02/07/2006 11:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HCR25 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HCR 25 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
February 7, 2006
11:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Bill Thomas
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Les Gara
Representative Woodie Salmon
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 25
Supporting consistent regulation of district and statewide
correspondence programs; and encouraging the Department of
Education and Early Development to remove student allotment
restrictions on all correspondence students.
- MOVED HCR 25 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HCR 25
SHORT TITLE: REGULATION OF CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) NEUMAN
01/11/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/11/06 (H) EDU, HES
02/02/06 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/02/06 (H) - Meeting Postponed to 02/07 11:00 AM -
02/07/06 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REX SHATTUCK, Staff
to Representative Mark Neuman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HCR 25 on behalf of
Representative Neuman, sponsor.
EDDY JEANS, Director
School Finance
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCR 25.
DEBBIE JOSLIN, President
Eagle Forum Alaska
Delta Junction, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HCR 25.
PAT SHIER
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HCR 25.
KATHY TAYLOR YOKEL
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HCR 25.
JONATHAN BRUEHER
North Pole, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HCR 25.
NATASHA OLTHOFF
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HCR 25.
LEE YOUNG, Principal
Connections Program
Kenai Peninsula Borough School District
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HCR 25, asked
questions and made suggestions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR MARK NEUMAN called the House Special Committee on
Education meeting to order at 11:06:55 AM. Representatives
Neuman, Gatto, Lynn, Salmon, Thomas, and Wilson were present at
the call to order. Representative Gara arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
HCR 25-REGULATION OF CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS
11:07:04 AM
CHAIR NEUMAN announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 25, Supporting consistent
regulation of district and statewide correspondence programs;
and encouraging the Department of Education and Early
Development to remove student allotment restrictions on all
correspondence students.
11:08:37 AM
REX SHATTUCK, Staff to Representative Mark Neuman, Alaska State
Legislature, paraphrased from the following written sponsor
statement [original punctuation provided]:
One of the most important issues facing us today is
the education of all students. Accordingly, HCR 25
provides us with the opportunity to give clear
direction for equitable treatment of correspondence
and home-schooled students.
The Department of Education and Early Development's
(DEED) 2004 regulations put funding restrictions on
supplementary services to students in all statewide
programs. DEED regulations eliminated many of the
educational choices previously available to students
and put further restrictions on the amount allowed for
music, art, and P.E. A disparity exists between rules
concerning how in-district and out-of-district school
programs may spend funds. Interpretation of these
regulations is having a negative impact on more than
8,000 home schooled and correspondence students.
HCR 25 requests that all students be treated equally
and that student education allotments be unrestricted
except as provided in the Constitution of the State of
Alaska and Alaska Statutes.
11:10:36 AM
EDDY JEANS, Director, School Finance, Department of Education
and Early Development (EED), referenced a letter from EED
Commissioner Roger Sampson to Chair Neuman which identified two
main issues in HCR 25: whether the regulations governing
statewide [correspondence] programs should be applied to local
school district correspondence programs and whether the 15
percent cap [on the base student allocation] on non-core
expenditures should be lifted. He noted that the State Board of
Education and Early Development, the department, and the
legislature have been working on this issue since December 2003,
when the department worked with those operating statewide
correspondence programs to develop the regulations addressed in
[HCR 25]. It was from this cooperative effort, and in working
with school districts, he explained, that these regulations were
finalized, taken before the State Board, put out for public
comment, and finally adopted.
MR. JEANS informed the committee that EED made a presentation in
2004 to the House Special Committee on Ways and Means, chaired
at that time by Representative Mike Hawker, requesting guidance
in addressing this issue, possibly doing so through amendments
to the existing statutes. It was at the House Special Committee
on Ways and Means' direction, he explained, that EED worked
through the regulatory process with those involved with
[correspondence] programs, and by June 2004, after many hours of
amending regulations and making them available for public
comment, the [regulations] were finally adopted. The issue of
defining core subjects and setting a 15 percent cap on non-core
subjects, such as music, fine arts, and physical education, were
specifically addressed during this regulatory process. "It was
the department's understanding ... that the programs involved
during those discussions thought that was an acceptable limit,"
Mr. Jeans opined. He concluded by saying that [EED] appreciates
the work [the committee] is doing on this issue.
11:14:10 AM
CHAIR NEUMAN informed the committee that there is no fiscal note
[for HCR 25]. Furthermore, should the restrictions on allotment
funds for statewide [correspondence] programs be lifted, "this
will not cost the State of Alaska one dime more" and "does not
take away money from any other programs" since the funds are
already allocated to the school districts. At 80 percent of the
$4,919 base student allocation (BSA), $4,000 is allotted per
student enrolled in the 11 [statewide] correspondence programs
who, depending on grade level, typically receive $1,800 to
$2,000 for curriculum purchases. In noting that these
restrictions apply to the statewide correspondence programs and
not the [in-district] correspondence programs, Chair Neuman
expressed his belief that all students should be treated equally
and have the same opportunities. He referenced a report on
statewide correspondence monitoring that was reviewed at the
meeting in June with EED and the State Board in which compliance
issues for the statewide correspondence programs were discussed.
Chair Neuman opined that considerable progress has been made by
the two statewide programs that had "minor problems" in only two
of the six areas [of compliance] addressed in the report, and
asked Mr. Jeans whether these programs are now in compliance.
11:17:31 AM
MR. JEANS informed the committee that there have been no audits
of those programs since the initial audit and that it would be
premature to say all are in compliance; however, he opined that
"the programs are complying to the best of their ability with
the laws and [regulations]."
11:17:54 AM
CHAIR NEUMAN reiterated that those enrolled in the "in-district"
[correspondence programs], which are not influenced by the same
restrictions [as are the 11 statewide programs], have a lot more
leverage with regard to how to spend their allotted funds. He
sited an example of how this flexibility in funding can benefit
those families with more than one child, who would only need to
purchase one set of grade-level curriculum to be passed down
from child to child, thereby saving money to spend on other
programs such as music, art, and [physical education ("PE")] -
programs which might meet a particular child's needs and
interests. He expressed his belief that the leverage provided
by the funding amounts is important and should be equally
available to all children.
11:19:16 AM
MR. JEANS, in response to questions by Chair Neuman regarding
enrollment in core subjects [for those students in the in-
district correspondence schools], said that EED does not
regulate that at this time. He went on to explain that [EED]
"has on the books" a part-time attendance law, which would allow
students to enroll in either a "brick and mortar" or statewide
correspondence program on a part-time basis.
MR. JEANS reminded the committee that the State Board made a
specific policy call, when adopting the regulations, because of
its belief that local school boards should have the authority
and responsibility to operate the programs that are within
district boundaries. He said that parents of those children
enrolled in such programs have the opportunity to approach their
board should they feel one of its officials is inappropriately
expending public funds, or simply choose not to re-elect
him/her. However, he explained, schools that operate programs
statewide don't have this second layer of accountability, which
is why the State Board has assumed that responsibility and why
"those regulations were adopted dealing with core subjects, as
well as the cap on [PE], music, and fine arts." He then noted
that this came about when [EED] discovered "there were a number
of students that were enrolling in programs on a part-time or
even on a full-time basis, that weren't taking any core
subjects; the full allotment was being spent on things such as
health club memberships, ski passes, [and] family trips."
CHAIR NEUMAN claimed that in June, [EED] determined that this
was no longer an issue as "these programs have changed their
regulations and come into guidance with what EED is now
requiring."
MR. JEANS added, "It's not an issue as a result of the
regulations placing the limits on those programs."
CHAIR NEUMAN asked if there were currently any schools that do
not require students to be enrolled full-time in core subjects
while in the correspondence programs. Upon learning from Mr.
Jeans that there are such schools, and furthermore, that this
only applies to in-district schools, not out-of-district ones,
he then asked Mr. Jeans whether the rules applied the same for
all kids.
MR. JEANS replied that "the rules do not apply the same for in-
district versus out-of-district correspondence programs."
11:22:26 AM
CHAIR NEUMAN, referring to the duties of the State Board under
statute, informed the committee that there is no mention of
appropriation of funds; however, there are two different court
decisions which gave this control and authority to local boards.
He said that he "contends the local control stands with the
parents." He also indicated that some school districts don't
offer a correspondence program, which means that parents wishing
to home school their children have to [enroll] in a statewide
program.
11:24:36 AM
MR. JEANS expressed his belief:
I think it's been very clear from the beginning that
the department has asked for guidance from the
legislature in this area. If the legislature feels
that it's appropriate for families to spend the $2,000
or $1,800 that they get in a family allotment - all of
it, on ski passes, family travel, memberships in
health clubs - then please pass a piece of
legislation, and we will be more than happy to amend
our regulations to comply and implement the law. But,
we don't believe that's an appropriate use of public
funds and the State Board has stated that through
their regulatory powers.
11:25:25 AM
CHAIR NEUMAN replied that the school districts would agree with
Mr. Jeans' views on the misappropriation of public funds and
that they would "not allow that to happen any more."
MR. JEANS remarked that [school districts] are now "in
compliance with the regulations as they are on the books today."
CHAIR NEUMAN, in questioning whether any of the [districts] have
their own guidelines as to how the allocations should be spent,
mentioned the Interior Distance Education of Alaska ("IDEA")
[statewide correspondence] program as an example of one of the
largest programs, with 3,500 kids, that has stipulations in
place directing no more than $350 or $400 be spent on any
particular subject.
11:26:11 AM
MR. JEANS, in response to questions by Representative Wilson,
confirmed that Mt. Edgecumbe [High School] is indeed a state-
operated school with its school board being the State Board of
Education, which he agreed does have control of the school's
funds "in some instances."
11:26:47 AM
MR. JEANS, responding to questions by Representative Gatto,
explained that much of today's discussion was addressed at the
House Special Committee on Ways and Means meeting in January
2004. He highlighted that there were instances, not all of
which involved statewide [correspondence] programs, in which
students were enrolled and attending private school on a full-
time basis though not taking any core courses. Although it is
not certain where the student allotment was spent, he said it
wasn't being used for core courses. He concluded by saying, "If
that's your desire, to allow students and parents to spend
public funds on anything they see fit, give us the statutory
direction and we'll implement the [regulations]."
11:28:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO opined that this is not the legislative
intent and that the topic was discussed "at large" in the House
Special Committee on Ways and Means as well as the House Special
Committee on Education and the Finance Subcommittees. He said
that some people did take advantage [of their allotment], and
expressed his belief that it was the legislature's job to stop
the inappropriate use of these funds. He asked Mr. Jean's if he
was correct in thinking "it was a loophole and I think that
loophole has disappeared."
MR. JEANS stated that the regulations currently on the books
[successfully] dealt with this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said he has been approached by those who
would like to be able to use some of their allotted funds for
things other than what is required in "brick and mortar"
schools. Referring to language in the sponsor statement, "HCR
25 requests that all students be treated equally ....", he
sought confirmation that perhaps allowing some students to use
their money differently than others is unequal treatment.
MR. JEANS opined that this shifts the discussion to "family
allotment accounts" through which school districts provide
family reimbursements for the purchase of instructional
material, which is another topic that needs to be addressed.
11:31:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA commented that HCR 25 doesn't appear to
establish any standards or rules, and asked what possible impact
its passage would have on EED.
MR. JEANS said that the department would take the resolution to
the State Board for guidance in how to proceed - whether to
reopen and amend the existing regulations or "stay the course
with the current regulations." In further response to
Representative Gara, he confirmed that if HCR 25 is passed as a
nonbinding resolution, then the State Board wouldn't necessarily
have to change anything.
11:32:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked the sponsor if he were correct in
understanding that those students living within a school
district, enrolled in a districtwide home schooling program, are
guided by the local school board regulations with regard to how
to spend their allotted funds - such as determining how much
money can be spent on non-core subjects as opposed to core
subjects - while students who are from out of the district are
guided by the state. Upon learning this is correct, he then
asked Chair Neuman if it was his "intention to not allow local
school districts to make the decisions for local students."
CHAIR NEUMAN said that this was not the intent. He provided an
example of parents residing in the Mat-Su Borough School
District with children enrolled in 1 of the 11 statewide
correspondence programs [outside their district], such as the
IDEA program [in the Galena City Schools district]. He surmised
that in such a situation the parents would be restricted on
their allotted funds because of where they reside. However,
that wouldn't be the case if they lived within the district in
which the statewide correspondence school is located.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA opined that the way the resolution language
reads, requesting all children be treated equally, implies that
local school districts would not be allowed to regulate things
differently. He questioned whether the resolution does what the
[legislature] intends in addition to whether standards and rules
are addressed for the statewide correspondence programs.
CHAIR NEUMAN informed the committee that there are Alaska
statutes and standards that "do talk about how [the money] is
spent." He expressed his belief that the State Board was asking
for guidance from the legislature and that he wished to provide
such guidance in the form of a resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked how the resolution would achieve the
goal of having all students treated equally, if local school
boards regulating those children within their districts are
allowed to regulate their children differently.
CHAIR NEUMAN explained that the resolution asks the State Board
to ensure that "whether you belong to an in-district program or
an out-of-district program, you all play by the same rules."
11:37:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON indicated that the reason in-district
correspondence schools have different requirements for their
students is because they have to follow the requirements
determined by their district, each of which is different. For
out-of-district [correspondence schools] with no local school
board, she explained, the State Board provides the guidance.
She expressed her belief that the choice parents make regarding
where to enroll their children creates the difference not where
they live. She asked, "If the rules fixed the problem ... then
why do we need to change the rules?"
11:39:11 AM
CHAIR NEUMAN clarified that there were only two programs causing
the majority of the problems, which caused the State Board to
investigate and the school districts to implement new
regulations to bring these programs into compliance. However,
these [regulations] currently only apply to the statewide
[correspondence] programs. He indicated that there are school
districts which will fund those students enrolled in programs
like the Sylvan Learning Center or in Christian schools in which
the student is not "even enrolled in one core subject." He
opined that "it's options and competition amongst the schools
[which] is what makes them better."
11:41:18 AM
DEBBIE JOSLIN, President, Eagle Forum Alaska, announced that the
forum has 1,000 members statewide, many of whom have children in
statewide correspondence programs. She provided an example of a
family with children enrolled in a correspondence school having
only to buy one set of a particular curriculum to be passed down
from child to child - a cost savings freeing up funds to be used
on other things, such as music lessons or art supplies "if it's
not tied up in a 15 percent cap." After much research, she said
that she has "not been able to find any group of schools or
school children anywhere that are being restricted in the manner
that [EED] has restricted children in the statewide
correspondence programs in Alaska." She explained that she
looked at budgets and regulations governing charter schools in
several other states and found nowhere are funds being
restricted by certain percentages for the arts and physical
education.
MS. JOSLIN opined that it might have initially made sense to
allow only 15 percent of the allotments for elective classes,
reserving the bulk of the funds for core subjects such as
reading, math, English, and science; however, with her
experience as a home school teacher, she said she discovered
that the elective courses cost more to administer than the core
subjects, regardless of whether taught in a brick and mortar or
a home school. She compared example expenditures for core
subject materials versus elective materials. She also addressed
the changes made to existing regulations by EED as a result of
reports that allotment funding was being misused, and opined
that there was no need to change the existing regulations
because of that - "it wasn't the regulations that were at fault;
it was individuals or certain programs that were misusing funds,
and an appropriate action could have been taken to stop the
diversion of money that was intended for the education of
correspondence students."
MS. JOSLIN said she has not heard that correspondence students,
as a group, are doing poorly on achievement tests and stated her
belief that as a whole, correspondence students are "at a level,
at least par with their brick and mortar public school
counterparts." She questioned why [EED] would restrict the
funding of correspondence school students to such an extent
"that they are forced to choose one of the three subjects: art,
music, or PE" and opined that it was never the legislature's
intent, and furthermore, district correspondence programs are
not being treated this way. She concluded by stating her belief
that "these regulations do not cost the State of Alaska one red
cent" as the allotment amount is the same with or without the
restrictions, and urged the committee to pass this legislation.
11:45:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA suggested that perhaps some rules are needed
to ensure a correspondence student's focus is on core subjects.
He asked whether there were any school districts which had
policies that make sense and could be examined by the state for
possible implementation by those correspondence programs not
regulated by a school district.
MS. JOSLIN, referring to her involvement with a statewide
correspondence program, said that the students would enroll in
all of the subjects, including the four core subjects; however,
this would not necessarily be reflected in core subject
curriculum purchases as younger siblings could reuse the same
materials purchased earlier for an older sibling unlike many of
the expenses for non-core subjects.
CHAIR NEUMAN, referring to Representative Gara's comment that
[correspondence schools] are not being regulated by school
districts, opined that they are. He said, "The school district
that runs the statewide program does have regulations in place,
and that's who governs that correspondence program."
MS. JOSLIN explained that those parents with children enrolled
in the statewide programs have the same ability as those with
children in schools with local school boards in that they could
express any concerns to a statewide correspondence school board
or committee.
11:48:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, addressing comments made earlier by Ms.
Joslin, said that he expected her to say that correspondence
school students "far exceed" the performance of those students
enrolled in public schools because of the 1:1 instruction that
can be provided as opposed to the 1:35 ratio sometimes found in
public schools. He asked if there was an explanation for why
"you can't produce a product greater than 'at least as good as'
a public school student."
MS. JOSLIN answered that she did not wish to exaggerate or speak
for all parents or all students. She stated her belief that
taken as a whole, those enrolled in the correspondence programs
"do at least as well." She noted the high test scores her own
children received on the national and statewide achievement
tests they took every year they were enrolled in the statewide
correspondence program and opined that this was largely due to
having "the luxury" of taking time to help them understand
concepts before moving on - a luxury not always found in the
public schools.
11:51:22 AM
CHAIR NEUMAN, referring to the recent national accreditation of
the IDEA program by the Northwest Association of Accredited
Schools (NAAS), highlighted the 10th grade test score results,
with the highest for English at 86 percent and the lowest for
math at 68 percent. He explained that the only reason they did
not meet [adequate] yearly progress (AYP), "had to do with just
marginally lower than average test scores of their 51 African
American students that belonged to that program" and in looking
"at the cut, they categorically evaluated and graded much higher
than the cut in all other subjects."
11:52:42 AM
MS. JOSLIN, in response to a question by Representative Thomas,
said her family used a video program for art and music, and paid
for piano lessons, sheet music, and a piano teacher who charges
$170 per month - an out-of-pocket expense for two children.
11:53:59 AM
CHAIR NEUMAN noted to Ms. Joslin that both he and Representative
Thomas home school [their children] and are very involved in the
home school process, which first requires that an individual
learning plan be developed for the [home school] child that is
approved by the teacher. Furthermore, there are strict
guidelines as to how the allotted funds can be spent. He
paraphrased a section of the November 2005 visitation report by
NAAS covering its evaluation of the IDEA statewide
correspondence program:
... IDEA families tend to be very family-oriented,
having chosen to commit the time and effort necessary
to be fully involved in their children's education.
They tend to enjoy spending a lot of family time
together, and are often active in their local church
and/or civic organizations.
CHAIR NEUMAN expressed his belief that the success of these
programs is largely due to the fact that parents intimately know
their child and can mold that child's education around his/her
inner most needs.
11:56:08 AM
PAT SHIER shared that he has been a home school parent since
1987, before the statewide correspondence programs came into
existence. He opined that the resolution restores flexibility,
equity, and provides legislative guidance currently voiced to
him as lacking. He urged that the 15 percent cap be rescinded
to assist those families who deal with travel expenses for their
child's sports-related activities and that school boards be
allowed to have their full scope of authority in how they wish
to administer their programs. He said he disagrees with those
that say the secondary level of accountability is lacking [in
schools] because the teachers, who interact with each parent,
are very effective in tailoring curriculum for each student and
play an important part in this local level of control.
MR. SHIER requested, "Let's not live in the old battle days of
anecdote about a few parents that ... did something that wasn't
quite right, and that's all gone now." Instead, he suggested
focusing on success stories of students such as the fetal
alcohol syndrome (FAS) child struggling in school and not making
connections with classmates or course subjects, yet at her
teacher's recommendation, began interacting with animals and is
now making connections with both students and subjects and no
longer in special education. He said:
It's not an indictment of our brick and mortar
schools, it's just a realization that they have all
they can do and more. So let's find a way to level
the playing field, to allow parents who are willing to
incur this serious investment in time and money all
the flexibility they need.
12:00:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, referring to Mr. Shier's comment that home
school parents spend a significant amount of their personal
funds on their children's educations, asked him if he then
believed public school parents do not.
MR. SHIER clarified that was not his meaning and acknowledged
that many parents with children in public schools "are spending
a lot of money" paying for books and materials not supplied by
some school districts. He mentioned that parent involvement is
referred to as the "holy grail" and is an important feature in a
child's education.
12:01:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said, "Sometimes in these committees we
debate a concept but we miss what the bill says, and I think
that's what's going on here." He expressed his agreement with
Mr. Shier that home school is a very valuable option for those
parents willing to expend the time that this option requires.
He also expressed agreement with Ms. Joslin's reference to the
savings opportunity for those home school families sharing
curriculum material among multiple children. The [resolution],
however, includes no language restricting funds [for
correspondence school families], except as provided by the
constitution or by state statutes, neither of which have any
rules regarding how much money may be spent on such subjects as
PE, he highlighted. Therefore, he surmised that "if we pass
this, there would be nothing to stop a parent, who didn't care
as much about their child's education, from spending all the
money on sneakers, equestrian lessons and, let's say, a tennis
club membership." He posed the question as to whether fair
rules should be created for home school children versus "not
having any rules at all."
MR. SHIER explained that controls are already in place; the
school boards provide guidelines to local teachers who then work
one-on-one with the parents enrolled in the statewide
correspondence programs. He again "urged us to move on" from
the past misuse of funds by a few parents, and opined that the
resolution, if passed, would result in "re-leveling the playing
field so that the students who are in the statewide
correspondence programs can enjoy the same interaction with
their teachers, the same flexibility that the current brick and
mortars do."
12:04:46 PM
MR. SHIER, in response to a question by Representative Salmon
regarding how parents communicate with the [statewide
correspondence] school boards, explained that the Raven
Correspondence School headquartered within the Yukon/Koyukuk
School District (YKSD) in Fairbanks, Alaska - of which his wife
is one of the local area administrators and teachers - uses
teleconference equipment that connects not only the district's
nine river schools, but all the remote sites as well. Regularly
scheduled staff meetings, when the leadership meets with the
school board, are held by teleconference or face-to-face. He
clarified, for Representative Salmon, that "the school board for
YKSD is scattered among some of the nine river villages that
they serve and also in Fairbanks, I believe."
12:05:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA related his understanding that the intent of
the proposal is to have the statewide correspondence school
children follow the rules set by the school board for that
particular school and not leave the allotted funds to parents
completely unrestricted.
MR. SHIER said that was correct "to the extent that these
regulations return the statewide [correspondence schools] to the
same fundamental controls that exist for brick and mortar
schools, that's my hope that this resolution will accomplish."
He also expressed his desire [for the statewide correspondence
schools] to be regulated by the school board for the
correspondence school.
12:06:42 PM
KATHY TAYLOR YOKEL, as a former certified teacher for both
elementary and secondary levels and a home school parent for 14
years, related her support of HCR 25. She requested that not
only should consistent regulations regarding district and
statewide correspondence programs be put in place but also that
student allotment restrictions on all correspondence students be
completely eliminated. She explained that regardless of all her
teaching experience, she is not an expert in every subject which
means hiring professionals to instruct her child in music and
PE-related lessons. She highlighted that whereas about 80
percent of public school students are not required to have an
individual learning plan, the students in statewide
correspondence programs are required to have these plans "and it
must be assessed and okayed by a certified teacher through [that
particular] correspondence programs." Regarding the purchase of
curriculum materials, she explained that not only are savings
available when these materials are shared among siblings, it can
be an additional savings when shared among friends or purchased
at book sales or borrowed from libraries. However, this cost-
savings is not possible when hiring professionals for private
instruction in such classes as dance and music. She again
opined that the allotment funds should be unrestricted, and
should she choose to use her $2,000 allotment for her child's
voice, piano and ballet lessons - with everything else paid out-
of-pocket or borrowed among friends - this should be allowed.
12:11:05 PM
CHAIR NEUMAN clarified to the committee that "HCR 25 does not
ask for full unrestriction of allotment funds" but does ask that
the guidelines and rules apply equally among schools.
12:12:00 PM
JONATHAN BRUEHER, as a home school student through the IDEA
program for the past three years, said the program provided him
the opportunity to do things he otherwise would not be able to
do.
12:13:19 PM
NATASHA OLTHOFF announced that several years of home schooling,
through the IDEA program, has been a great opportunity and that
her relationship with her family has been completely different
because of the extra one on one time she has with them.
Additionally, she said, it has enabled her to concentrate on
different educational subjects and have a "more developed
education," one in which she is given the opportunity to take
control of her own education through the many times she is
teaching herself. In response to a request by Representative
Lynn, she related the lessons she's had in piano, art, science,
snowboarding, horseback riding, swimming, and a variety of
others that have helped her "be a better person."
12:15:35 PM
CHAIR NEUMAN asked if Ms. Olthoff believed that being able to
socialize with peers is a very important part of a well-rounded
education.
MS. OLTHOFF opined that communicating with others is an
important skill to have, and though the chance to be with peers
doesn't happen as often for those who home school, there are
still opportunities to do so. Additionally, she explained, home
schooling has provided her with the opportunity to spend more
time with adults, and not limited to teachers, which has made a
difference in how she can relate to them.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN commented that whereas some of the
socializing in schools "is very good, some of it maybe should
not be happening."
12:16:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked Ms. Olthoff how her friends enrolled
in public schools in Fairbanks respond when she tells them about
her piano and horseback riding lessons.
MS. OLTHOFF said that her friends think it's great, that not all
of them have the same interests, many of them have different
learning opportunities at the public school than she has home
schooling, and for the most part, she expressed, "I don't think
they see it as being unfair."
MS. OLTHOFF, in response to Chair Neuman's request to explain
her interest and goals regarding horseback riding lessons, said
that it not only provides great exercise, but has given her the
opportunity to see its therapeutic effect on special needs
children.
CHAIR NEUMAN informed the committee that his daughter enrolled
in horseback riding lessons for these same reasons.
12:20:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA referred to page 2, [lines 4-6] of HCR 25
regarding the removal of restrictions on student allotment of
public education money. He then asked Mr. Jeans what
restrictions would remain on the allotments for those students
enrolled in the statewide programs should the resolution pass
and current restrictions be removed.
MR. JEANS said if the resolution passes, EED would have the
State Board determine whether it wanted to amend the regulations
or not. Additionally, he explained that should HCR 25 pass and
the State Board remove the current regulatory restrictions,
there would be no remaining restrictions in the Constitution of
the State of Alaska or in the Alaska Statutes. In further
response to questions by Representative Gara, Mr. Jeans
clarified that the State Board would never have had to regulate
these programs had the local school boards and administrations
dealt with these [correspondence programs] appropriately in the
beginning. Moreover, the regulations only came about because of
the "misuse by the administration of these [correspondence
school] programs."
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked whether the 15 percent rule applies to
those students in a local correspondence school, regulated by a
local school board, as well for those enrolled in the statewide
correspondence programs.
MR. JEANS explained that the 15 percent rule only applies to
students in the statewide programs.
12:22:40 PM
CHAIR NEUMAN asked Mr. Jeans whether most of the statewide
programs have restrictions on how those funds are spent.
MR. JEANS noted that the statewide programs may now have
regulations adopted by their local school board in place.
However, he remarked, "The reason the State Board had to act was
because those programs were not regulating themselves."
CHAIR NEUMAN agreed that there hadn't been adequate guidance
before; however, the [statewide programs] did comply. He again
highlighted for the committee that out of the 11 statewide
programs reviewed last year, only 2 of the districts had
"minimal problems" in 2 of the 6 areas, and that "most programs
were in line with [the guidance] recommended by the state."
12:23:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA noted that public testimony was not heard
from those parents who didn't enroll their children in any of
the core subjects and "tapped into the allotment to use for
physical education." He asked Chair Neuman if he would consider
amending the resolution to ensure that doesn't happen again.
CHAIR NEUMAN said that currently students in the statewide
correspondence programs have to be enrolled in four core
subjects and yet the students enrolled in the in-district
correspondence programs do not. It would be changing the scope
of the resolution to put restrictions on in-district programs,
which is not his intent, he explained.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked if it would be acceptable to Chair
Neuman "for a child not to be enrolled in any core subjects but
to tap into money to use for recreational purposes."
CHAIR NEUMAN opined that he personally feels "that's the way it
should be" and that this issue would have to be individually
addressed with those school districts involved. He added that
"we would certainly entertain that discussion at the [State
Board] ...."
12:25:58 PM
LEE YOUNG, Principal, Connections Program, Kenai Peninsula
Borough School District, applauded the state of Alaska for
providing families the opportunities to have home schools, which
was not the case in the previous state where he was employed.
He asked if the intent of the resolution was for home school
families to spend $4,000 instead of the $2,000 he understood it
to be, in an unrestricted fashion.
CHAIR NEUMAN replied that this was not the intent of the
resolution. In further response to questions by Mr. Lee
regarding the amount of the allotments, he listed examples of
possible administrative expenses such as purchasing computers
for home school families to use to communicate with the school
district as well as other administrative costs. He then opined
that the $2,000 amount allotted to families was enough of a
strain on administrative budgets.
12:28:00 PM
MR. YOUNG posed a situation in which a small district, such as
Galena City Schools which has established several offices
throughout the state, were to enroll a student residing in a
larger district. He asked if that student would receive an
allocation "based on what Galena receives or based on what Kenai
or Anchorage [districts] would receive."
CHAIR NEUMAN explained that the cost differential is the second
formula in the student funding formula and that the
correspondence programs receive 80 percent of the BSA, which for
this year equaled $4,000 and results in an even lower amount
when the cost differential is applied. He then agreed with Mr.
Young's statement that "regardless of where you live in the
state, everybody gets the $4,000 approximately," which would be
the maximum amount.
MR. YOUNG asked whether there were "really two pieces to this
bill" - one being the intent to make all programs consistently
the same and the other to allow parents to spend their
allocation in an unrestricted fashion.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN reminded the committee that [HCR 25] is not
a bill but a resolution that "does nothing except express an
opinion."
CHAIR NEUMAN stated his agreement and remarked that the
resolution is a non-binding opinion. He then asked whether
"this is fair or not to the Department of Education [and Early
Development]."
MR. YOUNG said that he sees the issue as bigger than what the
resolution proposes and that he would advocate EED having "a
working group with representation from all parties that might be
involved" to provide recommendations. He suggested one possible
solution would be to have a family account such that when one
child does not spend his/her full allocation on fine arts, the
unused funds could be transferred to another child in the
family. He opined that children at different age levels can
require different amounts of funds for fine arts, music, and PE
which he said he has seen through requests from the families
within the in-district correspondence program he administers.
CHAIR NEUMAN said the discussion of "cause and effect" and
determining a possible need for forming a working group is the
sort of thing "this kind of resolution does."
12:32:23 PM
MR. JEANS, in response to Representative Gatto's questions
regarding part-time attendance of a student at both a brick and
mortar school and a correspondence school, said that the
allocated funds have to go to both hosting schools.
Furthermore, he said, it is possible for a student to spend
allotted funds on the same courses, such as music, at both
schools. He highlighted the fact that EED has regulations for
part-time enrollment that specify the funding amount allowed per
number of courses, such that the amounts would be split among
the programs and would not to exceed one full-time equivalent
(fte).
12:33:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, referring to the line in the sponsor
statement that calls for all students be treated equally,
questioned whether it is indeed fair for the part-time student
to have the opportunity to take music lessons at both the brick
and mortar school and at home unlike the full-time brick and
mortar student who only has one hour of music lessons.
12:34:04 PM
MR. JEANS reminded the committee that part of the reason for the
regulations currently in place is "to ensure that students
enrolling in correspondence programs that provide family
allotment accounts are taking core subjects and not simply
enrolling to get the benefit of the allotment account to support
athletic memberships, music lessons ... basically electives."
12:34:35 PM
CHAIR NEUMAN added that in the statewide correspondence
programs, students have to be enrolled in at least four core
subjects and do not have the option of attending part-time.
12:34:46 PM
MR. JEANS said that he disagreed with Chair Neuman's statement,
and explained that a student is allowed to enroll part-time in
either a brick and mortar or correspondence school as long as 50
percent of the student's courses are core, as stipulated by the
regulations. Therefore, the student is allowed access to
supplemental money for things other than core courses. In
response to Chair Neuman's questions, he clarified that his
example holds true for the student enrolled part-time in
multiple school districts although the allotment may be smaller.
12:35:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if she were correct in her
understanding that those who home school basically "want to have
more money allotted to them so they can spend it on the things
that they want."
CHAIR NEUMAN said this was correct and added that [those who
home school] wish to purchase educational opportunities that fit
inside the boundaries of their [child's] learning plan.
12:36:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked whether is was correct to say that the
EED regulations allow part-time home school enrollment as long
as at least 50 percent of the student's subjects are core.
MR. JEANS said this was correct. In response to additional
questions by Representative Gara, he offered further
clarification on the part-time student law which allows students
to attend on a part-time basis, even down to one course.
However, if the part-time enrollment is with a statewide
correspondence program, EED regulations require that first
course to be a core subject, to which a quarter allotment is
applied, and additional courses may be in [electives] such as PE
or music.
12:37:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Chair Neuman in which home school
program his children are enrolled and whether he was compensated
for the earlier mentioned equestrian course his daughter is
taking.
CHAIR NEUMAN said that his children are enrolled in a statewide
correspondence program which does not allow the 15 percent
allotment be applied to equestrian lessons. The in-district
correspondence programs allow this, but not the statewide ones,
he pointed out.
12:38:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report HCR 25 out of committee with
individual recommendations [and the forthcoming zero fiscal
note]. There being no objection, HCR 25 was reported from the
House Special Committee on Education.
12:39:05 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Education meeting was adjourned at 12:39
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|