04/17/2002 08:00 AM House EDU
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
April 17, 2002
8:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Con Bunde, Chair
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Joe Green
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Gretchen Guess
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 478
"An Act relating to the Alaska teacher recruitment loan
assumption program; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 478(EDU) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 488
"An Act relating to an insurance tax credit for a gift to a
school for math, science, and technology; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 293
"An Act relating to the teachers' housing loan program in the
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 464
"An Act relating to statewide school district correspondence
study programs."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 478
SHORT TITLE:TEACHER LOAN ASSUMPTION PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)GUESS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/19/02 2316 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/19/02 2316 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
04/17/02 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
BILL: HB 488
SHORT TITLE:INS. CREDIT MATH, SCIENCE & TECH. STUDIES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)CHENAULT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/19/02 2319 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/19/02 2319 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
02/19/02 2319 (H) REFERRED TO EDUCATION
04/17/02 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
BILL: HB 293
SHORT TITLE:AHFC LOANS TO TEACHERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)ROKEBERG
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/14/02 1951 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/4/02
01/14/02 1951 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/14/02 1951 (H) EDU, FIN
04/10/02 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
04/10/02 (H) <Bill Postponed>
04/17/02 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
BILL: HB 464
SHORT TITLE:CORRESPONDENCE STUDY PROGRAMS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)JAMES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/19/02 2313 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/19/02 2313 (H) EDU, HES
02/22/02 2370 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
02/27/02 2416 (H) REFERRALS CHANGED TO HES, EDU
03/07/02 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/07/02 (H) Heard & Held
03/07/02 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/13/02 2530 (H) COSPONSOR(S): COGHILL,
KOHRING, GREEN,
03/13/02 2530 (H) FOSTER
03/14/02 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/14/02 (H) Heard & Held
03/14/02 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/19/02 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/19/02 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/21/02 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/21/02 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/22/02 2655 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FATE
03/26/02 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/26/02 (H) Heard & Held
03/26/02 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/02/02 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/02/02 (H) <Bill Canceled>
04/11/02 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/11/02 (H) Moved CSHB 464(HES) Out of
Committee
04/11/02 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/15/02 2924 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) NT 5DP
04/15/02 2924 (H) DP: COGHILL, KOHRING, WILSON,
04/15/02 2924 (H) STEVENS, DYSON
04/15/02 2924 (H) FN1: ZERO(H.HES/EED)
04/17/02 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
WITNESS REGISTER
ED McLAIN, Ed.D., Deputy Commissioner of Education
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
801 W 10th Street, Suite 320
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 478.
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director
Postsecondary Education Commission
Department of Education and Early Development
3030 Vintage Boulevard
Juneau, Alaska 998901-7109
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to HB 478.
DEBBIE OSSIANDER, Legislative Chair
Anchorage School Board
Anchorage School District
PO Box 196614
Anchorage, Alaska 99519
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that the Anchorage School Board
is generally supportive of HB 478. Testified in support of HB
293.
LOUISE PARRISH
(No address provided)
Valdez, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that a loan forgiveness program
such as encompassed in HB 478 could certainly help her daughter
decide to finish her education and teach in Alaska.
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards
316 West 11th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 478, although he
viewed it as insufficient.
SHARALYN "SUE" WRIGHT, Staff
to Representative Mike Chenault
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 432
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 488 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Chenault.
JOHN WILLIAMS, President
Challenger Learning Center of Alaska
9711 Kenai Spur Highway
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained HB 488.
STEVE HORN, Executive Director
Challenger Learning Center of Alaska
9711 Kenai Spur Highway
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Requested the committee's support for HB
488.
JANET SEITZ, Staff
to Representative Norman Rokeberg
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 293 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Rokeberg.
JOHN BITNEY, Legislative Liaison
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
Department of Revenue
PO Box 101020
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 293.
GRETCHEN MANGROBANG, certified teacher
Alaska Military Youth Academy
(No address provided)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 293, expressed the
need to do whatever necessary to recruit and retain teachers in
Alaska.
NEIL SLOTNICK, Deputy Commissioner
Treasury Division
Alaska State Pension and Investment Board (ASPIB)
Department of Revenue
PO Box 110405
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0405
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 293.
JOHN JENKS, Chief Investment Officer
Treasury Division
Alaska State Pension and Investment Board
Department of Revenue
PO Box 110405
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0405
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 293.
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of HB 464.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-16, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR CON BUNDE called the House Special Committee on Education
meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. Representatives Bunde, Porter,
Wilson, Stevens, and Guess were present at the call to order.
Representatives Green and Joule arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 478-TEACHER LOAN ASSUMPTION PROGRAM
CHAIR BUNDE announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 478, "An Act relating to the Alaska teacher
recruitment loan assumption program; and providing for an
effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as the
sponsor of HB 478, explained that HB 478 is a loan assumption
program that was requested by the Department of Education and
Early Development (EED). This loan assumption program would
provide the freedom of a teaching incentive program regardless
of the postsecondary school where the education was received and
regardless of the entities from which the student loan was
borrowed. She pointed out that the Alaska Commission on
Postsecondary Education (ACPE) now attempts to obtain the best
loan possible for people and thus the loans aren't always ACPE
loans.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if this legislation applied only to Alaska
residents.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS deferred to the department.
Number 0224
ED McLAIN, Ed.D., Deputy Commissioner of Education, Office of
the Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development,
announced the department's support of HB 478 because it views HB
478 as another tool to attract teachers to Alaska. The
legislation is of a relatively modest cost with a relatively
high return. In response to Chair Bunde's earlier question, Dr.
McLain said that the department didn't conceive of the
legislation only applying to Alaska residents. The desire is to
be attractive to teachers from all over, he said. Currently,
Alaska doesn't turn out the number of teachers necessary to fill
the vacancies.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS requested an explanation of the financial
elements of HB 478.
Number 0505
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director, Postsecondary Education
Commission, Department of Education and Early Development,
explained that while this legislation would provide a benefit
that could attract nonresidents to the state, the benefit
wouldn't be received until completion of a year of teaching in
Alaska. Therefore, she presumed such individuals would've
established residency in the state. With regard to the costs,
the fiscal note she submitted has a zero fiscal impact for
operating expenses. She explained that the commission would
basically be a dispersing agent, which the commission believes
can be done in a fairly automated manner and thus there are no
plans to add staff. With respect to the actual benefit expense,
the fiscal note is indeterminate because it would depend upon
the amount of money available through appropriation to fund the
benefits. The legislation, through its structure, suggests that
the student loan corporation's return of capital payment might
be a source of future funding. Although in the last three years
those funds returned to the state have been expended in a
variety of ways, the funds have typically been expended on
educational programs. Ms. Barrans said she expects the return
to be relatively flat and in the amount of $4-$5 million each
year.
Number 0700
CHAIR BUNDE informed the committee that the student loan program
was, at one time, funded out of the general fund, which he
characterized as burdensome. Therefore, the state gave the
commission the loan portfolio. He inquired as to the amount the
corporation would've capitalized.
MS. BARRANS answered that the student loan corporation was
capitalized to approximately $306 million in the form of
outstanding loans.
CHAIR BUNDE highlighted that then ACPE became self-sustaining,
and made a profit.
MS. BARRANS said the commission likes to think of it as reducing
income. She informed the committee that this will be the third
year in which the commission has had a return to the state.
Including fiscal year 2003, the total return amounts to about
$12 million.
CHAIR BUNDE surmised that if HB 478 were passed there would be a
suggestion that the [returns from ACPE] would be used to fund
this legislation, although there would be no requirements to
that effect due to the inability to have dedicated funds.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS commented that anything that can be done
to help address the teacher shortage in Alaska should be done.
Representative Stevens inquired as to the debt an average new
teacher coming into Alaska would owe. He also inquired as to
whether districts may have room to provide assistance with loan
forgiveness as well.
MS. BARRANS informed the committee that the average debt someone
leaving school with a four-year degree has is approximately
$16,000. Of course, that amount is increasing. Ms. Barrans
related her understanding that HB 478 offers a way in which
Alaska can keep pace in terms of the tools available to recruit
students.
Number 1152
CHAIR BUNDE inquired as to the average loan obligation for those
who have attended school in Alaska and used the student loan to
the maximum.
MS. BARRANS said that such specific analysis hasn't been done.
However, she suspected that the average loan obligation for
those who have attended school in Alaska and used the student
loan would be between $18-$22,000. She related that anecdotally
she understands that often education majors don't, upon entering
college, know that education is their major and thus they may
attend college for an additional year or more. Therefore, there
may be five or more years of educational debt. Although a four-
year degree is achievable, typically students are taking longer
to obtain a degree.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked if this legislation works with the
existing teacher forgiveness student loan program.
MS. BARRANS clarified that the program is the teacher education
loan, which has been in place for about 15 years. The objective
of the teacher education loan was to attract students from
Alaska to teaching careers in rural schools. The teacher
education loan provides up to 100 percent forgiveness of the
loan plus interest if the student teaches in a rural school.
She informed the committee that the aforementioned program has
about a 20 percent success rate. The program is funded by about
$1.2 million a year from corporation receipts. Although both
programs work toward different objectives, both assist in
meeting the demand for teachers.
CHAIR BUNDE inquired as to the actual number of people who
successfully use the program.
MS. BARRANS offered to provide that information to the
committee. She informed the committee that perhaps 120 students
are funded per year. She noted that the program has a fairly
high attrition rate.
CHAIR BUNDE pointed out that were HB 478 to pass it would be
dependent upon future legislative appropriations and thus could
not be funded at any time.
MS. BARRANS interjected that she views one of the commission's
responsibilities under HB 478 to be a fiscal agent to monitor
the number of program beneficiaries and the amount of funding
available. Therefore, she recommended that the primary
commitment be to those who have already entered the program and
who are working with some commitment. She further recommended
that sufficient funds be reserved in order to make good on the
benefit to those in the program and alert incoming participants
that funding is based on appropriation.
Number 1802
CHAIR BUNDE inquired as to why not continue the old student loan
forgiveness program under which all or half of the loan was
forgiven simply by staying in Alaska.
MS. BARRANS explained that through 1987 the state provided
general funds to finance the program. The program included the
feature in which someone who graduated from the state and taught
in the state could have up to half the loan forgiven. However,
when the state was unable to continue to finance at that level,
the corporation was created and capitalized with the outstanding
loans. The commission was expected to issue and repay those
bonds plus interest. Therefore, the corporation was placed in a
position such that in 1993 it faced an equity deficit of almost
$50 million. That particular construction of loan forgiveness
and the commitment on the loan contract wasn't financed and
brought the student loan program within a year or two of having
to close because additional debt couldn't be incurred unless
cash flow and asset support to pay the debt materialized. In
1993, the legislature authorized changes to the program that
allowed the loans to pay for themselves. Today, the forgiveness
benefit continues to be paid out, although it has dwindled to a
few million a year which can be absorbed as a reduction of net
income.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS agreed that HB 478 is better than
nothing, although $2,000 a year doesn't seem to place Alaska in
a competitive position in the future. Therefore, he inquired as
to how Alaska could be in a position of competing with other
states for this limited supply of teachers.
MS. BARRANS related that other states are developing multiple
strategies, which she recalled was the approach taken by last
year's task force.
Number 2210
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN turned to the indeterminate fiscal note and
inquired as to the number of people Ms. Barrans envisioned
taking advantage of this.
MS. BARRANS answered that the fiscal note is truly
indeterminate. She suggested that the department could provide
the committee with the number of expected vacancies that it can
project going forward. One would assume that half of those
would be new teachers with existing educational debt. If
experienced teachers can be recruited then their debt may have
been paid off already. Therefore, it would be a blend of new
teachers with debt and experienced teachers with little to no
debt. Ms. Barrans said she suspected that several million
dollars could be spent on this program alone.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if he was correct in that the bill says that
$2 million of ACPE's dividend would be allotted to this program.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS, in response, directed attention to page 2,
lines 21-23.
CHAIR BUNDE surmised that if the $2 million is achieved, then
the dividend deemed appropriate would be given. He recalled
from earlier testimony that over the past few years there has
been a $4 million dividend on average.
Number 2450
DEBBIE OSSIANDER, Legislative Chair, Anchorage School Board,
Anchorage School District, testified via teleconference. Ms.
Ossiander informed the committee that the Anchorage School Board
is generally supportive of HB 478. Ms. Ossiander, in response
to Chair Bunde, said that she would work on obtaining the number
of new teachers who might take advantage of this program this
year if it were available.
CHAIR BUNDE said that he could foresee equal protection concerns
with existing teachers who already have loans.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS clarified that this legislation only
pertains to newly hired teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if this legislation would apply to a
student in his/her second year [of teaching].
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS answered that this legislation would only
apply to newly hired teachers.
CHAIR BUNDE posed a situation in which a teacher in Anchorage
goes to a new school, such as a rural school. He asked if a
teacher in such a situation would be a newly recruited teacher.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS replied that she didn't believe so.
MS. BARRANS related her understanding that this legislation
specifies that [it applies] to employment beginning on or after
a certain date. However, the Board of Education is given the
authority to create the details by regulation. Ms. Barrans also
related that she understood the legislation to be a recruitment
incentive, not simply a reward for existing employment.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS, before leaving for caucus, pointed out
that the committee packet includes an amendment should would
like offered. She explained that the amendment merely clarifies
which board, the ACPE Board or the Board of Education and Early
Development, is referenced in the legislation.
CHAIR BUNDE returned to the question of whether leaving one
district and going to another is beginning employment and
related his suspicion that individuals in such a situation would
qualify for this loan assumption program.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS pointed out that the legislation refers
to a "newly hired teacher".
CHAIR BUNDE explained that a teacher with 20 years in one
district can be hired in another district and be considered a
newly hired teacher.
Number 2939
LOUISE PARRISH, testifying via teleconference, related that her
daughter, who is currently a junior, is taking education classes
because she is interested in becoming an elementary math
teacher. She noted that her daughter is currently attending
school out of state, but due to her debt load she is reviewing
other schools. Ms. Parrish said that a loan forgiveness program
could certainly help her daughter decide to finish her education
in Alaska and teach in Alaska.
CHAIR BUNDE informed Ms. Parrish that he understood the
legislation to apply to individuals who attend school outside
Alaska so long as they return to the state to teach.
MS. PARRISH said that would widen her daughter's options. In
response to Representative Stevens, Ms. Parrish told the
committee that she would estimate that her daughter would be
about $30,000 in debt by her junior year.
Number 3204
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards (AASB), testified in support of loan assumption programs
and HB 478. However, he related AASB's belief that HB 478 will
be insufficient for what is necessary [to recruit teachers to
Alaska]. For instance, Montana is a state that educates
individuals in education; however, those individuals are going
elsewhere to work because of the incentives. Mr. Rose mentioned
that he served on the task force which reviewed how a loan
assumption program would be used. The task force reviewed a 50
percent assumption with 10 percent per year for five years,
which it believed to be reasonable. However, that figure was
changed. Mr. Rose reiterated that AASB supports HB 478,
although it believes the legislation is insufficient in
comparison to what other states offer, particularly California.
CHAIR BUNDE questioned, then, whether it's worth doing. He
asked if the money would be better spent in the foundation
formula.
MR. ROSE said he really couldn't make that judgment, although he
did say that if this legislation was sufficiently funded it
would be helpful. Mr. Rose said, "I think the reason we're here
is because of the way we've addressed the foundation formula
over the last dozen years."
CHAIR BUNDE, upon determining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony.
Number 3420
CHAIR BUNDE moved that the committee adopt Amendment 1, which
read:
Page 5, line 12, following "program":
Delete "."
Insert ";"
Page 5, following line 12:
Insert a new [paragraph] to read:
"(5) "board" means the Board of Education
and Early Development."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN inquired as to how the Board of Education
and Early Development would [define] a newly hired teacher who
would be eligible for this loan assumption program.
DR. McLAIN answered that it would be his recommendation that the
reference to a an applicant first hired as a classroom teacher
wouldn't refer to someone in the second or third year of an
ongoing contract. With regard to moving from one district to
another, Dr. McLain said he wouldn't consider someone moving to
another district as a new hire. Dr. McLain argued that someone
with experience in the Lower 48 who comes to Alaska for the
first time to teach would fall under this legislation. In
response to Representative Green, Dr. McLain said he understood
the legislation to focus on the date first hired as a classroom
teacher and the postsecondary expenses. Therefore, it wouldn't
matter whether the individual changed majors during the second
or third year of school.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if this legislation is significant
enough.
DR. McLAIN agreed with earlier comments that this legislation is
one more tool, and in that context AASB supports the
legislation. However, he said that he would like to see
additional dollars.
Number 3900
CHAIR BUNDE directed attention to the language "newly hired
teachers" and inquired as to Dr. McLain's thoughts on adding the
language referring to newly hired teachers when first hired in
Alaska.
DR. McLAIN said he understood the legislation to apply to newly
hired teachers when first hired in Alaska and thus he
appreciated Chair Bunde's clarification.
CHAIR BUNDE highlighted that this is a policy decision in which
the committee must determine whether the legislation should
apply to first time hires only or those teachers who move to a
new district, particularly an underserved district.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said that he didn't believe it is
appropriate for state law to establish an advantage in the state
of one district over another.
CHAIR BUNDE agreed. However, he pointed out that the language
"first hired in Alaska" would be equal whereas "newly hired"
would allow a teacher moving from one district to another to
qualify for the program.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER opined that allowing teachers who moved
[to a new district] to qualify for this program wouldn't be a
good state policy.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if the committee wanted the legislation to
apply only to first-time hired teachers in Alaska or newly hired
teachers, which would include teachers who move from one
district to another.
Number 4222
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked if districts have the latitude to
do this on their own, that is provide additional funds to new
teachers.
DR. McLAIN explained that through the teachers' negotiated
agreement, teachers have a variety of ways to enhance their
particular district. Therefore, a teacher could increase
his/her salary due to the district's flexibility with the salary
scale.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said he would be comfortable with the
reference to first hired in Alaska with the realization that the
districts have other options.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER inquired as to the sponsor's intent with
regard to who this legislation would apply.
DR. McLAIN answered that he understood the legislation to
encourage qualified teachers to come into the state versus into
the district. Barring other direction, Dr. McLain said that's
how he would interpret this legislation.
CHAIR BUNDE requested that Dr. McLain develop language to the
above intent to insert on page 1, line 10. He then rolled HB
478 to the bottom of the calendar.
HB 488-INS. CREDIT MATH, SCIENCE & TECH. STUDIES
CHAIR BUNDE announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 488, "An Act relating to an insurance tax credit
for a gift to a school for math, science, and technology; and
providing for an effective date."
CHAIR BUNDE announced that he didn't intend to move HB 488 from
committee today.
TAPE 02-16, SIDE B
Number 4554
SHARALYN "SUE" WRIGHT, Staff to Representative Mike Chenault,
Alaska State Legislature, paraphrased the sponsor statement
which reads as follows:
House Bill 488 establishes a tax credit for gifts to
an institution for the study of math, science, and
technology. It provides for calculation of the tax
credit and establishes limits on an allowable credit.
MS. WRIGHT noted that HB 488 was introduced at the request of
the Challenger Learning Center of [Alaska]. The plan is to form
a plan giving committee and create something similar to the
endowment that the university has.
Number 4435
JOHN WILLIAMS, President, Challenger Learning Center of Alaska,
explained that the Challenger Learning Center of Alaska is a
statewide institution of learning in the areas of space,
science, and technology. The center was funded through private,
corporate, and federal monies. Presently, over $6 million has
been invested in the facility plus an additional $3 million in
order to double the size of the facility due to the extreme
demand. Over the first two years of operation, the facility has
served nearly 10,000 students statewide and the expectation is
that it will continue to grow. At this point the center isn't
requesting direct appropriations but is requesting that a
foundation be established so that the center can operate for
years to come. The foundation would be patterned after the
university foundation which allows a tax credit to be given for
donations. Thus far, corporations have willingly provided funds
to establish and operate the center and have indicated a
continued funding commitment if there is some help, which this
legislation provides. Mr. Williams noted that the center serves
students and teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked if the endowment proposed in HB 488
would compete with the university endowment.
MR. WILLIAMS noted that the university is aware of this proposal
and there may be a very slight competition between the two
endowments. However, the endowment proposed in HB 488 includes
a cap on the amount of money that the center would seek in a
year whereas the university endowment has no cap. Furthermore,
the university has a major endowment that has been in operation
for many years and thus Mr. Williams said he didn't believe the
proposed endowment would compete with the university at all.
MR. WILLIAMS, in further response to Representative Stevens,
explained that the endowment is such that if a corporation were
to make a donation to the center, half of the first $100,000
would be eligible for a tax credit and the other half would come
from the donor. Therefore, $50,000 would be considered a
personal donation and $50,000 would be credit against taxes. A
second $100,000 donation would be credit against taxes. He
highlighted that $200,000 is the maximum that could be given in
any one year. Mr. Williams related his belief that many small
corporations would take advantage of the tax credit. Mr.
Williams specified that this would be a credit against the
federal corporate income tax as well as the state corporate
income tax.
CHAIR BUNDE highlighted that there is no knowledge with regard
to the number of corporations that will donate, and therefore
there is no knowledge with regard to the cost to the state in
lost taxes.
MR. WILLIAMS posed a situation in which the maximum amount
allowed under this legislation is reached and said the state
could lose as much as $600,000 a year.
Number 3836
STEVE HORN, Executive Director, Challenger Learning Center of
Alaska, requested the committee's support for HB 488. He
informed the committee that the Challenger Learning Center of
Alaska's mission is to change the way teachers teach and
students learn through hands-on learning with simulated space
missions. The desire is to establish the Challenger Learning
Center of Alaska as a curriculum that's used throughout the
state. The aforementioned is achieved by the following:
having students and teachers come to the facility, sending the
center's teachers to rural Alaska schools, holding camps and
workshops at the facility, and offering a distance learning
program. Therefore, the board of directors has established the
Challenger Learning Center of Alaska Foundation and HB 488 would
be key to enticing contributions to the foundation so that the
organization would be sustained and continue to deliver the
programs it currently delivers.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON directed attention to the title of HB 488
and asked if someone could give a donation to a public, private,
or parochial school and earmark the donation for math, science,
or technology in order to receive the tax credit.
CHAIR BUNDE related his assumption that if the donation met the
other specified qualifications, then the donation could go to
other schools.
[HB 488 was held over.]
HB 293-AHFC LOANS TO TEACHERS
CHAIR BUNDE announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 293, "An Act relating to the teachers' housing
loan program in the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation; and
providing for an effective date."
CHAIR BUNDE announced that he didn't intend to move HB 293 from
committee today.
Number 3335
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to adopt Version 22-LS1165\J, Cook,
3/28/02, as the working document. There being no objection,
Version J was before the committee.
CHAIR BUNDE moved that the committee adopt Amendment 1, which
reads as follows:
Page 2, line 9, following "section":
Insert "and permit each vacant unit to be
occupied by at least one individual who is not a
certificated teacher but is employed in a public
elementary or secondary school in the state. If the
multi-family housing project still has an unacceptable
vacancy level, the corporation may expand the waiver
to permit other individuals to occupy vacant units"
Page 2, line 10, following the first occurrence of
"waiver":
Insert "and any expansion of the waiver"
Page 2, line 10, following "the waiver":
Insert "or expansion"
Page 2, line 11, following the first occurrence of
"waiver":
Insert "or expansion"
Page 2, line 11, following "the waiver":
Insert "or expansion"
Number 3260
JANET SEITZ, Staff to Representative Norman Rokeberg, Alaska
State Legislature, spoke on behalf of the sponsor of HB 293.
She explained that Amendment 1 ensures that there is a tiered
system. The intent is that multi-family housing loans would be
for units occupied by certificated teachers. This amendment
allows vacant units to be filled by teachers in situations in
which there aren't enough teachers to fill the units.
Therefore, certificated teachers would fill the units first,
then school employees, and then the occupants could be [anyone].
However, a waiver from the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
(AHFC) must be obtained before offering the units to anyone
besides a certificated teacher or school employee.
CHAIR BUNDE, upon determining there were no objections,
announced that Amendment 1 had been adopted.
Number 3210
CHAIR BUNDE moved that the committee adopt Amendment 2, which
reads as follows:
Page 2, line 5, following "housing":
Insert "(A) located in a city or community with a
population of 6,000 or less; and
(B)"
Page 2, line 9:
Delete "(a)(2)"
Insert "(a)(2)(B)"
MS. SEITZ pointed out that Amendment 2 refers to the multi-
family housing units. The intent of the sponsor is that the
multi-family housing projects be for rural areas, and therefore
Amendment 2 specifies a community with a population of 6,000 or
less. Communities of that size include some of the communities
that aren't Rural Education Attendance Areas (REAAs) while
keeping the program unavailable to larger communities.
CHAIR BUNDE, upon determining there were no objections,
announced that Amendment 2 had been adopted.
MS. SEITZ explained that this legislation establishes a loan
program for teachers to purchase housing with no down payment as
well as a multi-family housing program for the rural areas. The
corporation, AHFC, will develop the program. Section 1 of the
Version J specifies a suggested funding source.
Number 2950
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked if this legislation would cover a
teacher who builds a house in an area where there is no housing.
MS. SEITZ replied that she believes so, but deferred to AHFC
representatives for a more definitive answer.
Number 2852
JOHN BITNEY, Legislative Liaison, Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation, Department of Revenue, began by noting AHFC's
support of the legislation, although it recognizes concerns of
the Alaska State Pension Investment Board (ASPIB). The question
has been regarding the source of funds being used to make these
loans, which has driven the search for setting up a cost of
capital to lend out that is lower than what's available on the
market today. In his experience, a kicker is necessary to lower
the cost of capital in order to create an incentive to meet the
problem. However, there are also other issues besides finances.
For example, in villages there are title restrictions on
property. There are also turnover issues in rural communities
where teachers aren't necessarily living in the community year
round. Mr. Bitney pointed out that AHFC is trying to find ways
in which to use existing programs. For example, AHFC currently
has the "rural loan program," which is a revolving loan fund
that makes loans in small communities at a 1 percent discounted
rate from the taxable or conventional loan rate. This existing
program includes a multi-family piece for up to eight plexes if
the owner doesn't occupy the building. However, something is
missing in the existing program. He noted that the rural
districts don't want to be in the housing business.
Furthermore, in many cases the teachers in the small communities
form a large economic sector of the community and thus the
question becomes how one can establish a program such that the
economic benefit of that group is captured.
MR. BITNEY pointed out that if a low cost to capital program is
created there is no desire to use up the program with existing
teachers using the program to refinance homes they already have.
The intent seems to be to create new housing opportunities.
With regard to Representative Stevens' question, Mr. Bitney
related that the industry standard is that AHFC and the loan
program would offer a commitment at an interest rate for
construction for a specified amount of time. Once the
commitment is in place, the borrower takes the commitment and
borrows from a bank based on that commitment. At the time of
completion, when all requirements are satisfied, the loan is
taken out with that commitment.
Number 2236
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS related that the villages with which he
is familiar the districts own the housing and provide the
housing to the teachers. However, in many cases the housing is
substandard and thus it's difficult to obtain teachers who are
willing to move to the community. He asked if this program
would include loans to districts to provide housing to teachers.
MR. BITNEY said that he wasn't familiar with the types of
authorizations that would be required for a district to enter
into such an agreement. From AHFC's perspective, if the loan
is a good loan AHFC would like to make the loan. However, he
questioned what statutory restrictions are in place for
districts when entering into certain types of debt agreements.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if there is any possibility of using
an "arm".
MR. BITNEY said he wasn't familiar with an "arm". He mentioned
that generally the bond covenants for the source of capital on a
lending program have restrictions regarding the types of loans
being made. He said he would be happy to look into this.
Number 1914
DEBBIE OSSIANDER, Legislative Chair, Anchorage School Board,
Anchorage School District, reminded the committee that this
topic arose several times in the hearings many months ago. The
[board] seems to think that this legislation has some merit.
And in discussions with school board members in California and
Nevada, it has come to light that any kind of housing incentive
has been remarkably effective in recruiting and retaining
people. Ms. Ossiander noted support of HB 293 as another tool
for districts across the state.
Number 1822
GRETCHEN MANGROBANG, certified teacher, Alaska Military Youth
Academy, informed the committee that she is a fairly new teacher
who graduated in 2000. She explained that it took her five
years to finish her Bachelor's degree and another year to
complete graduate school. She informed the committee that her
total debt amounts to about $40,000, which is considerably more
than she makes in a year. Ms. Mangrobang noted that the steps
necessary to apply for a teaching position total about $500.
Therefore, the loan forgiveness incentives and housing
incentives other states offer are very inviting. She noted that
in a recent article she read, Alaska's teaching salaries ranked
fifteenth. She expressed the need to take the steps necessary
to entice and retain teachers in this state. Furthermore, Ms.
Mangrobang said that this legislation would seem to allow
teachers in rural communities to purchase housing even if the
area is one in which the land cannot be purchased.
Number 1536
NEIL SLOTNICK, Deputy Commissioner, Treasury Division, Alaska
State Pension and Investment Board (ASPIB), Department of
Revenue, noted that although he is speaking in his capacity as
staff to ASPIB. In regard to Section 1 of Version J, Mr.
Slotnick expressed the need to ensure that there is no false
expectation created with regard to ASPIB being able to provide a
kicker for this program. He directed attention to a memorandum
in the committee packet from Mr. Jenks that explains why ASPIB
cannot be viewed as a funding source for the type of loans
proposed.
Number 1428
JOHN JENKS, Chief Investment Officer, Treasury Division, Alaska
State Pension and Investment Board (ASPIB), Department of
Revenue, reviewed the memorandum included in the committee
packet. He reiterated that Section 1 of Version J permits
something that ASPIB could already do; that is if there was a
good investment in the marketplace, such as the program
[proposed in Version J], ASPIB may invest in it. However, it
would be inconsistent with the fiduciary standards the
legislature has set out for ASPIB if the risk return was such
that the kicker was coming from this investment. If this
legislation somehow established an expectation that ASPIB would
fund the entire program or make below-market investments to
support the program, that would be a significant
misunderstanding, he emphasized. While the members of ASPIB
think the overall goals of the program are good, the board has
unanimous opposition for use of the retirement systems for any
type of subsidy.
[HB 293 was held over.]
HB 478-TEACHER LOAN ASSUMPTION PROGRAM
CHAIR BUNDE returned to HOUSE BILL NO. 478, "An Act relating to
the Alaska teacher recruitment loan assumption program; and
providing for an effective date."
ED McLAIN, Ed.D., Deputy Commissioner of Education, Office of
the Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development,
suggested, in order to clarify the intent of the legislation,
the following change:
Page 1, line 10, following "teachers":
Insert "upon their first hire in the state"
Page 1, line 12:
Delete "in those schools"
Insert "in the state"
CHAIR BUNDE moved that the committee adopt [Amendment 2] as
specified by Dr. McLain. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
Number 0950
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved that the committee adopt Amendment
3, which reads as follows:
Page 1, line 1, following "program":
Insert ", the nurse recruitment loan assumption
program"
Page 1, line 9, following "program":
Insert "and the nurse recruitment loan assumption
program"
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON explained that Amendment 3 addresses the
nurse shortage in the state, which is worse than the teacher
shortage. She noted that [Amendment 3] includes language
changes as appropriate throughout the legislation.
CHAIR BUNDE objected because he believes that if the legislation
was expanded to include nurses more additions could occur. For
instance, there is a shortage of aircraft mechanics. He
indicated that additions to legislation can often be its demise.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Wilson and Stevens
voted in favor of Amendment 3. Representatives Porter, Green,
and Bunde voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 failed by a
vote of 2-3.
Number 0710
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to report HB 478 as amended out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 478(EDU) was
reported from the House Special Committee on Education.
HB 464-CORRESPONDENCE STUDY PROGRAMS
CHAIR BUNDE announced that the last order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 464, "An Act relating to statewide school
district correspondence study programs." [Before the committee
is CSHB 464(HES), Version 22-LS1494\S.]
CHAIR BUNDE moved that the committee adopt Amendment 1, which
reads as follows:
Page 1, lines 9-12:
Delete all material and insert:
"(1) shall specify that once the department
has approved an initial statewide correspondence
program application, the district will not be required
to submit a new application
(A) more frequently than every five years if
the program is designated as distinguished or
successful under AS 14.03.123(a); or
(B) more frequently than every ten years if
the program is designated as distinguished or
successful under AS 14.03.123(a), and the program is
accredited by the Northwest Association of schools and
Colleges."
Page 1, line 13, following "monitored":
Delete "at periodic intervals as established by
the school district"
Insert "by a certified teacher; the monitoring
must include at least monthly student-teacher of
teacher-parent contact, and quarterly review of the
student's work or progress in the Individual Learning
Plan;"
Page 2, line 4, following "the":
Delete "purchase"
Insert "review, selection."
Page 2, line 5, following "materials":
Delete "purchased by the school district or
Alyeska Central School"
Insert "before they are introduced into the
correspondence curriculum"
Page 2, line 8, following "work":
Insert "by certified teachers"
Page 2, line 9,
Delete all material.
Page 1, line 5, following "study":
Delete "(a)"
Page 2, line 9:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"*Sec. 2. AS 14.07.050 is amended to read:
Sec. 14.07.050. Selection of textbooks. Textbooks
for use in the public schools of the sate, including a
district offered statewide correspondence study
program, shall be selected by district boards for
district schools."
Page 2, line 7:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"*Sec. 3. AS 14.08.111(9) is amended to read:
(9) establish procedures for the review and
selection of all textbooks and instructional materials
including textbooks and curriculum materials for
statewide correspondence programs before they are
introduced into the school curriculum; the review
includes a review for violations of AS 14.18.060;"
Page 2, line 7:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"*Sec. 4. AS 14.14.090(7) is amended to read:
(9) establish procedures for the review and
selection of all textbooks and instructional materials
including textbooks and curriculum materials for
statewide correspondence programs before they are
introduced into the school curriculum; the review
includes a review for violations of AS 14.18.060;"
CHAIR BUNDE explained that Amendment 1 ensures that students
attending correspondence schools are held to the same standards
as those who attend public schools. The original legislation
suggested that there had to be monthly teacher-parent contact;
however, often the parent is the teacher and thus there is daily
contact. Chair Bunde explained that Amendment 1 would provide
for a quarterly review of the student's work or progress by a
certified teacher, which he likened to the parent-teacher
conferences in the public school system.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS requested that Chair Bunde go through
Amendment 1.
Number 0327
ED McLAIN, Ed.D., Deputy Commissioner of Education, Office of
the Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development,
explained that the first section of Amendment 1 deletes language
relating to program approval once every ten years, unless the
correspondence program is deemed deficient or in crisis, and
replaces it with language that allows approval every five years
for programs that are deemed distinguished or successful and
once every ten years if the program is also accredited. This
language is present to encourage accreditation.
CHAIR BUNDE interjected that this would provide correspondence
schools with an advantage because correspondence schools
wouldn't be subject to review every ten years, if the school
chose to [become accredited]. Public schools are reviewed every
year.
DR. McLAIN related his understanding that under the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) these programs would still be
subjected to the criteria determining whether the program/school
is distinguished, satisfactory, deficient, or in crisis. If
programs are found to be in the first two categories listed, the
program would continue to the next year whereas if the program
was found to be deficient or in crisis, then the program would
need to come back to the department to discuss its plans.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON related her understanding that currently
every school has to be categorized and if a school is found to
be inadequate, the school would be reviewed.
DR. McLAIN pointed out that the designator bill and ESEA would
require all schools in the state to be identified in one of the
four categories. The prior state statute and ESEA dictate that
there be some actions that the schools and the department would
need to undertake depending upon ... [tape change].
TAPE 02-17, SIDE A
CHAIR BUNDE clarified that ESEA is a federal regulation and the
school designator will be part of the No Child Left Behind plan.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON surmised then that all schools have [to be
categorized].
DR. McLAIN replied yes. In further response to Representative
Wilson, Dr. McLain explained that currently regulation requires
statewide correspondence programs to submit an annual
application, which is time consuming. The current proposed
regulations have changed the annual application to every five
years so long as the school maintains its successful or
distinguished category. Therefore, this amendment would
parallel the increase in freedom in the proposed regulations.
CHAIR BUNDE informed the committee that not all public schools
are accredited, and therefore the department would like to
encourage more schools to become accredited.
DR. McLAIN agreed, and added that currently the state's larger
high schools are accredited while many of the elementary schools
aren't. From the current information, two of the correspondence
schools have candidacy status and the others aren't accredited.
Accreditation is extremely valuable in terms of having credits
and transcripts available and accepted by other schools to which
the student wishes to transfer.
Number 0217
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS surmised then that there are no
correspondence schools that are accredited at this time. He
asked if the bar is so high that it would be unlikely that the
correspondence schools would be accredited.
DR. McLAIN explained that two schools, Galena's Interior
Distance Education of Alaska (IDEA) and Personal Alternative
Choices in Education (PACE), have candidacy status, which is the
first step in accreditation. The other correspondence schools
haven't applied or have let their accreditation lapse.
Sometimes the lapse in accreditation is due to the cost, he
mentioned.
Number 0338
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN inquired as to what is so great about
accreditation, especially when the students of accredited
secondary schools have fallen below expectations for passing the
exit exam.
DR. McLAIN informed the committee that when the department
reviewed the percentage of students who demonstrated proficiency
with the High School Qualifying Exam, it was found that
statewide, accredited or not, the 44 percent of students
demonstrating proficiency in math was substantially higher than
the overall [percentage of proficiency] in all three of the
larger correspondence programs.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked again what accreditation brings to
the school.
DR. McLAIN specified that accreditation allows a student's
transcript to be accepted by other accredited schools. Dr.
McLain acknowledged that there is paperwork [showing that the
school has met the standards] to obtain and maintain
accreditation. He argued that accreditation is especially
important for innovative programs.
Number 0725
CHAIR BUNDE returned attention to Amendment 1 and informed the
committee that the section dealing with page 1, line 13, is a
change he made to the department's amendment. This portion of
Amendment 1 changes the monthly student-teacher contact to
quarterly review.
DR. McLAIN explained that the department's original regulations
spoke to monthly review of work. However, public comments on
that matter were that it would be onerous. Dr. McLain said that
he wanted to demonstrate that the correspondence program is a
program because there seems to be a perception otherwise. The
regular contact would seem to help the aforementioned perception
and gain credibility. Dr. McLain acknowledged that Amendment 1
drops that [monthly review of the student's work or progress]
and as deputy commissioner he requested that the committee
reconsider that because it wasn't included lightly. Without the
monthly review, the quarterly review wouldn't be enough and
leave children to fall behind without time to make mid-term
instructional corrections.
Number 1009
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked if this language would lead to
additional need for certificated teachers to monitor monthly and
quarterly reports.
DR. McLAIN specified that this language speaks to what occurs
inside the local district; there's no language included here
about the department monitoring.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS clarified that he was interested in
whether this legislation would require more teachers for
oversight.
DR. McLAIN explained that the department doesn't specify the
minimum pupil-teacher ratio. However, in general a typical
brick-and-mortar school has pupil-teacher ratios of 15-1 to 30-
1. The pupil-teacher ratios in these [correspondence] programs
are generally higher; it depends upon the design of the program.
The department is simply suggesting that there be a monthly
minimum.
CHAIR BUNDE announced that the committee wouldn't take action
today because it will soon lose its quorum and thus will meet on
this next week. Returning to the legislation, Chair Bunde
related his understanding that the two largest correspondence
schools, Galena and Nenana, haven't found the proposed
regulations to be onerous.
Number 1333
DR. McLAIN returned to Amendment 1 and the sections dealing with
page 2, line 4, and page 2, line 5. These amendments provide
that the local school board has the duty and the authority to
establish procedures through review, selection, and use of
correspondence materials purchased by the school district.
Existing statutes, AS 14.07.050 and AS 14.08.111, relate to the
selection of text books and the district's review of curriculum
respectively. This amendment makes HB 464 consistent with the
aforementioned statutes.
CHAIR BUNDE explained that correspondence school parents have an
account from which the price of the materials chosen are
deducted. The only difference is that in Galena students are
shipped a computer whereas in Nenana the parent purchases the
computer and sends in the receipt to be reimbursed.
Number 1632
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES, Alaska State Legislature, spoke
as the sponsor of HB 464. Representative James remarked that
this legislation has been a struggle in the legislature and in
the public arena. She surmised that this struggle is due to the
new phenomena of computers, which has created a different system
of education. Furthermore, there is the federal mandate to
leave no child behind. If the state is to follow that mandate,
then students should have the opportunity to do whatever works
and the state has a responsibility to be sure that every child
is learning. Therefore, the question becomes where the line is
drawn with regard to pupil-teacher ratios; that is when is it
appropriate for a certificated teacher to be involved. She
agreed that oversight and passage of the benchmark exams and the
High School Qualifying Exam are necessary. Regarding the
amendment, Representative James turned to the area of
accreditation and said that were she convinced of what
accreditation does for a school, she would want every school in
the state to be accredited. She pointed out that with this
amendment this would be the only place in statute where
accreditation is mentioned. She said she would be willing for
accreditation to be included if it was available for other
schools as well.
CHAIR BUNDE said that if the accreditation portion was
eliminated, it would eliminate a tool from correspondence
schools.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that Amendment 1 inserts the
language specifying that the once a correspondence program
application is approved by the department the program won't be
required to submit a new application more frequently than every
ten years if the program is designated as distinguished or
successful under AS 14.03.123(a), and the program is accredited
by the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges. She
questioned how much more successful do "we" want them to be.
CHAIR BUNDE surmised that Representative James would rather
eliminate subparagraph (A) from the new material being inserted
on page 1, lines 9-12.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that she wasn't that hung up on the
five year requirement, but believes that deleting all of
subparagraph (B) would be appropriate.
CHAIR BUNDE inquired as to the wish of the committee.
Number 2310
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out that accreditation is voluntary
and thus he didn't see a problem with including it.
CHAIR BUNDE noted that part of the challenge has been that there
has been a significant level of discomfort between the
department and the correspondence people. Chair Bunde said that
he didn't want to add to the level of distrust.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that she didn't want to make the rules
for review any stricter than those for charter schools.
DR. McLAIN answered that correspondence schools and charter
schools aren't an exact apples to apples comparison. For
instance, charter schools are required to have a specific
academic council review and set policy and direction, which
isn't currently required of the correspondence programs.
Furthermore, charter schools, not correspondence programs, are
required to obtain local school board approval as well as the
approval from the state board. The application renewal for
charter schools was recently changed to every ten years, he
mentioned.
CHAIR BUNDE announced that next week discussion of the amendment
would continue.
[HB 464 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Education meeting was adjourned at 10:04
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|