03/06/2008 03:00 PM House HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB332 | |
| HB384 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 332 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 384 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 6, 2008
3:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Chair
Representative Bob Roses, Vice Chair
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Sharon Cissna
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Anna Fairclough
Representative Berta Gardner
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 332
"An Act relating to elementary and pre-elementary schools."
- MOVED HB 332 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 384
"An Act requiring the Department of Education and Early
Development to establish an electronic education records system
and standards and requiring school districts to establish and
maintain electronic education records systems; requiring
learning plans for students; establishing the Merit Scholarship
Task Force; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 332
SHORT TITLE: PRE-ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROGRAMS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) EDGMON
01/18/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/08 (H) HES, FIN
03/06/08 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 384
SHORT TITLE: ELECTRONIC EDUCATION RECORDS/STUDENT PLAN
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KELLER
02/19/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/19/08 (H) HES, FIN
03/06/08 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE BRYCE EDGMON,
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 332 as the sponsor.
EDDY JEANS, Director
School Finance and Facilities Section
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
332.
DICK LUTHER, Legislative Liaison
Commissioner's Office
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
384.
JAKE HAMBURG, Student Body President
University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 384.
DANNY RAY SWISHER, Student Organizing Director
University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 384.
JOSEPH BLANCHARD, Student Government Relations Director
University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 384.
BILL BJORK, President
NEA-Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 384.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:03:31 PM.
Representatives Seaton, Cissna, Keller, and Wilson were present
at the call to order. Representative Roses arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 332-PRE-ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROGRAMS
3:04:36 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 332, "An Act relating to elementary and pre-
elementary schools."
3:05:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BRYCE EDGMON, Alaska State Legislature,
introduced HB 332 as the sponsor. Representative Edgmon
informed the committee that the bill will allow Head Start and
preschool facilities to quality for federal funding under the
Schools and Libraries Universal Services Support Mechanism (E-
Rate) program. He explained that the E-Rate federal program
provides funding under the Universal Service Administrative
Company (USAC) to promote the use of telecommunication among
schools and libraries. In 2004, the USAC issued a decision to
drop Alaska preschools and Head Start facilities from this
funding due to Alaska's statutory definition of preschool and
Head Start facilities. The state is in opposition to the
federal decision; however, HB 332 attempts to provide
clarification in terms of the definition of preschool and Head
Start facilities and to satisfy the federal requirement to
participate in the E-Rate program. Representative Edgmon stated
that the bill has a zero fiscal note as this is a redistribution
of federal funds. He then pointed out, with the passage of the
bill, Head Start facilities will be required to apply for a new
qualification from the Department of Education and Early
Development (EED).
3:08:49 PM
CHAIR WILSON recalled that the E-Rate program gives the schools
an opportunity to connect to the Internet for a reduced cost.
3:09:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON affirmed that, when schools and libraries
provide telephones, computers, and software, federal funding
allows for a discount rate to be applied for the use of Internet
services. The discount rate is based on the urban rural
distinction and also on the level of poverty of the facilities.
3:09:53 PM
CHAIR WILSON asked whether each state gets a certain amount, and
whether some schools will get less if Head Start facilities are
added to the program.
3:10:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON said no. Allowing preschool and Head
Start to participate will increase the total amount of federal
funding that Alaska receives under this program.
3:10:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES related testimony from the Juneau library
director that the amount of paperwork required for the E-Rate
program cost more money than the discounts saved. He assumed
that when a Head Start facility is connected with an existing
school program, there would be no cost; however, adding a new
school would have start-up costs. He then asked whether, when
certification is required from the EED, it then becomes
responsible for filing E-Rate documentation.
3:12:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON deferred part of the question to the EED.
He did say that his research shows that Head Start facilities
feel this program saves money.
3:12:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES expressed his support of Head Start, but
said that he wanted to verify the position of the program. He
also stated his interest in the position of the EED.
3:13:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON expressed his understanding that the
funding flows directly from the federal government to the
entity, without going through the EED.
3:13:52 PM
EDDY JEANS, Director, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), informed
the committee that the E-Rate program has a direct relationship
with school districts and libraries, and does not flow through
the EED. Mr. Jeans pointed out that the program is voluntary,
and an entity can decide whether there is a fiscal benefit. The
passage of HB 332 will add state qualified preschools and Head
Start facilities to the definition of public schools.
3:15:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES expressed his understanding that funding
for Head Start flows through the EED and establishes its
qualification.
3:15:37 PM
MR. JEANS explained that the definition of "schools" in Alaska's
statute determines the qualification; therefore, referring to
Head Start facilities in the definition will allow Head Start to
participate in the E-Rate program.
3:16:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES surmised that the EED is satisfied with the
language in the bill.
3:16:14 PM
MR. JEANS expressed his comfort with the language; however, he
said that he did not know whether the language will satisfy the
federal government. The EED has made multiple unsuccessful
efforts to contact the USAC for clarification on this issue.
3:17:01 PM
CHAIR WILSON asked whether this bill will require the state to
fund preschools and Head Start facilities.
3:17:33 PM
MR. JEANS pointed out that the bill eliminates pre-elementary
students from the average daily membership under AS 14.17, the
statute that provides for school foundation funding. He noted
that there are two components to HB 332; that preschools and
Head Start facilities are recognized by the state, and that they
have state and federal funding associated with them.
3:18:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked whether HB 332 will decrease the
funding sources available to Head Start.
3:18:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON said no. In fact, there will be an
increase. The funding comes from the national government, and
is estimated to be near $20 million.
3:19:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA surmised that, although the E-Rate program
is expensive to administer, that cost can be factored in.
3:19:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON re-stated that the USAC has not responded
to the Department of Law, perhaps due to the possibility that
additional funding for Alaska may undercut other states'
allotments.
3:20:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to report HB 332 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. Hearing no objection, HB 332 was reported out of the
House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee.
HB 384-ELECTRONIC EDUCATION RECORDS/STUDENT PLAN
3:21:26 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 384, "An Act requiring the Department of
Education and Early Development to establish an electronic
education records system and standards and requiring school
districts to establish and maintain electronic education records
systems; requiring learning plans for students; establishing the
Merit Scholarship Task Force; and providing for an effective
date."
3:22:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER informed the committee that HB 384 has
three requirements: that the EED sets standards for electronic
education records [(EDRs)]; that the education records include
learning plans that are implemented and maintained by school
districts; and the establishment of a task force to make
recommendations on a merit based scholarship program. He
explained that the EED will set software and technical standards
for the electronic education records and define the process for
making changes to records by parents or students. In addition,
the bill requires that education records are the property of the
student and parents as defined by the Federal Education Records
Protection Act (FERPA). Representative Keller continued to
explain that the electronic records must be a secure system and
include the student learning plan. The customized learning plan
will allow for prescriptive and diagnostic teaching, set out
levels of achievement, and contain achievement records similar
to a portfolio of student work. He stressed that the bill is
intentionally not specific and depends on the school district
and the EED to define the particulars of what is required from a
learning plan, and to provide the accompanying professional
development training. Lastly, the bill establishes a task force
that will "set the bar" for student achievement and create
options for a merit based program. Representative Keller then
described scholarship programs in other states. He pointed out
that many school districts are creating electronic records and
the bill will establish statewide standards and a structure. In
fact, the National Conference of State Legislatures has passed
policy that encourages advances in technology to customize and
monitor each child's educational experience. He referred to
further research on this topic that was provided in the
committee packet.
3:30:48 PM
CHAIR WILSON asked whether the educational records are required
to be uniform throughout the state. She further asked whether
school districts, with this system already in place, would be
required to conform.
3:31:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER stressed that this bill is needed
immediately so that new systems will be developed in a
compatible and consistent way.
3:32:17 PM
CHAIR WILSON observed that No Child Left Behind (NCLB) allows
for annual testing. She asked for a further description of the
fiscal note.
3:33:46 PM
DICK LUTHER, Legislative Liaison, Commissioner's Office,
Department of Education and Early Development, informed the
committee that there are two components to the fiscal note; the
task force and the electronic recordkeeping. The task force
portion is estimated to be $15,000. The recordkeeping portion
is based on the costs for compiling the existing records system
and is estimated to be $1.5 million.
3:35:23 PM
CHAIR WILSON asked how many schools presently have the same
database.
3:35:46 PM
MR. LUTHER answered that the EED presently requires each
district to have a system that is compatible with the state. The
bill will require additions to the present recordkeeping system.
3:36:14 PM
CHAIR WILSON asked whether there will be federal grant money to
fund the additional recordkeeping costs to schools.
3:36:43 PM
MR. LUTHER expressed his understanding that the federal grant
money is gone; in fact, it is likely that the new costs will
come from the general fund (GF). He opined that school
districts will expect state funding to pay for the additional
recordkeeping.
3:37:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked whether there is already good
correspondence between schools and the state, and whether
schools are using compatible software.
3:37:42 PM
MR. LUTHER opined that some districts will have to expand
capacity to meet the requirements of electronic records,
particularly with the increase of information needed on students
under the merit scholarship program.
3:38:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER reminded that committee that the bill does
not specify, except that the merit scholarship program will use
the electronic educational record system. He asked whether a
portion of the $3.5 million grant was used to assign students
identification numbers and create the beginning of a data base,
at the direction of the legislature.
3:39:39 PM
MR. LUTHER expressed his belief that the existing system was
created to comply with the requirements of NCLB legislation.
Adding additional elements, such as the individual education
plan, will require increasing the capacity of the computer
program.
3:40:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for an estimate of the cost, per
child, to develop an individual education plan (IEP) for special
education students.
3:41:06 PM
MR. LUTHER advised that he would get that information from the
special education department.
3:41:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed his concern that the fiscal note
does not cover the time needed for teachers and administrators
to prepare individual educational plans. Furthermore, the
increase to the base student allocation could be used up by new
burdens to school districts.
3:42:57 PM
MR. LUTHER confirmed that the fiscal note does not include the
cost that school districts would bear to develop the educational
plans. He said that he would provide an estimate of the cost to
write one IEP.
3:43:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER emphasized that HB 384 does not establish
an individual educational learning plan comparable to those that
meet special education requirements. Moreover, there is room
for school districts to develop their own model.
3:44:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES called the committee's attention to page 3,
line 2, of the bill and read, "A school district shall develop a
student learning plan for each student enrolled in a school.
The plan must include: diagnostic assignments and goals; a
description of optional supplemental or tutorial recommendation
for implementation by the parent or guardian of the student for
advancement toward high school graduation." He then described
his experience with student identification numbers that began
with special education students and now includes all students.
In Anchorage, elementary school teachers are using computers to
download state assessment tests, track each student's progress,
and craft lesson plans. For a class of 27 to 32 students, this
level of individualization is impossible. Furthermore,
implementation of the program, at the elementary level only, has
taken seven years and cost $7 million dollars.
3:48:16 PM
CHAIR WILSON added that some schools have student portfolios
that allow kids to know what work has yet to be learned.
3:49:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER stated that the intent of the bill is to
establish a statewide structure so if students transfer between
the 53 school districts, their educational history and plan will
transfer instantly. He acknowledged that the fiscal note does
not include all costs; however, by working together, the school
districts, the EED, and the unions can keep costs down.
3:51:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES further explained that the language in the
bill says "individual instruction plan." There are programs
available that allow for individual instruction on a computer at
the high school level. These programs require a computer for
each student. In addition, the term "individual educational
plan" has meaning in education law. Representative Roses then
asked how the scholarship program in the bill differs from the
existing University of Alaska (UA) Scholars program.
3:53:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER stated that the UA Scholars program is
limited. He opined that the real problem is that the state
educational model is out of date. One-third of Alaska's schools
have less than 100 kids and the placement of highly qualified
teachers requires a different model today. Likewise, putting
in statute the requirement of an individual educational plan,
without details, will lead teachers and schools districts to
develop a new model, perhaps using correspondence school
guidelines. Representative Keller challenged schools to
customize learning for kids.
3:56:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES expressed his concern that individual
education plans are often interpreted by parents in different
ways and can lead to lawsuits and court-ordered mediation. For
example, special education IEPs often end up in court where the
court decides the meaning of a particular IEP, no matter what
has been defined by the school district. Representative Roses'
final point was that the UA Scholars program, that grants
scholarships to those who are in the top ten percent of their
high school class, is a four year, full tuition scholarship to
any UA campus. He opined that this is a very flexible and
successful program that may be expanded.
3:58:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER noted that on page 2, line 2, the bill
allows access to the educational plan by students and their
parents or legal guardians. He said that he felt this, and
other provisions in the bill, will allow a process of
corrections to the plan that will reduce parental concerns and
confirm goals for the student. Regarding the merit based
scholarship, Representative Keller re-stated that the task force
will be investigating options for Alaskan students.
4:00:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA expressed her belief that an electronic
report is a good idea, but the time and cost are high. Similar
programs in other states have had mixed success. She suggested
that a student learning plan could also include a focus on the
student's future career potential, and could guide a student to
their strengths as they are revealed during the years of
schooling. Representative Cissna pointed out that the dates for
the creation of the task force are confusing, although she
supported the idea of the task force and felt that its
responsibilities could be expanded to work on other educational
questions.
4:05:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER responded that the time table for the task
force can be adjusted. He spoke of his meeting with national
education officials and the beginning of the idea that each
student should have an independent education plan. Even on a
national level, the process of setting standards has just begun.
Alaska can keep more local control by taking these steps before
a federal mandate is issued. He further explained that future
software may be shareware; thus, there are many possibilities.
4:08:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON observed that there is individual tracking
of students, and the growth model of student achievement, that
follows a student throughout the state. He asked whether the
only piece missing from the current tracking system is the
individual education plan.
4:09:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER stated that he is not familiar with the
existing program; his goal is to address the educational outcome
of students. He concluded that the EED plan of assigning
identification numbers for the purpose of educational outcomes
needs to include diagnosis, prescription, and the use of
technology.
4:11:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reminded the committee that the Alaska
State Board of Education and Early Development adopts standards
and the present tracking system will reveal if kids meet those
standards. He cautioned about the possibility of the committee
making changes to education standards. Representative Seaton
expressed his satisfaction that it is now possible to follow
each student throughout the state, so that relevant parties know
whether a student is meeting their standards for growth. He
asked whether parents of non special educational students will
expect individual education plans equal to the scope of those
written for special education students.
4:13:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER answered that this is not a problem now;
IEPs are very specific, and the intent of the bill is that the
district will keep records for every student, but not
necessarily an IEP. The current technology is available to make
improvements in education overall.
4:16:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stressed that there is a problem with
writing a loose definition that must be settled in court. He
strongly recommended that the bill would be improved by a
specific definition that distinguishes the educational learning
plan from a special education IEP.
4:17:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked Mr. Luther for his position on the
use of the language in this bill.
4:18:35 PM
MR. LUTHER opined that the bill requires that an individual
learning plan will be developed for each and every student. He
further stated that, once a plan is developed, it must be
followed, or there can be repercussions.
4:19:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked whether Mr. Luther saw any other
problems with the terminology in the bill.
4:19:33 PM
MR. LUTHER stated that the time factor to develop a plan for
each student, including meeting with parents to reach agreement,
is a time consuming process. He assumed each plan would also
need to be updated on a continual basis.
4:20:31 PM
CHAIR WILSON suggested the need for year around school.
4:20:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER re-stated his choice to keep the language
loose so that the EED can answer questions through regulation
and keep the issue out of court.
4:21:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON opined that the courts look at the statute
that is written by the legislature, not at the EED regulations.
Regulations that are not as broad as the statute will be
challenged.
4:22:59 PM
CHAIR WILSON suggested that there should be further testimony
from the EED on this topic.
4:23:19 PM
MR. LUTHER offered that special education specialists and
Director Les Morse may provide relevant testimony.
4:23:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER noted that officials from the EED have had
copies of the bill for two weeks.
4:24:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the task force and stated that
research shows that a merit based scholarship program is
targeted at upper and middle income families; furthermore, there
is already a merit based scholarship program in place. He
questioned the focus on another merit based program.
4:26:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER explained that HB 384 is relevant to
education outcomes and the need to raise the bar for students.
He listed statistics of educational indicators in Alaska and
stated the need for incentives to raise student achievement.
4:28:33 PM
CHAIR WILSON stated that Alaska spends more on education because
of the high cost of education in rural areas. She stated her
support of the merit based scholarship program.
4:29:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES emphasized that the state currently has
that program in place through UA Scholars. The scholarships are
available to those in the top ten percent of their high school
senior class and are for tuition. He pointed out that areas of
low economic status still have ten percent of students that will
qualify. He stated that he also felt that there would be
confusion with the National Merit Scholarship Program and
suggested further consideration of the title. Representative
Roses gave an example to illustrate that elimination of the UA
program in favor of the program in HB 384 will stop many kids
from qualifying for the scholarship.
4:32:06 PM
CHAIR WILSON observed that Wrangell graduates about 30 to 40
kids and the students are aware of their academic placement in
the class.
4:33:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES warned against the creation of a program
that will replace the existing UA scholarship program. He added
that his experience is that many available scholarships go
unused and there is a need to develop a clearinghouse for
scholarships.
4:35:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER surmised that many high school students
feel that graduating from high school is a sufficiently high
goal. He expressed his hope that today's technology will keep
kids engaged more in learning.
4:37:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES spoke of his desire to explore a variable
certificate of graduation model. This would allow schools to
issue different type of diplomas that represent varying levels
of scholastic achievement. He observed, however, that the
committee generally does not have time to study issues on the
substance of education.
4:39:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER encouraged the committee to send HB 384 to
the House Finance Committee so these issues can be addressed.
4:39:58 PM
CHAIR WILSON reminded the committee that the House Finance
Committee does not make policy, and this is the committee where
policy decisions should be made.
4:40:19 PM
JAKE HAMBURG, Student Body President, University of Alaska
Fairbanks (UAF), informed the committee that many elementary and
middle school students and their parents give up on the idea of
college due to the excessive costs. As living expenses and the
cost of college increases many students must work and assume
loans; in fact, many students work full time, which is
detrimental to their academic achievements. Mr. Hamburg urged
the committee to support a well researched and broadly supported
merit aid scholarship program, the Alaska Achievers Incentive
Program.
4:43:03 PM
DANNY RAY SWISHER, Student Organizing Director, University of
Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), expressed his pleasure that the scope of
the bill includes a systematic, rather than programmatic,
approach. However, his concern is that the task force will only
be investigating the options for merit based scholarships and
will not consider merit aid. His research indicates that other
states have been successful in the institution of merit aid
scholarships that consider the merits, and the needs, of the
most worthy students.
4:45:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked how Mr. Swisher was paying for his
education.
4:45:13 PM
MR. SWISHER stated that he is currently working and is using the
GI bill; however, he has decided to quit school after obtaining
his associate degree.
4:46:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked what percentage of his college
expenses is being paid for by the GI bill.
4:46:14 PM
MR. SWISHER explained that the GI bill pays a set amount; his
funding sources are not keeping pace with the rising cost of
education at UAF.
4:47:06 PM
CHAIR WILSON asked whether Mr. Swisher has a family.
4:47:12 PM
MR. SWISHER said yes.
4:47:16 PM
JOSEPH BLANCHARD, Student Government Relations Director,
University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), opined that there is more
of a benefit for students entering and continuing in college
when scholarships are a partnership of merit and needs based
components. He stated that needs based scholarships are
financially burdensome for the state and merit based
scholarships help those who have other resources. He noted that
student government at UAF supports the ideas of HB 384, if not
all of the details.
4:49:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked whether Mr. Blanchard has an opinion
on the other components of the bill, that are not related to the
scholarship task force.
4:50:21 PM
MR. BLANCHARD declined to give a further opinion of the bill.
4:50:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES reminded the testifiers that legislators
must look at all aspects of the bill.
4:51:24 PM
BILL BJORK, President, NEA-Alaska, informed the committee that
NEA-Alaska represents 13,000 teachers and education support
professionals who work in public schools in Alaska. His
organization supports many of the goals of HB 384, and the
statement that, "all students are special." However, he pointed
out that the fiscal note reflects the fiscal impact of this bill
to the EED, but does not address the cost to the kindergarten
through grade 12 public schools that would have to implement
this plan. Firstly, the ability to accomplish the goal of a
comprehensive data management system, that allows portfolios to
be shared, is far beyond the capabilities of existing public
school technology. Secondly, the first deadline in the bill
provides for plans to be implemented, for grades kindergarten
through grade four, in 2009. Mr. Bjork estimated that this
would involve writing plans for 49,000 students and would take
about 35 full time employees an entire school year to complete.
He agreed with the need to assess each student and instantly
transfer data, but cautioned that this capability can not be
reached overnight. Mr. Bjork reminded the committee that in the
1970s, when the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
became law and required the creation of IEPs, there was a
promise that the federal government would pay 40 percent of the
cost. In reality, federal support has never exceeded 17
percent. He urged the committee not to burden public schools
with another unfunded mandate that is impossible to meet and
that will expose schools to litigation.
4:57:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked whether Mr. Bjork anticipates that a
portion of the increase in money to schools will be spent on a
system that will lead to improvements in the transfer of student
records.
4:58:45 PM
MR. BJORK said no. He explained that the passage of HB 273 will
allocate money back to regular education students from special
education budgets. In Alaska, the impact of intensive needs
students is centered in the metropolitan area schools because
those areas of the state have support services available for
special needs kids. After those costs are balanced out, the
additional $100 per student mostly will be taken by inflation;
there will not be much left to implement a comprehensive data
management system.
5:00:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES noted that NCLB mandates the institution of
policies and procedures to deal with deficiencies in programs.
He pointed out that there has been recent funding for
remediation, and early intervention for reading programs, and
reading scores have been improving over the last three to five
years. Representative Roses then remarked:
Are we having 100 percent success? No. Are we having
a better shot at it then we did a few years ago? Yes.
Can we do more? Absolutely. But does [HB 384] do it?
I don't think so.
5:02:04 PM
MR. BJORK pointed out that more students are taking advanced
placement and baccalaureate classes than ever before, and
schools are working diligently. He clarified that the
accomplishment of the laudable goal of HB 384 will take a true
recognition of the cost of personnel. Mr. Bjork emphasized that
the focus should be on what is best for Alaskan students,
whether they are striving to attend college or not. He
suggested that a scholarship program should be flexible and
should also include funds for students to attend trade schools
to train for the highly technical jobs that are available in
Alaska.
CHAIR WILSON said that public testimony on HB 384 would remain
open.
5:04:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES recommended inviting two expert witnesses
from the Anchorage School District to testify at the next
hearing on HB 384.
5:05:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested additional testimony from the
EED on the bill.
[Although not formally stated, HB 384 was held over.]
5:05:35 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee*
meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|