[Contains discussion of HB 206] 2:16:52 PM CHAIR SEATON, referring to HB 206-High-School Students Taking Postsecondary Courses [Included in the committee packets], asked for clarification of the first paragraph which stated: "only high school seniors in their second semester would be eligible for the free courses." 2:19:52 PM COMMISSIONER LEDOUX explained that high school students were able to take courses with college credits, and both the fee and the success were based on the relationship between the school district and the local college. He explained that some districts were offering a middle college degree, which allowed credits toward an associate degree while still in high school. He opined that many districts were very excited to formalize relationships for these programs. He shared that many students of these middle college programs could not afford any tuition or fees, and that school districts would be less inclined to participate if there was a cost. CHAIR SEATON pointed out the question of how to extend this program to students across the state. He noted that there were benefits to the University of Alaska. He stated that the House Education Standing Committee was working to "activate more education and more collaboration between the University and the entire school system." 2:27:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ noted that the high school in Juneau offered an architectural and engineering program which allowed students to take courses for dual credit from both the University and the high school. She asked if the school district reimbursed the University. COMMISSIONER LEDOUX said that he was not aware of the details, but affirmed that the programs were very effective. MR. JEANS agreed that this was a way to jump start a college career, and possibly graduate from high school with an Associate of Arts (AA) degree. He reminded the committee that the discussion was to keep students engaged in school, and he reflected on the HSGQE. CHAIR SEATON deliberated that the need was to review both curriculum and assessment, as not all the students would continue on to college. He opined that it was necessary to broaden the interest for students. 2:31:12 PM COMMISSIONER LEDOUX offered his belief that students needed to explore their interests, and that was an important factor for students to stay in school. He surmised that schools were going to have to offer flexibility for students to engage in apprenticeship, work study, self exploration, and college classes. He opined that schools with limited choices did not work, as students could manage their learning in real time. He suggested that the modern high school student would master the basic skills by the sophomore year, and would need more opportunities to explore their interests. He stated that the inflexible school would not be successful, and that the University provided a great opportunity for all students. CHAIR SEATON considered that to be a vision statement and he offered disagreement that rigid curriculum schools did not still exist. He asked if correspondence schools had become open ended and available to all students. COMMISSIONER LEDOUX replied that the University was a leader in developing distance courses. He offered his belief that the various distance course offerings had not been coordinated, had different quality and capability, and that not all were effective. It was the intent of the EED to develop a high quality, statewide, virtual education system, which was managed and owned by school districts, and would be a cooperation between the University, the school districts, and private agencies. He shared that there were a number of models to consider which would allow students to participate in qualified classes. CHAIR SEATON asked whether all school districts would accept the course qualifications. 2:37:15 PM COMMISSIONER LEDOUX replied that once the system was set up, it would be owned by all the districts. He ascertained that districts could join, and each would manage its course offerings. He referred to this as the "anytime, anywhere, any age, anyone system." 2:39:04 PM SAICHI OBA, Associate Vice President for Students, University of Alaska, said that they were interested in an assessment that would help students and families prepare for post-secondary course work. He acknowledged that there was dual enrollment at the University, and that the most common way was to enroll as a non-degree seeking student. He explained that there were specific programs for high school students, which included tech prep as a low cost alternative. He described the AHEAD (Alaska Higher Education Admission Decision) program in Fairbanks, which was for students who had completed 75 percent of their high school curriculum, with a minimum GPA of 3.0. He described the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) which allowed post- secondary institutions to formally admit high school students into a degree program. 2:42:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted that Kenai Peninsula College had mentioned that should high school students be struggling with the college course work, the parents had no way of knowing and it could affect graduation from high school. MR. OBA replied that he was aware of the issue. He emphasized that the communication needed to exist between a high school student and parents. He pointed out that each high school district should also be aware of the university program. CHAIR SEATON considered the tendency toward five years for completion and graduation because of the lack of class requisites. He asked if non-degree courses affected college graduation. 2:46:41 PM MR. OBA explained that the term non-degree seeking referred to the student status at the time of the course, and it did not affect the course work as all the course work could be applied to a degree program. He opined that the keys to the success of the university and the success of K-12 were linked. He expressed support for programs to help high school students find success in post-secondary education. 2:49:33 PM MR. JEANS, in reference to HB 206 - Student Count [included in committee packets], explained that the current public school funding formula required one student count for a 20 day period in October. He shared that HB 206 would require two student counts, and funding would be based on the higher of the two counts. He detailed that the first count would still be in October, but would now average with the [new] prior February count, and that this average would be the funding for the school year. He shared that there had been an optional February count from 1988-1998, which allowed districts with a student increase, to base their funding on the higher average. He pointed out that October historically had the highest student count. He suggested the second count would encourage district support for keeping students in school. 2:53:52 PM MR. JEANS, in response to Chair Seaton, agreed that HB 206 requested two 20-day counts, which would allow for comparable counting time periods. He reminded the committee that the count was based on enrollment, not attendance, so there was not a penalty if students were absent. CHAIR SEATON stated that it was undesirable to have a system which rewarded enrollment and not attendance. MR. JEANS replied that a student was dropped from enrollment after an absence of 10 consecutive days without contacting the school district. He reported that the school districts expected parents to set up a learning schedule for children who would be on any extended school leave. He offered his belief that this addressed the enrollment issue. REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ agreed with a second count, yet she expressed concern for smaller schools. MR. JEANS detailed that the two counts, February and October, would be averaged during the calendar year. He explained further that the October and upcoming February counts would be averaged for the school year, and then the higher average would be used. He expressed his understanding for the concerns of Representative Munoz. CHAIR SEATON surmised that an optional count would be a better financial incentive to keep students in school, as there was not a downside to student decrease, but an upside to a student increase. 3:00:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ agreed with an optional count. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER expressed support for offering a financial incentive to keep children in school. She suggested adding a hold harmless clause that stated the second count would not be used to lose funding. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said that she could not envision the EED forcing closure of a school during the middle of the school year. 3:03:01 PM MR. JEANS, in response to Representative Wilson, clarified that the EED did not close schools, that this decision was determined by the local school board. He noted that the second count considered in HB 206 could affect schools similar to Tenakee Springs. In response to a question, he clarified that the funding would be based on the average of the two counts, not the higher. He agreed with the concerns of Representative Munoz. 3:07:15 PM CHAIR SEATON offered an example of the effects of increasing and decreasing student counts, using a two count system. MR. JEANS noted that schools close to the minimum ten student level did not have a large fluctuation. REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked how many schools were on the edge for student minimums. MR. JEANS estimated that there were ten schools statewide. CHAIR SEATON offered an example of the recruitment of students for a small school. He offered his belief that the second student count was a financial incentive to keep students in school. 3:11:26 PM DAVE JONES, Assistant Superintendent, Kenai Peninsula Borough School District, expressed support for the funding plan which the legislature had adopted three years prior. He referred to student count averaging, and noted that student population fluctuated during the school year. He opined that the two count system would result in less funding than the current program. He reported that contracts were written in May, but a school did not know its revenue until October. He suggested one financial incentive to be a count for 170 days from the previous school year. He opined that an October count would not result in a decrease for funding, but would allow for a funding increase due to enrollment. 3:16:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER surmised that the proposed bill would allow funding, at the very least, for the prior year average. She asked if a spring student count was enough financial incentive to retain students. MR. JONES, in response to Representative Gardner, reiterated that school student counts go down in the winter, and he expressed a concern that the means to retain students would not justify the financial gain. CHAIR SEATON surmised that a school would not lose funding for its current school year, no matter what the February count; however, a student increase in February could be a financial gain. He offered an example from the Alaska Military Youth Academy, which revised its program to ensure there was not a loss of student population when it began the two count system. He asked Mr. Jones for any incentive suggestions to maintain the student count. 3:21:06 PM MR. JONES repeated his suggestion for a 170 day count. He expressed concern with the February count occurring during the lowest student attendance period of the school year. He conveyed that the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District goal was to promote itself as the place of choice, with the best alternatives. He noted that should this second count have been taken during the prior ten years, his district would have had a financial loss. CHAIR SEATON asked to clarify that this was based on enrollment and not attendance. 3:23:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDENER asked if Mr. Jones recommended a later date for a second count. MR. JONES relayed that enrollment began to increase in the spring, with its peak in October. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER reflected that the February count had been selected as it was prior to the variety of spring school breaks which could interfere with the student count. MR. JONES suggested that April or May would be a better time. 3:24:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked where all the students went in October, as it appeared that all the schools had a drop in student count. MR. JONES replied that every school district was convinced that the new students were already funded in another district. He offered assurance that districts did not stop student encouragement after the October student count. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON opined that the district superintendent needed to prioritize the maintenance of student enrollment so that all the district staff would investigate every instance of a student drop. MR. JONES reported that when a district did not get a request from another district for a student record, it did not know where to respond. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON reflected on what happened to the students who were no longer enrolled anywhere. 3:28:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ noted that some populations, such as fishing and tourism, were seasonal. MR. JONES concurred. 3:28:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH reflected that for small districts, it was possible for someone to go to the student's home to check on them, but in larger communities there was often nothing done. He questioned whether students could be missing in their own communities. CHAIR SEATON concurred that some students were missing from the schools, but still in the community. He shared that most state agencies had responded that this was not its priority. He reiterated that the purpose was to get students back in to a school. 3:32:33 PM MR. JEANS relayed that there were unintended consequences with the second student count and gave an example of early graduation. CHAIR SEATON asked which month was best for the second count. MR. McCORMICK offered his belief that after February it was very difficult for EED to reconcile that much data in order to recalibrate the foundation entitlements for that current year. He acknowledged that other states used the 170 day prior year student count, and that it might achieve the committee goal.