Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/15/1993 03:00 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
April 15, 1993
3:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Rep. Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Rep. Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Rep. Gary Davis, Vice Chair
Rep. Al Vezey
Rep. Pete Kott
Rep. Harley Olberg
Rep. Irene Nicholia
Rep. Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
Rep. Bettye Davis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Confirmation Hearing - Board of Pharmacy
*HB 250: "An Act relating to centralized correspondence
study; and providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
HB 85: "An Act relating to the public school foundation
program; and providing for an effective date."
NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing.)
WITNESS REGISTER
DONNA EMERSON
3 Crab Cove
Funter Bay, Alaska 99850-0140
Phone: (907) 790-3888
Position statement: Testified in support of HB 250
CLAUDIA WALTON
P.O. Box 22116
Anchorage, Alaska 99522
Phone: (907) 248-1323
Position statement: Testified in support of HB 250
JUSTIN WALTON
P.O. Box 22116
Anchorage, Alaska 99522
Phone: (907) 248-1323
Position statement: Testified in support of HB 250
DARBY ANDERSON, Superintendent
Centralized Correspondence Study
Department of Education
3141 Channel Drive #100
Juneau, Alaska 99801-7897
Phone: (907) 465-2835
Position statement: Testified in support of HB 250
ALEXANDER DOLITSKY, Teacher
Centralized Correspondence Study
801 W. 10th St.
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 789-3854
Position statement: Testified in support of HB 250
JACK PHELPS
Aide to Rep. Pete Kott
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 409
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Phone: (907) 465-3777
Position statement: Testified in support of HB 250
DUANE GUILEY, Director
Division of Education Finance and Support Services
Department of Education
801 W. 10th St., Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
Phone: (907) 465-2891
Position statement: Answered questions on HB 250
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 250
SHORT TITLE: CENTRALIZED CORRESPONDENCE STUDY
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUNDE BY REQUEST
TITLE: "An Act relating to centralized correspondence study;
and providing for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/24/93 760 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/24/93 760 (H) HES, FINANCE
04/15/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 85
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC SCHOOL FOUNDATION PROGRAM
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
TITLE: "An Act relating to the public school foundation
program; and providing for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/22/93 138 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/22/93 138 (H) HES, FINANCE
01/22/93 138 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (DOE) 1/22/93
01/22/93 138 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/18/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/18/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/23/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/23/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/22/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/25/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/25/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/01/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/01/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/05/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/06/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/06/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/12/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/12/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/15/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-66, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIR BUNDE called the meeting to order at 3:18 p.m.,
announced the calendar, and noted members present. He
brought to the table the names of two appointees to the
Board of Pharmacy.
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS - BOARD OF PHARMACY
Number 020
CHAIR BUNDE invited committee discussion on the appointments
of PAUL J. GIONET and SALLY M. (MAGGIE) SARBER to the BOARD
OF PHARMACY, and hearing none, declared that the committee
would PASS their names to the Speaker of the House for
consideration by the body. He then brought HB 250 to the
table.
HB 250: CENTRALIZED CORRESPONDENCE STUDY
Number 039
DONNA EMERSON, a parent with children enrolled in
Centralized Correspondence Study (CCS), testified via
teleconference from Funter Bay in support of HB 250. She
said her children have used CCS for six years and that she
liked the service. While CCS formerly served mostly
elementary students, half of the students are at the
secondary level, she said, and need more money for
counseling and vocational education.
(Rep. Brice arrived at 3:21 p.m.)
CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Emerson if any of her children were
secondary students.
MS. EMERSON answered no, but her son would enter middle
school in the fall.
Number 085
REP. TOOHEY noted that her son had graduated through CCS and
by the time he had gotten to secondary school study he did
not need counseling. She said that many students might be
in a similar situation and that she would have to consider
the bill carefully.
(Rep. Kott arrived at approximately 3:26 p.m.)
Number 111
CLAUDIA WALTON, A MOTHER WITH CHILDREN IN THE CCS PROGRAM,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage in support of
HB 250. She said she had testified on other bills dealing
with CCS and she believed the program deserved to have
funding for CCS secondary students based on the regular
secondary student formula. She said HB 250 was a good bill.
She said she was proud of CCS, as it allowed students the
option to work at their own paces and to have more
jurisdiction about their own educations. It also gets
parents more involved in a role as volunteer teachers, she
said, and accomplishes many of the goals of the Alaska 2000
effort. She said many parents have expressed a desire for
more options in CCS programs, including full-time and part-
time instruction, as it is a cost-effective program. She
noted the trend toward educational options, and said she had
heard Alaska Pacific University was offering summer high
school courses. She asked the Legislature to make the CCS
program more accessible, as it saved the state money.
Number 198
CHAIR BUNDE asked a clarifying question as to whether Ms.
Walton lived in Anchorage, but still enrolled her children
in CCS.
MS. WALTON answered yes.
CHAIR BUNDE noted that the state was providing duplicate
educational services to her children, both the CCS and the
available local school district, and that CCS therefore did
not save state money. He noted, however, that he did not
mean to say CCS was not a good investment for the state.
Number 210
REP. TOOHEY asked if the state were to provide secondary
school funding for CCS secondary students, and then face a
need to cut the CCS budget, whether Ms. Walton thought
funding would be cut to cities like Anchorage.
MS. WALTON said it was possible. She noted that about half
of the approximately 1,000 CCS students were in the
Anchorage-Eagle River area and she would hate to see the
program cut. Another 100 CCS students each lived in Juneau,
Fairbanks and Kenai, all in areas with local school
districts, which she said showed that many people were
opting out of their local school districts.
Number 230
JUSTIN WALTON, A CCS STUDENT, testified via teleconference
from Anchorage in support of HB 250, saying CCS, while not
generously funded, provides courses not available in regular
schools, such as Russian and Japanese foreign languages. He
said the bill would provide funds for extra courses,
teachers and support materials. He said he would like to
see CCS get more money so he could take German, pilot ground
school and guitar classes, which are not currently offered.
He also said more funds would allow for more teacher visits
to homes.
Number 251
CHAIR BUNDE noted that having several different language
programs in one city duplicated costs. He asked if CCS
students could take classes part-time in local school
districts.
MR. WALTON answered no, that a student must be enrolled full
time in a local district in order to take electives such as
German. He said he could, however, take part-time college
courses.
Number 262
REP. TOOHEY noted that CCS programs started 40 years ago or
more to provide education to Bush children with no access to
local schools. She said the program had, for good or ill,
strayed from its original intent. She encouraged Mr. Walton
to seek a student loan for a summer German course at the
University of Alaska-Anchorage.
Number 274
REP. G. DAVIS asked if it would not be nice, and simple, to
amend HB 250 to allow CCS students to attend regular schools
for vocational education or other courses.
MR. WALTON agreed. He said the local school board would not
allow that to happen.
REP. G. DAVIS said that there might be simple solutions.
Number 291
MR. WALTON said there were many people that would benefit
from such legislation, and he offered to work with the
committee members.
CHAIR BUNDE invited Mr. Walton to give his address.
MR. WALTON gave his address as P.O. Box 221166, Anchorage,
Alaska 99522-1166.
Number 314
REP. TOOHEY asked if anyone was present from the CCS
program.
CHAIR BUNDE, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 250, said it might be
better to present the bill before having department
representatives speak to it. He noted that HB 250 was
introduced at the request of CCS, and dealt with funding of
the program. He said CCS was originally set up to provide
educational services to Bush residents. Originally,
students went to school by mail until eighth grade, then
families moved closer to regular schools. He said the state
did not fund CCS secondary students at the secondary level,
but he acknowledged that secondary students cost more to
educate. He said he did not like the idea of having
teachers visit CCS students at home, but said the bill might
fund somewhat closer teacher contact.
Number 344
REP. OLBERG asked whether the committee had not earlier
considered a bill requiring local school districts to
provide home schooling for exceptional children.
CHAIR BUNDE said that was correct, but HB 250 did not deal
with exceptional students, but with normal students.
REP. OLBERG asked whether students taking CCS classes
received no services from local school districts.
CHAIR BUNDE answered no; though, as Rep. G. Davis had said,
it would be nice if local school districts could serve CCS
students.
Number 369
DARBY ANDERSON, SUPERINTENDENT OF CCS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION (DOE), testified in Juneau in support of HB 250.
She said the DOE supported the bill as a way to fund
secondary education equitably. She said the program employs
24 certified teachers. She said the state funding plan for
CCS assumes that all of the students are elementary
students, and provides 65 percent of the educational unit
funding for the 1,100 students in the program. She said
that since 1979 enrollment has increased by 70 percent, and
that with 1,100 students, the program would rank as the 15th
largest district among the state's 54 districts. She said
790 students are from areas represented on the HESS
Committee; 51 percent from Anchorage, Mat-Su and Fairbanks,
with half of the students at the secondary level. She said
the CCS spent $2,600 per student in FY93, making it a highly
cost-effective program. She said maintaining a quality
secondary program would take more money to pay for lab
equipment, textbooks, warehouse storage, counseling,
academic student activities, printing and material
development, telephone costs, and other expenses. She said
families selecting the CCS as a secondary school deserved
equity. The bill would make three basic changes: 1) It
would formally acknowledge CCS as a school and rename the
program the "Centralized Correspondence School." 2) It
would allow the school to carry over funding from year to
year. 3) It would allow the state to count secondary
students under the secondary formula. The bill carried a
fiscal note showing the need for an additional $351,400 per
year for the CCS program and would assume a 10 percent
increase in enrollment each year. She said the funding
change was essential for maintaining the existing secondary
program, and to provide options to help more students
graduate.
Number 418
CHAIR BUNDE asked clarifying questions about the growth in
CCS enrollment.
MS. ANDERSON answered that the student population grew by 17
percent in FY93, but she could not break out the percent
change for elementary and secondary. She also addressed
questions raised during the teleconferenced testimony. She
said local school districts could contract with CCS to
provide extra or advanced courses to students, and that 24
schools, plus the Mt. Edgecumbe boarding high school in
Sitka, had such contracts. She said she preferred that
students attend their local school districts, but the CCS
program tried to provide a good education if the students
selected CCS.
Number 432
CHAIR BUNDE asked if local school districts allowed
reciprocal arrangements, allowing CCS to contract with local
districts to allow CCS students to take courses.
MS. ANDERSON answered no, because CCS has not worked hard
for that arrangement. She said that funding for the program
was tight, and CCS did not have as much flexibility as
school districts, though she would like to find some way to
make it possible.
Number 441
CHAIR BUNDE said that while he supported the idea of CCS, he
did not like the idea of funding duplicate services,
especially when more students seemed to be opting out of
local school districts.
MS. ANDERSON said a CCS program study a year previous had
showed that its students often included transients and
dropouts, and that it was rare for a student to go from
kindergarten to 12th grade in the CCS program.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if the CCS administrators had demographic
information on the students they served.
Number 456
MS. ANDERSON answered yes, but as they had only recently
begun computerizing their records, it might take a few more
years to get good demographic information.
REP. TOOHEY asked for a simple list of where the CCS
students lived.
MS. ANDERSON said that that information, current as of
March, was included in the DOE position paper on HB 250.
Number 473
CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Anderson about CCS graduation rates.
MS. ANDERSON answered that 34 students graduated in 1992,
and all but three of the students who left CCS in 1992
either moved to private schools or returned to public
schools. She said she would provide more complete
graduation information later.
Number 484
REP. G. DAVIS asked if the CCS had a central office.
MS. ANDERSON said that the entire program was based in
Juneau, where 24 certified full-time teachers worked and
where the program stored its supplies.
Number 490
REP. TOOHEY asked about enrollment. She asked how the CCS
program's $2,600 cost per pupil compared to that of other
school districts.
MS. ANDERSON answered that the statewide average expense per
student was approximately $7,000.
Number 500
REP. TOOHEY expressed fear that, because CCS was evolving
into an optional program, it might find its budget severely
cut.
MS. ANDERSON answered that that would be a legislative
decision, but as long as Alaska was progressive and offering
the option of home schooling, it was necessary to look at
what would benefit such students.
Number 514
REP. TOOHEY noted that the program had its roots in the
University of Nebraska's correspondence schooling program,
considered the best in the country. She asked how much the
University of Alaska would charge for such a home schooling
program if the state did not fund it.
MS. ANDERSON said that it would be difficult to answer, as
the University of Nebraska had switched to a computer-
assisted program, making teaching costs about $90 per
course, plus the material costs. She said there were other
university home-school programs. She said the question was
whether Alaska felt CCS was a relevant public school option.
She said she found CCS helped students stay in school and
graduate.
Number 530
CHAIR BUNDE observed that the program was providing a
remedial educational service. He asked Ms. Anderson to
address the fiscal note and what the extra money would be
spent on.
MS. ANDERSON answered that the CCS program had earlier
addressed secondary students by using materials and courses
from out-of-state programs, such as the University of
Nebraska program. Over the years, however, Alaska has
developed Alaska-based curricula and hired teachers, which
has resulted in higher completion rates. The CCS counselors
provide the same type of career and curriculum counseling
offered at local schools, she said. With the increase in
secondary students and the resulting demand for secondary
school courses, the CCS program would face a shortfall of
approximately $300,000 in running the existing program, she
said.
CHAIR BUNDE asked a clarifying question on what the
additional funds would be applied toward.
MS. ANDERSON answered that the CCS would not hire more
teachers and counselors.
CHAIR BUNDE asked whether it had been less expensive to
provide the CCS program through the University of Nebraska.
MS. ANDERSON indicated yes, but a reporter had once said
that while the program had begun as a way to provide
schooling to those who needed access to any education at
all, it had evolved into a program presenting a variety of
means of access to education.
REP. OLBERG asked whether the CCS program spent $2,600 per
student.
MS. ANDERSON answered that the CCS program calculated that
it spent $2,600 per student, both elementary and secondary,
based on the current formula.
REP. OLBERG asked how much would be spent on each type of
student under the changed funding program.
Number 575
ALEXANDER DOLITSKY, A CCS TEACHER, answered that the program
would receive 35 percent more money for a secondary student,
or about $3,000 per student.
REP. OLBERG asked again how much would be spent on each type
of student under the changed funding program.
MS. ANDERSON clarified that the only change in funding would
be that the secondary students would be counted as secondary
students, but the CCS program only receives 65 percent of
the amount allocated per student under the foundation
formula program.
Number 566
REP. OLBERG asked whether 24 teachers showed up for work in
a building in Juneau each day.
MS. ANDERSON answered yes. She said the home teacher was
the primary teacher working with the certified teachers of
the CCS program. She said the 24 teachers' work includes
responding to telephone calls, listening to reading
cassettes from elementary students to check up on reading
skills, and other such activities.
REP. OLBERG asked if the teachers traveled.
MS. ANDERSON answered that the teachers did not routinely
travel, but they did travel to administer testing and to
train home teachers.
TAPE 93-66, SIDE B
Number 000
CHAIR BUNDE asked how often CCS teachers traveled to train
home teachers and testing.
MS. ANDERSON answered that teachers performed testing once
per year, and that the testing took place in Anchorage,
Fairbanks and Juneau. She said training was done in
Anchorage and Juneau. She added that state law required
that students in the program that are tested must go to a
local site where teachers can administer the tests in
person.
CHAIR BUNDE asked whether a student from Selawik would
travel to Anchorage to be tested.
MS. ANDERSON answered no, a student from Selawik would not
be included in the fourth, sixth and eighth grade testing
sample because the state would only accept students who are
tested on-site. She said the tests were the Iowa Basic Test
of Basic Skills.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if it was necessary for someone from
Juneau to go to Anchorage to administer the tests, and
whether there were not qualified people in Anchorage and
other cities.
MS. ANDERSON answered that there were qualified people all
over the state, and that the DOE was considering
alternatives such as having such tests performed by such
local people. She said, however, that a parent outreach
committee had advised the program administrators that the
testing was one opportunity for students to meet with their
teachers, and that the testing visit offered an opportunity
for individual conferences with their teacher.
CHAIR BUNDE pointed out that travel was a large target for
budget reductions and the state was trying to get more work
done by teleconference.
MS. ANDERSON answered that the CCS tries to use electronic
mail as much as possible, that parent outreach conferences
are done by teleconference, except for one on-site meeting
in Juneau for which the CCS tries to secure federal funds.
CHAIR BUNDE commented that parents could visit their
neighborhood teacher as well.
Number 042
REP. OLBERG noted that students in Anchorage had the option
of visiting with their teachers every day if so desired.
CHAIR BUNDE stated, "If it seems like we're obstreperous,
it's only because we are. I've found sitting on this side
of the table it's more difficult to make decisions about
state dollars than when I sat on that side of the table."
Number 051
REP. VEZEY asked how many other state-approved
correspondence study programs existed in Alaska other than
the CCS program.
MS. ANDERSON answered that 22 of 54 school districts offered
local correspondence study programs, which were funded 100
percent. She said those 22 districts buy $100,000 worth of
instructional material each year from the CCS.
REP. VEZEY asked if there were other correspondence study
programs.
MS. ANDERSON said that any local district has the option of
using any other correspondence material, available either by
satellite, or from the University of Nebraska or North
Dakota, or other sources.
Number 066
REP. VEZEY asked again if there were other correspondence
study programs.
MS. ANDERSON said that home schooling was a third option.
REP. VEZEY observed that there were at least three
correspondence study programs in the state.
Number 073
REP. VEZEY asked how much it would cost the state to make
the funding changes outlined in HB 250.
MS. ANDERSON answered that the changes would cost $351,000.
REP. VEZEY asked whether the CCS program currently funding
level for secondary students was about $1.5 million per
year.
MS. ANDERSON answered that that was the approximate figure.
REP. VEZEY observed that the difference was about 20
percent.
MS. ANDERSON said the CCS total budget was about $3.2
million per year, with half of that for elementary students.
REP. VEZEY said that it was interesting that local school
districts received full funding for both elementary and
secondary students for their correspondence schooling
programs, but the state CCS can only get 65 percent of the
formula funds for the students it served.
MS. ANDERSON answered that local school districts receive
full funding for correspondence programs because teachers
visit correspondence students' homes more frequently than do
the CCS teachers. She said local school districts were
looking for new ways to serve students in special
circumstances.
Number 105
REP. VEZEY said he asked his questions because he was
confused about unhoused students. He said he believed that
the state statutes allowed local school districts to include
their correspondence students in their Average Daily
Membership (ADM) tallies and, therefore, to collect full
funding for those students under the foundation formula
program.
MS. ANDERSON said it varied by district, but some districts
might have students in their school buildings for part of
the year.
Number 119
REP. VEZEY asked what the practical effects would be on the
CCS program if it were renamed as a school, as HB 250
provided, and whether the extra money would be eaten up in
overhead.
MS. ANDERSON said changing the name from study to school
would help clarify the program's purpose and nature, which
would be helpful as the program applied for federal grants.
She said the money would continue services and would not be
eaten up in overhead.
REP. VEZEY asked about the CCS program's status within the
Department of Education.
MS. ANDERSON answered that the CCS was a division of the
Department of Education and was one of three state schools,
the other's being the Mt. Edgecumbe boarding high school in
Sitka and the VoTech Center in Seward.
Number 138
REP. VEZEY asked why 65 percent of the elementary funding
level was better than 65 percent of the secondary funding
level.
MS. ANDERSON said that 65 percent of the elementary funding
level was acceptable several years ago, but as more
secondary students began to participate in the in-state
program, it became necessary to spend more on secondary
students to provide them the same opportunity for a good
education.
REP. VEZEY commented that it was interesting that the CCS
program educated elementary students for 65 percent and
secondary students for about 53 percent of the cost of
educations in a normal schools.
CHAIR BUNDE noted that the bill was aimed at raising the
secondary students to the 65 percent funding level. He
clarified that the bill would set funding for secondary
students alone at 65 percent of the normal funding level for
secondary students and set funding for elementary students
alone at 65 percent of the normal funding level for
elementary students. He noted that public schools received
more money for secondary students than for elementary
students. He further observed that the CCS spent less on
education because they had no physical plants.
REP. VEZEY said the foundation formula did not fund schools'
capital needs, which were addressed through a separate
funding mechanism.
Number 175
CHAIR BUNDE asked about the pupil-teacher ratios in the CCS.
MS. ANDERSON answered that the ratio of students to teachers
was about 50-1 for elementary grades, and up to 300-1 for
physical education, which had the highest ratio.
Number 180
REP. TOOHEY asked Ms. Anderson to amplify on her comments on
the high pupil-teacher ratios for physical education (PE).
MS. ANDERSON answered that the CCS program provided a PE
course out of a believe that PE is an important part of
being an accredited school. She said the PE class was
taught in conjunction with the home teacher, considering a
student's home and physical education opportunities. She
said there are some video courses, on jumping rope and other
activities. She added that about 150 of the program's
students were pregnant and the PE courses take that into
account. She said that Alaska's students rank low in the
nation on scales of physical fitness.
(Rep. Nicholia departed at 4:13 p.m.)
Number 205
REP. OLBERG announced that he had calculated the average
pupil teacher ratio as 42-1.
Number 208
REP. KOTT asked what the financial benefit to CCS might be
of being treated as a school district in terms of financing.
MS. ANDERSON said she did not believe there would be any
significant financial benefit because the program's funding
was based on the foundation formula program. She said the
financial record-keeping, reporting and operations would
become more like those of a regular school district. She
said the CCS would not be another single-site school
district.
REP. KOTT asked if the CCS program would be allowed to
retain 10 percent of unreserved funds from its left-over
operating funds at the end of the year, as do most school
districts.
MS. ANDERSON answered yes; the bill would have that effect,
although it had never before had such holdover funds.
REP. KOTT asked if CCS would be in the position to create
reserve accounts as are held by other districts.
MS. ANDERSON said such reserves had been allowable, but she
did not foresee that CCS would take advantage of that
option. She noted that the Mt. Edgecumbe school had the
option for reserve accounts, but had not done so.
Number 236
REP. KOTT referred to teacher salaries and that the CCS
contract was up for renegotiation in June 1993 and asked the
average pay for the 24 CCS teachers.
MS. ANDERSON answered that the average pay for the teachers
was about $42,000 per year, about $10,000 per year less than
other teachers. She said the contract negotiations were
almost completed.
Number 260
CHAIR BUNDE thanked Ms. Anderson for her time and invited
other witnesses to the table.
Number 263
ALEXANDER DOLITSKY, A SOCIAL STUDIES AND RUSSIAN LANGUAGE
TEACHER WITH THE CCS, testified in Juneau in support of
HB 250. He said the CCS program was an effective, credible
program. He said he was a correspondence student at the
Kiev Pedagogical Institute in Russia and he was accepted at
five Ivy League universities when he arrived in the United
States. He said CCS was not necessarily an alternative or
supplement to normal schooling, but a valid educational
system that could be appropriate to some students and
parents. He said he has traveled to Anchorage at his own
expense and met with some of his 200 students, and welcomed
the opportunity to meet in person with them. He said the 24
CCS teachers do a good job.
Number 306
CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Dolitsky to describe a typical working
day.
MR. DOLITSKY said he worked from 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., as any
state worker. He said he graded papers and lessons,
answered phone calls, and had daily audio conference with
his Russian language students. He said he attended two or
three meetings a week. He said he and his colleagues worked
and communicated together with ease when necessary. He said
different students and lessons took varying amounts of time
and attention. He said he achieved good success with his
students.
(Rep. Brice returned at 4:20 p.m.)
CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Dolitsky about his success rate in
teaching Russian language.
MR. DOLITSKY responded that all of his students completed
their Russian courses, while the completion rates in other
classes averaged about 78 percent.
Number 331
REP. TOOHEY asked why the fiscal note for HB 250 projected
the cost of the bill to be $351,000 in the first year, but
$566,000 in the sixth year.
MS. ANDERSON said the DOE assumes a 10 percent annual
increase in enrollment. While the program historically had
not experienced such growth, in the last five years the
department had seen a steady increase and believed the
projected 10 percent annual growth was a conservative
estimate.
CHAIR BUNDE noted that the growth in secondary-age students
was over 8 percent in 1992.
Number 350
JACK PHELPS, LEGISLATIVE AIDE TO REP. PETE KOTT, testified
in Juneau on correspondence schooling. He said he had been
involved in the home schooling community in Alaska for
almost 10 years, and offered some comments on the CCS
program. He said CCS is an important part of the state
educational program and is one way of fulfilling the state
constitutional mandate to provide a quality education to
every child in the state. He said different students
require different programs and it would be inappropriate to
eliminate CCS as a redundant program. He offered
clarification of some issues. He said that of the three
correspondence school options in Alaska, only the local
school district-provided correspondence program would allow
its students to be counted in the ADM for foundation formula
funding purposes. He said it was a legitimate question as
to whether the legislature should fund local district
correspondence programs at 100 percent, while funding the
state CCS at only 65 percent. He suggested investigation
into the relative costs of normal local district educations
and local district correspondence programs. He warned that
reducing or eliminating correspondence programs would
exacerbate the problems with unhoused students. He also
said that a cost-benefit analysis would reveal the
advantages to the state of correspondence programs.
Number 398
REP. TOOHEY asked Mr. Phelps if his children had used the
CCS program.
MR. Phelps answered no, that his children had used private
correspondence programs.
Number 407
REP. TOOHEY noted that her son had graduated through CCS and
attended the University of Washington, largely through his
own motivation. She asked Mr. Phelps why he had used a
private correspondence school, instead of publicly funded
alternatives.
MR. PHELPS said that he chose the private program for the
type of education and its flexibility, and that he paid for
his childrens' home schooling himself.
CHAIR BUNDE noted that it was unlikely that the committee
would get to HB 85, and that Duane Guiley of the DOE could
depart or remain if he wished.
MR. PHELPS said he had a hard time understanding the benefit
of treating the CCS program as a school district, as called
for in HB 250. He also questioned whether that change was
solely for status' sake, if, as Ms. Anderson testified,
there would be no financial impact of such a change. He
said there was a potential for escalating costs. He also
said he had found a technical error in the bill on page 2,
Section 5, line 23. He said the language in HB 250 changed
the way local district correspondence programs were dealt
with in the state compulsory attendance statute by calling
them a school.
Number 453
REP. VEZEY asked a question on the calculation of ADM. He
said Title 14, chapter 17, paragraph 41, of Alaska statutes
could be interpreted to mean that students who were in
district correspondence programs and other students not
regularly attending would be counted in the ADM of the
largest funding community in that district.
MR. PHELPS said paragraph (D) of the statute which Rep.
Vezey had cited specified district correspondence students,
and said that the paragraph did not apply to CCS students,
who are treated as being enrolled in a state, not program,
district. He said he believed the law was applied fairly
consistently.
Number 471
REP. VEZEY said he did not know, but he could read the
statute, and that sometimes the numbers on unhoused students
did not add up.
MR. PHELPS said it was important to differentiate between
students enrolled in CCS and in district correspondence
programs.
REP. VEZEY said that his reading of the statute in question
might also mean that students enrolled in private
correspondence schooling programs might be counted in a
local school district's ADM.
Number 479
CHAIR BUNDE said that he read the statute to mean that CCS
students were regularly attending school and by definition,
therefore, were excluded from ADM calculation. He invited a
DOE staffer to clarify the issue for the committee.
Number 488
DUANE GUILEY, DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF EDUCATION FINANCE
AND SUPPORT SERVICES IN THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
testified in Juneau concerning HB 250. He said that
students enrolled in private school or in private
correspondence could be included in a local school
district's ADM calculation if they are enrolled in a class
at that district. He said there were many students enrolled
in a few local district classes, but it was up to local
district policy as to whether such students would be
included in the ADM calculation. He said the state could
not deny any child free access to public education. He said
AS 14.17.022, providing for CCS funding, prohibits double
counting if a student is also enrolled in a local district
correspondence program.
Number 508
CHAIR BUNDE ended the teleconference portion of the meeting.
REP. TOOHEY asked a clarifying question on what Mr. Guiley
had said, asking if there could be "double-dipping."
MR. GUILEY answered that students enrolled in private school
or home school programs received no state funding, but if
such students were also concurrently enrolled in a local
district, it was possible that the student could be included
in that district's ADM calculation.
REP. TOOHEY asked a hypothetical question. If a family in
Talkeetna was home-schooling their child through the CCS
process, but then enrolled the child in a local school for a
few elective classes, would that child be counted in the
local school district's ADM?
MR. GUILEY answered that that was possible. He said that,
under statutes, a child could not be concurrently enrolled
in both a local district correspondence program and the CCS
program. He said the law did not address whether a child
could also be enrolled in a regular local district school.
CHAIR BUNDE said it was not relevant to ask whether a
student could be concurrently enrolled in a local school and
the CCS. He said he would encourage local districts to
ferret out double-dippers. Seeing no one who wished to
testify further, he CLOSED public testimony on HB 250 and
asked the will of the committee.
TAPE 93-67, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIR BUNDE MOVED to pass HB 250 from the HESS Committee on
to the House Finance Committee.
Number 010
REP. VEZEY said the lack of response to the motion by the
chair indicated that the other committee members shared his
feeling that he had been presented with a lot of new
information on the bill, and that it would be inappropriate
to vote on the bill at that time. He said he liked many
aspects of the bill, but was uncomfortable with others.
Number 030
REP. TOOHEY said she did not want to jeopardize CCS, which
she believed was a good program. She said there were
questions that required answers.
CHAIR BUNDE said the comments of the other two committee
members had solidified his questions, and he withdrew his
motion. He announced that HB 250, along with HB 85, would
come before the HESS Committee again at 3 p.m on Tuesday,
April 15.
REP. TOOHEY asked if it would be possible for the committee
to get together and discuss HB 250 before then.
CHAIR BUNDE said that it would be more appropriate to
discuss the matter in a committee meeting. He then
ADJOURNED the meeting at 4:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|