Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/11/2003 11:00 AM House EDU
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
March 11, 2003
11:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Carl Gatto, Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Kelly Wolf
Representative Les Gara
Representative Mary Kapsner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 154
"An Act relating to admission to and advancement in public
schools of children under school age; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 165
"An Act relating to community schools; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 171
"An Act repealing the charter school grant program; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 174
"An Act relating to the state centralized correspondence study
program, to funding for educational programs that occur
primarily outside school facilities, and to the duties of school
boards of borough and city school districts and regional
educational attendance areas; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 154
SHORT TITLE:UNDER SCHOOL AGE STUDENTS
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/05/03 0421 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/05/03 0421 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
03/05/03 0422 (H) FN1: (EED)
03/05/03 0422 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/11/03 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 165
SHORT TITLE:COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/05/03 0437 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/05/03 0437 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
03/05/03 0437 (H) FN1: (EED)
03/05/03 0437 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/11/03 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 171
SHORT TITLE:REPEAL CHARTER SCHOOL GRANTS
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/05/03 0445 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/05/03 0445 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
03/05/03 0445 (H) FN1: (EED)
03/05/03 0445 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/11/03 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 174
SHORT TITLE: CORRESPONDENCE STUDY
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/05/03 0449 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/05/03 0449 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
03/05/03 0449 (H) FN1: (EED)
03/05/03 0449 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/10/03 0496 (H) FN2: (EED)
03/11/03 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
EDDY JEANS, Manager
School Finance and Facilities Section
Education support Services
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 154, HB 165, HB 171, and HB
174 responded to questions from the committee.
KEVIN SWEENEY, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 154 and responded to
questions from the committee.
JOYCE KITKA
Alaska Association for Community Education
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 165 and
answered questions from the committee.
CONNIE MUNROE
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 165 and
answered questions from the committee.
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 165.
REBECCA REICHLIN, President
Alaska Association for Community Education
Anchorage School District Coordinator
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in opposition
to the repeal of the community schools grant program in HB 165.
PETER MACKSEY, Coordinator of Community Schools
Inlet View Elementary School
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in opposition
to HB 165.
BLYTHE CAMPBELL, Chair
Anchorage Community Education Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in opposition
to HB 165.
LARRY WIGET, Executive Director
Public Affairs Division
Anchorage School District
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in opposition
to HB 165.
BARBARA HAYR, Coordinator
Bear Valley Elementary School
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in opposition
to HB 165.
JULIE WILD-CURRY, Community After School Program Director
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in opposition
to HB 165 and answered questions from the committee.
ROSE MARY REEDER
Kenai Peninsula School District
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in opposition
to HB 165.
DEANNA PATZ
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 174.
HAYLIE RUDDELL
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in opposition
to HB 174 and answered questions from the committee.
JOHN PADEN, Counselor
Alyeska Central School;
Representative, Alyeska Central School Association
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 174.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-9, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR CARL GATTO called the House Special Committee on Education
meeting to order at 11:00 a.m. Representatives Gatto, Seaton,
Wilson, Wolf, and Coghill were present at the call to order.
Representatives Kapsner and Gara arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 154-UNDER SCHOOL AGE STUDENTS
CHAIR GATTO announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 154, "An Act relating to admission to and
advancement in public schools of children under school age; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 0365
EDDY JEANS, Manager, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Education Support Services, Department of Education and Early
Development, testified in favor of HB 154 and provided
background information about the bill. He said under AS
14.03.080(c), a school district may enroll a child under school
age if the child meets the mental, physical, and emotional
capacity to perform satisfactorily within the educational
program being offered. But the "education program" is not
defined anywhere, so it has very broad meaning, and the
department has found that over the years a number of school
districts have developed what some call a two-year kindergarten
program.
Number 0449
MR. JEANS said the foundation funding formula does not provide
for preschool programs. This statute's purpose is to allow
those students that are under school age, but ready to begin
kindergarten at four years old, to enroll early. A problem
occurred when the practice of allowing [all] four-year-olds
blanketed across some communities to enroll in public school to
generate an additional year's funding by implementing a two-year
kindergarten program. He pointed out that under this section of
law it provides for a child under school age to be admitted into
the public schools in the school district of which the child is
a resident, at the discretion of the governing body. The
department has taken the position that it means only school
districts in which these children reside can enroll these
children under age. In other words, the statewide
correspondence programs that many school districts offer right
now are not allowed, under the department's interpretation, to
enroll these four-year-olds early. Mr. Jeans told the committee
the reason the department interprets the statute that way is due
to the fact that there is another provision under subsection (e)
that says a child under school age shall be admitted to the
school in the district in which the child is a resident if
immediately before the child became a resident of the district
the child was legally enrolled in a public school of another
district or state.
Number 0615
MR. JEANS gave an example where a parent wants to enroll his/her
four-year-old in the Juneau School District and is told the
child is not ready. So the parent could enroll the child in a
statewide correspondence program, then withdraw the child from
the program, and then the Juneau School District would be
required to accept that child early. Mr. Jeans said the
department believes this provision was intended to allow for
that exceptional child to enroll in the community school in
which the child resides. That is the way the department would
intend to enforce this statute if this provision is passed.
Number 0664
MR. JEANS pointed out that the fiscal note provided shows
savings to the state foundation program would be approximately
$3.9 million. He told the committee there is a chart showing
the savings by school district.
Number 0715
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked if there have been any studies done to
see how many four-year-olds will be left without any affordable
preschooling.
MR. JEANS responded that his office has not researched that
question.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA told the committee that is information he
would like to have before considering the bill.
CHAIR GATTO asked if Representative Gara wants to know the
impact on these children.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA responded that is correct. He said if there
are cuts, he would like to know what the impact is on the
children who are being cut. He said he is in favor of
efficiencies without harming children's educational prospects.
Number 0786
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if a parent whose income is above
the income eligibility standard may buy into the Head Start
Program and thereby, provide for participation in a preschool
program like Head Start.
MR. JEANS replied that he does not know if families can buy into
the Head Start Program. He told the committee the purpose of
this bill is to clarify the language in this statute that this
not intended to implement a two-year kindergarten program across
the state. He said some school districts, not all districts,
are enrolling four-year-olds as a normal practice. The
department believes that if some districts are allowed to enroll
four-year-olds as a normal practice in the foundation program,
then the department needs to allow all districts to do that.
The department's estimated cost in funding a two-year
kindergarten program through the foundation program is
approximately $60 million.
MR. JEANS pointed out that the other piece of this equations is
that once the state funds children under the foundation program,
those students are then eligible for space in facilities under
the state's space guidelines for school construction. So there
will also be an increase in the need to build larger facilities
in communities.
Number 0929
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL clarified that Head Start is a totally
different program and not included in the school funding
formula.
MR. JEANS replied that he is correct. He said that some Head
Start programs are housed in school facilities around the state.
Number 0951
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER told the committee one portion of the
Kuspuk School District, which she represents, allows four-year-
olds to be enrolled in school. Part of the reason the district
does this is due to the fact that only part of their district
has access to the Head Start Program. She told the committee
that she found, in talking with the superintendent of schools,
that many of the students do not come to kindergarten ready to
learn. They come with gaps in oral language and lacking
exposure to print-rich environments. Representative Kapsner
said that most of the students, with the exception of the IEP
[individual education program] students, are not funded through
the foundation formula. She asked Mr. Jeans what his reaction
would be to this information.
MR. JEANS replied that the department understands the problems
school districts are having with children ready to learn in
kindergarten. He said what this bill addresses is the policy
question of whether the legislature wants to fund four-year-olds
in the kindergarten-through-12th-grade [K-12] program. It is a
very straightforward question. If the department allows some
districts to do it, then the department must allow all districts
to do it. He said this would not have been an issue ten years
ago, when most school districts were operating close to or at
capacity. But with the flat enrollment in the last couple of
years and declining enrollment in prior years, he said the
districts have space available. Mr. Jeans told the committee
that the department is asking for clarity on whether or not the
legislature wants to fund four-year-olds through the foundation
program.
Number 1085
CHAIR GATTO commented that there is a certain quantity of funds
devoted to K-12 education, and whatever the legislature does
comes out of that funding. If funds are taken from one area,
they are removed from somewhere else. He said wants and needs
are very different things and something the committee should
keep in mind. He pointed out that the amount of money available
to education is not growing. He said the state is looking for
efficiencies somewhere. The idea of starting kids early would
be wonderful, if the state could afford it. Chair Gatto
commented that he believes this is a "want," but not a "need."
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON noted that the chart shows one school
district is getting $871,000 more because of an extra
kindergarten program. She pointed out that the schools in her
district are not receiving this extra money. She said she
agrees with Chair Gatto that this is a "want" and not a "need."
She asked Mr. Jeans if this is just a way for the schools to get
more money.
MR. JEANS responded that he believes all school districts would
tell the committee that they have the need to educate children
at four years old, but, as pointed out, there are some districts
that are simply enrolling all four-year-olds and claiming them
for funding. This legislation is not intended to block the
exceptional child from getting into school early. The
department's purpose is to make it clear in statute that this is
intended for exceptional children, and not a plan to enroll all
four-year-olds, as is being done in some districts.
Number 1283
CHAIR GATTO asked, if the funding were eliminated and there were
four-year-olds a district wanted to enroll in this program,
whether it would be possible to do that without state funding.
MR. JEANS reiterated that the exceptional child should be able
to enroll and should be allowed state funding. He said the
department's expectation would be that the child would be
advanced to the next grade level in the subsequent year, not
remain in kindergarten for two years. He pointed out that there
are not two years of first grade or second grade. Children
advance and children are held back. That is the norm, not an
entire population for one additional year for funding purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF shared his personal experience concerning
early enrollment, saying that he and his wife could have
enrolled their daughter at four years old, but his wife did not
think it was appropriate. They put her in an early development
school on the Kenai Peninsula and paid for it themselves. He
said he will support this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked where four-years-olds [those who do
not have access to Head Start] will go if the rug is pulled out
from underneath them. What will the department do to help them?
He said that studies show that four-year-olds benefit from a
learning environment. It might be cheaper to enroll kids in
Head Start, but the state only funds roughly 20 percent of Head
Start needs. Representative Gara asked how the state is making
education better rather than worse with this bill.
Number 1529
KEVIN SWEENEY, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Education and Early Development, responded that
the commissioner would agree that education would be better if
the legislature funded all four-year-olds. In some districts it
has shown that bringing kids in at four years old has helped
them progress. However, the fundamental question becomes
whether the state feels that is something that should be funded
through the foundation formula. Maybe something the committee
should discuss is funding this program outside of the foundation
formula. He said the question remains, now that some districts
are doing this through the foundation program, of whether the
legislature is willing to accept the increased cost in offering
this to all four-year-olds in all districts.
MR. SWEENEY repeated Mr. Jeans' statement that if the state is
going to pay for this through the foundation program, the
legislature is looking at an additional cost of $50 million to
$60 million. If the state has to use the same amount of money,
the only way to do that would be to reduce funding to other
students. That is the question.
Number 1605
REPRESENTATIVE GARA responded that he is talking about $3.9
million for this coming year. He asked if Mr. Sweeney thought
it would be the responsible thing to provide educational or Head
Start services for the children already enrolled, rather than
going forward with a proposal that just leaves these children
with no educational services. He asked if this should not be a
comprehensive approach.
Number 1634
MR. SWEENEY replied that it probably is something the state
needs to look at with respect to the four-year-olds who will no
longer be enrolled in this program. He said this issue should
be dealt with separately. As more parents realize that this
program is possible, they will be asking their school boards and
school districts to provide the same program to their children.
With space available in some schools, the districts will be
taking advantage of it, and [the state is] looking at a large
amount of money. He told the committee the department believes
this section of the statute was never intended to be funded in
this way. He said the committee needs to decide whether they
want to expand the formula to include four-year-olds. Mr.
Sweeney said he could look at ways to help four-year-olds who
will no longer be able to receive the educational opportunities
available to them through the state.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO commented that school districts will look
at this as a golden opportunity to increase funding. He said
these are very young children and the parents bear some
responsibility to work with the children before they get to
kindergarten. He said he does not see anyone who can work with
children better than the children's parents. In a way, he
believes that it probably is not a good idea to have children
enroll in two years of kindergarten.
Number 1767
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if all these children are four-year-
olds or if some of them are three-year-olds.
MR. SWEENEY replied that he does not know if a district could
then start a three-year program and is unaware of that being
prohibited.
MR. JEANS replied that there are some three-year-olds included
in those numbers, but for the most part it is four-year-olds.
He pointed out that the state does provide funding for three-
and four-year-olds that are special education students on IEP
[individual education plan]. The department allows districts to
claim those students once the student is identified for state
funding. This is a block of four-year-olds getting a 13th
[14th] year of funding in the public school system.
MR. SWEENEY told the committee that the department does not
believe what the districts are doing is necessarily a bad thing.
Their efforts are good. He said the administration's intention
in putting this bill forward is not to prevent school districts
from helping their students to the best of their ability, but to
clarify this section of statute, because [the department] thinks
what is occurring was never the intent of the statute.
Number 1902
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER told the committee that she believes
schools should be doing more at a younger age. As a working
mother with a four-year-old son, she has found, for instance,
that in Bethel there is a preschool called the Little Red School
House. It is expensive and requires parents to do a lot of
volunteer work there to have a child attend. Her son could go
only six hours per week and he was begging to go; he wanted to
learn. She said she believes the focus should be to cultivate
ways to teach kids while they are still eager to learn. After a
certain age they are not eager to learn. The state has put in a
lot of regulations for childcare providers, and it has actually
decreased the availability of day care providers by 30 percent
across the state. She expressed concern about hamstringing
parents. Representative Kapsner said she reads to her son every
night and she believes in teaching him his numbers and alphabet.
She said she does not see anything wrong with spending the $50
million or $60 million to get kids who are eager to learn in
school and in a learning environment.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked Representative Kapsner where she
would want to see the $60 million come from.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER replied that she does not adhere to the
idea that the money needs to be taken from somewhere else. She
said she believes [the legislature] should increase education
funding and look for other revenue sources.
Number 2060
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said no one seems concerned about the $3.9
million for four-year-olds, and asked where the great concern is
coming from. He pointed out that this statute has been in
effect since 1987.
MR. JEANS responded that he gets telephone calls from school
districts all the time asking specifically about this issue.
The districts want to know if they can enroll four-year-olds and
receive state funding. He told the committee his answer to them
is that the state does not fund preschools. Mr. Jeans said the
superintendents have an association and they talk with each
other about these kinds of issues. He told the committee there
are already a couple of school districts that were not on this
list a year ago. This issue really came to the department's
attention when the department asked for student-level data where
the department takes a look at whether a child is eligible to
receive state funding based on his/her school age. It is a
question of equity. If the state allows some districts to do
it, then all districts should be allowed to do it.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied that according to the chart, most
school districts are already doing this, so in 15 years all the
department has come up with is $3.9 million worth of programs
under this provision, and more than half the school districts
are already doing this. Representative Gara asked where the
fear is coming from that it is going to be $60 million next
year.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO announced that HB 154 will be held and
heard again at the next meeting of the House Special Committee
on Education.
HB 165-COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
Number 2218
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 165, "An Act relating to community
schools; and providing for an effective date."
Number 2251
EDDY JEANS, Manager, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Education Support Services, Department of Education and Early
Development, testified on HB 165, which would repeal the
community schools program outlined in Alaska Statute 14.36.010
through 14.36.070. Mr. Jeans told the committee the community
schools statute was adopted in 1975, and the purpose and intent
of this program was to assist local school districts in
establishing community schools programs and to provide funds to
assist the local communities in the initial development,
implementation, and operations of community schools programs.
Mr. Jeans asked the committee to review the fiscal note, which
shows a $500,000 reduction; however, the schedule attached to
that fiscal note demonstrates that if the community schools
program were fully funded at the statutory entitlement, it would
generate almost $3.3 million. He told the committee the program
has been substantially underfunded for a number of years. He
said the $500,000 represents 12 percent of the school districts'
entitlements, and the department believes, based on the intent
language in the statute, that this program has fulfilled its
intended purpose. The Department of Education and Early
Development and the administration recommend that this statute
be repealed.
Number 2336
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said that for the record the repealing of
this statute does not eliminate community schools. It just
eliminates a portion of the funding that may be substantial to
some communities because they have become accustomed to state
funding.
Number 2370
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked Mr. Jeans to confirm that repealing
this statute would in no way deter communities from having
community schools programs. For example, he asked if Kenai
community schools could charge a user fee to fill the gap in
loss of state funding.
MR. JEANS responded that Representative Wolf is correct. He
told the committee that districts have put in place user fees to
keep those schools open for after-school and weekend activities.
He restated that the language could be repealed and community
schools programs could continue with user-fee funding.
Number 2460
JOYCE KITKA, Alaska Association for Community Education,
testified in opposition to HB 165. She told the committee she
has been in the field for 23 years and agrees with Mr. Jeans
that community schools has been underfunded for many years. She
said the law was passed in 1978, and the initial funding for the
community schools program was obtained in 1980. Ms. Kitka said
that even though community schools [programs are] underfunded,
services have still been provided and there has been fiscal
responsibility for these years.
Number 2542
MS. KITKA challenged the committee to find a program for
$500,000 that logs in the number of hours this does, and 20,000
programs that serve children and adults. She told the committee
community schools are responsible for many programs that help
kids. They are ready to help the education system in meeting
the federal No Child Left Behind Act.
MS. KITKA said community schools have already implemented fees
to help administer the programs. She is concerned that
increasing the fees too much will mean that the Head Start
parents or the low-income parents will not be able to stay
involved in programs because of the cost.
Number 2624
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked what portion of community schools
funding goes to children's programs and what portion to
individuals over 18 years old.
MS. KITKA responded that most of the adult programs actually
subsidize the children's programs. She said locally, adult
classes are a 60/40 split, with the instructor getting 60
percent, and community schools getting 40 percent. With that 40
percent she told the committee she opens the gym for
approximately 150 kids, and is able to provide scholarships for
kids to go to summer school. She told the committee she could
not speak to the statewide programs.
Number 2658
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked how Ms. Kitka would propose the
legislature find the dollars to fund community schools. He said
the legislature has one source of funding. He asked if the
community schools program is a nonprofit organization. He said
he does not question the value of community schools, but wonders
if there is a possibility to reach out to the corporate world.
MS. KITKA responded that she believes community schools have
reached out to the corporate world. She told the committee the
program has been creative in ways of funding programs. She said
community schools do have a lot of business partnerships and she
is always amazed at the return from the community. She said her
personal preference for funding community schools would be to
take her permanent fund dividend.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO praised Ms. Kitka for her dedicated work
and told her how much it is appreciated.
Number 2815
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER praised Ms. Kitka as well. She said she
believes Ms. Kitka was asked an unfair question because she did
not run for office; that is what the members were elected to do.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked Chair Gatto how this is not the
elimination of the community schools program. She said that
since the program costs $500,000 and [the bill is] eliminating
$500,000, that would eliminate the funding for the program. She
asked how this is only cutting a portion.
MR. JEANS responded that the bill eliminates the program from
the statutes. He said all communities are running some form of
community schools program. He told the committee he will
provide the committee with a list of the total amount of money
that is being spent on community schools; then the committee
could look at that compared with what the state is contributing
at the $500,000 level. Mr. Jeans asked the committee to look at
the statute and note that the intent of the statute was to
assist communities in the establishment of the community school
programs. Nowhere in the statute is there an intention to
support on an ongoing basis community schools programs, and that
is why the department and the administration have come to the
legislature with this proposal. Community schools programs are
operating across the state through user fees, small subsidies
from the state, and private corporations.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO pointed out that the state does do a lot
for community schools by providing the schools, heat, lights,
and custodians, just not the funds. He said he believes the
state is providing a good service by allowing communities to use
the schools.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Mr. Jeans what the impact will be on
community schools if the $500,000 is cut.
Number 2938
MR. JEANS responded that when he provides the committee with the
schedule that shows how much money the districts are spending on
community schools on a statewide basis, the members will be able
to determine that. He told the members that the department has
not done a formal study on the impact on each community if the
state removes the $500,000 contribution, nor does the department
intend to do that. Mr. Jeans said he thinks when the members
look at the $500,000 in relationship to the total amount being
spent on community schools, he believes the members will be able
to draw their own conclusions.
TAPE 03-9, SIDE B
Number 2984
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON told the committee that he spoke with the
superintendent of schools in the Kenai Peninsula School District
and he was told that Kenai is the fourth-highest-funded school
district. He said his district gets approximately $32,000 per
year. The total the district is spending on community schools
is $220,000 per year. Eliminating that $32,000 would require
raising some fees, changing some programs, but it would not
eliminate the community schools program.
Number 2920
CONNIE MUNROE told the committee she is a volunteer for
community schools, retired from the Department of Education and
Early Development, where she was in charge of this program, and
received her master's degree in adult community education
through APU [Alaska Pacific University]. Ms. Munroe said that
while she is from Juneau, she is currently living in Healy, and
it is her first experience in living in Interior Alaska where
there is a very small school.
Number 2871
MS. MUNROE said that every single school district in the state
applies for these funds to allow and encourage it to provide
lifelong learning. Every dollar is spent providing the program
to the communities. She said if the legislature eliminates that
funding, then the communities will not pay someone to do it. It
is really difficult to get someone to come into the school and
open it, because that individual must be bonded. That is one
issue. Another one is that the Department of Education and
Early Development has made a very strong effort to reduce the
paperwork to apply for this grant. She told the committee she
has monitored and reviewed this program across the state.
MS. MUNROE spoke to the question of eliminating adult education
and GED [general equivalency diploma] testing. She said it is
usually the principal of the school who volunteers to be the GED
proctor. She said that the librarian volunteers to keep the
library open two evenings per week or on Saturdays for people to
come into the school and study. Ms. Munroe said she will be
doing some testing for Nenana, Anderson, Healy, and the park
service area. She said the adult education program will be
using community schools and does not have to pay a fee. In
urban areas the fees are a problem. There is no way to persuade
someone to volunteer to go to the corporate entities to get
funds. It takes a lot of effort to get funds donated.
Number 2746
MS. MUNROE also spoke to the issue of a time of need for a
homeland security type of public forum. One of the questions in
Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau was where the public would go
if there were a war disaster in Alaska and there were no
utilities. The response was that the community would go to the
schools. The question was who would monitor the schools and who
would keep people busy if they were stuck in the schools two or
three days, or even a week. Every community school will
probably have someone who could take care of them and keep the
kids busy. She told the committee she feels community education
and community schools are essential.
Number 2692
CHAIR GATTO commented that because of his work with the fire
department, he knows that the schools are designed and built to
withstand earthquakes and other disasters. Schools and fire
departments will still be standing when other buildings have
fallen. The schools are designed to be there for the
communities in the event of a disaster, and that is part of the
reason why the state spends so much money in building them. He
pointed out that in the Miller's Reach fire it was Houston High
School that was the place where all of the incident command took
place. Chair Gatto agreed with Ms. Munroe that the schools are
there for the community.
Number 2637
MS. MUNROE told the committee that user fees are not charged for
activities that do not charge participants. She said that the
athletic programs charge, but for small children to do
gymnastics or reading, there is no charge. Other groups and
activities that are not charged for use of the building are
adult basic education, private and nonprofit organizations,
cooperative extension programs, or church groups that do
activities. She added that if a fee is charged, the funds are
for materials or support of a private or nonprofit organization
that does not have money.
Number 2592
REPRESENTATIVE GARA thanked Ms. Munroe and Ms. Kitka for
providing good arguments in opposition to cutting funds for
adult services.
Number 2563
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards, testified in opposition to HB 165 because he sees the
importance of community schools. He told the committee
community schools is just a small piece of the peripheral issues
the state is dealing with in education. He said he is aware of
the fact that all the funds come out of one source and whatever
is reduced eventually is going to be addressed with the
foundation formula. He said the association is supportive of
community schools because the community is central to the
schools and whatever will engage communities is what the
association wants to encourage. In response to previous
inquiries concerning how community schools will be funded if
these dollars are reduced, he said he believe they will be
picked up in other ways. The question is how far can you
stretch that educational dollar. This is one of those
peripheral issues and the state will be dealing with many more
in the future.
Number 2515
CHAIR GATTO pointed out that the House Special Committee on
Education is not the place to deal with how to enhance revenues.
He commented that everyone wishes there were more funds, but the
committee is faced with the task of dealing with the governor's
bills to do something about the fiscal problems. Education is a
huge portion of the state's budget. Chair Gatto reiterated that
the legislature is just trying to deal with the governor's
requests.
Number 2426
REBECCA REICHLIN, President, Alaska Association for Community
Education; Anchorage School District Coordinator, testified via
teleconference in opposition to the repeal of the community
schools grant program in HB 165. She urged the committee to
support the current level of funding at $500,000. She said for
the past 27 years community education has extended its reach to
every school district in the state. She said that while on the
surface it may seem that community schools' primary purpose is
to provide access to school facilities beyond the school day,
community schools' goals are far more extensive. She said they
provide programming for extended learning for all ages,
community development and a vehicle for community engagement,
enrichment opportunities for school-age children, interagency
cooperation, and opportunities for youth beyond the regular K-12
programs. In addition, community schools are providing more
programs to meet the benchmarks and standards that the
legislature has established in the requirements of the No Child
Left Behind Act.
Number 2351
MS. REICHLIN explained that lifelong learning has many benefits.
Research shows that a family of learners produces children who
love to learn. Community involvement produces citizens who care
and are active contributing members of society. Community
schools are in the business of educating and providing services.
The funding has been cut to $500,000, but the money has been
well spent. In the 2002 school year, over 20,150 programs were
held, producing over 342,000 contact hours; over 20,000
volunteers contributed over 211,000 volunteer hours to the
benefit of over 464,000 youths and 390,000 adults all engaged in
learning. Alaska Gateway School District offered technology,
tutoring, and GED and college preparation work for $3,683 in
grant funding. In order to provide these services, the district
leverages the current state funding and matched it with in-kind
donations, and business and nonprofit collaborations and
partnerships. She asked members to please not dismantle these
successful and far-reaching programs. She urged the committee
to utilize community schools to achieve the state's goals; to
provide safe, supervised places for Alaska's youth to be
involved, and to involve local citizens and empower them for the
good of Alaska's communities.
Number 2231
PETER MACKSEY, Community Schools Coordinator, Inlet View
Elementary School, testified via teleconference in opposition to
HB 165. He pointed out that there are approximately 600,000
residents in Alaska and that the legislature gives community
schools approximately $500,000, which works out to be about 84
cents per person. Anchorage gets between about $145,000 and
$150,000, which works out to be about 53 cents per person. He
said he knows Rebecca [Reichlin] told the committee about the
quality and quantity of volunteer hours. He indicated that
Anchorage already matches hour per hour and beyond what the
legislature is doing for community schools.
MR. MACKSEY responded to Representative Gara's question about
adult education. He said the evening adult-education classes
are subsidizing all the children's classes that community
schools are doing. He said community schools give back $65,000
to the Anchorage School District out of the money raised. At
Inlet View Elementary School, the community schools program
subsidizes two other schools' after-school children's programs
that are provided free of charge. He told the committee they
are getting the most bang for their buck out of this money. In
some places outside of Anchorage, this money is all that is
keeping an after-school program or gym open for kids to play
basketball. He told the committee he reads the statute to say
"operate" schools and not to say anything about stopping or just
getting them started.
Number 2105
BLYTHE CAMPBELL, Chair, Anchorage Community Education
Association, testified via teleconference in opposition to HB
165. She told the committee she has been involved with the
community schools program since 1985. She said that HB 165
repeals the statute enabling state funding and pointed out that
this funding is not a mandate in the district. She said
eliminating this statute is not eliminating an obligation; there
is no obligation. She said what it does do for her and the
other 20,000 volunteers is to say that the legislature does not
value this program and the state does not value this program.
She said the association does not think the program needs to be
described in the state statute. She said she does not think
this bill is necessary. The budget process is totally separate
from this bill. All this bill does is repeal language that
community schools exist and she said she does not understand the
reason for that.
Number 2037
LARRY WIGET, Executive Director, Public Affairs Division,
Anchorage School District, testified via teleconference in
opposition to HB 165. He said the Anchorage School District
does not support eliminating community schools from statute or
eliminating community schools funding as proposed in the
governor's budget. For 27 years the Municipality of Anchorage
has been strengthened through strong community outreach by
community schools. The Anchorage School District has
appreciated stronger support by community members in the
educational efforts, programs, and services that are committed
to providing for students, parents, and staff. Mr. Wiget told
the committee the district is continually striving through
community schools programs to more closely align its community
schools offerings to assist the students in meeting the
requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act and the benchmark
exams. The Anchorage School District does not support
eliminating community schools from statute or eliminating its
funding.
Number 1968
BARBARA HAYR, Coordinator, Bear Valley Elementary School,
testified via teleconference as a long-time supporter of
community schools. She shared with the committee that a
community schools program she works with lost its funding a
couple of years ago and they hung on. She said the funding was
restored this year, but if it had not been, there would be no
community schools program. She told the committee that with the
funding they have instituted tutoring programs in reading and
math, and have addressed the need for a school-age childcare
program. She said Bear Valley has between 40 to 50 families who
need childcare, and the community schools program is prepared to
institute a before- and after-school childcare program next
year. Community schools has been asked to help meet the needs
of meeting the benchmark standards and No Child Left Behind;
that includes both children and parents, and is for the whole
group. State funding does not fund the program entirely, but it
allows her, as a coordinator, to work on other fundraising
efforts to establish partnerships and to seek out grants and
donations from private businesses. She asked the committee to
keep community schools in the statutes and to continue funding
the programs.
CHAIR GATTO thanked Ms. Hayr and told her that all their efforts
are appreciated.
Number 1855
JULIE WILD-CURRY, Community After School Program Director,
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District, testified via
teleconference in opposition to HB 165. She told the committee
that many of the points she would make have been touched on by
previous speakers. She told the committee that the school
district has been successful in leveraging "one to nine" funding
in terms of bringing other funding in. They charge user fees,
serve both students and adults, and work to assist in meeting
benchmarks. Community schools help families in learning
different ways to take tests, to read, and to study. Community
schools also provides enrichment and a safe place for kids to be
both after school and in the evening hours.
MS. WILD-CURRY told the committee if this funding were to go
away along with the law, this program would not be available
with the school district. There would not be a staffing
position that coordinates all of these different events that
take place in Fairbanks. Over 9,000 people were served in this
program last year. For a community the size of Fairbanks, that
is a great number of people. The one special program that is
offered in the community schools program in Fairbanks that is
offered nowhere else in the state is a driver education program
for teen drivers. Other communities are looking at this model.
This is a class that used to be in the day program, but when it
was eliminated from state funding, it was taken over in
community schools because it was a definite need in the
community with the driving conditions here. Community schools
continues to operate that program and fees are charged for it;
however, this grant helps subsidize those fees, and if the
funding were not provided, the program would have the charge
substantially higher rates. She urged the committee not to pass
this bill.
Number 1747
CHAIR GATTO asked if the program would disappear if community
schools lost this funding.
MS. WILD-CURRY replied that it would likely disappear.
Community schools also provide an opportunities for community
members, agencies, and businesses to partner to see how they can
offer what is needed in the community. Through all of these
processes, community schools have lost a great deal of funding,
and each time they community has helped fund a larger portion of
it by increased user fees, donation, or fundraisers. She
questioned how far community schools can go in asking for this
leverage for these programs.
CHAIR GATTO replied that if the legislature makes this
reduction, it will be the last one made.
Number 1654
ROSE MARY REEDER, Kenai Peninsula School District, testified via
teleconference in opposition to HB 165. She told members that
she supports the current level of funding. At this time, the
Kenai Peninsula School District gets a little over $32,000 per
year, which is spread over three sites, Soldotna, Homer, and
Seward. She said they consider this basic funding, charge user
fees, apply for grants, and do fundraising activities. This
small amount of money the Peninsula gets is a representation of
[the legislature's] support [for the program]. When applying
for grants or asking corporations for donations it is important
to show some kind of local and state support, and this funding
has been very helpful.
MS. REEDER said all three sites have no overhead. [The program]
works out of the schools and other municipal buildings, and that
saves a lot of money. She said [the community schools program]
usually has one staff person, some short-time people, and lots
of volunteers. There is an effort to keep the school buildings
open in the evenings, the weekends, and in the summertime, when
those buildings would sit vacant. She told the committee Ms.
Kitka's comment about the adult programs funding kids programs
is very true in their case. For example, she said there are
basketball programs two nights per week in the middle school for
gentlemen; the $4 that each one pays provides for community
school activities for the Soldotna Middle School PE [physical
education] program during the day and community schools
activities for kids on the weekends.
Number 1564
MS. REEDER said that [the community schools program] reaches out
to the community, and applies for grants. She said she has
written four small grant proposals in the last month that are
pending for summer programs. She said they try to keep the
school open as often as possible, when they would normally be
closed, and in many instances that is up to 18 hours per day
[counting the school day]. Ms. Reeder said that they have an
excellent working relationship with the school district and
combine resources, which provides leverage to do so much more
than would normally be possible. The community schools program
provides cultural, educational, and recreational opportunities
for all ages. Classes are even offered on the legislative
process, which is very well attended.
MS. REEDER, in response to the question of impacts of the
reduction of funds in the Soldotna community schools program,
said their program has already done all those things recommended
to raised funds. Some of the changes they have made to adjust
to the reduction in funding are raising fees, closing the school
one night per week, and eliminating programs. One of those
programs was a craft program for families; they used to do three
per year and now do two because the money for supplies is short.
Those are the kind of impacts seen as the funds diminish. She
told the committee that [the community schools program] has
appreciated the legislature's support in the past and hopes it
can count on it in the future.
Number 1468
CHAIR GATTO announced that that concludes the testimony for
HB 165.
The committee took an at-ease from 12:17 p.m. to 12:25 p.m.
Number 1419
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Mr. Jeans if, by repealing the
statute on HB 165, communities lose some authority for facility
use, insurance, or any other aspect of community schools
activities. He asked about the alternative of not funding the
grants, but leaving community schools in statute.
Number 1350
MR. JEANS replied as that as far as he knows, there is no loss
in ability to use those facilities for community school
purposes. The community schools program will continue to be
operated by the school districts for after-school activities.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if there is somewhere else in
statute that authorizes that use or if this is the only
statutory authority for community schools.
MR. JEANS responded that this part of the statute authorizes use
for this specific purpose, but there is not a statute that says
a school district cannot use its facilities for after-school
activities. He said there is no prohibition for this use in
statutes. [HB 165 was held over.]
HB 171-REPEAL CHARTER SCHOOL GRANTS
Number 1335
CHAIR GATTO announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 171, "An Act repealing the charter school grant
program; and providing for an effective date."
Number 1323
EDDY JEANS, Manager, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Education Support Services, Department of Education and Early
Development, testified in support of HB 171 and provided
background information about the bill. He told the committee HB
171 would repeal the state grant program that was implemented in
fiscal year 2002 (FY 02) that allocates $500 per ADM [average
daily membership] to each new charter school. The funding was
intended to supplement the startup grants for charter schools.
The state Department of Education and Early Development is
working very closely with the U.S. Department of Education to
increase the level of startup grants through the federal
program, thereby, eliminating the need for the state
supplemental program.
MR. JEANS said the state would allocate to new charter schools
$150,000 per year for the first three years, and $45,000 in the
fourth year, for a total of $495,000 in startup funds through
the federal program. He pointed out that this legislation would
not take effect until July 1, 2004. The reason is that in the
current year's budget there is a request for $158,400. That is
the additional money that is due to the existing charter schools
under this state program; [the department is] recommending that
be funded in the current year's budget, and that this section of
statute be repealed in the subsequent year. The state would
then rely 100 percent on the federal grants. Mr. Jeans pointed
out that the startup grants for the charter schools that exist
right now range from approximately $160,000 to $180,000, and
that is why there was a need for additional funding under the
state program.
Number 1198
CHAIR GATTO asked, if a charter school is in the process of
forming right now and its goal is to get started prior to the
deadline and get full funding, whether it will be able to do
that before the effective date without finding some obstacles.
Number 1157
MR. JEANS replied that the Department of Education and Early
Development currently has four new charter schools on its agenda
for the state school board next week. It is the department's
intent that those new schools would be funded under the new
federal program, not under the current state program.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked what the difference is in funding
between the new program, using federal dollars, versus the old
program, using state general fund dollars.
MR. JEANS replied that under the old program the state allocated
$160,000 to $180,000 of federal startup grants to charter
schools. In addition, the charter schools could apply for a
state startup grant that was equal to $500 per student.
Obviously, the state allocation varied, depending on the number
of students enrolled. What these charter schools were allocated
under the federal program was reviewed, and the allocation under
the state program was added. It was found that the largest
single allocation was to the Family Partnership Charter School
out of Anchorage, which generated between the two programs
$478,000. What the department is suggesting is that with the
new authorization under the federal program, the department
would be able to fund any new charter school at $495,000 in
startup funds.
Number 1072
CHAIR GATTO announced as a point of information for the 30
individuals waiting on line to testify on HB 174 that the time
is already 12:30 p.m. and the meeting will end at 1 p.m. He
said everyone is welcome to continue to listen and to give
testimony; however, it is unlikely that everyone will have time
to testify today.
Number 1019
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Mr. Jeans about just amending the law
to say that if adequate federal funding is available, then the
$500 state appropriation will not be available, but leaving the
law on the books for those schools and instances where federal
funding will not be adequate. He asked why the legislature
should repeal the law.
MR. JEANS replied that the law was adopted to supplement the
level the state was funding school districts under the federal
program. The department has been working very closely with the
Director of Charter Schools at the U.S. Department of Education,
Dean Kern, and has forwarded this proposal to him. Mr. Kerns
supports [the department's] proposal at the level of $150,000
per year for the first three years, plus $45,000 in the fourth
year, and with that support the administration does not see the
need to leave the state statute on the books.
Number 0921
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he is concerned that while startup
money will be available for the next few years, there is no
guarantee it will be available in the future. He asked Mr.
Jeans: Why not leave this program in place that allows state
money to be used in those instances when there is not enough
federal money? Why not come up with a state formula that allows
state money to kick in when there is not enough federal funding
available?
MR. JEANS responded that the legislature could amend the statute
to say that if a charter school did not receive $450,000 in
federal funds that the school would qualify for an additional
state grant. That is an option the legislature will have to
decide. The Department of Education and Early Development
believes that through the federal program there will be more
resources available for startup funds than are currently
available under the old federal program in combination with the
state's startup grants.
Number 0820
CHAIR GATTO announced that testimony is closed on HB 171. [HB
171 was held over.]
HB 174- CORRESPONDENCE STUDY
CHAIR GATTO announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 174, "An Act relating to the state centralized
correspondence study program, to funding for educational
programs that occur primarily outside school facilities, and to
the duties of school boards of borough and city school districts
and regional educational attendance areas; and providing for an
effective date."
Number 0727
EDDY JEANS, Manager, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Education Support Services, Department of Education and Early
Development, testified in support of HB 174. He told the
committee Alyeska Central School (ACS) was once the state's only
correspondence program offering educational services to students
statewide. The school began operation in 1939, offering
programs to students who lived in remote areas of the state with
no local schools.
MR. JEANS explained that currently there are 12 school districts
offering statewide correspondence programs to Alaska school age
residents. The district-operated statewide correspondence
programs have been in operation since approximately 1997 and
offer a variety of operational delivery methods. Education
delivery models include U.S. Postal Service, Internet, and
family-developed programs with support from district staff.
Eliminating ACS will be eliminating duplicate services currently
being offered by school districts enrolling students on a
statewide basis.
Number 0662
MR. JEANS told the committee the department has two fiscal
notes. Fiscal note 1 eliminates the ACS budget component within
the Department of Education and Early Development and shows a
reduction of $5.5 million. The second fiscal note shows a
reduction in the foundation-funding program of $1.17 million or
almost $1.2 million. This reflects the elimination of the
summer school funding that ACS currently enjoys.
Number 0555
MR. JEANS told the committee the reason for two fiscal notes is
that in this proposal ACS will no longer exist in the
department's budget, so it is necessary to remove that budget
component.
MR. JEANS addressed the second piece to this, which is allocated
through the foundation-funding program. He said the department
believes the students who are currently served through the
Alyeska Central School will be served through other statewide
education programs, so the only real savings in the foundation
program is that money which is associated with the summer school
program. Currently, Alyeska Central School is the only school
that is eligible to claim summer school funding. That summer
school funding represents about [$1.17 million]. Of the
approximately 1,200 students that the state funds ACS for, 835
of those are enrolled in its regular program.
Number 0436
MR. JEANS told the committee the department has been contacted
by other statewide correspondence programs that have indicated
that if their schools are not providing what ACS is currently
providing, they would be prepared to develop such programs and
offer those services to the students currently enrolled in ACS.
The department will work with those families [whose children
attend ACS] to identify programs that will fit their needs.
MR. JEANS reviewed the bill by section. Section 1 under AS
14.07.020(a)(9) eliminates language that the department offers a
statewide correspondence program. Section 2 under AS
14.14.090(2) amends the duties of a school board and allows for
school districts to enroll students in a statewide
correspondence program. Section 3 under AS 14.14.120(c)
requires an inoperative school district, in other words, a
school district that is getting ready to close, to provide the
families with information on correspondence programs available
to them throughout the state. Section 4 under AS 14.17.300
removes the word ["centralized"] from the funding account. In
this section of statute, central correspondence study referred
to the state-run program, so by eliminating ["centralized"] it
just refers to correspondence programs. Section 5 under AS
14.17.400(b) removes the word ["centralized"] and leaves the
language open to all correspondence programs.
MR. JEANS stated that Section 6 is an important change that he
wants to bring to the committee's attention. It read:
Sec. 14.17.430. State funding for correspondence
study and similar programs. Except as provided in
AS 14.17.400(b), funding for [THE STATE CENTRALIZED
CORRESPONDENCE STUDY PROGRAM OR] a district
correspondence program, including a district that
offers a statewide correspondence study program, or a
study program that occurs primarily outside a school
facility, includes an allocation from the public
school account in an amount calculated by multiplying
the ADM of the correspondence or study program by 80
percent.
MR. JEANS told the committee this section says that if a
correspondence study program in the district or on a statewide
level or if it is a similar type of program, that would mean it
is through [the state's] charter school legislation. The state
does have charter schools that provide educational programs,
mainly in the home. In other words, state-supported
homeschooling will be funded at 80 percent. He said this is
very important because the state does have some charter schools
that offer that type of program, and nowhere in the statute does
the law specify what their funding level will be. This language
brings clarity to that issue.
Number 0067
CHAIR GATTO asked if the funding has always been 80 percent.
MR. JEANS responded that it has been 80 percent all along. The
department's regulatory process has defined correspondence study
programs to include those programs that are offered by school
districts that provide support for home-based programs. What
this does is develop clarity in the statute.
TAPE 03-10, SIDE A
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked Mr. Jeans about a clear distinction
between charter schools and correspondence schools.
MR. JEANS told the committee one example of this is the Family
Partnership Charter School ("Family Partnership") in Anchorage.
It is operated as a charter school under the Anchorage School
District. It is a home-based educational program. Family
Partnership will tell the legislature that it is not a
correspondence program, but a home-support program. What it
does not have that community schools has is a facility, the
staff, and operational and maintenance costs to operate a
facility. So under the foundation program there are two sets of
funding: that set of funding that is provided for the operation
of a facility to staff, maintain, and heat it, and
correspondence funding, which is for all those programs that are
not housed in a facility. What this amendment does is make that
very clear. There are two different adjustments within the
foundation formula.
Number 0151
CHAIR GATTO said that last year the Mat-Su [Matanuska-Susitna]
school board received an application from Horizon Charter
School, which identified itself as a group of homeschoolers who
wanted to be included in this new charter school. He said he
believed the board approved its application after a year, or in
the normal timeframe.
MR. JEANS said the Horizon Charter School is on the agenda for
the state board of education's meeting next week for state
approval. Clarity in this area is very important.
MR. JEANS said under Section 7, AS 14.17.600(a) amends the
foundation account statute, which repeals the section that deals
with ACS, including the provision that allows that program to
count summer school students. Under Section 8, AS
14.30.010(b)(10) amends the compulsory education law to
eliminate ACS and simply refers to a child that is enrolled in a
state correspondence study program. Under Section 9, AS
14.30.350(8) eliminates the reference to the ACS under the
definition of school district. Under Section 10, AS
39.25.110(7) removes ACS teachers from this statute. This
provision currently exempts teachers from the personnel rules
that apply for people that are employed as classified employees.
This is a cleanup in statutes. Under Section 11, AS
39.25.160(e)(7) removes the reference to the Department of
Education and Early Development correspondence teachers. This
statute prohibits these individuals from being in a management
position of a political party. It is statutory cleanup. Under
Section 12 is the effective date.
Number 0359
DEANNA PATZ testified in opposition to HB 174. She addressed
Representative Kapsner's comment about homeschool and
correspondence school and said there is a large difference
between the two. A lot of families homeschool without district
input. She said she would like to reread an item from Governor
Murkowski's letter that was read by Mr. Jeans. In it the
governor says: "However, there are 12 school districts
currently offering statewide correspondence services to Alaska's
school age residents." Ms. Patz said in reality those 12 or
more districts are not correspondence schools in the same way
that ACS is. They do not provide schoolteachers. They do not
provide their own curriculum. They provide money. In large
areas like Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau, they provide
support groups.
Number 0557
MS. PATZ told the committee that ACS is unique. She told the
committee that she has used ACS for 17 years and has six
children who have been successful with this program. The school
provides individual care and consideration for the students'
needs and teachers who are there. They provide a library,
supplies, and curriculum. Other schools such as Nenana and
Galena only provide funding; they are not duplicates. She told
the committee she is very opposed to having it eliminated. She
said ACS fulfilled all of the needs her family had.
CHAIR GATTO announce that there would be another meeting on
Thursday and he will make a special effort to hear those who
have been waiting to testify today.
Number 0728
HAYLIE RUDDELL testified via teleconference from Anchorage in
opposition to HB 174. She told the committee she is a junior at
ACS and found the ability to totally focus on studying
important. She said in public schools students are subjected to
peer pressure and violence. Ms. Ruddell pointed out that there
was just a shooting at East High School [in Anchorage] on
Friday. She said ACS has allowed her to focus on her education.
She said she just participated in the academic decathlon and her
team placed 10th overall out of 30 schools. She said her team
only had two months to study for it, and one student was the
second highest scorer in the decathlon. The fact that ACS had
two months preparation time when all the other schools had six
months, and that they were able to do so well, really shows how
successful ACS is, she suggested. She said it would be awful
for this to be eliminated, especially in rural areas.
Number 0915
CHAIR GATTO asked if this program disappeared, what she and her
brother would do.
MS. RIDDELL said she does not know. They would have to look for
another program.
CHAIR GATTO asked if she has looked at other schools.
MS. RIDDELL said she looked at taking a course at University of
Alaska Anchorage (UAA) or possibly going back to public school,
such as West High, and is still looking for another
correspondence program. The other correspondence programs are
not like ACS, which has been far better than she ever imagined.
Number 1085
JOHN PADEN, Counselor, Alyeska Central School; Representative,
Alyeska Central School Association, testified in opposition to
HB 174. He told the committee there is a big difference between
ACS and other distance programs available in the state. He
shared an experience he recently encountered when a family had
to move from Southeast Alaska to the Interior of Alaska, and the
problem facing their child was that there still was a little
more schooling to be done for that school year. The parents
wanted to know if ACS could help. The answer was yes, because
at this time of year the program is able to take in kids. That
child's semester began when the child received the materials,
and the schooling can be completed, even though it will go into
the summer. This particular student will finish her high school
career in mid-July and be able to continue on with her plans
without having to wait another half a school year in order to
finish up.
MR. PADEN shared another example of a parent from rural Western
Alaska, who called because his daughter was ill, and had been
ill quite a bit in the past year and missed a lot of school. He
wanted to know if it would be possible for his daughter to come
into ACS in February and finish her eighth-grade year. The
answer is yes. She can finish up by August and be able to go
back to her local school if that is what the father chooses.
She would not have lost a full year. He told the committee that
he gets calls daily, not just during open enrollment, from
parents who want to school their children, and this program does
exactly that. It is not relegated to the September-to-May
period of time.
Number 1313
MR. PADEN said two days ago a father called from Western Alaska
asking about his eighth-grade daughter. In this case, the
answer was no, ACS could not take his child in. He said the
question is where these kids are going to go, especially with
the question of No Child Left Behind. [HB 174 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1357
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Education meeting was adjourned at 1:00
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|