Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/27/2012 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: School Board Presidents or Designated Board Member | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 27, 2012
1:42 p.m.
1:42:22 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Thomas called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:42 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 Swain, President, Bristol Bay Borough School
District; Pete Hoepfner, President, Cordova School District
Board of Education.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Kristina Brophy, President, Fairbanks North Star Borough
School Board; Mike Dunleavy, President, Matanuska-Susitna
Borough School Board; Deena Paramo, Superintendent,
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District; Gretchen Guess,
President, Anchorage School Board.
SUMMARY
PRESENTATION:
SCHOOL BOARD PRESIDENTS OR DESIGNATED BOARD
MEMBER: Bristol Bay, Cordova, Fairbanks,
Matanuska, Anchorage
1:43:16 PM
^PRESENTATION: SCHOOL BOARD PRESIDENTS OR DESIGNATED BOARD
MEMBER
BRISTOL BAY
MICHAEL SWAIN, PRESIDENT, BRISTOL BAY BOROUGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT, shared that the single-site district served about
150 students from the communities of King Salmon, Naknek,
and South Naknek. He relayed that the district did not meet
all of the No Child Left Behind requirements for the first
time in 2011. All academic standards had been met; however,
the district's 72 percent graduation rate had been below
the new 85 percent requirement. He read responses to a list
of questions that had been provided by the House Finance
Committee (copy on file):
What is your FY 13 total school district budget?
· In 2013, our total budget is $4,144,778.
· In 2012, our total budget was $3,856,653.
What percentage goes to personnel?
· Personnel costs this year represent 68% of our
total budget. Historically, that number had been
60-65% for the greater part of a decade in
Bristol Bay. In the last 5 years we have moved
that number up, knowing that our salaries and
benefits were not as competitive as necessary and
that was a position of not only the district, but
the 2007 Education Funding Task Force that the
State Legislature had created.
Provide a graph that shows your total school district
budget from FY 09-FY 13 (5 years), broken down by
funding source (state/local/fed/mix).
[Graph included in complete response on file.]
Mr. Swain noted that in reference to the school district's
budget, the local financial contribution had increased
annually at a rate equal to or above the state's
contribution. He continued on page 2 of the response:
Did you fund to the total allowable local contribution
in FY 12?
· No.
In FY 13?
· No, the borough has never gone to the cap, yet
they continue to fund at a level that is above
the 4 mill commitment they are required to make.
Their initial discussions this year starts at an
equivalent of 4.4 mill. In some years their cash
and in-kind contributions have been above a 5
mill level.
Mr. Swain communicated that the borough's typical
contribution was around 5 mills. He moved to questions 2
through 4 on page 2:
If not, how much below were you?
· On average the Borough contribution is generally
$200,000 plus below the cap.
Why?
· The Borough has many priorities and like the
legislature, there are times when education is
not the top or only priority.
· Members of the community and Assembly hear what
individuals like the Governor say about schools
being failed systems and bad investments, often
echoed by other elected officials, the University
of Alaska system, and a national media, and they
have a harder time believing we need more money.
· There are many who believe the rhetoric that
schools are failing and are not helping prepare
kids for the future. In asking the district to
accept the same funding for two years, the FY12
contributions of the borough amounted to a
reduction as no costs would stay the same as in
FY11.
· We also recognize that our declining student
numbers is also an indicator of the fact that
fewer homes in our Borough contain children who
attend our schools and as their other expenses
continue to escalate it is harder for them to
continue to support education at a level they may
have.
How much has the state contributed to the PERS/TRS
unfunded liability on behalf of your school district
in FY12?
· TRS- $329,150, PERS $55,262, Total- $384,412
How much has the state contributed to the PERS/TRS
unfunded liability costs on behalf of your district in
FY 13?
· TRS- $424,175, PERS $57,539, Total- $491,714
Mr. Swain noted that page 3 included a chart illustrating
the unfunded liability of the Teachers' Retirement System
(TRS) and Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS), given
that the reporting requirement had begun in 2008. He
addressed questions 2 and 3 on page 3.
When was your most recently ratified teacher contract
put into place?
· We settled a three-year contract in June of 2010.
Next January we will begin new negotiations with
our teachers.
What were the terms?
· In the last negotiations, salaries increased by
2% for 2010-11, 3% for 2011-12, and 3% for 2012-
13 with similar insurance splits above the cap
begun in 2008.
· In the 2007-2008 school year we had also settled
a three-year agreement with our teachers and that
settlement included a 4% settlement in each year
and a requirement that teachers and other staff
would begin to pick up a share of their insurance
premium.
What is your average teacher salary?
· In 2012, average teacher salary: $53,068
1:49:21 PM
Mr. Swain turned to question 4 on page 3:
What is your starting teacher salary?
· In the 2011-2012 school year our starting salary
was $43,914
· Next year that starting salary will be $45,231
Did you negotiate significant salary increases in your
labor contracts for FY 13?
· It will be another 3% increase next year
· Depending on the increase to health insurance
costs, the teacher share of the amount paid per
month will also go up and cut into that raise.
Co-Chair Stoltze observed that the district's salaries were
lower than those in other areas. He wondered whether the
lower salaries were a result of turnover or if they were
just lower in general. Mr. Swain responded that retirement
in the past several years had brought the district's
average salary down; many of the teachers were relatively
new and had not topped out the pay schedule.
Co-Chair Stoltze surmised that the district's salary
schedule was artificially low compared to years when
teachers had been employed long-term. Mr. Swain responded
in the affirmative.
Representative Edgmon asked whether the salary was
reflective of the amount of teacher turnover. Mr. Swain
answered that turnover was partially due to the region's
challenging living environment. The cost of living was also
high and could be difficult for teachers working to provide
for a family. He furthered that the district had
successfully kept teachers for long periods of time, but
many had reached retirement age in the past 3 to 4 years.
Representative Edgmon clarified that he had not meant to
infer that teachers were leaving because Bristol Bay was
not a good place to teach or live; he believed there were
other factors playing a part in the turnover.
Representative Wilson queried whether the starting salary
figure factored in benefits. Mr. Swain believed that the
figure represented salary and was not inclusive of
benefits.
Representative Wilson asked for follow up information on
the average amount that teachers paid into their health
insurance. Mr. Swain answered that teachers currently paid
$130 per month for health insurance costs; the amount would
increase the following year due to rising healthcare costs.
He confirmed that the salary figure did not include
anything in addition to salary.
1:53:29 PM
Mr. Swain returned to page 3 of the questions and answers:
If yes why did you do that given the current funding
situation/debate?
· Is 3% significant? Not when people get $400 month
electric bills in Naknek and King Salmon, gas for
an auto has been over $5.25 a gallon for 5 plus
years, and a gallon of milk is sold locally at
$12.00. Current round trip airfares to Anchorage
from King Salmon are nearly $600.00.
· When state employees and other federal employees
living in the same region are provided
differentials equal to 20-30% more than
colleagues in Anchorage to address the high cost
of living, shouldn't a similar system exist for
the teachers living in those same conditions.
What are the cost drivers in your budget?
· Energy costs are big and there is no controlling
those costs. The facility has millions in
deferred maintenance to complete and that will
grow significantly in next 6 years.
· Transportation costs, the shipping costs
associated with supplies and materials, travel
for our own staff, professional development
presenters, and visiting special education
related services personnel who are required to be
on-site are all significant.
· Health insurance costs continue to escalate in
ways that are significant, as are other insurance
costs.
Mr. Swain directed attention to page 4:
How much were your energy costs in FY 11?
· $373,744.53
How much do you project them to be in FY 13?
· $421,000
Do you have a system in place to make budget
adjustments when enrollment drops - how do you
approach this?
· We are in a declining enrollment mode and have
two large cohorts of 20 graduating in FY13 and
FY14 and only 5-7 children coming into
kindergarten.
· We are reducing staff as a result, but the next
reductions will cause us to restructure our
elementary grade level instruction and that will
create new challenges that will require
significant retraining of teachers and the
community.
What are your biggest instructional challenges?
· Math and writing are big challenges for our
district, and science scores remain well below
what we would like them to be.
· In recent years we have dedicated considerable
efforts to a review and update of our language
arts curriculum, which resulted in the purchase
of new instructional materials for grades k-5 and
professional development for staff.
· We are looking into our math program and if there
might be a better set of materials for our
teachers to use. This is a big undertaking and
requires some research so we avoid the mistakes
others occasionally make.
· High turnover demands a greater commitment to
professional development for all staff. In a 2-3
year period you could have no teacher trained in
the use of specific materials and programs the
district has committed to and if we don't change
that, academic success will suffer.
What grade would you give your school district (A-F)?
· We are a district that gets a B or B-. We have
high performing teachers and students and
understand what the state standards require. We
know we can always do better, and while we
continue to meet the NCLB academic targets, when
the required graduation rate jumped to 85% this
year, we did not make that target.
· In 2010 and 2011 a total of 3 students who did
not graduate in 4 years came back to take the
last parts of the graduation exam in the fall
semester and they passed. That allowed them to
earn their diplomas, but there is no credit given
to the student or school for that success.
· We know that every student, every parent, staff
member, and community member wants every child to
graduate and we will do better in this area. Our
small numbers do mean that every single child
represents about 10% in that calculation, so we
must make sure every child is successful.
What are you proposing to do differently to improve
student performance?
· Continue the good things we are doing. The fact
that 70-90% of our children are proficient in
every academic area, is an indicator that many
things we do, our families do, and our students
do are working.
1:58:50 PM
Mr. Swain turned to the questions on page 5:
Is the state providing the kind of planning and
curriculum support that is helpful to your school
district?
· DEED is a much more regulatory and compliance
agency then an agency that can provide supports
in curriculum and planning.
· In recent years a growing focus of their services
has been to provide support for those districts
and schools identified as the lowest performing,
and thankfully, that is not an issue we are
dealing with.
· Our district typically turns to the Anchorage,
Mat-Su, and Kenai districts for those supports as
they have much more evolved and robust expertise
in these areas.
· We have sought federal grants for additional
support in this area and it has been very
helpful.
How can the DEED [Department of Education and Early
Development], the Board of Education or other state
agencies help you achieve better results, other than
just providing you with more money?
· Truly eliminate the items we regularly suggest
are of no value, to us or the state- (i.e. the
70/30 requirements or waiver letters, a
graduation exam that limits any individual
students from earning a diploma, help families do
a better job of parenting and getting their
children to school and learning the importance of
that basic skill by enforcing statutes on truancy
and having law enforcement and courts fulfill
their statutory obligations in this matter, etc.)
· Hold the university system accountable to a
higher standard. If they are concerned about k-12
preparation, establish a standard of admission
standards that goes beyond open enrollment so
everyone understands the competitive world of
today and tomorrow will require skills and
training beyond high school.
· Help to support the Department of Labor realize
that teacher and administrative shortages in our
rural areas are real concerns for the present and
future. These shortages will only get worse if we
don't take a serious look at what can be done to
better invest in recruiting and support for those
willing to accept that challenge.
How much ARRA [American Recovery and Reinvestment Act]
funding did you receive over the past few years?
· Bristol Bay received just over $120,000, which
included both the ARRA and State Stabilization
funding, and the Education Jobs dollars.
How did you invest any ARRA funds you received?
· We used the one-time ARRA funding for some of the
professional development, instructional materials
including some technology purchases, and other
infrastructure needs we had set aside in recent
years.
· Some of this money designated for special
education needs allowed us to extend our related
services agreements to include an additional
visit or provide support for the related costs.
2:01:45 PM
Representative Wilson asked whether the district had
broadband internet. Mr. Swain replied in the affirmative.
Representative Wilson wondered whether the school was able
to provide distance learning or e-learning courses to its
students. Mr. Swain replied that the broadband did allow
for some distance learning and other online capabilities,
but delays were common.
Representative Wilson inquired what kind of e-learning was
used by the district. Mr. Swain answered that some distance
delivery courses were offered when they were not available
locally; some second language courses were offered through
partnerships, given that funding was not available for a
position within the district.
Representative Gara wondered whether the district was
currently facing a budget deficit and if so, how it planned
on dealing with the deficit. Additionally, he asked what
change in the Base Student Allocation (BSA) the district
would need to maintain the prior year's level of operation.
Mr. Swain responded that the district was facing a deficit
of approximately $250,000. He believed the school system
would need a BSA of approximately $320 in order to be "held
harmless" compared to the prior year. The district had
notified the borough that its contribution would need to
increase as it had in the past few years.
Vice-chair Fairclough asked how many facilities the school
district operated for its 150 students. Mr. Swain replied
that Bristol Bay had one school facility. Vice-chair
Fairclough asked whether the district's 68 percent in
personnel costs included benefits. Mr. Swain responded in
the affirmative. Vice-chair Fairclough observed that
another 20 percent of funding costs were directed at
utilities. Mr. Swain answered in the affirmative;
approximately 20 percent to 28 percent of the budget went
to utilities and maintenance costs. The school facility was
nice and had been built for approximately 290 students;
enrollment had declined over the past 20 years. Vice-chair
Fairclough understood challenges facing small, rural school
districts.
2:05:58 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed taxable and non-taxable property
in the Bristol Bay community. He wondered whether the
district would be better served with around $200,000 in
capital project funding for the school instead of an
increase to the BSA. He stated that capital project funding
was often the most efficient way to deliver services for
small communities. Mr. Swain responded that any funding
would be great. He pointed to rising energy costs and
explained that a one-time appropriation would help
temporarily, but would not address long-term needs.
Vice-chair Fairclough queried whether renewable energy
grants could be used to offer lower cost service for public
facilities in smaller communities. The state was investing
hundreds of millions of dollars to provide renewable energy
to communities across the state; some communities were
using the funds to reduce long-term operational costs for
utilities in school districts.
Representative Guttenberg referred to the earlier
discussion on broadband internet and asked whether e-rates
were part of the district's program. Mr. Swain answered in
the affirmative; it was the only reason the district could
provide broadband service.
2:10:11 PM
Representative Edgmon relayed that Bristol Bay's cost of
energy was $374,000 in the current year and would increase
to $421,000 the following year. Wrangell was a warmer
climate but had $188,000 in current year energy costs,
which would increase to $221,000 the following year (the
community was hoping to install electric boilers). He
mentioned Kodiak and the North Slope and stressed the high
cost of energy for school districts statewide.
Co-Chair Thomas believed that Representative Edgmon had hit
on the reason that the one-time energy grant did not work.
He noted that 40 percent would go to one community to
stabilize energy costs, but those of other communities
would increase from 15 percent to 18 percent. He wondered
about the appropriate way to handle the problem. He
discussed the costs of energy for various Southeast
communities.
Co-Chair Stoltze opined that sensitivity was needed on
various issues (transportation, energy, etc.) impacting
regions statewide. He acknowledged that Representative
Edgmon had been consistent in recognizing issues affecting
areas throughout the state.
2:14:30 PM
CORDOVA
PETE HOEPFNER, PRESIDENT, CORDOVA SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF
EDUCATION, introduced himself and provided his professional
background. He was involved in the health, safety, and
education of the children of Alaska. He read responses to a
list of questions that had been provided by the House
Finance Committee (copy on file):
What is your FY 13 total school district budget?
· $6,290,730
What percentage goes to personnel?
· 79.66 percent
Mr. Hoepfner noted that the district's business manager did
not want to give a budget that was in deficit; therefore,
the FY 13 budget was balanced for no increase at $5,680
[BSA of $5,680 per Average Daily Membership]. The number
included the district's deficits; no salary increase for
teachers; no replacement of the elementary school
principal; cuts to teachers, supplies, travel, professional
services, fuel, and electricity costs; no head maintenance
position; the reduction of a teacher at the elementary and
junior/senior high levels; and the loss of two science
teachers and an English teacher. The school district had a
deficit of approximately $300,000 or a 6 percent reduction,
which reflected two years of flat funding at a 3 percent
inflation increase. The district was looking at a $125
increase to the BSA, which equated to a $95,000 increment.
Mr. Hoepfner pointed to a graph showing the total school
district budget for FY 09 to FY 13 (page 2). He continued
with the questions on page 2:
Did you fund to the total allowable local contribution
in FY 12?
· $1,799,862 or 98.75 percent of the maximum
contribution
In FY 13?
· 1,790,940 or 94.93 percent of the maximum
contribution
Mr. Hoepfner explained that the school district was
required to project its budget to the city in November of
each year; it was difficult to predict what the maximum
contribution would be that early on. He noted that many
districts were able to present their budgets in March,
which allowed for increased accuracy in the projections. He
continued on page 3:
How much has the state contributed to the PERS/TRS
unfunded liability on behalf of your school district
in FY 12?
· TRS $718,148
· PERS $93,930
FY 13?
· TRS $846,119
· PERS $95,639
Mr. Hoepfner relayed that the Cordova mayor had requested
the district's budget for the prior 10 years. The budget
had been approximately $8,500 per student in FY 02; the
number had increased to $17,000 in FY 13. He explained that
the TRS and PERS costs in FY 13 added $4,158 to the student
cost.
2:19:48 PM
Mr. Hoepfner continued to address questions on page 3:
When was your most recently ratified teacher contract
put into place?
· FY 10
What were the terms? (salary and benefits
increases/decreases per year, in percentages {or
dollars, if appropriate})
Salary Terms
· 3% salary raise in FY 10
· 4% salary raise in FY 11
· 5% salary raise in FY 12
Mr. Hoepfner added that the district's teachers had not had
a salary increase for quite some time and were at the lower
one-third of the salary scales throughout the state. The
district had increased 50 percent of the additional cost to
the health insurance:
Benefit Terms
· Teachers paid $60 per month for health insurance
in FY 10
· Teachers paid $104 per month for health insurance
in FY 11
· Teachers paid $196 per month for health insurance
in FY 12
What is your average teacher salary?
· $72,445
Mr. Hoepfner communicated that Cordova's school system had
excellent teacher retention; 82 percent of its teachers
fell into the category of salaries above $64,500 in teacher
salary surveys. He accentuated that there was extensive
seniority and experience within the district. He added that
new staff, who were paid lower salaries, were the first to
go when any reductions in staff were necessary; therefore,
salaries had been increasing. He continued on with page 3:
What is your starting teacher salary?
· $47,484.
Mr. Hoepfner relayed that during its FY 10 contract
negotiations, the district had realized that its beginning
salaries were very low; therefore, the salaries had been
increased up to and held at the third year on the pay scale
until a teacher had been with the district for four years.
He moved to the next question on page 3:
Did you negotiate significant salary increases in your
labor contracts for FY2013? If yes, why did you do
that given the current funding situation/debate?
· The Cordova School District is presently
negotiating a contract with the teachers for the
next three years.
Co-Chair Thomas asked whether the Cordova school system had
money to negotiate. Mr. Hoepfner replied in the negative.
Co-Chair Thomas wondered how contracts would be paid if the
district did not have the money. Mr. Hoepfner answered that
the district had opened negotiations the week before. He
added that it was a hard situation. Co-Chair Thomas
questioned the district's decision to conduct contract
negotiations when it was already in need of funding and
likened it to the "tail wagging the dog." Mr. Hoepfner
replied that the situation was very difficult. The only way
to save money was to reduce staff if teachers negotiated a
salary increase.
2:23:24 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze referred to a strategy to receive funding
that had occurred in the past and asked whether the
district would use the approach. He did not want to be a
part of the school's negotiation process. Mr. Hoepfner
replied in the negative. He reiterated an earlier statement
that staff cuts would be the necessary option if salary
increases for teachers came to fruition.
Co-Chair Stoltze inquired how many students were enrolled
in the Cordova school system. Mr. Hoepfner replied that
there were currently 340 students; the projection for the
following year was 326.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether the Cordova school system
was part of larger school district. Mr. Hoepfner answered
in the negative; Cordova was a single-site school district.
There was a recently renovated elementary school building
and a junior/senior high school.
Representative Wilson pointed the "Function 700" line in
the district's FY 13 budget (page 1 of the questionnaire)
and asked if $45,916 was the base teacher salary with
benefits in the amount of $19,804. Mr. Hoepfner responded
that Function 700 related to student activities. Function
100 represented instruction and Function 200 represented
special education instruction.
Representative Wilson queried whether the average teacher
salary of $72,445 and the starting teacher salary of
$47,484 included benefits. Mr. Hoepfner replied that FY 13
budget showed benefits listed to the right of the salaries
column. He added that salaries accounted for approximately
$2.2 million of the FY 13 budget.
2:26:25 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough asked for a breakout of instructional
versus administrative dollars. Mr. Hoepfner replied that
instructional costs were included under Function 100
(totaling $3.3 million), school administration fell under
Function 400 (totaling $298 thousand), school
administration support was included under Function 450
(totaling $169 thousand), district administration fell
under Function 510 (totaling $215 thousand), and district
administration support fell under Function 550 (totaling
$266 thousand) [all functions included salaries, benefits,
and non-personnel].
Representative Gara discussed that in prior years the BSA
had been increased by $100 to $200 per year. He asked
whether the school would currently have sufficient funds if
the legislature had increased the BSA by $160 per year. Mr.
Hoepfner answered in the affirmative. The funds would have
helped the school to keep its staff; teachers had been lost
through attrition due to retirement or personal reasons.
The district was trying not to cut positions; however, it
would not be possible in the current year. He noted that a
couple of staff had already been let go.
Co-Chair Stoltze observed that at $95,000 in the first year
of BSA that a 50/50 ratio on salary to benefit costs would
not cover the costs of a teacher. Mr. Hoepfner replied that
the amount would be enough to cover a new teacher salary of
$47,484 and benefits of approximately $20,000 with a small
amount remaining. He returned to questions on page 3:
What are the costs drivers in your budget?
· Teacher salaries, health insurance and energy
Mr. Hoepfner referenced a handout showing a graph (copy on
file) that included insurance costs to the district from FY
04 to FY 12; costs had doubled during the time period. The
health insurance increase was 17 percent; a 10 percent
increase to the district equated to $80,000. He continued
on page 3:
How much were your energy costs in FY 11?
Mr. Hoepfner pointed to graphs illustrating the district's
energy, electric, and fuel usage (copy on file). The
district had been responsible with its funding; however,
its superintendent recommended that it look into a waste
oil burner. The associated cost for the burner would be
approximately $50,000. He explained that Cordova was a
fishing community and fishermen deposited their oil into a
waste oil facility; oil was used to heat the base of the
school district. The process had been very successful;
$384,000 had been saved over a four-year period.
2:31:25 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked for detail related to
electric costs and noted that graphs showed considerable
savings in the area. Mr. Hoepfner responded that there had
initially been six hot water heaters online; when Jim
Nygaard started as superintendent he turned off all but two
of the heaters, which helped to save money. Other savings
had come from shutting off lights, leaving doors closed,
and other. He referenced a question about the expectation
of energy costs in FY 13 and relayed that the school was
looking at a lighting retrofit; the project had been put
out to bid, but there had been no applicants; the school
remained hopeful that the project could be completed.
Additionally, Superintendent Nygaard had helped the
renovation of the elementary school come to fruition.
Electricity had increased during the construction phase. He
furthered that a new gym had been added and energy costs
were down due to new lighting and efficient air handlers.
He emphasized that the school was working very hard to save
costs and to put savings towards the students.
Co-Chair Thomas observed that the school ran on
approximately 95 percent hydro-electric. Mr. Hoepfner
responded in the affirmative. He elaborated that the
community electric system developed a hydro-electric dam
that was significantly helping the school. Previously power
had been provided by old diesel submarine engines. The
hydro-electric site worked mainly during the summer months.
Co-Chair Thomas discussed that two hydro facilities had
been installed (the debt had been paid off on one).
Additionally, there was heat recovery on the diesel
generators through the Renewable Energy Fund; the projects
had come close to maxing out the funds available to
Cordova.
Mr. Hoepfner added that the city had changed its lighting
over to LEDs from sodium, which had resulted in less light
pollution and a decrease in costs. He moved to the last
question on page 3:
Do you have a system in place to make budget
adjustments when enrollment drops - how do you
approach this?
· We are not replacing teachers in the district.
Mr. Hoepfner addressed page 4 of the questionnaire and read
from a handout titled "Cordova School District" (copy on
file):
What are your biggest instructional challenges?
· Trying to anticipate what the Standards will look
like from year to year.
· Accessing/understanding growing data (and in some
cases lacking data...YRBS). With the MAP testing
we continue to grow with our student's needs
(current/accurate data that reflects the
individual student).
· Curriculum resources. Textbooks (electronic/
traditional) are very expensive. Cordova
struggles with the financial costs of such; in
addition, with the Standards in transition, it is
difficult to dedicate funds knowing that our
purchases could be out dated in a year (or less).
· Expense of professional development. Bringing
resources to Cordova can be very expensive. We do
great things with video conferencing
/webinars/Skype, but there are trainings that do
require face time of the presenter.
· Alaska Staff Development Network (ASDN) provides
great ongoing coursework for staff professional
development that compliments the training needs
as well. This is sponsored by AASA and is
coordinated by Kelly Tonsmeire and Bruce Johnson.
· Growing number of mandates from state/federal
government. Although many of these mandates are
supported by staff and administration, it is
tough to squeeze them all in during our limited
in service times.
· The high school staff recently volunteered to
work through the scheduled professional
development with more student contact time making
the PD schedules even more challenging.
2:37:41 PM
Mr. Hoepfner continued reading from the "Cordova School
District" handout:
What grade do you give Cordova School District?
· I give Cordova Schools an A for our school
district's efforts. In order to get that A to an
A+ will require curriculum development in all
areas. We have developed a great baseline of
training development for our staff as we await
the direction the Standards/Common Core will
move.
· We utilize technology to its fullest in these
efforts by better engaging our students allowing
them to fully understand and relate to what they
are learning and have established opportunities
to apply what they learn (boat building
skills/Science Fair/growing salmon/4th R role
playing).
· Cordova is successfully working with better, more
aggressive data collection that allows us better
understanding of our students. Current SBA
testing is outdated with limited opportunities
for specific/detailed student reports that
teachers need for immediate lesson development.
· Once we have the security of knowing where our
curriculum is taking us, we can easily transfer
our developed skills to implement the current
curriculum.
· Also, in order to raise our student proficiency,
we need to be more aggressive in assisting young
mothers as they develop their mothering skills.
Unfortunately, the state does not recognize this
need for preschool development in communities
such as Cordova. Although our student proficiency
is near the top for the state of Alaska, support
for a preschool program could raise the scores
considerably in nearly each grade level.
Mr. Hoepfner elaborated that with the Consortium for
Digital Learning the district had instituted a one-to-one
laptop program within the schools; grades 7 through 9 had
received laptops in 2006. Subsequently each new 7th grade
class had been added to the program. Currently laptops were
available for 7th through 12th graders to take home.
Elementary school students had carts at school where they
could leave their computers. The district had just
purchased iPad 2s for first the grade at a $100 discount
per iPad.
Mr. Hoepfner returned to the "Cordova School District"
handout:
Is the state providing the kind of planning and
curriculum support that is helpful to your school
district?
· Cordova is pleased with the support provided by
EED. Areas such as special education continue to
grow with paperwork burdens to staff. In this
case, EED does an exceptional job assisting us.
Director's meetings and teacher meetings are
scheduled annually at the state level that allows
interested/available staff to attend and
participate in the many discussions.
· Areas involving traditional curriculum
development (ex: math) that require an active
teacher's input/involvement are always offered by
EED. In these cases, Cordova staff always
considers participating and if the schedules
allow we do send staff to Juneau. In most cases,
staff involvement is challenged by an already
busy teacher schedule or inclement weather
challenges in getting to/fro...making most
teachers squirm over potentially more missed
days. One tidbit of data that has been consistent
over the years is the fact that the more time a
classroom teacher misses, the more their students
(and scores) will struggle. Staff professional
development needs to be done when it is most
appropriate for all parties. Sending staff out of
town for a week to assist EED typically has
collateral damage at home if there is not a great
sub in the classroom.
· Many teachers worry about leaving their
classrooms for this reason.
· Other opportunities for EED staff development
include the 4th R Curriculum in which Cordova was
invited and was did attend the days of training
and continues to be on the steering committee at
the state level.
· Overall, the growing feeling across the district
is the need to secure our curriculum direction
that will allow us to develop our resources that
will complement our student's learning needs.
Adoption of the standards/Common Core will allow
us to move forward at a more confident rate.
Mr. Hoepfner expressed excitement about the scientifically
based 4th R Curriculum program, which helped students
fighting substance abuse, dating violence, cyber bullying,
etc.
2:42:29 PM
Mr. Hoepfner moved back to the "Cordova School District"
handout:
How can the DEED, the Board of Education or other
state agencies help you achieve better results, other
than just providing you with more money?
Cordova feels strongly that we do a great job
educating our students. Yet, all we read in the
paper are quotes from [Representative] Bill
Thomas or Governor Parnell stating how "we" are
all failing.
Co-Chair Thomas recalled that the commissioner of
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) had
not said that the Cordova, Klawok, or other school systems
were doing a stellar job during his presentation to the
committee. He explained that legislators quoted materials
presented to them. He stated that a 68 percent graduation
rate was a failing rate. He reiterated that the information
he was quoted on had been provided by the education
community. He emphasized that the facts were in the DEED
reports. He did not break out the schools that were
preforming well because he had not been given the
information.
Representative Gara remarked that education achievement had
been increasing albeit in years when school funding and the
BSA had been increased; he believed there was a direct
correlation between the two. He understood how much was
spent on schools and recognized that it was a struggle.
2:48:10 PM
Mr. Hoepfner relayed that Cordova felt that it was doing a
good job. He referred to the "Cordova School District"
handout and noted that [when elected officials made
statements that schools are failing] community members with
no school-aged children come to believe the information. He
pointed to a graph illustrating the school's Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) and stressed that Cordova was one of
the 12 school districts in the state that had consistently
passed AYP. He felt that that the school would be able to
pass for another year if it was given the test at present.
He believed the 100 percent proficiency requirement
scheduled to begin in 2014 was unrealistic.
Co-Chair Thomas referred to testimony from the prior day
when the committee had been told that Alaska schools rated
5th from the bottom in reading. He emphasized that the
information had not included a breakdown to show which
schools were doing well.
Mr. Hoepfner reiterated that the Cordova school system was
doing a good job. The district was working as hard as
possible and teachers were striving for excellence. He
relayed that the community expected excellence from its
teachers and children. He continued to address how DEED,
the Board of Education, or other state agencies could help
the Cordova school system achieve better results (other
than just providing the district with more money):
The Governor consistently appears to undermine the
success of our schools by purposely stating inaccurate
information about the many successes of schools or the
dropout rates. The bottom line...We are not all
failing. Improve communications from state officials
would remedy many of the issues that currently erode
the confidence in our schools.
All parties need to realize that with the uniqueness
of Alaska, there will be no easy fix/short term
solutions to the expectations of the state
/federal/local governments. Cordova feels strongly
that Commissioner Hanley is doing a great job with his
efforts to improve communications and we look forward
to his regular updates. He is willing to state areas
of need as well as the areas that we are struggling
with that he needs support in.
Accountability is good for all parties! Students
/schools/communities are competitive in many fashions
whether it is in basketball, science fairs; Battle of
the Books or in the area of academic scores.
Schools/children that are struggling to meet the
proficiency levels as mandated by the state/federal
government need support in order to establish the
strong fundamentals critical for their education. It
makes no sense to "punish" children for issues they
are not responsible for, nor capable of overcoming
without responsible oversight. Do you punish doctors
when people get sick, do you eliminate police when
there is a crime spree?
Hopefully, we have opportunities to reestablish what
priority areas are without punishing our children.
Holding school districts responsible for reasonable
growth is an expectation very few could argue. To do
it right however, each community needs to be better
engaged to realize the expectations. As board
members/administrators, this message needs to be
delivered as clearly as we expect it delivered from
the Governor.
With shared responsibilities, accountability is good.
Please be reminded that this is not Lake Woebegone of
Northern Minnesota! 100% guaranteed proficiency is not
realistic for any person or body.
Mr. Hoepfner communicated that the district did not expect
to receive funding for everything. He relayed that the
school system was overlooked for multiple state grants for
improvement due to its proficiency levels; it was
overlooked for preschool and early learning due to the lack
of free lunch and reduced lunch numbers. The fishing town
had a hard work ethic and did not expect anything from the
state other than basic student support via a safe, positive
learning environment. He stressed that the district had
been accountable for every dollar provided by the state. He
shared that Cordova's dropout rates were very minimal; 100
percent of the females had graduated the prior year and one
person had dropped out. The district had encouraged the
student to come back, but they had dropped out again in the
current year. He restated that there was an expectation of
excellence in Cordova.
2:53:52 PM
Representative Wilson was interested to know about any
state mandates that the district did not think were
beneficial. Mr. Hoepfner replied that he wanted to see a
suicide prevention mandate. He was involved in the Cordova
Family Resource Center and was on the statewide steering
committee for pathways to prevention. He noted that a
prevention program included in a current Senate bill was an
excellent; it would take some time out of the school's
professional development, but the school would be happy to
implement the program.
Representative Wilson asked the district to think about any
existing mandates that may not be beneficial to school
districts and to follow up with committee members.
Representative Guttenberg asked for more detail about the
student who was expected to drop out but had been brought
back into the school system. Mr. Hoepfner responded that
the school believed the student would probably drop out,
but it really wanted them in school. One student dropout
did throw the schools numbers off, but the school had not
been concerned about that. The goal was for all students to
graduate and to be engaged in their learning. The school
was willing to do all it could to keep kids in school; the
gym was open all of the time and events were scheduled. He
explained that the more students were in the school the
easier it was to keep them safe.
Representative Gara discussed that he had visited a high
achieving school in Portland a couple of years earlier. He
had asked the school how it achieved success. The school
relayed that it did well because almost every parent had a
college education and parents were over involved. He
believed Cordova was a pretty well-educated community. He
wondered whether Mr. Hoepfner agreed that kids of parents
with a higher level of education performed better and if
so, what could be done to improve the outcomes for children
with families that are not as educationally involved.
Mr. Hoepfner replied that he believed in the importance of
mentoring and in showing kids that by furthering their
education they could become better citizens. There was a
community learn and serve program. He believed being
engaged with the community and kids was important; the
community recognized that its children were its future.
Mr. Hoepfner addressed a final question related to ARRA
funding (a separate handout was provided and a copy is on
file). The school did not have any ongoing programs
connected to the federal funds that would increase its
budget once the funds went away. Some of money went to new
kitchen and refrigeration capacity in the new elementary
school.
Vice-chair Fairclough pointed to the handout showing that
Cordova received ARRA funding for teacher salaries and
benefits. Mr. Hoepfner responded in the affirmative. Vice-
chair Fairclough surmised that the cost increases would be
ongoing. Mr. Hoepfner answered that the funding had been
for a special education teacher and for flying in an
occupational therapist for disabled children.
Vice-chair Fairclough looked at the district's test scores.
She discussed that sometimes answers or one indicator did
not tell the whole story (e.g. the graduation rate did not
provide a complete picture). She had looked to see if test
scores matched out with a funding increase. She noted that
test scores had gone up, down, and stayed the same; there
were different components that took place based on
increased funding availability. She referenced comments
that the governor was saying inaccurate things and was
interested to know what the inaccuracies were or if the
statements had been broad and did not accurately reflect an
individual district. She explained that the governor was
not in room to defend himself and she did not know what the
inaccuracy that had been referred to was. She discussed
information provided by DEED on a much larger scale that
was not broken down by community. She emphasized that there
were different ways to interpret statistics. She noted that
she would be happy to draw any inaccurate press releases to
the governor's attention if they existed.
3:02:52 PM
AT EASE
3:06:48 PM
RECONVENED
FAIRBANKS
3:07:10 PM
KRISTINA BROPHY, PRESIDENT, FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH
SCHOOL BOARD (via teleconference), highlighted some of the
issues included in the questionnaire. Fairbanks served over
14,000 students with approximately 1,000 teachers. The
district believed that it provided a positive work
environment for its teachers and employees and a positive
learning environment for its students. She relayed that
some students were struggling and some were succeeding and
exceling. The district faced several budget challenges and
there were things that it did not know, such as what future
state or local allocations would be provided. The school
system had worked hard to address the anticipated
shortages. She addressed question 1:
What is your FY 13 total school district budget? What
percentage goes to personnel?
Ms. Brophy shared that the total FY 13 operating budget was
$184,880,310; personnel costs represented 84.3 percent of
the total. When the TRS and PERS unfunded liability was
added in the total FY 13 recommended budget was
$220,700,470; personnel costs represented 86.9 percent of
the total.
Provide a graph that shows your total school district
budget from FY 09 through FY 13, broken down by
funding source (state/local/federal/mix).
Ms. Brophy pointed two graphs the district had included in
its answers to the questionnaire (copy on file). The graphs
showed that the district's use of funds balance had gone
down.
Did you fund to the total allowable local contribution
in FY 12? In FY 13? If not, how much below were you?
Why?
Ms. Brophy communicated that the local assembly did not
fund to the maximum allowable contribution in FY 12 and it
was not expected to contribute the maximum allowable funds
in FY 13. The school district was required to lapse
$2,182,799 back to the borough in FY 10 and $1,223,198 in
FY 11. The borough had funded 72.5 percent of its maximum
allowable contribution in FY 10 and 73.4 percent in FY 11.
The required lapse back to the borough did create a
challenge for the school district.
Vice-chair Fairclough asked for an explanation of the
required lapse back to the borough.
Ms. Brophy replied that several of years earlier an
ordinance had passed to enable the borough to develop a
school maintenance facilities fund; the ordinance required
the school district to return 28.5 percent of any unspent
funds, any revenue that exceeded the budget, and any
current fund balance. She expressed that the issue had been
a challenge for the school system; the borough's
responsibility was major maintenance, but the school system
was responsible for up to $20,000 of maintenance. She
detailed that over the past couple of years the school
system had lapsed back $3.4 million; any available revenue
was eligible to fall into the lapsed funds category
including special needs intensive funding, impact aid
funding, and other.
Vice-chair Fairclough surmised that the lapsed funding
essentially went to help the school district. Ms. Brophy
responded that the requirement was taking operating dollars
and allocating them towards major maintenance, which was
ultimately the borough's responsibility.
Vice-chair Fairclough asked for verification that the only
way money was returned to the borough was when money
allocated to the school district was unspent. Ms. Brophy
replied in the affirmative and explained that the
requirement discouraged the school system from having a
fund balance.
3:15:25 PM
How much has the state contributed to the PERS/TRS
unfunded liability on behalf of your school district
in FY 12? How much has the state contributed to the
PERS/TRS unfunded liability on behalf of your school
district in FY 13?
Ms. Brophy related that the TRS and PERS unfunded liability
contribution was $25,646,580; the number had increased to
$35,820,160 in FY 13. She furthered that the amounts had
been separated from the total budget for clarification
purposes.
When was your most recently ratified teacher contract
put into place?
Ms. Brophy communicated that the district's last ratified
teacher contract expired June 30, 2011. Currently, teachers
were working under the terms of the previous contract and
negotiations were on-going. She shared that it had been a
challenging period. The three-year teacher contract terms
included steps and columns and the equivalent of 4 percent
to the salary table in each of the three years.
Co-Chair Thomas asked whether contract negotiations were
currently ongoing. Ms. Brophy replied in the affirmative.
Under the normal schedule negotiations would have been
completed the prior year; however, an agreement had not
been reached.
Co-Chair Thomas questioned whether the school district had
the money to pay for negotiation increases. Ms. Brophy
explained that was one of the issues and the reason
negotiations had gone on as long as they had. The school
district was trying to be fair but conservative in
providing an increase to the teachers. She stated that
there was not a pod of money to hand over currently, but
she did believe the district could budget for negotiations.
Representative Wilson queried what the percentage would be
on the normal column and steps that went into place even
without a raise. She clarified that steps would give each
teacher a raise automatically; she wondered what that
increase would be. Ms. Brophy replied that teachers would
receive a bump of approximately $2,000. She furthered that
the district had proposed a 1 percent pay raise. The raise
combined with the steps and columns would increase the
average teacher salary from 2.5 percent to 4.5 percent.
Representative Gara asked whether the step increases were
automatic. Ms. Brophy responded that step increases were
automatic, but columns were based on additional required
educational credits. She believed teacher quality
improvement occurred when column movement took place.
Ms. Brophy addressed additional questions on page 3 of the
questionnaire:
What is your average teacher salary?
· $69,150
What is your starting teacher salary?
· $44,679, and a maximum annual salary of $86,914
Ms. Brophy had felt that the school district's starting
teacher salary was not comparable to some of the larger
districts across the state; it had been the school's intent
to make the number more comparable. The school system felt
that it currently provided excellent compensation for its
teachers.
3:22:43 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough asked what annual increases had been
under the previous teacher contracts. Ms. Brophy responded
that in the past the annual increases had gone between zero
percent and 2.5 percent. The district felt that a 1 percent
increase was the best it could offer, given the current
economically challenging times.
Representative Guttenberg wondered how many teachers were
currently at starting salaries and how many were receiving
the maximum salary. Ms. Brophy responded that there were
approximately 30 teachers retiring in the current year. She
asked for clarification on the question.
Representative Guttenberg asked how many new teachers were
coming into the system. Ms. Brophy replied that the
turnover rate related to teachers leaving for
dissatisfaction reasons was low. She relayed that 54
percent of the district's teachers had master's degrees and
45 percent of the teachers were maxed out on the pay scale.
She reiterated that there were 30 teachers retiring in the
current year; the number fluxed between 50 to 80
retirements each year.
Representative Guttenberg asked for verification that there
were 45 teachers that were maxed out on the pay scale. Ms.
Brophy clarified that 45 percent of the teachers had
reached the top of the salary scale, which could be
accomplished over the course of 15 years.
3:25:41 PM
Ms. Brophy continued answering questions on page 3 of the
questionnaire. She restated earlier testimony that the
district was currently offering steps and columns and 1
percent on the salary table. The school system felt that an
increase was beneficial, but it was simultaneously working
within budget constraints.
What are the cost drivers in your budget?
1. Personnel is the major cost driver.
2. Health costs and retirement system costs are a
big part of personnel costs associated with
staffing.
3. Utilities.
4. Transportation subsidy.
How much were your energy costs in FY 11 (includes
Central Kitchen). How much do you project them to be
in FY 13?
Ms. Brophy shared that the district's utility bills had
increased by $2 million between FY 10 and FY 13; the
electric and heating bills had grown by nearly $1 million
apiece.
Do you have a system in place to make budget
adjustments when enrollment drops - how do you
approach this?
Ms. Brophy relayed that currently the district's fund
balance was anticipated to be zero. The district did
address fluctuations in enrollment and had allocated
reserved teaching positions. The money was used to make up
any difference in enrollments; however, over the budget
cycle the number of reserve teaching positions had been
lowered. The school system recognized that the reduction
could create a challenge and impact the schools' class
sizes. She had highlighted the additional challenge earlier
in her testimony related to a local ordinance.
What are your biggest instructional challenges?
Ms. Brophy discussed the importance of improving student
achievement for all students. She communicated that
students were all different and had a wide range of needs.
Closing the achievement gap was a challenge (gaps were
based on gender, ethnicity, special needs, disadvantaged,
and other). The school board had recently received a report
on technology skills; the report indicated that the
district still had some challenges and progress to be made
in the area for students and teachers. Other challenges
included recruiting, hiring, and retaining a diverse
workforce; the schools wanted to continue to provide a
positive work environment in order to attract skilled
teachers.
What grade would you give your school district?
Ms. Brophy gave the district a "B" grade overall. She
believed the school system had made progress in multiple
areas, for example, the graduation rate had gone up by 17
percent to 71 percent; the rate was not anywhere near where
the schools would like to be, but it showed that progress
had been made. She relayed that the district's parent
surveys indicated that over 80 percent of the parents gave
the schools an "A" or "B" grade. She noted that she was
very happy with the education her son had received in the
district.
3:31:02 PM
What are you proposing to do differently to improve
student performance?
Ms. Brophy explained that the Fairbanks schools were always
looking for innovative and creative ways to teach, to keep
the interest of students, and to keep students in school;
she believed that good progress had been made (the
graduation rate had increased and the dropout rate had
decreased). One of the criticisms the district had received
was that when it tried a new approach in the schools that
it only stuck with the approach for several years before
deciding it was not working. The school district preferred
to focus on the things that it was doing well and to
improve on the items instead of haphazardly looking for new
ways to address existing issues. One of the issues related
to addressing attendance issues; the district had been
pursuing policy changes (if a student was not in the
classroom the likelihood of their success was not high).
The district was considering a change in the mandatory
attendance age from 16 to 18 years of age; the dropout rate
for students under 16 was 0.6 percent. Students would have
an opportunity to earn an education if they were required
to stay in school longer.
Ms. Brophy addressed other ways the school district was
working to improve student performance. The schools
provided transition and support services including, the
Freshman Academy that helped transition students from
middle school to high school; the student mentorship
Ignition Program to help encourage success; Challenge Day
helped to address relationship issues, racism, and other;
credit recovery and; Power School Premier gave parents the
opportunity to check on their kids grades and allowed
students to view assignments. The district had also talked
about developing portfolios for students to add to
throughout their four years in high school.
Ms. Brophy continued to discuss ways to increase student
performance. The district offered various school choice
options including a home school/correspondence program
called B.E.S.T., which worked well for students who did not
fit into the traditional school environment; the program
allowed flexibility (e.g. one student had already earned 34
college credits); charter schools; Magnet School;
Career/Technical Focused High School and; SMART, which
allowed expelled youths to continue their education. The
district was working towards building a state-of-the-art
Career Technical Education program and had recently signed
an apprenticeship agreement with the Department of Labor
and Workforce Development (DLWD) with the goal of
increasing student participation. There was a partnership
with the Community Technical College, which allowed
different opportunities for students. The school system was
working hard on delineating career pathways (i.e. Certified
Nurse's Assistant, culinary, or other). The district also
offered an engineering academy that it hoped to build on.
Ms. Brophy shared that other programs included an Alaska
Native Education (ANE) Program; the Alaska Native dropout
rate had been cut in half over the past few years;
intervention programs (e.g. Response to Intervention, which
identified students who were struggling in reading and math
early on) and; after school programs. The district was
continuing to enhance relationships with service members
and their families and encouraging parental engagement.
3:39:09 PM
Is the state providing the kind of planning and
curriculum support that is helpful to your school
district?
Ms. Brophy pointed out that new state standards had been
sent out for review; therefore, the district was somewhat
in flux currently. She believed the district needed to
identify learning targets and standards that could be met
in order to meet the needs of students. The new standards
would require aligning assessment systems and providing
multiple measures in order to assess students. She opined
that the time needed to train teachers and implement new
requirements would create a challenge, but it would
ultimately be good for the state and the school district.
Ms. Brophy highlighted another planning and curriculum
support issue. She explained that the General Education
Development (GED) reporting system currently fell under
DLWD; currently students obtaining their GEDs in counted as
a dropout for the school system. She furthered that
students obtaining GEDs would not count against the
district as dropouts if the reporting system was moved to
DEED.
How can the DEED, the Board of Education or other
state agencies help you achieve better results, other
than just providing you with more money?
Ms. Brophy stated that the role of board members was to
advocate for public education and they believed that the
state Board of Education could assist with the area.
Additionally, she noted that navigating the bureaucratic
process was time consuming and cumbersome and that
streamlining the process would be helpful. She added that
the district did not receive any monetary support from the
Board of Education.
3:41:53 PM
How much ARRA funding did you receive over the past
few years?
Ms. Brophy relayed that the district had received $16.1
million in ARRA funding. The prior year the district had
received $2.1 million in jobs bill money, which had
provided funding for 22 teachers. She noted that the
district did not have any ongoing costs from ARRA funding.
Some of the items that had been implemented after a
thorough review were the Response to Instruction
Intervention program, continuing with work on the
technology blueprint that had been developed several years
earlier, and modernizing schools through broadband
connectivity (further detail included on the
questionnaire).
Co-Chair Thomas shared that some school board members had
notified his office that they would like to see TRS removed
from the money given to the state. He wondered what would
happen to the education system if the retirement system was
abolished. Ms. Brophy replied that the situation would not
be workable. Co-Chair Thomas did not understand why anyone
would think about getting rid of TRS. He noted that he had
been told that the $75 million liability should be up to
the legislature to pay. Ms. Brophy deferred the question to
the district finance officer for a conversation at a later
time.
Co-Chair Thomas elaborated that the issue related to an
extra $75 million that had been paid to PERS in the current
year; the payment was the choice of the state and a TRS
payment would not be made by the school districts' choice.
Ms. Brophy had also heard the argument. She believed the
$75 million contribution the state had made towards PERS
and TRS had helped the school district. She believed the
question related to whether or not the contribution would
impact the school systems' operating dollars.
Co-Chair Thomas referred to earlier testimony that the
automatic step increases for teachers impacted the
retirement debt obligation.
Co-Chair Thomas handed the gavel to Co-Chair Stoltze.
3:45:52 PM
AT EASE
3:54:31 PM
RECONVENED
MANTANUSKA-SUSITNA
3:55:26 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze appreciated that Mr. Dunleavy was able to
address the committee.
MIKE DUNLEAVY, PRESIDENT, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH SCHOOL
BOARD (via teleconference), provided a PowerPoint
presentation titled "Matanuska-Susitna School District
Testimony to the House Finance Committee." He read from
slide 2:
I want to thank you for this opportunity to speak on
behalf of the Mat-Su School Borough District. It is
with great respect for you and pride for my community
that I share the current fiscal reality, instructional
challenges, and future goals of the Mat-Su School
District. For those members who are not familiar with
our school district, let me start by providing a
minds-eye picture of the Mat-Su School District:
· The Mat-Su Borough is located 35 miles north of
Anchorage seated alongside the Susitna and
Matanuska rivers
· Our Borough spans 25,000 square miles making the
district's student transportation a priority and
challenge
· Mat-Su School District is the largest employer in
the Borough, with approximately 2,500 employees
· The Mat-Su Borough passed its largest bond in
October 2011, allowing for new school
construction and renovation
· MSBSD educates 17,500 students, with an average
annual enrollment growth of 425 students over the
last ten years
Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether the number was 425 students
per year for each of the 10 years. Mr. Dunleavy responded
in the affirmative.
Mr. Dunleavy read slide 3:
Our programs operate in 44 schools allowing for parent
and student choice that include, but are not limited
to:
· small community schools
· charter schools-MSBSD houses six charter schools
· comprehensive high schools- MSBSD has four large
high schools
· neighborhood elementary and middle schools- MSBSD
offers 20 neighborhood
· elementary schools and six middle schools
· special mission schools focusing on: language
immersion, career and technical
· education, and STEM (just to name a few)
· alternative/credit recovery schools
· vibrant and growing home school programs,
including the completely renovated Mat-Su Central
School
With this information in mind, I will share the
answers to your questions posed for this testimony.
After the presentation, I welcome your questions about
the operations, programs, and goals of the Mat-Su
School District.
Mr. Dunleavy addressed the first question on slide 4.
What is your FY 13 total school district budget?
Mr. Dunleavy informed the committee that approximately
$205,352,831 went to personnel costs and constituted 83.31
percent employee compensation. He relayed that graphs
showing the school district's total budget from FY 09
through FY 13 (5 years), broken down by funding source
(state/ local/fed/mix) were included on slides 5 through 7
of the presentation.
Co-Chair Thomas commented that the state was projected to
lose $50 million in federal funds the following year. He
thought it was important to know what school district costs
were dependent on federal funds.
Mr. Dunleavy responded that a very small percentage of the
Mat-Su school district's funding came from the federal
government; the elimination of the funds would impact the
district, but on a much smaller scale than some other
districts. He continued on slide 8:
Did you fund to the total allowable local contribution
in FY 12? In FY 13? If not, how much below were you?
Why?
As you can see from the chart below [included in
the presentation (copy on file)], the District
does not receive the total allowable local
contribution. The Matanuska-Susitna Borough
determines local contribution amounts. The
District request has been, and continues to be,
for increased local funding. FY 13 amounts have
yet to be determined.
4:01:37 PM
Mr. Dunleavy relayed that the district received
approximately $13 million less than the allowable local
contribution amount. He continued on page 9:
How much is the state scheduled to contribute for
PERS/TRS unfunded liability costs on behalf of your
district in FY 12?
Estimated On-Behalf Funding contributed to the
PERS/TRS unfunded liability for FY12 is
$26,000,000
FY 13?
On-Behalf Funding for FY13 is anticipated to
remain at approximately $26,000,000
Representative Neuman referenced that the borough had voted
to build two or three new schools. He asked how much the
borough had contributed financially to the new schools. Mr.
Dunleavy responded that the borough had contributed
approximately $60 million.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked for the total bond package amount
that had been approved by voters. Mr. Dunleavy responded
that the total package was $214,495,000.
Representative Neuman asked for verification that the
amount was only designated for school projects. Mr.
Dunleavy answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Dunleavy moved to slide 10:
When was your most recently ratified teacher contract
put into place?
The most recently negotiated teacher contract was
ratified by the School Board on November 17,
2010, prior to learning that multiple year
funding increases, then the norm, would not be
continued.
What were the terms? (salary and benefits
increases/decreases per year, in percentages {or
dollars, if appropriate})
Terms:
i. Three year contract, retroactive to July 1,
2010 through June 30, 2013
ii. Salary increases of 1.75% in FY11, 2.00% in
FY12 and 2.00% in FY13
iii. Health Insurance - Committee was established
to look at containing the rising cost of
health insurance. Any increase will be
shared 50/50 by employees and the District
in FY13
iv. Per diem rate for duties and professional
development for teachers working outside of
the school day reduced by an average of 33%
Mr. Dunleavy shared that the district's average teacher
salary was $69,084 and the starting salary was $44,195.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked for clarification on steps. He noted
that some members of the education community had referred
to a cap on the maximum step increases allowable. Mr.
Dunleavy replied that there was approximately 4 percent per
year in step increases.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether the amount reached plateau.
Mr. Dunleavy responded in the affirmative. He relayed that
the maximum amount was reached in approximately 13 years.
Representative Wilson queried whether salaries shown in the
presentation included benefit packages. Mr. Dunleavy
clarified that the number only included salary.
Representative Wilson asked how much the number would
increase when calculating in benefits. Mr. Dunleavy
responded that the district used a figure of $100,000 per
teacher.
Mr. Dunleavy turned to slide 12:
Did you negotiation significant salary increases in
your labor contracts for FY 2013? If yes, why did you
do that given the current funding situation/debate?
No; all four bargaining agreements were ratified
November 17, 2010 and were multi-year agreements.
Salary increases for all groups are based on two
components:
1. Salary schedule increases, which were 2.00%
for the FY13 year and are the negotiated
increases agreed to in 2010
2. Regular step and column movements, which
have been a component of the contract for
years far preceding the current contract,
effectively making them "status quo" under
federal bargaining rules, requiring a
substantial effort to remove them from the
contract.
Our increases were moderate compared to many
other agreements in place at the time, and the
funding scenario for the State and District was
different at the time of ratification. In
addition, we were successful the year that
ratification occurred in implementing a
Supplemental Employee Retirement System, which
increased natural attrition by over 400%, helping
us reduce annual operating expenses in excess of
$7 million annually.
Mr. Dunleavy addressed budget cost drivers on slides 13
through 14:
Cost drivers in the District's budget consist
primarily of:
1. Increasing health insurance costs
2. Increasing compensation costs, due to
multiyear contract and status quo provisions
3. Increasing student transportation costs (see
next slide)
4. Inflationary cost pressure for required
purchased services (data network, software
licenses, etc.)
5. Increasing utilities costs
What are the cost drivers in your budget? (Cont.)
[slide 14]
New Transportation Contracts
· Alaska Statute 23.10.065 (b) states in the
pertinent part that "an employer shall pay to
each person employed as a public school bus
driver wages at a rate of not less than two times
the minimum wage..."
o This was the single largest requirement
increasing our costs in the new
transportation contract, which was
competitively bid. By taking the low bid the
District saved over $11 million over the
five year life of the contract.
· Our contractor's fleet is old. To eliminate
service disruptions our new contract requires
that the average age of the fleet not exceed 10
years and no bus may be more than 12 years old;
this requires an investment in new buses by the
contractor.
· To ensure student safety we now require two
digital cameras on all buses. This significantly
improves student behavior making the bus
environment much safer for both students and
drivers.
· Only Home-to-School transportation expenses are
submitted to the State for reimbursement.
4:08:02 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough asked how the Supplemental Employee
Retirement System (shown on slide 12) had increased the
natural attrition rate by over 400 percent. She asked what
the system was, how it was paid for, and how it saved the
district $7 million annually.
Mr. Dunleavy replied that one-time federal money had funded
the system and had allowed teachers to retire. He explained
that the positions had not been filled. He added that the
student-teacher ratio had increased as a result of the
process.
Co-Chair Thomas believed that there may have been a
typographical error on slide 9 related to the PERS/TRS
unfunded liability for FY 13. He thought the number for FY
13 should be higher than $26 million. Mr. Dunleavy replied
that the district had fewer employees; therefore, it
estimated that costs would remain at $26 million.
Mr. Dunleavy directed attention to slide 15:
How much were your energy costs in FY 11? How much do
you project them to be in FY 13?
· Energy (only) Costs:
Actual FY 11: $3,984,290
Projected FY 13: $4,274,900
7.3 percent increase
· Total Utilities:
Actual FY 11: $4,956,546
Projected FY 13: $5,731,550
15.6 percent increase
Mr. Dunleavy moved to slide 16:
Do you have a system in place to make budget
adjustments when enrollment drops - how do you
approach this?
Yes; the District does have a plan in place and
is currently using it to equally allocate the
reduction in funding that the District is now
experiencing.
Ratios and metrics are used to fairly distribute
reduced funds, providing full transparency to our
budget. The ratios and metrics along with all
budget scenarios are promptly posted to the
District website to allow for public review.
Representative Joule asked how the district handled
adjustments when student enrollment dropped or increased.
Mr. Dunleavy replied that enrollment had increased, but
that it needed to be handled in the same fashion. He noted
that there was less funding.
Representative Joule wondered whether the district had
physical room for the growth in enrollment. Mr. Dunleavy
answered that currently 72 modules were used in addition to
the regular school buildings because the population had
increased. The use of the modules was one of the reasons
the school district was in a capital projects bonding
process.
4:12:19 PM
Mr. Dunleavy turned to slide 17:
What are your biggest instructional challenges?
The biggest instructional challenge for the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District is
trying to counter the demands placed on us by
NCLB while we seek rigor and high standards for
all.
Specifically, to be responsive and provide the
increased number of intervention courses
required, our class sizes are organized for
smaller groups. This essentially puts our
district in a position of having to reduce
offerings to our mid and upper level achieving
students.
Our dilemma is to continue to offer enrichment
through AP (Advanced Placement), STEM (Science,
Technology, Engineering, Math), National Math and
Science Initiatives and grow these programs so
that we move the mean to the upper end. We are
concerned that our reduced level of teacher
staffing makes it difficult to place the required
resources at the intervention level to address
NCLB requirements; thus, we may be contributing
to having all students regress to the mean.
Mr. Dunleavy looked at slides 18 through 20:
What grade would you give your school district (A-F)?
The Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District is
good moving to great!
Our assessment is based on our recent 5 Year Post
Graduate study and is fact based and data driven.
We currently rank ourselves a solid 'B' and have
implemented programs to move our district to an
'A' with the help of required resources from our
state and local borough.
What are you proposing to do differently to improve
student performance?
The Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District is
a district that emphasizes choice, innovation and
customer service.
We believe education is not "one size fits all."
We provide our community many school models from
large to small, neighborhood to special mission,
as well as 6 charter school options. Our school
programs include but are not limited to: a
blended home-school model, foreign language
immersion, Knowledge is Power charter, Career
Technical focused high school, and STEM (Science,
Technology, Engineering, Math). We operate on an
RTI (Response to Intervention) model that is
often referred to by the state and other
districts as a stellar example of how
intervention and support should be provided to
improve student performance for all. Our District
has implemented instructional models that utilize
research based programs, taught to fidelity. We
have demonstrated the most dramatic literacy
improvement in the state (moved early childhood
literacy scores upward from 50% proficiency to
79% proficiency). Post Graduate 5 year study
proves that MSBSD students are successful at the
college level as well as in the world of work.
Is the state providing the kind of planning and
curriculum support that is helpful to your school
district?
The Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District
works closely with the state.
The Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District has
been provided opportunities to give input through
committee and survey work. The state is
accessible when there are questions pertaining to
curriculum and responses provide clear direction
on how the district should proceed.
4:15:04 PM
Mr. Dunleavy addressed questions on slides 21 through 22:
How can DEED, the Board of Education or other state
agencies help you achieve better results, other than
just providing you with more money?
The Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District
would like to continue to partner with DEED on
professional development needs. We would like to
continue to utilize existing resources that have
been put in place to support academic
achievement.
The Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District
would like to work with DEED to provide for
alternate language in its statewide Home-School
provisions allowing our district leverage and
flexibility for Matanuska-Susitna Borough School
District students to access neighborhood and home
school programs without the current penalty of
FTE/courses.
We would like to see DEED and the State Board of
Education continue to further their work in the
area of standardizing a teacher evaluation so
that evaluations provide objective criteria for
teacher performance.
How much ARRA funding did you receive over the past
few years?
ARRA
2010: $4,070,437.54
2011: $13,142,674.36
2012: $689,000.00
Purpose: Teacher staffing and Supplemental
Employee Retirement Incentive
How did you invest any ARRA funds you received?
ARRA Funding was invested in Supplemental
Employee Retirement System (SERP), reducing on-
going operational expenses by over $7 million
annually, and teachers (in order to save jobs
that would otherwise have been lost without ARRA
Funding)
4:16:49 PM
Representative Wilson asked whether details had been worked
out for a 5-year program that would allow students to take
college courses without being counted as dropouts. Mr.
Dunleavy responded that the district was still in the
discussion phase, but it was hopeful that the details could
be worked out.
Representative Wilson asked to be kept in the loop as
developments occurred. She liked the idea of the program
and believed it could work in multiple districts.
Representative Gara questioned whether the governor's
original proposed budget held the school district even or
caused a shortfall. He wondered what BSA increase the
district would need to be held even to the prior year's
programs and staffing if a shortfall was caused. Mr.
Dunleavy answered that the proposed budget would result in
shortfall. To remain even with the prior year levels an
increase to the BSA of approximately $351 was needed if
transportation was funded for large districts.
Representative Neuman asked for an explanation of the Mat-
Su technical school that combined technical trade education
and vocational programs with typical learning programs.
Mr. Dunleavy responded that the program was working well.
He deferred the question to the superintendent for
additional detail.
DEENA PARAMO, SUPERINTENDENT, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH
SCHOOL DISTRICT (via teleconference), explained that the
program was a career and technical high school that was
located in the core area of the district; it was organized
by trade and professional pathways including, food service,
engineering, health and human services, and other. Students
received reading, writing, and arithmetic, but classes were
closely tied to jobs that existed in the professional and
trade realms. For example, in the health and human services
program, students may focus on physical therapy, nursing
assistant training, pre-med, or phlebotomy. There were
currently about 500 full-time and juniors and seniors from
other high schools could also attend the nursing program.
She expounded that all of the pathways were assessed by
outside third-party, real work programs and trades and were
based off of community advisory boards.
Co-Chair Thomas noted that the GED reporting function would
move from the Department of Labor and Workforce Development
to the Department of Education and Early Development; due
to the change 1,671 extra diplomas would be given by DEED.
The change should increase the school district graduation
rates.
4:22:41 PM
ANCHORAGE
GRETCHEN GUESS, PRESIDENT, ANCHORAGE SCHOOL BOARD (via
teleconference), thanked the committee for the opportunity
to testify. She relayed that school boards typically had
taxing authority and local communities paid for the
majority of education costs; however, in Alaska the state
paid for the majority of education funding and the school
board had no taxing authority (the authority was given to
local assemblies). She stressed the importance of state
funding, which ensured that the constitutional and moral
obligations to educate every child within the state were
met. She recognized that from the perspective of the
legislature that education funding could be frustrating
because it constituted a significant portion of the
operating budget. Alaska was not a state like Texas,
Florida, or California that mandated class sizes and pushed
education down to the local level. She recalled that when
she had campaigned as a legislator that constituents wanted
to talk about local issues (e.g. speeding, noise, education
and other). She believed constituents cared passionately
about education and although the state was funding
education, control declined with every step away from a
district. She stressed that there was no "silver bullet" to
education; if "x" was given it was not possible to know
that "y" would happen. She believed there was a balance of
state funding and local control demonstrating that
education was a community issue. She opined that the
conversation was important and she commended the committee
for the attention it was giving the topic.
Ms. Guess provided some overview comments. She provided
"Creating High Performing District" and "Performance
Measures" documents (copy on file). The documents had been
created by the board following a training by the Council of
Reform of School Systems. She read an opening statement:
For the first time the Anchorage School District is
more than a mission. It not only has a vision similar
to businesses, it has core values and operating
principles to guide us. We've made specific
commitments to public education. We have set out
specific expectations through performance measures and
goals and we've laid forth strategic initiatives to
provide the priorities to move forward. These
documents are the foundation for our focus and our
desire to create a high performing district with
really a governance model that is proven. I'm very
proud of the work we did in this unanimous effort.
Ms. Guess relayed that the proposed budget was based on the
documents she had provided to the committee. The budget
contained approximately $20 million in cuts and did not
contain all of the investments she would like to see;
however, she was proud of the innovative work conducted by
the school district. She observed that cutting budgets was
an inherently difficult process. The first comprehensive
management audit conducted for the Anchorage School
District was scheduled for June 2012; there was more
focused and robust fiscal planning, which was critical for
the district's future. She opined that the district became
more efficient every year; however, it was not keeping up
with inflation costs. She stressed that without inflation
proofing the BSA, the funding only kept the district from
falling further behind. It was not only important to
receive new funds, but the districts needed to become more
efficient in order to bring more funds into classrooms. She
furthered that even with Consumer Price Index (CPI)
adjustments the district's expenses often grew above CPI
(e.g. health care costs, workman's compensation costs, and
utilities).
Ms. Guess referred to a change in the foundation formula,
which had occurred in the 1990s; the state moved away from
funding more expensive programs individually (e.g. special
education, gifted and talented and, bilingual). The BSA had
gone from reflecting the average needed for students to how
every student was funded. She was glad the state and
district had made the choice to focus on every child; she
stressed that it was a conscious choice. She acknowledged
that a significant amount of money could be saved if the
state or district decided to only care about 50 percent or
60 percent of the students. She furthered that the world
functioned on a "natural law curve"; it was much easier to
go from 0 percent to 10 percent than it was to go from 90
percent to 100 percent. She stated that there was "more
bang for your buck" at the beginning than at the end.
4:30:37 PM
Ms. Guess expounded that the goal of getting children to
graduate in the 70 percent to 100 percent category would
take more resources than the 30 percent before them. She
believed that funding was needed in order for every child
to graduate and the effort needed to involve communities
and families. She emphasized the importance of children
getting to school and getting to school on time and stated
that educators had little control over the issue (item 5 on
the performance measures). She stated that the district's
absentee rate was abysmal; over half of the district's
kindergartners were missing 18 days of school. She stressed
that the state's education system faced more challenges
than just a funding issue. She furthered that the
importance of education needed to be lifted up in every
family. She relayed that almost 40 percent of the
district's children would begin in one school and end in
another; there was a significant amount of movement in and
out of state. She stated that there was a growing poverty
rate in Alaska as "we've moved from the oil economy to the
Walmart economy." She highlighted that all of the mentioned
factors contributed to what a child brought to school on a
daily basis.
Ms. Guess acknowledged that schools fed many of their
children and dealt with their emotional needs. She noted
that some people may believe that these things were not the
responsibility of the school system, but she opined that if
a hungry child was in someone's church or community that
people would do something about it. She emphasized that
school districts reflected the community and that public
facilities and public funds could not turn away from
children's needs; almost every need that a child has
impacts their ability to learn on a daily basis. The school
board's focus was to implement the necessary structures
that would allow every child to meet their potential and to
recognize that a cookie cutter approach would not work,
given that all children are different. Resources were
needed, but additional work would need to take place as
well.
4:34:09 PM
Ms. Guess appreciated DEED and stated that it was helpful
to have one body in charge of licensing oversight. The
demands of the Anchorage School District were not as
significant on DEED as those of smaller districts;
Anchorage had resources through the Council of Great City
Schools (as one of the top 100 districts in the nation) and
others that smaller districts did not have access to. She
stated that the district did use DEED, but that its true
value was evidenced in the help it provided to small
districts. She addressed items that DEED and other agencies
could do that were non-finance related: (1) a discussion
between community leaders and communities about the
importance of education and what could be done to get
children to school and to prepare them and (2) a
collaborative conversation between districts, school
boards, the legislature, and DEED about statutes and
regulations that had unintended consequences or were out
dated. She believed it was time to focus on the legal
structure to determine whether it was working or if things
needed to change.
Ms. Guess respected the legislature and understood the
sacrifice involved from personal experience. She did not
want to tell legislators what to do and believed that was
the wrong way for public servants to treat each other. She
provided concluding remarks:
I know that you're going to look at this decision like
you look at all of the decisions in Juneau, which is,
what you think is truly right in your heart and your
mind, balancing the tradeoffs in front of you. Your
decisions like any other budget decision you make will
have impacts on individuals and children. Please don't
think that education is immune from that reality. It
is the reality that I live as a school board member
every day and it's the same reality I lived when we
were passing budgets down in Juneau. We are all
imperfect and districts are not immune. We are all
trying to get better and we have to continually
strive. We are never going to be perfect, but we have
to strive for perfection. At the end of the day I
believe our schools reflect our communities and you
are part of our community and I appreciate the
discussion and dialogue you're having.
4:37:39 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough asked whether the district's general
operating fund of $569 million included federal and local
contributions. Ms. Guess replied in the negative. The total
included the district's general fund only. The fund total
was $726 million and in addition to the general fund
included $53 million in primarily federal grant funds, $86
million in debt service, and $18 million for the self-
funded food service program.
Vice-chair Fairclough noted that smaller communities
sometimes asked the legislature why Anchorage was not
contributing the full 4 mills. She explained that some
legislators felt that Anchorage was not contributing
enough. Ms. Guess believed that the issue was the "elephant
in the room" for Anchorage. The district had been asked to
keep its budget at a 1 percent increase, which it had done.
She was unsure what had led to the current situation and
did not know the answer to the question; the problem had
been around for quite some time. She communicated that she
would appreciate any insight into how the situation had
come to be.
Vice-chair Fairclough replied that a bill had been
implemented in 2002 with a retroactivity to 1999 that
allowed any increase in appraised property value in
Anchorage to only be considered at 50 percent going
forward; the change had lowered the mandated requirement of
the 4 mill contribution. She explained that smaller
communities did not have what they considered the subsidy
that was provided to the Anchorage School District. She did
not buy into the philosophy because there were so many
other places that Anchorage tended to take less at. She
acknowledged that the issue was a point of contention
between rural and urban districts. She believed it was
important to talk about any "elephants in the room" in
order to come to a common ground and determine ways to move
forward for the benefit of students. She thanked Ms. Guess
for her service.
4:41:44 PM
Representative Gara agreed about the urban districts
benefiting from only paying half of their property tax
increase value and believed it was a problem. He pointed to
years between 2006 and 2010 when a significant amount of
money had been contributed to the retirement shortfall. He
detailed that during the same period there were $100 and
$200 BSA increases and an increase in special education
funding. He wondered whether the influx had made a positive
impact on school achievement.
Ms. Guess responded in the affirmative and noted that the
positive impact should not go unnoticed. She detailed that
during years before 2006 when barrels of oil were $17 to
$27, funding had not kept up with inflation. She
highlighted the work on intensive needs that had been
pivotal to Anchorage in particular; the district saw more
intensive needs children, given that it was the healthcare
center and funding was finally aligned with the resource.
The work that had been done was pivotal in helping students
to get what they needed. She communicated that how money
mattered was a hotly debated topic within education
research that no one had reached a conclusion on. One of
the issues was that there was no education price index and
adjusting expenditures for inflation had not been done;
therefore, finding the true impact was very difficult. The
impact on certain programs could be discussed such as high
school counselors for special needs children that increased
graduation rates for these students from 20 percent to 40
percent. She relayed that "it's easier to say specific
programs than it is to say specific dollars." She pointed
to the district's performance measures and noted that
certain areas had made great gains in the past few years
(e.g. graduation rates); there were other areas that had
not experienced improvements (e.g. proficiency on Standards
Based Assessment). She stated that Anchorage was like every
other district in that it depended on the measure and where
the dollars were focused. The district was currently on a
concerted and fast effort to focus on moving every child
forward.
4:46:09 PM
Representative Gara thanked Ms. Guess for her work.
Representative Joule appreciated her comments. He
remembered a bumper sticker that read "Lord please grant us
another boom and we promise not to blow it." He thought
about oil and gas and energy issues and the desire to be
optimistic. He believed Ms. Guess had talked about the
importance of the development of the state's human
resources to ensure that they would be ready for the
development of the state's non-renewable resources.
Vice-chair Fairclough asked what the district's salary
scale topped out at for teachers. She noted that the
average pay in Anchorage seemed to be less than other
districts. Ms. Guess believed the top was $90,000 for a PhD
level at 20 years. She would follow up with a firm answer.
Vice-chair Fairclough clarified her interest in knowing the
top of the district's tier (including columns and step
increases), how many years it took to get there, and how
many teachers were employed at that level. Ms. Guess would
provide a detailed answer to the committee.
4:49:48 PM
Co-Chair Thomas shared that the total general fund
investment was $6.2 billion; costs for K-12 foundation
funding and pupil transportation ($1.1 billion), PERS/TRS
retirement costs ($76 million), and the DEED operating
budget ($60 million) equaled approximately $1.5 billion,
which represented 24 percent of the general fund operating
budget. He asked people to keep the cost in mind. He
discussed the schedule for the following day and thanked
participants for their time. He reiterated his earlier
statement that work would be completed to move GED
reporting from DLWD to DEED, which would result in an
improved graduation rate.
Representative Neuman noted that there may be a statutory
requirement related to the process of moving GED reporting
from one department to another. He would keep the committee
up to date.
Vice-chair Fairclough discussed that she had met with a
sixth grade teacher from Alpine Glow Elementary who had
suggested that a current educator may be a benefit for the
state's school board.
Representative Guttenberg shared that the Legislator in the
Classroom program had been very insightful in helping
legislators understand the education process.
ADJOURNMENT
4:53:44 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 4:53 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Mat-Su Testimony March 27.pdf |
HFIN 3/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Fairbanks SD response.pdf |
HFIN 3/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Cordova Testimony March 27.docx |
HFIN 3/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Cordova SD testimony.doc |
HFIN 3/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Bristol Bay testimony House Finance .docx |
HFIN 3/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
|
| HFIN EDC Presentations 3.27.12 Unfunded Liability.pdf |
HFIN 3/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
|
| HFIN EDC Anchorage SB Presentation 3.27.12.pdf |
HFIN 3/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
|
| HFIN EDC Cordova Handout 3.27.12.pdf |
HFIN 3/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
|
| HFIN EDC followup Cordova Hoepfner.pdf |
HFIN 3/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |