Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/22/1993 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
March 22, 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. Bettye Davis
Rep. Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
Rep. Irene Nicholia
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
*HJR 30: Relating to epidemiological and quarantine
services in ports of entry in the state.
PASSED WITH INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS
*HB 235: "An Act relating to educational programs and
services for children with disabilities and other
exceptional children and to persons with a
handicap; and providing for an effective date."
PASSED WITH INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS
*HB 210: "An Act relating to employment of chief school
administrators."
HEARD AND HELD TO TIME CERTAIN
*HB 174: "An Act relating to organization of the public
school system; and providing for an effective
date."
NOT HEARD, HELD TO TIME CERTAIN
(* First public hearing.)
WITNESS REGISTER
MEL KROGSENG
Special Assistant
Rep. Ramona Barnes
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 208
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: (907) 465-3438
Position Statement: Testified for sponsor of HJR 30
MYRA HOWE, Director
Educational Program Support/
Special Education Programs
Department of Education
801 W. 10th St. Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
Phone: (907) 465-2971
Position Statement: Testified in favor of HB 235
STEPHEN T. MCPHETRES
Executive Director
Alaska Council of School Administrators
326 Fourth St. Suite 404
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1101
Phone: (907) 586-9702
Position Statement: Testified in favor of HB 235
DENNIS WETHERELL
P.O. Box 876862
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Phone: (907) 745-2007
Position Statement: Testified in opposition to HB 235
FRANK GARRITY
P.O. Box 69
Barrow, Alaska 99723
Phone: (907) 852-5311
Position Statement: Testified in favor of HB 235
LARRY WIGET
Legislative Liaison
Anchorage School District
4600 DeBarr Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99508-3195
Phone: (907) 269-2255
Position Statement: Testified in favor of HB 235
MARC GROBER
P.O. Box 467
Nenana, Alaska, 99760
Phone: (907) 832-5227
Position Statement: Testified in opposition to HB 235
PAUL VERHAGEN
P.O. Box 563
Nenana, Alaska 99760
Phone: (907) 832-5238
Position Statement: Testified in opposition to HB 235
REP. TERRY MARTIN
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 411
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 465-3783
Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 210
REP. JERRY MACKIE
Alaska State Legislature
Courthouse, Room 602
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 465-4925
Position Statement: Testified in opposition to HB 210
BOB WEINSTEIN, Superintendent
Southeast Islands School District
P.O. Box 8340
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Position Statement: Testified in opposition to HB 210
JOHN HOLST, Superintendent
Craig City School District
P.O. Box 800
Craig, Alaska 99921
Phone: (907) 826-3274
Position Statement: Testified in opposition to HB 210
ROGER STEPHAN, Research Analyst
Department of Education
801 W. 10th St., Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 465-8682
Position Statement: Testified in opposition to HB 210
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 30
SHORT TITLE: QUARANTINE SERVICES AT PORTS OF ENTRY
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BARNES,Toohey
TITLE: Relating to epidemiological and quarantine services
in ports of entry in the state.
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/22/93 409 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/22/93 410 (H) HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL
SERVICES
03/22/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 235
SHORT TITLE: SPECIAL EDUCATION & RELATED SERVICES
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUNDE,Grussendorf
TITLE: "An Act relating to educational programs and services
for children with disabilities and other exceptional
children and to persons with a handicap; and providing for
an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/17/93 684 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/17/93 684 (H) HES, FINANCE
03/22/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 210
SHORT TITLE: HIRING OF CHIEF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN,Kott
TITLE: "An Act relating to employment of chief school
administrators."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/10/93 590 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/10/93 590 (H) HES, FINANCE
03/12/93 629 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOTT
03/22/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 174
SHORT TITLE: CONSOLIDATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN,Kott
TITLE: "An Act relating to organization of the public school
system; and providing for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/24/93 434 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/24/93 434 (H) HES, FINANCE
03/12/93 628 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOTT
03/22/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-41, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIR BUNDE called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m., noted
members present, announced members present, and announced
that the meeting would be teleconferenced to Anchorage,
Dillingham, Naknek, Klawock, Mat-Su, Valdez, Barrow, Tok,
Nenana and Craig.
HJR 30 - QUARANTINE SERVICES AT PORTS OF ENTRY
MEL KROGSENG, LEGISLATIVE AIDE TO REP. RAMONA BARNES,
testified on behalf of the prime sponsor of HB 174. She
read a sponsor statement, which is on file in the committee
room. In summary, the statement said that the resolution,
introduced at the request of the Department of Health and
Social Services (DHSS), was a reaction to the
discontinuation of epidemiological and quarantine services
at Ports of Entry into Alaska. The resolution asks the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to provide extra
staff in Alaska to monitor potential outbreaks of
communicable diseases carried into Alaska by travellers,
especially those from Russia and the Far East.
(Reps. Brice, Kott, Olberg and B. Davis arrived at
approximately 3:15 p.m.)
Number 065
CHAIR BUNDE asked why the resolution carried a zero fiscal
note.
MS. KROGSENG said that the federal government would pay for
any health officers, and that there would therefore be no
cost to the state.
REP. VEZEY asked the location of Alaska's Ports of Entry.
MS. KROGSENG answered that they were the international
airports in Fairbanks and Anchorage.
Number 090
REP. VEZEY recommended that it might be better to place such
health officers in port communities like Valdez and Dutch
Harbor.
Number 095
REP. TOOHEY commented that more people from the Far East and
Russia arrived in Alaska through the airports than through
maritime shipping ports.
Number 104
REP. VEZEY commented that he had contracted some of the
hardest to cure diseases in his life in port cities.
Number 106
CHAIR BUNDE quieted the resulting laughter with a reminder
that the committee had much work to do and limited time.
Number 110
REP. BRICE moved passage of HJR 30 with individual
recommendations.
CHAIR BUNDE asked for objections, and, hearing none,
announced HJR 30 PASSED WITH INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS. He
brought HB 235 to the table.
HB 235 - SPECIAL EDUCATION AND RELATED SERVICES
Number 137
MYRA HOWE, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM SUPPORT/SPECIAL
EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
testified in Juneau in support of HB 235. She said Alaska
needed to amend its state statutes concerning special
educational services to comply with federal requirements, or
else it would lose its conditional approval for FY92-FY94,
and likewise some federal funding. She listed the sections
that dealt with those conditions:
Section 8 would allow school districts to take to a due
process hearing parents who deny consent for initial
evaluation or placement of their child into special
education.
Sections 9 and 11 deal with consent, she said. The
federal Office of Education had asked the state to
remodel its definition of consent and its stipulations
concerning a parent's ability to withdraw consent to
match federal definitions and stipulations.
Section 21 would add rehabilitation services to the
list of related services. That change was due to
reauthorization of federal law which included
additional services to children with disabilities.
Section 23 adds two new categories of disabilities:
autism and traumatic brain injury; and conforms state
definition of educational records to federal
definitions.
Number 171
REP. G. DAVIS asked Ms. Howe to explain the CINA (Children
in Need of AID) statute (Alaska statute, AS 47.10.010, which
allows the state to take action on behalf of a child when a
parent has knowingly failed to take action to provide
treatment for the child).
MS. HOWE said she knew that the statute had to do with
having a guardian ad litem for the child. The Department of
Education (DOE) did not use it in special education and,
instead, appointed surrogate parents, she said. The
Department of Health and Social Services occasionally used
it, for example, if a parent was deemed not to be acting in
their child's best interests. That was not within the
special education process did not use it, but used surrogate
parents, she said.
Number 185
REP. G. DAVIS asked if the state could amend the statute to
accommodate some of the inclusions in HB 235.
MS. HOWE answered that she had not talked about that with
the federal people. She said the indication she had gotten
when she spoke that morning with her department was that the
DOE needed to use the due process hearing because state
statutes required it.
Number 192
REP. B. DAVIS asked what elements in HB 235 would affect the
state's talented and gifted (TAG) educational program.
MS. HOWE answered that the bill would have only one effect
on the TAG program, that of ending the requirement that each
gifted student be reevaluated at least every three years.
The department felt it was not necessary, as it cost the
state for psychologists and district time, even though
gifted students seldom lose their eligibility for such
programs. She said there is no federal requirement for the
three-year reevaluation, complete with IQ test. The schools
would continue to perform annual progress evaluations on an
Individualized Education Plan (IEP), which would help
determine goals and objectives for the year, she said.
Number 225
REP. B. DAVIS asked if Ms. Howe had reviewed the changes in
the TAG program with the Governor's Council on Education,
and if so, what did they recommend.
MS. HOWE answered yes, the DOE had made a presentation on
February 19, 1993, to the governor's council. She said
HB 235 had been redrafted since then, and a copy provided to
the council along with a sectional analysis, but the DOE had
not heard back from the council.
Number 234
REP. B. DAVIS said, "Did I not hear you say that you are
covered for FY94-5 as far as the waiver that you might have
had to, conditional waiver is what you said."
MS. HOWE answered that the state's conditional approval was
good until July 1993.
REP. B. DAVIS asked, "And then what happens?"
MS. HOWE answered that the DOE stands to lose its federal
money.
REP. B. DAVIS asked if the DOE could put in for an
additional conditional waiver.
MS. HOWE said the department had received a hand-carried
letter from the U.S. Department of Education that day
indicating that the department could not get such an
extension. She also noted that the state of New York had
recently lost its federal funding due to failure to bring
its state service plan into compliance with federal laws.
Number 250
CHAIR BUNDE noted for the record the presence of Rep. Martin
and Rep. Mackie in the audience, and said they would be
welcome to join the committee at the table if there was
room. Each declined.
REP. VEZEY asked if $8.34 million represented the total
amount of federal funds the state received for special
education.
MS. HOWE answered yes.
Number 262
REP. VEZEY asked about the zero fiscal note for HB 235, and
questioned whether it was realistic.
MS. HOWE addressed the issue of the bill's low cost, saying
that cutting the three-year reevaluation requirement for TAG
students would save school districts money and free
psychologists for other duties. The bill would add only a
few new students under the autistic and brain injury
categories who had been included under an "other health
impaired" category. The bill was only putting common
current practice into statute.
Number 278
STEPHEN T. MCPHETRES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ALASKA
COUNCIL OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS, testified in Juneau in
support of HB 235. He said the due process provisions were
good; it protects parents; it assures school districts of
some process to follow if they need to provide special
services to children over their parents' objections; and the
elimination of the three-year evaluation requirement would
allow the district to devote time spent testing to teaching
instead.
REP. G. DAVIS asked who might be the impartial hearing
officer referred to in section 8, page 3, of HB 235.
Number 297
MS. HOWE answered that the hearing officer could be an
attorney, a member of the community, or an external
specialist in specialized children.
REP. G. DAVIS asked whether the parents and school district
would both have to agree on the selection of the hearing
officer, who would not be a district employee.
MS. HOWE answered that was correct.
Number 306
DENNIS WETHERELL, PARENT OF A GIFTED CHILD, testified via
teleconference from Wasilla in opposition to HB 235. He
said elimination of the three-year evaluation would have the
hidden result of exempting the school district from
consulting with gifted childrens' parents on the child's
progress, appropriateness of placement, and effectiveness of
the program of study developed by the district. Such
consultation is required in the bill only after
reevaluation, or after a change in placement, he said. In
the absence of a mandatory three-year reevaluation, if the
DOE fails to mandate annual Individualized Education Program
(IEP) consultations, then parents will have no input into
how their gifted children are treated by the districts. He
said HB 235 requires parents to prove that the districts'
IEP is inappropriate, instead of requiring the district to
prove to the parents that the plan is appropriate, as
provided in current law.
MR. WETHERELL said HB 235 excludes gifted students from
provisions in section 17, guaranteeing that school districts
must provide special education and related services to
handicapped students schooled in private schools or at home.
He said the bill leaves the definition of "gifted children"
up to state regulations, but the current regulations are
vague. He protested that the DOE does not have plans to
change the definition, and that a more comprehensive
definition be included. He also disputed that all of the
bill's provisions were required to avert the loss of up to
$7 million in federal grants. He said the required
revisions did not need to affect gifted education.
Number 360
REP. B. DAVIS asked Ms. Howe to address Mr. Wetherell's
points. She asked if it was possible, as he had said, to
exclude gifted children from mention in HB 235 and still
retain the federal funds.
MS. HOWE said the DOE could exclude from HB 235 all
provisions affecting gifted students and retain federal
funding. She said the IEP planning meeting and the three-
year evaluation were different processes, and there was
little testing that overlapped. She said the federal
government has directed states not to require school
districts to take parents to due process on some issues, but
to allow such hearings if necessary. She said she would be
willing, at the committee's pleasure, to include gifted
students in home-school services. She said the DOE had
received a formal complaint on the topic in this school
year, and thereafter had required districts to provide such
services to gifted students as a general practice. She said
she had explained to Mr. Wetherell that the DOE lacked funds
to convene a task force to develop a tighter definition of
"gifted children," and her primary responsibility was to
deal with children with disabilities, and the DOE depends on
local districts to define gifted students for themselves.
Number 405
FRANK GARRITY, SPECIAL SERVICES COORDINATOR FOR THE NORTH
SLOPE BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, testified in favor of HB 235.
He said he hoped that special education would get the same
funding as the previous year, or more in FY94, as it was
hard to provide related services to the Bush.
Number 422
LARRY WIGET, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON FOR THE ANCHORAGE SCHOOL
DISTRICT, testified via teleconference from Anchorage in
support of HB 235, saying it would allow the state to comply
with federal law and receive $8 million in federal funds, of
which $1.19 million is earmarked for the Anchorage School
District. He said eliminating the requirement for three-
year evaluations of gifted students would allow more
efficient use of psychologists personnel.
Number 440
MARC GROBER testified via teleconference from Nenana in
support of HB 82. He said school districts select hearing
officers from a limited list compiled by DOE, according to
statute, which he said meant officers favorably disposed to
the school districts. He said Ms. Howe might be lying about
DOE's use of the CINA statute.
According to MR. GROBER, "We raised the China act issues
last year. We also spoke to Barbara Rauch, who is the, a
compliance officer who was with the state. Ms. Rauch
clearly stated that she had never heard from the state of
Alaska regarding CINA. In fact, there is no such process as
Myra described in place now. At present time that is the
reason that the federal government wanted to make sure that
there was something in place. In point of fact, the CINA
act specifically provides for recourse where there is
neglect, including educational neglect. There are ample
protections, and it is a very well thought out procedure,
that provides counsel to the parents and to the child." He
said the due process Ms. Howe discussed does not provide
counsel to parents and was a "shadow process."
MR. GROBER said he knew of several examples in which school
districts have refused to provide services for gifted
children. He said the three-year evaluations were not just
for eligibility, but also for maintaining an understanding
of the child's needs. He said IEP meetings included no
assessment or evaluation.
Number 472
CHAIR BUNDE interrupted to remind Mr. Grober that he had
exceeded the testimony limit.
Number 475
PAUL VERHAGEN, PARENT OF GIFTED CHILDREN, testified via
teleconference from Nenana in support of HB 82. He
expressed strong dissatisfaction with the amount of public
notice of the hearing, and asked the committee not to pass
HB 235. He said he did not disagree that changes were
necessary, but had hoped for more public notice of any
changes.
Number 519
CHAIR BUNDE encouraged members of the public to send in
written testimony to their representatives or to the next
committee of referral, the House Finance Committee. Hearing
no further requests to testify, he closed public testimony
on HB 235 and asked for questions from the committee.
REP. KOTT asked if the committee had a copy of the faxed
letter Mr. Verhagen said he had sent in.
CHAIR BUNDE told Mr. Verhagen the committee had not received
the letter and encouraged him to resubmit it.
MR. VERHAGEN said he would resend the letter.
Number 538
REP. B. DAVIS asked about the letter to which Ms. Howe
referred. She also asked whether Ms. Howe would object to
the recommended changes concerning the inclusion of talented
and gifted (TAG) under home schooling, under section 17.
MS. HOWE said the DOE would not object to making that
change.
CHAIR BUNDE clarified the amendment to section 17, saying
HB 235 as amended "would require school districts to provide
special education and related services and gifted services
even if the child is not at home, at a private school or in
a hospital."
Number 552
REP. B. DAVIS asked the reason for Chair Bunde's urgency in
passing the bill from committee, and asked why the committee
could not wait to hear from the Governor's Council on
Education after the council reviewed the legislation. She
also said she had heard the council had drafts of
recommended legislation. She commented if the committee
passed out HB 235, they would not have the chance to
consider the council's input.
Number 559
CHAIR BUNDE acknowledged her concerns, but said, as it was
the 71st day of the session, he felt the need to move the
bill along. He said it could be addressed in the House
FInance Committee and on the House floor.
Number 563
REP. B. DAVIS asked whether, in light of the urgency, Chair
Bunde would be willing to delete the sections of HB 235 that
were not required to continue receiving federal special
education funds. She said some of the other elements could
be dealt with through other bills. She said some had
already been introduced, and some were in HB 85. She said
she saw no need to deal with the bill so fast.
CHAIR BUNDE said there was no assurance that HB 85, a very
complex bill, would pass anytime soon. He said he would not
want elements of HB 235 contingent on HB 85.
Number 567
REP. G. DAVIS said he was involved in TAG programs, and knew
that parents of such children were more involved than normal
with education. He said Rep. B. Davis's points were valid,
and that he would look forward to the input from the
governor's council, which would help address the concerns of
parents, students and the administration. He pointed out
that HB 235 addressed points other than just those necessary
to secure federal special education funding. He expressed
hope for an opportunity to address the other points later.
CHAIR BUNDE noted that, due to technical problems, Klawock
could not transmit testimony, but only listen in.
Number 588
REP. TOOHEY asked whether the loss of the federal funds
would be permanent if the state failed to make the necessary
changes in its special education laws by a certain deadline.
Number 600
MS. HOWE stated that conversations that day with a federal
official indicated that the date was July 1, 1993. "It is
conceivable that a person could go beyond that, but the
problem is that the federal money has a certain statute of
limitations, so if we go beyond the date, then the money is
gone. So, and that's the situation New York is finding
itself in right now. We've had a conditional essentially
for two years. Under our state plan we have a new one
that's due for FY95, and so we can't go beyond, you know, we
had promised them actually last July that we would have this
all signed and delivered for them."
TAPE 93-41, SIDE B
Number 000
CHAIR BUNDE moved amending section 17, line 13, of HB 235,
adding so that it would read, "requires a school district to
provide special education, gifted, and related services
available ..." etc. He asked for objections.
Number 024
MS. HOWE suggested an alternative wording, amending line 10
by striking the words "of an exceptional child" and
inserting "a child with exceptionalities" or "an exceptional
child," both of which were commonly used terms that would
encompass both gifted and disabled children. She said the
term special education in Alaska was already construed to
mean both gifted and disabled students.
Number 030
CHAIR BUNDE asked whether she meant use the word
"exceptionalities" instead of the word "disabilities" on
line 11.
MS. HOWE answered yes.
Number 035
CHAIR BUNDE asked whether the term was politically correct.
Number 037
MS. HOWE answered yes, in Alaska.
Number 040
CHAIR BUNDE asked if the DOE would prefer such wording.
MS. HOWE said it would be clearer usage and more consistent
with the section.
Number 044
CHAIR BUNDE withdrew his earlier motion, and moved instead
an amendment to use the word "exceptionalities."
Number 046
AN UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE ON TELECONFERENCE (possibly Marc
Grober) asked if the chair would entertain additional public
testimony.
Number 050
CHAIR BUNDE said no, that public testimony had closed. He
then restated the motion and asked for discussion or
objections to it.
Number 061
REP. OLBERG asked Chair Bunde to repeat his motion.
CHAIR BUNDE repeated his motion.
REP. OLBERG objected to the motion.
CHAIR BUNDE invited him to speak to the motion.
REP. OLBERG declined.
CHAIR BUNDE called for a voice vote on the motion, and heard
no nays.
REP. OLBERG noted that a roll call vote was more usual.
CHAIR BUNDE agreed to a roll call vote, but none was taken.
Number 086
REP. B. DAVIS asked if the term "exceptionalities" were
defined in statute, and said the objection might change if
the term were defined.
CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Howe for a definition of the term
"exceptionalities."
Number 097
REP. OLBERG asked if the motion meant that the legislature
was mandating home instructional opportunities for any
exceptional child, whether disabled, gifted or whatever.
CHAIR BUNDE said he understood that was a proper reading; it
currently applied to all special education children, and the
motion would allow the inclusion of gifted children. He
said he understood Rep. Olberg's reservation.
Number 111
MS. HOWE read a definition of the term "exceptional
children" found on page 6, line 6, paragraph (3). She
suggested that the motion be amended to follow the wording
in that paragraph.
CHAIR BUNDE agreed that "exceptionalities" was an obtuse
word. He asked Rep. Olberg if the change clarified his
question.
REP. OLBERG stated, "It clarifies without satisfying,
whatever that means."
CHAIR BUNDE commented that it sounded like a new product.
Number 137
REP. OLBERG said the committee was creating a new
educational product that would stretch the education budget
yet again.
CHAIR BUNDE disagreed, saying that the provision already
existed in state statute. He said the DOE wanted to take
gifted education out of the special education program, an
effort that would be dealt with in the discussion of HB 85,
scheduled for the following week.
Number 145
REP. OLBERG asked whether the particular statute did or did
not address gifted children at that time.
CHAIR BUNDE said that gifted student programs were, at that
time, funded through special education programs.
Number 150
REP. OLBERG asked whether HB 235 was an effort to limit home
instruction to children with disabilities.
CHAIR BUNDE responded, "To exceptional children."
REP. OLBERG clarified, "No, I mean, no, it reads
`disabilities.'"
CHAIR BUNDE said, "As it was originally worded it would not
include gifted children. My understanding of the statute,
as it was being crafted, it was to include gifted children.
As you may have noticed, there's a good bit of concern about
separating gifted children out from special ed."
Number 159
REP. OLBERG stated, "I think we've gone full circle here, so
let me try one more time. If this did not exist, would
gifted children be entitled to home instruction?"
CHAIR BUNDE replied, "Yes."
REP. OLBERG said, "This then came along and eliminated the
gifted children and limited it to disabled children."
CHAIR BUNDE responded, "That's correct."
REP. OLBERG stated, "And we're going to go back to where we
started from, even though that might not have been a good
place to be."
Number 165
CHAIR BUNDE said, "Yes, we will discuss that issue in more
detail in HB 85."
REP. OLBERG stated, "Thank you."
Number 173
REP. VEZEY said the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
did not deal with gifted people, but with disabled people.
He said he was having difficulty reconciling a bill that
dealt with gifted students with the ADA. He said the
purpose of the statute, supposedly, was to remain in
compliance with federal law, which he said it might do, but
only after going through a lot of extraneous information.
CHAIR BUNDE said he had asked that the bill be written to
reflect current state policies, and later, when the
committee got to HB 85, it could then separate funding for
special education students and gifted students, which would
then establish a new state policy to supercede the current
state policy.
Number 191
REP. VEZEY commented that the motivation behind HB 235 was
the ADA.
CHAIR BUNDE disagreed, saying HB 235 dealt only with federal
funding of special education, not with the ADA.
Number 197
REP. VEZEY said he thought that the purpose behind HB 235
was to have the state remain in compliance with the ADA. He
said it was possible they were talking about two different
acts.
CHAIR BUNDE said that was correct; they were speaking of two
different acts.
REP. OLBERG said that the federal law with which the state
was attempting to remain in compliance with through HB 235
was the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. He
commented that, "We're trying to slice our interest groups
into ever smaller pieces."
Number 206
CHAIR BUNDE said he wanted to try again to achieve the
amendment to page 10, line 5, which would read: "If a
parent with an exceptional child enrolls the child ...";
striking the words "with" and "disabilities."
REP. TOOHEY contested the wording.
CHAIR BUNDE explained that she had forgotten an earlier
amendment.
REP. TOOHEY said she stood corrected.
REP. OLBERG objected to the motion.
CHAIR BUNDE invited him to speak to his objection.
REP. OLBERG declined.
CHAIR BUNDE called for a roll call vote on the amendment to
amend line 10 to read, "If a parent of an exceptional child
enrolls the child ... " The amendment deleted the words
"with disabilities," he said. Those voting yea were Reps.
G. Davis, Vezey, B. Davis, Toohey and Bunde. Those voting
nay were Reps. Kott and Olberg. The MOTION PASSED 5-2.
Number 243
CHAIR BUNDE moved passage of HB 235 with individual
recommendations.
REP. B. DAVIS objected, saying she supported the changes
necessary for the DOE to come into compliance with federal
laws, but she believed the House Finance Committee would not
have the time to address the issues that should have been
addressed in the HESS Committee. She said it was not a
money issue. She opposed passage from the committee, saying
that the bill could have had at least one additional hearing
before the HESS Committee to address some elements of the
bill to make it even better and more acceptable to parents
as well as administrators.
Number 256
REP. KOTT objected, saying his reasons were similar to those
of Rep. B. Davis. He said much of the testimony represented
disagreement on several issues, and it would be prudent to
hold the bill over for a day or so to resolve some of the
conflicts.
CHAIR BUNDE called for a brief at-ease before the vote, at
4:09 p.m. He called the meeting back to order at 4:11 p.m.
and repeated the motion to pass HB 235 from the HESS
Committee with individual recommendations. Those voting yea
were Reps. Vezey, Kott, Brice, Toohey, Bunde and G. Davis.
Those voting nay were Reps. Olberg and B. Davis. The MOTION
PASSED 6-2.
CHAIR BUNDE then brought HB 210 to the table.
HB 210 - HIRING OF SCHOOL CHIEF ADMINISTRATORS
Number 282
REP. TERRY MARTIN spoke as PRIME SPONSOR of HB 210. He said
the major purpose of the bill was to allow school districts
more flexibility in using their money, not to take it away.
He noted that, at statehood, most of Alaska's laws
concerning education were modeled after California laws, and
at that time, the state had a few large school districts and
many smaller Bureau of Indian Affairs and military schools.
He noted the movement toward local autonomy and single-site
school districts over the years, but said the state did not
realize the high administrative cost of such districts. He
said the law requiring a superintendent at each school
district was antiquated and expensive and needed to be
eliminated.
REP. MARTIN noted the St. Mary's school district, which was
attempting to contract out administrative services to get
out from under the high cost of on-site administration. He
said districts in the Aleutian Islands got a special waiver
allowing them to share a superintendent. He stated his bill
required school districts to have at least 500 students, or
1,000 under an amendment he said he planned to offer, before
they would be able to hire a superintendent. He said
smaller districts could hire one superintendent in common.
He noted the Yupiit school district, consisting of three
villages, which now spends 65 percent of its budget for
administrative costs. He said he receives many calls
supporting individual superintendents, but single-site
school districts are a problem because they cannot spread
out their costs over many different schools.
Number 355
REP. MARTIN continued, referring to legislative efforts in
1992 to make the Anchorage School District's superintendent
reveal his contract to the public. When the contract was
made public, it astounded the public with its generous
provisions for the superintendent and his family. He
encouraged the HESS Committee to use its powers of subpoena
to make public the contracts for more school superintendents
and demonstrate how their ability to negotiate high pay and
benefits was impeding districts' ability to pay for
teachers.
REP. MARTIN noted one small district in Southeast Alaska
that had among the lowest average teacher salaries in the
state, but also the highest superintendent's salary. He
said the state had an interest in seeing that state
education funds went to serve children, not administrators.
He said 17 of the state's 54 school districts are in
Southeast Alaska, which has 11 percent of state enrollment.
He asked why a single island needed four different school
districts. He said Klawock was seven miles from Craig, and
asked why the two districts could not share a
superintendent. He said HB 210 would eliminate mandatory
single-site superintendents and allow more flexibility. He
stated the bill would cost the state no money.
Number 386
CHAIR BUNDE referred to one superintendent whose contract
included payment of expenses for an airplane.
Number 394
REP. JERRY MACKIE testified against HB 210 as the
representative of a district that includes many single-site
school districts. He said the bill was incredibly
arbitrary. He said the bill would apply to 40 of the
state's 54 districts, and to all 12 of the school districts
in his district. He stated he wanted a thorough study of
the bill's effects before passage.
Number 400
REP. MACKIE displayed maps of Southeast Alaska to
demonstrate to committee members how school districts are
scattered around a large area in communities that have
little in common culturally. Before any change in the
educational delivery system, he recommended a thorough study
taking into account each district's individual nature,
geographical location, composition of students, and funding
effects of any organizational plan. He said the bill
attacks non-urban school districts for only one factor,
average daily membership.
Number 420
REP. MACKIE said he did not want to see problems fixed
without first identifying the problems. He commented there
might be some cases in which there might be a possibility of
consolidation of some services to save money, but mandating
the elimination of superintendents for single-site school
districts was inconceivable. He stated for the record that
HB 210 was a bad bill. He said school districts needed
someone in charge and the current system was good, and it
needed some improvements. He said there was a need to cut
spending, and some districts would have to do their part.
Number 444
REP. TOOHEY disputed Rep. Mackie's assertion that Southeast
Alaska communities were all unique enough to warrant their
own different schools, saying that the Girdwood, Mountain
View and Turnagain areas of Anchorage were different, but
each was served adequately under a single Anchorage School
District. She said the state needed to control its
education expenses, not by cutting teacher salaries. She
said that while no one liked change, it had to happen, and a
school serving 200 children did not deserve its own
superintendent at $82,000 per year.
Number 450
REP. MACKIE commented, "That may be fine if it doesn't
affect your district, but lately we're dealing with a lot of
things that affect my district, and I take exception to
that."
REP. TOOHEY said she understood, but she asked Rep. Mackie
how he could justify having four different schools on Prince
of Wales Island, each served by its own superintendent.
Number 458
REP. MACKIE answered that there were four different school
districts on the island, and each needed its own
superintendent.
REP. BRICE asked Rep. Mackie how school districts would hire
and fire superintendents if more than one community were
served by a single school district. He asked how school
boards would function, and how community input would be
preserved.
Number 474
REP. MACKIE answered that numbers taken out of context can
lie. He said he wished he had more time to refute Rep.
Martin's arguments. He expressed for the record his
personal feeling, on behalf of those he represented, that
HB 210 was bad legislation, and arbitrary, and that there
was life outside of other areas.
REP. MACKIE said, "These are real people, real children,
real communities, with their own ideas, their own
traditional history, and background in a lot of things. And
anytime you say, `Oh, yeah, well the numbers say these
superintendents are making too much money, let's stick 'em
all together and we can save 'em all a bunch of money,' I
assure there's a lot of things that, you know, we could take
a look at numbers throughout all the state government and
make that kind of a case, without any regard whatsoever for
how the background and history and how the people in these
communities feel."
Number 480
CHAIR BUNDE said Rep. Mackie had a right, and indeed an
obligation, to state his case. He said that he viewed
HB 210 as a major change in the educational system, and that
the bill was not on a fast track and would be discussed in
detail. He said the committee would welcome Rep. Mackie's
help in remaining at the meeting for a thorough discussion
of the issues.
REP. MACKIE thanked Chair Bunde and said he hoped that
superintendents could testify on HB 210 to explain their
sides of the issue.
CHAIR BUNDE assured Rep. Bunde the bill would have a
thorough investigation.
REP. B. DAVIS asked if the committee planned to take action
on HB 210.
CHAIR BUNDE said the committee would continue to discuss the
bill.
REP. B. DAVIS said HB 210 addressed important issues that
should be dealt with by a different bill. She said
committees have studied the problems of single-site school
districts. She noted the $100,000 that had been
appropriated to encourage such districts to find ways to
cooperate voluntarily and said the committee should wait for
the report. She stated that the committee should take a
long time during the interim to deal with the changes that
everyone agreed needed to be made.
Number 524
BOB WEINSTEIN, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE SOUTHEAST ISLANDS
SCHOOL DISTRICT, testified in Juneau in opposition to
HB 210. He said that since his district had been the
subject of bills, debates, and Anchorage Times editorials,
he decided to testify on HB 210. He said he had been with
the district 19 years, 12 of them as superintendent, during
which time he had seen many changes in the district, of
which he was not frightened. He said he understood the need
to reduce state spending. He displayed a map showing the
boundaries of his district, encompassing many islands, which
included 17 schools, eight of them not on Prince of Wales
Island. He disputed facts asserted in the editorial
concerning the district's use of an airplane. He said the
district was not laying off English teachers. He asked
committee members, if HB 210 passed, who would perform the
duties that superintendents are trained and certified by the
state to perform. He urged the legislature to perform a
comprehensive study before making a misinformed decision on
school district consolidation.
Number 562
REP. TOOHEY asked if his district had 418 students.
MR. WEINSTEIN said the district served 437 students, at 17
schools, with 418 in 1992. He said the student body
population had reached 600 students in some years.
REP. TOOHEY asked how many school buildings the district had
and inquired as to their construction.
MR. WEINSTEIN answered that some of the buildings were old
trailers or converted cook houses, and there were schools in
17 separate communities.
TAPE 93-42, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIR BUNDE asked how many districts would be on Prince of
Wales Island if there were a 1,000 student minimum.
Number 005
MR. WEINSTEIN said he did not know the exact enrollments of
all the single-site school districts. He said there were
three regional school districts in Southeast Alaska.
CHAIR BUNDE said it was conceivable that all of the island's
districts could be folded into a single district, and all of
southern Southeast Alaska would be folded into a single
district.
REP. VEZEY offered the information that Craig and Klawock
had about 160 or 190 students each, and Hydaburg had about
150 students, making a total of about 520 students.
Number 030
REP. G. DAVIS asked Mr. Weinstein whether his district had a
boarding program.
MR. WEINSTEIN said there were several, including the Mt.
Edgecumbe boarding high school in Sitka. He said there were
programs allowing students from smaller communities to
attend school in Juneau, Sitka, Ketchikan, Petersburg and
Wrangell, in which boarding families are paid a small fee to
cover the student's living expenses. He said his district
participated on a limited basis in that program.
Number 048
JOHN HOLST, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE CRAIG CITY SCHOOL
DISTRICT, testified via teleconference from Craig in
opposition to HB 210. He said he wanted to retain local
accountability of school districts to their local boards of
education and communities. He said Craig had 356 students,
not 190. He stated his duties far exceed those of the
superintendent of the Anchorage School District, but are
typical of a small district superintendent's duties. They
include teaching senior English, and managing curriculum
development, special education, staff development, finance,
and program development. He said cutting the
superintendent's job in Craig would not necessarily save
money, as the district would have to hire an additional site
manager or principle.
Number 093
CHAIR BUNDE asked a clarifying question about whether HB 210
would require Craig schools to have two principals. He
asked the salary differential between a principal and a
superintendent.
MR. HOLST said that a principle was paid about $12,000 per
year less than a superintendent.
Number 110
STEPHEN T. MCPHETRES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COUNCIL OF
SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS, testified in Juneau in opposition to
HB 210. He said that as long as there were separate school
districts, there had to be chief administrators for those
districts. He remarked it was not a single-site district
issue. He listed the different responsibilities of rural
school superintendents: recruiter and supervisor of staff,
budget officer, bus transportation director, special
education director, vocational education administrator,
mandated reporting for DOE, report cards, PL874, enrollment,
reports, audit reports, mandated in-services, physical plant
maintenance, federal programs director, implementation of
strategic plan, conduct long-range plans, curriculum
supervisor, community relations, implementation of school
board policy, classroom teaching, supervision of student
activity, coaching, supervising capitol projects,
supervising summer programs, and meet with parent advisory
committees. He said it takes a well-trained professional
educator to fulfill all these responsibilities. He stated
he wanted to discuss the issue further.
Number 145
CHAIR BUNDE commented that he might dispute whether it took
a trained professional educator to fulfill those duties. He
noted that the North Slope Borough (NSBSD), with 2,000
students, had a superintendent to fulfill those functions.
MR. MCPHETRES interrupted to say that the NSBSD
superintendent had supervisors, directors and assistant
superintendents to help carry out those responsibilities.
He said he knew, as he had been superintendent of the
district for 10 years.
CHAIR BUNDE asked at what point a district needed an
assistant superintendent. He said the Anchorage School
District had lots of officials to help the superintendent.
MR. MCPHETRES answered that it depended on the mandated
duties for the superintendent, which made it quite a
subjective question.
CHAIR BUNDE said he assumed that each district had the
functions that Mr. McPhetres had earlier listed.
Number 168
MR. MCPHETRES said that a superintendent would need an
assistant in a district with 1,000 students, and a lone
superintendent would be working at his capacity in a
district with 500 students.
Number 176
ROGER STEPHAN, RESEARCH ANALYST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, testified in Juneau in favor of HB 210. He read
a statement, which is on file in the committee room. In
summary, the statement said that the DOE believed each
school district, regardless of size, needed a superintendent
or equivalent either directly or in cooperation with another
district, such as was being accomplished in the Aleutian
Region and Unalaska. He said HB 210 would affect 29 of
Alaska's 54 school districts, and there would be no savings
to the state because the foundation formula is based on
students not employees. There is no guarantee money saved
on superintendent's salary would not be spent on other
administrative costs.
CHAIR BUNDE asked whether the DOE's official position was to
oppose HB 210 and support single-site school districts.
MR. STEPHAN stated, "As it stands, yes."
Number 200
CHAIR BUNDE said he believed in the need for
superintendents, and while the bill supported the role of
superintendents, the committee was deciding how many
superintendents the state should support. He announced the
committee would not get to HB 174 during that day's meeting
and apologized to those who had come to the meeting to
testify on HB 174. He said the committee would continue its
discussion of HB 210, though it was likely not to finish
discussing it, either. He asked Rep. Martin to make a
summary statement, addressing some of the questions raised
about his bill.
Number 219
REP. MARTIN said that HB 210 was not meant to save money,
and would not. But, he stated, it is clear more money is
going for administrators, not children. He said he wanted
HB 210 and HB 174 considered separately, noting that if the
committee dealt with the issue of the number of
superintendents this year, it could maximize the money used.
He said school boards would not be straddled with
superintendents. He noted that only two school districts
had taken up the legislature's offer of $100,000 to try to
learn to cooperate and consolidate with each other, and
HB 210 would force districts to share superintendents.
REP. MARTIN described the Yupiit school districts, which
wanted to reduce its 65 percent administrative costs; and
another district which he said was happy to have
consolidated. He said the high level of state funding even
for school districts would encourage the growth of more
smaller districts. He noted that the legislature has made
several efforts to address possible consolidation of school
districts, but has been assailed with calls to go slowly.
He said the issue deserved discussion but could not be
delayed indefinitely. He stated he could not blame any
member of the legislature from crying foul when
consolidation cost his district money.
REP. MARTIN again encouraged the committee to obtain copies
of superintendent contracts around the state, which might
reveal that the educational funding system was being
misused. He encouraged passage of HB 210. He said DOE
statistics showed the true enrollment in state districts,
including the four school districts on Prince of Wales
Island, handle 1,093 children.
Number 280
CHAIR BUNDE said he would like to hold HB 210 until
Thursday, April 1, 1993, and consider HB 174 on Tuesday,
March 30, 1993, for discussion.
REP. MARTIN offered information on how much revenue was
available to small school districts, including information
that showed that some small communities were very rich.
CHAIR BUNDE said there was still much work to be done and
noted that the session was in its 72nd day. He ADJOURNED
the meeting at 4:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|