said. Additionally,
there was a one-time funding for three years. For 2015, it adds
$42.9 million, in 2016 it will add $32.2 million, and in 2017 it
will add $12.4 million, she said. The current governor's budget
does not include the 2016 $32.2 million one-time funding, she
noted. House Bill 278 also increased the correspondence student
formula from 0.80 to 0.90-an increase of about $6 million per
year. Also, an increase provided higher funding for charter
schools of about $500,000 annually, she explained.
9:37:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER asked about the one-time funding amount.
9:37:20 AM
MR. MORSE said that the FY2016 amount was $32.6 million and is
not included in the Governor's budget. The FY2017 funding may
also be removed, he added.
CHAIR KELLER noted that the EED website provides a spreadsheet
with revenue sources by district and per pupil. There are
columns labeled "other" and "special."
9:39:20 AM
MS. NUDELMAN said the category "other" includes earnings on
investments, the e-rate program, and very small contributions
from communities, such as scholarship funds. The "special
revenue" category includes federal grant and entitlement funds,
such as IDEA special education funding and Title I funding.
9:40:18 AM
CHAIR KELLER asked if impact aid is included in the "federal"
column and requested a breakdown of items in that column.
MS. NUDELMAN said a large portion of that column is impact aid,
because other federal grants are under "special revenue." She
said she does not have a breakdown of federal programs by type;
however, for 2013, about 97 percent of the $137 million in
federal funding in the operating fund is impact aid.
9:42:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD requested a funding source pie chart.
MR. MORSE said there is an eight-page document with all of that
information and he will provide it to her.
9:43:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled that the WorkKeys exam was
required for all 11th grade students, and there was a provision
to allow students to improve their scores. Last year, passage of
House Bill 278 allowed students to choose between WorkKeys, SAT,
and ACT exams, but it did not remove a requirement that
employers could have access to WorkKeys scores. He has found
that EED will not report the best WorkKeys scores of students,
so the test taken in grade 11 will be shown, even if the
students pay to retake the test. He questioned why regulations
do not reflect that provision, which encourages students to
strive to improve their resumes. He said he is not sure if ACT
or SAT scores are [treated similarly]. The committee should
consider the topic of allowing students to improve their skills,
resumes, and employability [by reporting the higher scores from
taking a second test].
MR. MORSE said there was a requirement in state regulation that
students who took WorkKeys would have their score on their
transcripts. A student could retake the exam to gain a better
score, and the best score would go on the transcript, he
explained. After the passage of House Bill 278, students were
not required to take WorkKeys if they chose to take either the
Sat or ACT, so the regulatory requirement for the score to be on
the transcript was removed. What remains in regulation is the
cumulative record, which contains the scores of the students.
However, the best score may not be what is included, because the
state only pays for the test once, even though the student may
retest at their own cost, he noted.
9:51:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the intent was to get students to
apply themselves in their senior year, and [a second test] would
demonstrate that. He suggested the committee work on it.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked the cost to the state for students
to take the tests and how many students go on to postsecondary
and graduate [with a postsecondary degree]. She asked if the
SAT, ACT, and WorkKeys test scores are provided to the schools.
9:53:00 AM
MR. MORSE said the costs were provided to the committee last
week, but he will get it to her again. The postsecondary data is
not available from the department, and he deferred to the Alaska
Commission on Postsecondary Education or Alaska's university
system. The department does receive the scores in order to
determine qualifications for the state scholarship.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD suggested that about 10 percent of
Alaska students graduate within five years from postsecondary
institutions and then asked if the test score are confidential.
MR. MORSE said the EED receives the scores, and they are used to
determine eligibility for the Alaska Performance Scholarship
(APS). If all students take the tests, the school gets a higher
rating for accountability, he added. Prior to the APS, the test
score data was aggregated.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD ask if the state receives any new
information now that it pays for the tests.
MR. MORSE said that paying for the assessments does not provide
any new information.
9:56:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the score from the first SAT or
ACT test that the student takes is on the student transcript,
and not a later improved test score.
MR. MORSE said that any state standardized assessment will be on
a transcript, "and the only time you can consider that a state
standardized assessment is when a student is taking it because
the state law or regulation compels them to take that." When a
student takes the test on their own, he said, he does not
believe that would be considered a state assessment, but if the
second score was better, "it certainly is submitted and utilized
for the purposes of the Alaska Performance Scholarship."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested that students are being told
that they are stuck with their first score on their transcript
forever. "We have this policy that says improvement doesn't
count," he admonished.
CHAIR KELLER said maybe the department will review legislative
intent and determine if further legislation is needed.
9:59:16 AM
MR. MORSE added that an employer would only have a student's
transcript if it was provided by the student. The student could
provide "other things." He said he does not necessarily disagree
with Representative Seaton.
10:00:11 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:01 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| House Education Committee FY15 Foundation101.pdf |
HEDC 2/25/2015 8:00:00 AM |
|
| Funding Program Overview 2015_eff9-2014.pdf |
HEDC 2/25/2015 8:00:00 AM |