Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/26/2012 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Education Overview: Accountability & Responsibilities, Standards, Testing, Graduation Rates, Moore Case Settlement Update | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 26, 2012
1:35 p.m.
1:35:16 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltz called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas Jr., Co-Chair
Representative Anna Fairclough, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Mike Doogan
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mark Neuman
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Michael Hanley, Commissioner, Department of Education and
Early Development; Karen Rehfeld, Director, Office of
Management and Budget, Office of the Governor; Elizabeth
Sweeney Nudelman, Director, School Finances and Facilities,
Department of Education and Early Development, Director of
School Finance
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
None
SUMMARY
1:35:24 PM
^EDUCATION OVERVIEW: ACCOUNTABILITY & RESPONSIBILITIES,
STANDARDS, TESTING, GRADUATION RATES, MOORE CASE SETTLEMENT
UPDATE
1:37:04 PM
MICHAEL HANLEY, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
EARLY DEVELOPMENT began with Slide 2, which illustrated the
structure of the State Education Association (SEA). He
noted that the department's structure was unique to other
departments in the state. The graph showed the State Board
of Education & Early Development at the top. The board was
a 7 member voluntary board that met approximately 6 times
per year; SEA board members were appointed by the governor.
He noted that the commissioner's position in the department
was appointed by the board and approved by the governor. He
detailed the duties of the board. He noted that the SEA was
the school board for Mount Edgecumbe Boarding School.
Currently, the SEA had renewed several charter schools in
the state, discussed and put out for public comment new cut
scores for work keys; the work keys assessment in regard to
the performance scholarship, reviewed and asked for
additional financial information form two districts
regarding the 70/30 requirements, and put out for an
extended period of public comment a proposed set of state
standards. He shared that the role of the commissioner was
to set the vision for the department, direct and oversee
the work of the staff, monitor and implement the budget,
acquire and provide grants to school districts and carry
out the role of support and accountability to the 53
districts statewide. The organization chart:
State Board of Education & Early Development
· Commissioner
o Teaching & Learning Support
o School Finance & Facilities
o Administrative Services
o Libraries, Archives, & Museums
o Mount Edgecumbe Boarding School
ƒProfessional Teaching Practices Commission
ƒAlaska State Council on the Arts
ƒAlaska Commission on Postsecondary Education
Representative Guttenberg requested further information
regarding how the commissioner interacted with the
individual 53 school boards that served the districts
throughout the state.
Mr. Hanley responded with the information on Slide 3, which
listed the responsibilities of the state under the
Education clauses:
Alaska Superior Court defined, in 2007, the State's
responsibilities under the Education clauses:
1. Appropriate Educational Standards
2. Adequate Assessments
3. Oversight & Accountability
(A fourth is funding, which is a statutory decision)
1:42:45 PM
Commissioner Hanley stated that the overarching
responsibility stopped at the local education association
(LEA), or local school boards. The state had the
responsibility of distributing funding through grants to
the local boards, as well as setting standards and
assessments and providing support, accountability, and
oversight. He explained that as a local governance state,
authority was given to the local districts to make their
own decisions for hiring superintendent under the school
board. Additionally, local boards were tasked with
allocating the state funds provided in their overall
budget, operating and maintaining school sites, student
accountability and setting and maintaining state curriculum
standards and teacher evaluations.
Commissioner Hanley relayed that the difference between the
SEA and LEA was oftentimes misinterpreted. He said that the
SEA had the responsibility to set the standards and the LEA
set how to implement those standards. He noted that
Anchorage had various models within the district designed
to meet state standards. He reiterated that Alaska did not
have a statewide curriculum, but that local districts
determined the curriculum to address the statewide
standards.
1:45:35 PM
Representative Wilson asked about the Anchorage system
adopting the "common core" standards, which differed from
state standards.
Commissioner Hanley replied that the information would be
highlighted further in the presentation.
Representative Wilson shared that the state had Tier 1 thru
Tier 3 schools. Tier 1 schools were school that were
meeting the expectations set by the state, Tier 2 schools
were not meeting the standards and Tier 3 schools, which
were intervention districts. She queried what steps the
state took for improvement when a school fell below Tier 1.
Commissioner Hanley responded that the tier system was a
function of the federal No Child Left Behind law. He
stressed that the state had a responsibility of oversight
and accountability. He said that when a district had the
authority to make decisions for students, and the students
were chronically low performing, the state had the
responsibility to step in by offering solutions. He said
that the federal model also offered the student the option
of enrolling in a higher performing school. He furthered
that when districts hit intervention status, teaching
coaches were used. He stated that the coaches worked
directly with teachers and district leadership to align the
curriculum with state standards. He added that the SEA had
the authority to do more, but this was not usually done out
of respect for the local governance model.
Representative Wilson wondered what would constitute an
instance where the state might more strongly intervene.
Commissioner Hanley stated that the issue was an ongoing
consideration.
1:50:23 PM
KAREN REHFELD, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR reported on school funding over the
past years. She relayed that Alaska had made a significant
investment in K-12 education over the years. She noted that
education spending was a significant piece of the FY13
general fund budget request. The chart located on Slide 4
showed the general fund appropriations for K-12 Education
from FY 04 until FY 13. She stated the chart covered all
the major pieces of education funding that was dealt with
on an annual basis: the K-12 school funding formula, pupil
transportation, retirement system unfunded liability
assistance payments, school debt reimbursement from
municipal districts, school construction and major
maintenance, as well as one-time funding. The chart also
included average daily membership and a calculation of
expenditures per average daily membership for each fiscal
year. She highlighted that there had been significant
increases in general fund spending since FY04. She said the
total state general fund contribution had nearly doubled;
from $831 million in FY04, to $1.7 billion in FY13. She
directed committee attention to the K-12 formula and pupil
transportation, which received $734.9 million in FY04, and
then an increase to $1.15 billion in FY13. She said that
over the same time period, the average daily membership
numbers declined, from 132 thousand to 129 thousand. She
highlighted that in FY08 $80 million in retirement system
costs was shifted to the state and the base student
allocation (BSA) was not changed or reduced by that amount.
Additionally, the FY08 budget reflected a one-time, $69
million item, which included $48 million for district cost
factors not yet rolled into the foundation formula and $21
million for improvement grants.
Ms. Rehfeld reported that FY09 was the first year of the
education funding plan that had a three-year increase for
the BSA and intensive students, and a five-year
implementation of the district cost factor adjustment. In
FY09 the BSA rose from $5,380 per AADM to $5,480; the
increase resulted in a $22.3 million increase in the BSA.
Intensive students in FY09 were funded at nine times the
BSA, which cost the state $35.4 million.
Co-Chair Stoltze requested the definition of "intensive
needs" students.
Ms. Rehfeld explained that intensive needs students
required multiple services in the classroom. Some had
conditions, some medical, that needed to be addressed in
the classroom on a daily basis. She asserted that there was
a significant need to address the cost of serving intensive
needs students because assisting them on a daily basis was
expensive.
Commissioner Hanley agreed. He added that some intensive
needs students needed one-on-one assistance in order to be
successful in the classroom.
1:56:40 PM
Representative Gara asked about the increases passed by the
legislature 6 and 4 years ago in an effort to assist with
retirement debt [indicated in light blue on the graph on
Slide 4], increase funding for special needs and to deal
with the inequity between urban and rural school districts.
He understood that schools were not currently fully
compensated for special needs funding.
ELIZABETH SWEENEY NUDELMAN, DIRECTOR, SCHOOL FINANCES AND
FACILITIES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT,
DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL FINANCE answered that the funding for
each of the intensive needs students was approximately
$75,000 per student. She qualified that the funding did not
necessarily follow each student; one student could cost
$30,000, while another could cost $100,000. She said that
the funding was far reaching in accommodating expenditures
for the intensive needs students.
Co-Chair Thomas asked how the $80 million of retirement
money given during that time would equate to the BSA
increase.
Ms. Rehfeld replied that at the time the $100 BSA increase
equated to approximately $20 million.
Co-Chair Thomas understood that the BSA increased by $300
in FY08.
Commissioner Hanley replied it was closer to $400.
Representative Gara thought that a lot of money had been
appropriated in the past. He pointed to FY 11 and FY 13;
other than an increase in retirement, funding remained
flat.
Ms. Rehfeld responded that she would be discussing the
numbers for those years further into the presentation.
2:00:08 PM
Representative Costello asked what the cost would be to pay
off the PERS and TERS liability.
Ms. Rehfeld replied approximately $11 billion.
Representative Costello wondered if the legislature were to
choose the option of paying off the unfunded liability
would the ongoing liability become the responsibility of
the districts.
Ms. Rehfeld said that currently, because of statutory
framework, districts are held at paying 12.56 percent for
TERS. It would be beneficial to the state for the entire
unfunded liability to be paid off.
Representative Costello recalled the Learning Opportunity
grant that was at one point rolled into the BSA.
Ms. Nudelman believed that the grants were rolled into the
formula as Quality Schools grants and were now incorporated
into the total dollars that went out to the district.
Representative Costello understood that the grants were for
teachers to use to purchase classroom materials.
Ms. Nudelman replied that she did not know exact parameters
of the grants.
Commissioner Hanley replied that the grants were part of
the local authority; local school boards and districts were
able to make determinations on how to use the grants.
2:03:09 PM
Representative Doogan remarked that the chart indicated
that cost of education had doubled from FY04 to FY13.
Ms. Rehfeld replied in the affirmative.
Representative Doogan understood that the increase in BSA
had been 55 to 60 percent
Ms. Rehfeld said that from FY08 the BSA increased from
$5,380 per student to the current $5,680.
Representative Doogan reiterated that from FY04 to FY13
there was a 55 to 60 percent increase in the BSA.
Ms. Nudelman explained that the BSA was not separately
represented on the graph, she stressed that the numbers
represented the overall increase in funding.
Representative Doogan stated that he was trying to
determine the percentage increase form FY04 to FY13 on K-12
Foundation and Pupil Transportation Formula funding.
Ms. Nudelman replied that the increase from $734,912 to
$1,152,730 could be found on the bottom of Slide 4.
Representative Doogan requested the actual number of
percentage increase in the BSA over the 10 year time
period.
2:06:34 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough pointed out to the committee that the
$11 billion liability for PERS and TERS was at an 8 percent
rate of return, which could be considered high under
current money management scenarios. She wondered whether
the actual percentage rate was being considered by the
Alaska Retirement and Management Board (ARM) when
presenting to the legislature what the actual liability
would be in the future.
Ms. Rehfeld relayed that the ARM board annually examined
the numbers. She said that the latest evaluation would be
available in June 2012, and those would be the numbers used
to determine the rate for FY14.
Co-Chair Thomas wondered why the student head count was
declining.
Commissioner Hanley responded that generally the decreases
were seen in rural, rather than urban, areas.
Co-Chair Thomas queried the predicted student increase in
FY13.
Ms. Nudelman interjected that the student number
projections were generated by the school districts each
year and that a slight increase was expected in FY13.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if the decline was an overall trend.
Ms. Nudelman replied yes. She added that the increase could
be slight from one year to the next, but overall the
numbers were decreasing. She directed committee attention
to the bottom of Slide 4. She said that the increase in the
formula funding from FY04 to FY13 was 58 percent.
2:10:00 PM
Representative Neuman mentioned the transient student
population in Alaska. He suggested that a twice a year
student count should be performed in order to better gauge
the flux of the student population.
Commissioner Hanley responded that the conversation about
multiple counts was ongoing. He said that the count could
be done on a monthly basis, but each additional count would
cost money, and the line would have to be drawn eventually.
Representative Neuman asked how money was allocated after
appropriation by the legislature.
Ms. Nudelman stated that the calculation was taken once a
year and then 12 monthly payments were sent out to the
school districts.
Representative Edgmon thought it could be informative to
compare the 53 school districts to the K-12 Formula Funding
in order to determine an upward trend. He felt that the
issue really surrounded the BSA and wondered if data was
available that tracked the increase in school district
budgets along with the BSA.
2:14:27 PM
Ms. Nudelman believed that the data could be provided. She
noted that the DEED website posted the revenues distributed
to each district.
Representative Edgmon suggested including each districts
funding in aggregate in a bar chart next to the charted BSA
on Slide 4. He believed that the upward trend would surpass
the trajectory over a 10 year period.
Ms. Nudelman replied that the numbers would align because
districts tended to spend all the money they received.
Co-Chair Thomas noted that in the past school districts
were able to get by with no budget increments. He thought
in light of the declining oil production that school
districts needed control spending and to stop asking for
more funding. He said that 24 percent of total operating
budget went for education. He thought that everyone, in all
departments, needed to work together to stop spending.
Commissioner Hanley agreed that $1 out of every $4 of the
operating budget was spent on education. He stressed that
the increased cost of operations was often overlooked; the
issue was not increased spending, it was inflation.
Co-Chair Thomas hypothesized what might happen if the state
lost any significant amount of federal funding; he thought
the state would have to back fill $100 million per year.
2:19:42 PM
Representative Joule asked when in the year the student
counts occurred.
Ms. Nudelman said that the count was taken over a 20 day
period in October of each year.
Representative Joule noted that the Alaska Permanent Fund
Dividend and the Alaska Federation of Natives Conference
occurred in October. He expressed concern that rural
students traveling into the city could be missed during the
count. He asked if the department had data concerning
students who not have been counted.
Ms. Nudelman responded that the October count was based on
enrollment. If a student was enrolled in a local school,
but was out on an excused absence, they would still be
counted for funding.
Representative Wilson pointed out to the committee the $30
million proposed increase by the governor. She noted that
each district was very different and wondered how the funds
would be fairly allocated. She asked if there was a plan to
rein in spending as costs increased.
Ms. Rehfeld replied the governor's proposed increased would
be addressed further into the presentation.
Representative Gara agreed that prior to FY10, funding had
not been flat. He stressed that the amount of money making
it into the actual classroom during FY11 through FY13 was
completely flat.
Commissioner Hanley said that the state was increasing
expenditures to education every year through FY13. He
assured the committee that the governor would continue to
support education.
Representative Gara clarified that his concern was with
classroom funding. He cited the Legislative Research
analysis that showed that every department in the state had
received and increase for increased salaries and benefits,
except for K-12 education. He wondered why other state
agencies received salary and benefit increases in order to
maintain levels of service, but schools did not.
Commissioner Hanley responded that expenditures had
increased. He explained that the state agency did not
determine where local districts allocated their funds. He
stressed that increased costs, and not flat funding, was
the issue at the local level.
2:25:15 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked if there was a chart that
depicted how much money was spent in the classroom versus
transportation, utilities, etc. He understood that the
numbers would vary by district, but that a statewide,
cumulative number would be informative.
Ms. Nudelman replied that the department could prepare the
information at a later date. She reiterated that individual
districts chose where to allocate appropriated funds.
Vice-chair Fairclough informed the committee that
individual district school board presidents could provide
the additional information: student population, labor
contracts, number of teachers employed, maintenance,
utilities, and program expansion. She thought that once the
information was presented, the committee could examine
rising costs by district.
Co-Chair Thomas pointed out $80 million went into the BSA
in FY04. He thought that should be recognized. He commented
that paying teacher's retirement salary directly benefited
the classroom.
2:29:56 PM
Ms. Rehfeld continued with her presentation. She directed
committee attention back to Slide 4. She said that in FY09
through FY11 the 3-year education plan was in action, which
meant an increase of $100 per year in the BSA, a rise in
intensive student funding from 9 to 13 times the BSA, and
district cost factors continued to be added into annual
costs. She stated that there was no BSA increase in FY12;
rather the state provided one-time funding of $20 million
placed into the department's budget for school districts
for the AADM, plus the addition of the district cost
factor. She relayed that the FY13 governor's budget did not
request BSA increase, but did include the additional and
final year of the implementation of the district cost
factors. She explained that the $1.7 billion represented in
the FY13 column was approximately 26 percent of the
unrestricted general funds before the legislature. She said
that the request included the full funding of the BSA at
$1.1 billion, pupil transportation, forward funding for
2013 K-12 education and pupil transportation, $329 million
for the PERS and TERS unfunded liability; a $76 million
increase over the current year roughly equivalent to a $300
increase in the BSA on current projected costs.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked how many years in a row the
legislature had approved forward funding.
Ms. Rehfeld replied 6 years.
Co-Chair Thomas said that forward funding money was sitting
and waiting to be spent on education.
Ms. Rehfeld relayed that $124 million was approved by the
house for municipal school debt reimbursement, which was an
increase over the current year of approximately $12 million
and would fund the 60 to 70 percent reimbursement of
education facility projects approved by local voters in
municipal school districts. She detailed items that had yet
to be passed by the house in the capital budget: $61
million for school construction, $24 million for 14 major
maintenance projects and $1.7 million for Mount Edgcumbe
deferred maintenance.
Ms. Rehfeld continued to Slide 6a. She stated that due to
the decline in oil production the governor was reluctant to
build in automatic formula increases; the governor was
reluctant to support automatic increase in the formula
because of the cumulative impact on the state budget. She
said that the governor was willing to consider a targeted
fixed cost increases for education. She noted an amendment
that had been submitted to the committee on March 8, 2012
from OMB, which had been based on energy and people
transportation costs. She relayed that the energy costs
that school districts had actually pain in FY11 had been
examined, as well as the projected spending for 2013, which
was why $20 million of the $30.3 million request was
targeted specifically at energy costs. She added that the
current grant program for pupil transportation was not
covering the increased costs of pupil transportation.
Co-Chair Stoltze requested further explanation of the 6
year cumulative increase in education spending.
Ms. Rehfeld explained that if the BSA was increased by
$125, $31.6 million would be put into the base budget for
the school funding formula. She furthered that in FY14
there was a proposal that the $31.6 would be in the base
budget, plus an increase in the BAS of $130. The BSA would
increase in FY15; all the additions to the BSA would be
added to the formula program, which over a 6 year period
would increase to $487 million. He stressed that these were
the areas of concern when managing the state operating
budget on an annual basis while facing declining oil
production.
2:38:57 PM
Ms. Rehfeld redirected committee attention to the
governor's March 8, 2012 amendment. She restated that the
request was for $30.3 million. She said that OMB had
identified people transportation and energy costs as
specific items that districts had said that they were
unable to cover. She shared that OMB proposed to allocate
the funds based on the BSA as if it had been included in
the funding formula, but it would not be included in the
formula. The amendment would be an appropriate way to
allocate the dollars. She pointed Slide 6, which included
multiple columns detailing the school districts, state aid
foundation allocations by district December 15, pupil
transportation allocations by district December 15, the two
totals combined, fixed cost increase allocation based on
AADM, and the totals overall for each district.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the graphs Ms. Rehfeld referred
to were available to the public on BASIS.
Co-Chair Thomas understood that with the BSA increase each
year the formula funding would need to be increased by $400
to $500 million.
Ms. Rehfeld responded that the forward funding was based on
the projection of whatever the current school funding
formula was at the time.
Co-Chair Thomas surmised that the numbers would increase
over the years.
Representative Costello asked whether school districts had
the ability to use funds on anything they wanted if the
governor's proposed budget was passed.
Ms. Rehfeld believed that the funds would be applied to
energy costs and pupil transportation. However, once the
funds were provided to the school districts, they could be
used for whatever the school board deemed the highest
operation priorities.
2:43:41 PM
Representative Doogan wondered whether the different costs
of energy for each district would be taken into
consideration.
Ms. Rehfeld replied that the AADM took into consideration
all components of the school funding formula to account for
costs in various areas.
Representative Gara asked whether the increase was a net
$10 million increase from the prior year's budget.
Ms. Rehfeld replied yes.
Representative Wilson spoke out against the one time
funding. She wondered if a statewide plan to control pupil
transportation costs had been considered.
Ms. Rehfeld replied that concerning energy, there were some
opportunities for school districts to acquire additional
support through the State Energy Program housed by the
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). She stated that
the department could best reply on the topic of pupil
transportation.
Ms. Nudelman interjected that the conversation concerning
quality, cost-controlled pupil transportation was ongoing.
She said that the department had tried several different
solutions, none of which had been particularly successful.
2:48:49 PM
Ms. Nudelman referenced Slide 7, which detailed the local
effort in the public school funding formula. She said that
the public school formula calculated basic need for each
district by starting with the October count, applying the
formula factors, and multiplying by the BSA. Once basic
need was calculated then it was decided who paid: required
local effort, federal impact aid or the state general fund.
She said that all districts received their basic need
funds. She relayed that the state general fund covered
whatever funds were needed after the required local effort
and impact aid was accounted for. She referred to the first
column in the chart depicting the required mill rate in the
state. She explained that the required mill rate was a
contribution from local governments of 4 mills of assessed
property value. The third column illustrated a change that
occurred in 2002; since that time the 4 mills was applied
to a reduced assessment. The state assessor's numbers were
reduced by only considering the increases of growth since
1999 at 50 percent. She said that when the two columns were
compared the full assessed and reduced education values
could be determined. She said that the effective mill rate
due to the assessments was below 4 percent. She discussed
the required local effort column. She said that local
governments could contribute additional amounts. The last
column on the chart showed contributions below the local
distribution cap of 4 mills.
Commissioner Hanley talked about the pre-K program focus
within the department as charted on Slide 9. He stated that
the department funding for the Head Start program matched
federal funding. The department also funded Best Beginnings
and the Parents as Teachers program. He noted that the
boxes on the left of the chart represented year one and the
boxes on the right represented year two. He stressed that
the programs were focused on high risk students. He
directed the committee's attention to the Entry (Fall)
column of the left hand box. He pointed out that under
Collaborative Approach the Bottom Quartile number was 33.
He said that the slides showed that the students moved up
the quartile, from the bottom into the higher quartiles as
the year progressed. He detailed the three basic approaches
the department took regarding pre-K: The Collaboration
Approach; which worked with Head Start to provide services
and leveraged both state and federal money, The Infused
Approached; which worked directly with the Head Start
program to increase academic rigor within the Head Start
program, and the District Approach; which was created by
the district. He highlighted that positive results had been
found in both years. He noted that additional results
could be found in year two by examining the higher numbers
of children in the top quartile by the spring.
Ms. Nudelman discussed Slide 8, which detailed local effort
history. She said that when the state went from something
less than 4 mills for the local required effort, it was
state general fund money that made up the difference. The
chart detailed the amount that the state backfilled each
year under the provision.
2:59:37 PM
Representative Wilson thought that communities were paying
a large amount in educations funds. She noted that not all
districts were paying the 4 mills, but were still seeing a
substantial increase in tax dollars for education. She
understood that there were parts of the state that where
education was entirely state funded.
Ms. Nudelman replied that only districts with taxable
property had a required local effort in the foundation
formula.
Representative Wilson understood that all parts of the
state could have taxable property if they chose.
Ms. Nudelman replied that if the area was an incorporated
government then the property could be taxed.
Representative Gara pointed out that the state aid had
increased from $77,145,225 in FY11 to $80,678,671 FY13. He
queried the formula that drove those numbers.
3:01:42 PM
Ms. Nudelman stated that since 1999, property increases in
school districts were assessed at half. If a property
assessed at $400,000 in 1998, 4 mills would be applied, if
the property were assessed in 2000, the payment required
would be $200,000.
Representative Gara asked how the amount that the state
paid was calculated.
Ms. Nudelman said that after local required effort and
federal impact aid whatever was left would be the state's
share. Whenever the local or federal aid dropped, the state
made up the difference.
Vice-chair Fairclough asked if the calculation used a full,
assessed value.
Ms. Nudelman deferred the details of the question to the
state assessor. She explained that the assessed value that
the department received from the state assessor did not
give credit for exemptions that local communities chose for
themselves.
3:04:48 PM
Commissioner Hanley stated that the department had four
components in the pre-K program. The department had $7.2
million in matching funds for the Head Start program; Best
Beginnings was supported at $612,000. The Parents as
Teachers program garnered $300,000 in state funds, and the
state pre-K allowed for $2 million. Of the $2 million $1.7
was distributed to six different districts, $300,000 went
to two intervention districts per legislative request.
Commissioner Hanley discussed Slide 10, which charted the
department's Alaska pre-K program approach and funding. The
funding source, state contribution per child, and total
cost per child of the six different programs in the
competitive grant were listed. He said that the Anchorage
($9,936.), Juneau ($13,824.), Bering Strait ($17,113.),
Nome ($13,347.), Lower Kuskokwim ($12,132.) and Yukon-
Koyukuk ($6,711.) school districts all had grants running
pre-K programs. He directed attention to the bottom two
boxes, which listed the Lower Yukon ($150,000) and Yupiit
($150,000) school districts, both were intervention
districts.
Vice-chair Fairclough asked how many students were serviced
by each of the pre-K programs.
Commissioner Hanley referred to Slide 9, which provided the
information year-by-year.
Representative Costello referred to a presentation by a
representative from the federal government who had
highlighted the alarming fact that Alaska could count on a
9 to 15 percent reduction every year in federal funds from
2012 into the future. She said that a list had been
provided as to where the reductions would be found and that
education was among the listed areas. She wondered if the
department had been in communication on a federal level in
preparation for the reduction of funds.
Commissioner Hanley stated that he had talked with Senator
Murkowski, but that no one could pinpoint where those cuts
would be located. He said that the federal funding that
supported Head Start was $32 million and that that number
could drop significantly.
Representative Costello asked which programs represented a
collaborative approach to pre-K education.
Commissioner Hanley replied that the collaboration approach
involved the state working with Head Start to establish a
program. He explained that the infuse approach used a Head
Start program already in place and determined where that
program could be strengthened.
3:10:40 PM
Commissioner Hanley continued to Slide 11 titled "Proposed
Alaska Standards." He stressed that the proposed new state
standards had been sent to the State Board of Education for
an extended public comment period and could be adopted as
early as June. He said that national standards did not
exist and that until recently every state was given the
opportunity to develop their own standards. He relayed that
the current content standards had been developed in the
mid-1990's, performance and grade level expectations had
been added later. He shared that recently the Council of
Chief State School Officers completed the development of
the common core standards. The idea was to raise the bar
for all of students across the country. He said that the
national common core standards were set in stone and that
Alaska had developed common core standard unique to the
state. He believed that Alaska's fierce independence should
not extend to the educational standards set nationwide. He
believed that Alaska's graduates would be competing with
graduates from around the country. He said that the effort
was made to assure that the common core standards for the
state met and exceeded the national standard.
3:15:44 PM
Representative Gara did not understand the new standards
presented in the presentation. He asked if the required
number math and science courses were part of the newly
developed standards.
Commissioner Hanley responded that the new standards were
meant to focus on the needs of all students and were not
intended to meet the standards set by the Governor's
Performance Scholarship. He added, however; he believed
that the new standards would make a difference in the
number of kids that would qualify for the scholarship.
Representative Gara surmised that no consideration had been
taken concerning the required number of years of math and
science.
Commissioner Hanley rebutted that the minimum courses for
graduation were a different conversation.
Representative Edgmon asked if the standards applied to
public schools.
Commissioner Hanley replied yes.
Representative Edgmon surmised that raising the standards
would cost districts money.
Commissioner Hanley replied in the affirmative. He added
that Best Practices suggested that standards be reviewed
approximately every 6 years. He said that it was the
responsibility of the state to set the standards and there
would be cost associated with any standards the state set.
3:18:17 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough had heard that the standards adopted
by the Anchorage School Board were higher than the current
standards out for review. She asked if the National
Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) scores would be
adopted in order to measure Alaska's students head-to-head
with other students in the country.
Commissioner Hanley replied that Anchorage had adopted
standards that the Anchorage School Board believed to be
higher than the proposed state standards. He applauded
Anchorage for attempting to raise the bar. He did not
believe that pulling one standard out of language arts
standards represented more of an increase in rigor than
what was outlined in the newly proposed state standards. He
did not anticipate that there would be very much difference
between the Anchorage standard and the one adopted by the
rest of the state. He believed that districts that wanted
to purchase curriculum materials that were aligned with the
common core standards would be adequately aligned with
state standards.
Vice-chair Fairclough referred to a presentation from the
department's website on Alaska's proposed English Language,
Arts and Mathematics standards. She expressed concern with
page 33, which stated:
"It is up to schools and teachers to decide how to put
the standards into practice and incorporate other
standards, including the cultural standards."
Vice-chair Fairclough queried the validity of an assessment
that was created by those it assessed. She stressed that
Alaskan graduates were being compared with other students
by their NAEP scores for college admissions and expressed
concern that Alaska's students would be in the lower
percentile.
Commissioner Hanley believed that the state standards would
be equal or greater than the rest of the country.
3:23:07 PM
Representative Wilson asked if it would be cost effective
for the state to use an assessment that was already being
used in the rest of the nation.
Commissioner Hanley replied that the department did not
know what the costs would be. He said that if the other
assessments proved to be more cost effective for the state
than creating our own assessment, then one of them would be
used.
Representative Costello echoed constituents concerns
regarding how the districts communicated with the parents.
She said that parents of children that performed well under
the school based assessment testing believed that their
children were doing very well in school. She opined that
when compared to test scores on the national level the
students were underperforming. She hoped that as the
department looked into assessments, meaningful
communication with parents would be considered.
Commissioner Hanley asserted that educators needed to stop
lying to kids. He clarified that building a false sense of
self-esteem would be detrimental to students in the long
run. He felt that the proposed standards would allow for
more honest assessments.
Representative Costello asked if the state could stop
participating in No Child Left Behind.
Commissioner Hanley replied no. He said that there were
waivers that alleviated the state's responsibility for
adequate yearly progress. He reported that if the state
wanted to move towards a waiver several things would need
to be in place: the school accountability model would need
to change, college and career ready standards would need to
be established, and student achievement would need to be
tired directly to teacher and principal evaluations.
3:29:10 PM
Representative Doogan probed the three sets of standards:
test based graduation standards, college scholarship
standards and how they all fit together.
Commissioner Hanley explained that the present standards
were content standards and when standardized testing became
required some performance standards were built into
particular grade levels. He said that once it was required
to assess students across grade levels the "grade level
expectations," which were performance standards for grades
3 through 10, were added. He relayed that the three
standards had been simplified into one in the new proposed
standards. He furthered that the standards set what kids
need to know upon graduation, but the assessments that were
performed measured how students were progressing towards
proficiency of the standards. He said that Alaska currently
assessed students in grades 3 through 10. He walked through
the assessments starting with the developmental profile
which occurred in the first month of kindergarten and the
first part of 1st grade. He shared that the standards based
assessment was performed in grades 3 through 10. He said
that the assessment were driven by federal statute and was
the largest component of the state's assessment protocol.
He stated that the final test was the High School
Graduation Qualifying Exam (HSGQE), which existed in
statute and was a minimum competency test of basic 8th,
9th, and 10th grade skills.
3:35:10 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough said that the HSGQE was the test
showed that students in the state were 20 points below the
national average.
Commissioner Hanley corrected that it would be the standard
baseline assessment that recognized the low-cut score. He
said that the HSGQU was not a separate test. In 10th grade
the student took the standard baseline assessment with the
HSGQE incorporated; one test would result in two scores.
Commissioner Hanley continued to the Alternative
Assessment: Modified and Nonstandardized HSGQE, which was
used for students with disabilities. He highlighted that
the Norm-referenced Assessment was the one assessment that
was still a part of the protocol, but was no longer part of
the state's accountability protocol.
Commissioner Hanley continued to Slide 13, which listed
several other assessments.
Co-Chair Thomas asked how the state rated on the NAEP
scores.
Commissioner Hanley stated that the NAEP was performed in
the 4th and 8th grades. He shared that at the 4th grade
level the state ranked 5th from the bottom in reading and
33rd from the top in math. He added that in 8th grade
reading the state was 7th from the bottom and 26th from top
in math. He shared that Alaska was ranked 3rd in the
country as far as progression in an upward direction.
3:40:10 PM
Co-Chair Thomas wondered if the numbers could be broken
down by district.
Commissioner Hanley though he could provide the numbers at
a later date.
Representative Costello asked if the NAEP was independent
in providing a representation of a group of students.
Commissioner Hanley replied that every student in
representative districts took the test in the 4th and 8th
grade.
Representative Costello wondered if the department knew how
many elementary school curriculums used Everyday Math.
Commissioner Hanley replied that he did not know.
Co-Chair Thomas asked who chose the students in each
district to take the NAEP test.
Commissioner Hanley said that it was a random sampling of
students. He added that the diversity of each school
district was taken into consideration in order to select a
good representation of the state's population. He said that
5,500 4th graders were selected and 4,800 8th graders were
selected for the test statewide.
3:42:10 PM
Commissioner Hanley discussed the graduation rate, he
explained that he adjusted cohort graduation rate was
reported as a fraction:
The numerator is the sum of the number of graduates
within the cohort who receive a regular diploma on or
before June 30.
The denominator is the sum of all students assigned to
the cohort from the 9th grade class three years prior.
Commissioner Hanley stressed that the converse of the
equation was not the drop-out rate. He stated that the
current graduation rate was 68 percent, and rising. He said
that drop-out rates were rated annually. He cited the green
bar on the graph, which illustrated a 4.7 percent drop-out
rate for 2011. He explained that by adding together the
drop-out rates for the four year cohort; 2008 through 2011,
the total drop-out rate was 20.1 percent.
Co-Chair Thomas asked if school districts suffered a
financial loss when students dropped out.
Commissioner Hanley replied that it would depend on when
they dropped out. The funding would remain in the system if
the student dropped out after October.
Vice-chair Fairclough asked what the drop-out equation on
the annual basis. She wondered what happened to the extra
10 percent.
Commissioner Hanley replied that approximately 2 percent of
the students had serious disabilities and moved into life
skills courses rather than graduating, 2 to 3 percent that
ended up being 5th or 6th year seniors and the remainder
who moved on to get their certificates of achievement.
Representative Costello asked if the districts ever
followed up with students that had dropped out to determine
why they had not finished.
Commissioner Hanley replied that interviews did not occur
at the state level, but often they were performed at the
local level. He said that given the myriad of reason that
students dropped out it was difficult to address with a
single methodology why students left school.
Representative Gara cited pages 4 (General Fund
Appropriations for K-12 Education) and 15 (Graduation and
Dropout Rate). He noted that the years with the most
improved graduation rates directly correlated with the
years with the largest boosts in education funding.
3:47:21 PM
Commissioner Hanley replied that he could not speculate on
the matter.
Representative Gara recalled that the state was 5th from
the bottom nationally for 4th grade reading ability. He
asked if a more comprehensive voluntary pre-K system would
have a positive effect on the numbers.
Commissioner Hanley responded that it was difficult to
predict. He said positive results had been seen in the
current pre-K program, but stressed that current pre-K
programs served mostly high risk students.
3:48:21 PM
Commissioner Hanley turned to Slide 16, which listed the
Boarding Home Schools around the state.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if the boarding schools had long
waiting lists.
Commissioner Hanley replied no. He added that they did tend
to operate at full capacity. He recalled that Mount
Edgecumbe had a waiting list.
Representative Neuman wondered if any of the boarding
schools, other than Mount Edgecumbe, would eventually be
state operated.
Commissioner Hanley responded that discussions on the
matter were not occurring at this time.
Co-Chair Thomas wondered if the department was responsible
for oversight of teacher competency.
Commissioner Hanley said that the department worked
directly with teacher prep program for the university.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if the Professional Practices
Commission (PPC) was involved in monitoring teacher
performance.
Commissioner Hanley explained that the PPC would only get
involved if a teacher had violated the law.
Co-Chair Thomas asked if teachers at Mount Edgecumbe had
tenure.
Commissioner Hanley believed that they did. He said he
would need to research the issue further.
Co-Chair Thomas expressed curiosity as how Mount Edgecumbe
teachers might be treated differently for tenure because
the school was state run. He thought that the granting of
tenure for those teachers should come from the State
Education Board or The Legislature.
Commissioner Hanley replied that tenure was generally
granted by the State Education Board. He said that the
board was currently pushing for accreditation, higher rigor
in regard to social studies and SAT testing for all
students.
Commissioner Hanley concluded that regional schools needed
to be driven by local communities.
3:53:04 PM
Representative Joule pointed out that the level of funding
the legislature could offer was based on the throughput of
the oil pipeline. He wondered if the department had done
any modeling to determine what less funding would mean for
rural school districts.
Commissioner Hanley replied that most small districts did
not come to state for suggestions on their budget. He
expressed that the department was willing to work with
them. He said that conversations were taking place
regarding regional schools. He warned that the setting up
of regional schools could have a negative impact on smaller
schools. He believed that there were models available that
could be studied in order to offer rural students a greater
opportunity in a larger setting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:55 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HFIN Ed Accountability Responsibility Overview 3.26.12.pdf |
HFIN 3/26/2012 1:30:00 PM |
|
| $$_HOUSE_FINANCE_03_26_12_Fixed_Cost_Increases_AADMl_Version_2.pdf |
HFIN 3/26/2012 1:30:00 PM |
|
| HFIN EDC Presentation slide 6A to PowerPoint 3.26.12.pdf |
HFIN 3/26/2012 1:30:00 PM |
|
| HFIN EDC presentation 3.26.12 unfunded liability.pdf |
HFIN 3/26/2012 1:30:00 PM |