HALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE  HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE  April 12, 2023 8:00 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Jamie Allard, Co-Chair Representative Justin Ruffridge, Co-Chair Representative Mike Prax Representative CJ McCormick Representative Tom McKay Representative Rebecca Himschoot Representative Andi Story MEMBERS ABSENT  All members present COMMITTEE CALENDAR  HOUSE BILL NO. 139 "An Act relating to funding for correspondence study programs." - HEARD & HELD HOUSE BILL NO. 106 "An Act authorizing lump sum payments for certain teachers as retention and recruitment incentives; and providing for an effective date." - HEARD & HELD HOUSE BILL NO. 71 "An Act relating to education; and relating to a school district online checkbook." - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION  BILL: HB 139 SHORT TITLE: CORRESPONDENCE STUDY PROGRAM FUNDING SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) RUFFRIDGE 03/27/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 03/27/23 (H) EDC, FIN 04/05/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106 04/05/23 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard 04/07/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106 04/07/23 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard 04/12/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106 BILL: HB 106 SHORT TITLE: TEACHER RECRUITMENT; LUMP SUM PAYMENT SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR 03/08/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 03/08/23 (H) EDC, FIN 03/13/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106 03/13/23 (H) Heard & Held 03/13/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC) 04/12/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106 WITNESS REGISTER JAMES SEXTON, Staff Representative Justin Ruffridge Alaska State Legislature Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HGB 139, via a PowerPoint titled "House Bill 139 Correspondence Study Program Funding," on behalf of Representative Justin Ruffridge, prime sponsor. DEAN O'DELL, Director Interior Distance Education of Alaska Anchorage, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a PowerPoint, titled "IDEA Homeschool Interior Distance Education of Alaska Galena City School District," during the hearing of HB 139. DEB MACKIE, Assistant Director Interior Distance Education of Alaska Galena, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a PowerPoint, titled "IDEA Homeschool Interior Distance Education of Alaska Galena City School District," during the hearing on HB 139. DOUGLAS HAYMAN, Principal Connections Homeschool Program Soldotna, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint, titled "Connections Homeschool Correspondence Program," during the hearing on HB 139. HEIDI TESHNER, Acting Commissioner Department of Education and Early Development Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB 139; presented HB 106 on behalf of the bill sponsor, House Rules by request of the governor. ELWIN BLACKWELL, School Finance Manager School Finance and Facilities Manager Finance and Support Services Division Department of Education and Early Development Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB 139. ACTION NARRATIVE 8:00:05 AM CO-CHAIR JAMIE ALLARD called the House Education Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. Representatives Prax, Ruffridge, McCormick, McKay, and Allard were present at the call to order. Representatives Himschoot and Story arrived as the meeting was in progress. HB 139-CORRESPONDENCE STUDY PROGRAM FUNDING  8:00:57 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 139, "An Act relating to funding for correspondence study programs." 8:01:19 AM JAMES SEXTON, Staff, Representative Justin Ruffridge, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 139 on behalf of Representative Ruffridge, prime sponsor, via PowerPoint, titled "House Bill 139 Correspondence Study Program Funding." He proceeded to slide 2, titled "Correspondence Programs," which stated that Alaska provides publicly funded homeschool options through its correspondence programs, including options to educate children at home, and to access state-approved curriculum, certified teachers, and funding for materials. On slide 3, titled "Statewide statistics," he explained that currently, there are 34 correspondence programs across Alaska serving approximately 20,000 students representing just over 15 percent of students statewide for accessing this option, which is what many consider to be homeschooling. He continued to slide 4, titled "Special Needs multiplier," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: • Vocational education, special education (except intensive special education), gifted/talented education, and bilingual/bicultural education are block funded. A district must file a plan with the department indicating the special needs services that will be provided, per AS 14.17.420 (b), to qualify for special needs funding. Special needs multiplier is 1.20 MR. SEXTON pointed out that currently, correspondence students do not receive the special needs multiplier. 8:03:23 AM MR. SEXTON explained that slide 5, titled "Funding," showed correspondence programs currently receive 90 percent of the Average Daily Membership (ADM) funding, and he noted it had been adjusted over time. He briefly highlighted the bullet points on slide 6, titled "Brick and mortar space needed for Correspondence Programs," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: • Monthly lease agreements • Libraries • Resource rooms • Office space • Rental space for testing • Equipment, internet, set up/tear down • IT equipment and support services MR. SEXTON continued on slide 7, titled "Funding change under HB 139," where he clarified the bill proposed an increase to 100 percent of the ADM, and correspondence programs would also receive the 1.20 multiplier. He recommended the committee hear next from the invited testifiers, who could provide more context and information on how the specific programs would be impacted. 8:05:56 AM DEAN O'DELL, Director, Interior Distance Education of Alaska (IDEA), provided invited testimony in support of HB 139. He began a PowerPoint, titled "IDEA Homeschool Interior Distance Education of Alaska Galena City School District." He proceeded to the second slide, which highlighted the role (IDEA) has in the public schools and about its service to Alaska. He noted he would be sharing some of IDEA's challenges and opportunities. 8:06:50 AM DEB MACKIE, Assistant Director, Interior Distance Education of Alaska, as an invited testifier, joined the presentation on a slide, titled "IDEA exists to serve Alaska students," where she stressed IDEA's support of parents in their homeschooling endeavors by partnering with them and providing resources, as well as becoming a network of support. She continued onto a slide, titled "Service to Alaska," and explained that IDEA is a public school, and a school of choice - meaning the approximate 6,700 students choose IDEA willingly. The slide also featured a map showing how far students are spread throughout the state. She proceeded to a slide, titled "Service to Alaska," which highlighted what is provided to students in each IDEA facility in the six regions. She noted there would be more discussion on the facilities later in the presentation. 8:09:27 AM MR. O'DELL continued to present on a slide, titled "Challenges & Opportunities," where he established that conversations surrounding the education funding model have been beneficial, specifically shedding light on the fact correspondence programs do not receive all the multipliers in the model. He confirmed that IDEA receives only 90 percent of the Base Student Allocation (BSA) and currently, IDEA is working with less than the minimum. He touched on unfunded obligations, which would be discussed in more detail as the presentation moved along. He continued to the next three slides, titled "Special Education," and explained that IDEA and other correspondence schools do not receive special education funding from the state. Despite not having a special needs funding factor, IDEA serves 450 special needs students. This is an important responsibility for a very large population of students, and IDEA provides special education staff, pathologists, therapists, and significant ongoing support from regular education staff. 8:14:27 AM MR. O'DELL proceeded on the next two slides, titled "Testing Expenses," and he pointed out the "serious difference" between testing in a brick-and-mortar program, and testing in a correspondence school. Testing is logistically challenging and expensive, he said. He paraphrased the second slide titled "Testing Expenses," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: •IDEA serves 111 communities, with dozens that have test-age students. •Very few local schools are still in a position to welcome IDEA students for testing.(Staffing shortages, for one.) •IDEA must then also find, hire and train qualified individuals. In some cases, our staff must travel. Equipment will be shipped; rental agreements signed; internet connections established. •In larger communities, an IDEA office may be closed for weeks to accommodate regular ed. and special ed. testing needs. Some regions cannot accommodate the hundreds of students during the testing window, and need to rent large, often expensive venues. Additional proctors will be hired and trained. Internet connections will be established, and equipment will be set up and torn down on a daily basis for days or weeks. MR. O'DELL then moved to a slide, titled "Facilities - throughout Alaska," that highlighted what is provided in facilities around the state. He stated it takes large facilities to house even basic services for over 6,000 students, and provided are libraries, offices, tech departments, special education services and more. He noted it takes $1.3 million per year to keep IDEA facilities open, which does not include costs to maintain the facilities. 8:18:33 AM MR. O'DELL continued on a slide, titled "Expected Unfunded Obligations," where he briefly summarized components of "Mandated Map Growth Testing," and "Alaska Reads Act." MS. MACKIE rejoined the discussion while the next slide was shown, titled "Our promise to Alaska..." She reiterated that IDEA believed in all of its students and stressed the need to serve them well. 8:21:40 AM MR. O'DELL concluded on slide 15, titled "And a Call to Action," and stated "We do plead for financial relief to be able to support these important responsibilities and these important people - these students." He thanked the committee members for their consideration of HB 139. 8:22:38 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD thanked the presenters for their service to Alaska and "filling the void" during the COVID-19 pandemic and continuing to do so. 8:23:05 AM DOUGLAS HAYMAN, Principal, Connections Homeschool Program, gave invited testimony on HB 139, via a PowerPoint, titled "Connections Homeschool Correspondence Program" [hard copy included in the committee packet]. He advanced to slide 2, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: There are ways to verify student learning other than state testing. • MAPS • Curriculum based assessments • Quarterly grades/report cards • Promotion rate upsilon Graduation rate • As long as testing is an option, many homeschool families will opt out • 1/3 of school aged students on the Kenai Peninsula are homeschooled. Their education needs to be funded. MR. HYMAN noted that as long as testing is an option, many homeschool families will opt out. He proceeded to slide 3, titled "Expenses in Brick and Mortar vs Correspondence," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: • Brick and Mortar  • Facilities- high • Utilities- high • Staffing- high • Activities- high • Administration- high • Transportation- medium • Zero allotment to families • Correspondence  • Facilities- low • Utilities- low • Staffing- low • Activities- low • Administration- low • Transportation very low • Allotment- over of total MR. HAYMAN stated that only generalities are shown on slide 3, but he could provide the committee with specific numbers by district if it wished. 8:26:06 AM MR. HAYMAN continued to slide 4, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: • Allotment= $2700 per student (K-12) • Advisors- PTR of 90/1 approximately • Facilities; Partial Enrollment in neighborhood school if wanted (2 classes) • Allotments for late enrollments (Oct 10-Jan 1) • Curriculum for "non-allotment" students so they can earn credit • SPED (IEP) facilitation and partnership with neighborhood schools • Administration. MR. HAYMAN pointed out that Connections does not incur the "huge costs" that IDEA had discussed. He proceeded to slide 5, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Assessment facilitation upsilon • AKStar upsilon • Maps upsilon • ACT/SAT- (partner with KPBSD High Schools) upsilon • High level math upsilon Other reporting data upsilon Weighted GPA calculation (not on our transcripts) upsilon APS Calculation (Admission Point Score) upon request 8:30:57 AM MR. HAYMAN concluded on slide 6, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Theoretically, what would we do if BSA increased from 90% to 100% and/or 1.2 multiplier was added? • This is a district level decision • My recommendations Increase allotment (we recently raised to $2700 k-12) Change policy to allow for transportation costs for parents Provide remote Vocational Programing Improve systems (software, financial, delivery, information, etc.) Increase Coop support Support facilities for activities MR. HAYMAN reminded the committee that this would be district level decision making, which is outside the scope of his expertise. 8:34:14 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY referred to the individual education plan that is mandated from the federal government, and asked how much is used on special education staff. She directed her question to both Connections, and IDEA. MR. HAYMAN replied that Connections' specialists, including psychologists, are with the district. He also confirmed that Individualized Education Plans (IEP) are written by Connections' certified special education staff. MR. O'DELL confirmed IDEA is responsible for the IEP and, by law, the responsibility falls to the district of residence. In reality, he explained it becomes a bit more complicated by the fact IDEA is a certified school working within the boundaries of another district. 8:38:53 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked if a fee is paid to the district for partial use of specialists. MR. O'DELL replied that since IDEA does not have cooperative agreements, everything is done through its own program, and all specialists are IDEA's responsibility; therefore, IDEA does not pay fees. MR. HAYMAN replied that since Connections is part of a local program, it is less expensive. 8:41:11 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY sought clarification that fees are not paid to the district if the district is part of the cooperative agreement, and that there is a [payment] in kind to the speech and occupational therapists. MR. HAYMAN replied Connections does not need a [payment] in kind because it is part of a district that accesses a team of psychologists and specialists, and Connections is part of "that contributing district-wide." MR. O'DELL stated that with the few cooperative agreements that IDEA has, fees are not paid. 8:43:42 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked Mr. O'Dell if there is a school psychologist at each of the sites to do testing, or if the psychologists must be transported to where the testing is needed. MR. O'DELL confirmed IDEA does have school psychologists that fly to each of its locations. REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked Mr. Sexton, of the 34 correspondence programs, how many are statewide and have the need for the brick-and-mortar spaces similar to IDEA's needs, as opposed to Connections, which doesn't have the need due to being imbedded. MR. SEXTON replied that there are members from the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) present that could address the topic. 8:44:47 AM HEIDI TESHNER, Acting Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development, replied to Representative Himschoot that about half are district-wide programs, and half are statewide. REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked for confirmation that means about 17 are district imbedded, and 17 serve students across the state. MS. TESHNER affirmed that is correct. REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT referred to the Alaska READS Act funding needs that Mr. O'Dell had previously discussed, and asked if the needs IDEA has are different from the needs of other schools. MS. O'DELL replied that for the most part, they are the same, but there could be significant cost difference in the testing expense. 8:46:11 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked if the allotment is set locally or if there is there some directive on how much the allotment to families is. MR. O'DELL replied that IDEA sets the amount in response to listening to stakeholders and doing as much as possible to honor what their needs are. He stated that inflation has an impact, and the allotment has increased the past two years including next year. He reiterated it is within IDEA's control, but in response to the need that is presented by its stakeholders. MS. MACKIE added that IDEA does its best to give the largest portion of the funding directly to the families to use for their educational needs. MR. HAYMAN explained that Connections is not quite parallel with IDEA; Connections' allotment is fixed locally. 8:49:47 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked to understand why the allotment to the families couldn't be reduced to cover expenses, or provide iPads needed for testing. MR. O'DELL replied that theoretically IDEA could, but it would cause parents issues; everything the student needs costs money. 8:51:14 AM MR. HAYMAN explained that Connections provides tech support for computers and printers to families at no cost. REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT stated that she had received a resolution about changing funding to accommodate special needs and correspondence programs that came in from seven school districts. She asked why IDEA and Connections did not sign on to this request. MS. MACKIE stated she believed the said resolution is in the appendix, and she confirmed IDEA had signed on. REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT affirmed she saw a signature now, but it did not say IDEA. MR. HAYMAN stated he would get confirmation from his district office and get back to the committee. 8:54:21 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY directed her question to IDEA, regarding its responsibility towards any grievances or legal issues. She also commented in regard to the levels of special education, and if there were any intensive students. 8:55:15 AM MR. O'DELL replied that by the time a student is in special education it is a tier 3, and he confirmed there are currently no students in the intensive needs program. REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked Mr. O'Dell to confirm that Galena, Alaska, is his school district of record, and if so, Galena would be legally responsible if there was a grievance with an individual education plan. MR. O'DELL replied that is the "de facto situation," and the law says the responsibility falls to the district of residence as opposed to the district of record. 9:00:00 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked Mr. O'Dell if students who do not reside in Juneau could attend Career Technical Education (CTE) and other classes in Juneau. MR. O'DELL replied the only way for students to attend CTE in Juneau is to "dual enroll" with Juneau. At that point, Juneau receives partial or all of the funding from the state of Alaska. 9:03:07 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY directed her next concern to DEED, in reference to regulations for testing and screening. MS. TESHNER replied that DEED has procured with Amplify for the literacy screener tied to the Alaska READS Act. In response to a follow-up question, offered her understanding that it is computer-based screening and that she could check to verify that at a later date. To another questions regarding connectivity, she replied that for all of the assessment testing, DEED works with district test coordinators to find out what the bandwidth capabilities are. REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked if the correspondence programs within the districts are included. MS. TESHNER replied yes. 9:05:14 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD, regarding IEPs, asked whether IDEA and Connections believe most parents are coming to the correspondence courses because they are not getting what they should be getting in the brick-and-mortar schools. MR. O'DELL replied absolutely, parents come to IDEA routinely and in many cases - mainly special education - the parents' perception is that the child's needs are not being met. MR. HAYMAN responded that flexibility is a key point in the decision making to lean towards correspondence programs. 9:08:10 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD asked aside from getting the BSA, if any federal or city grants are received. MR. O'DELL responded IDEA does not get local contributions or special education funding from the state. All schools do, however, get some title funds from the federal government. MR. HAYMAN replied that Connections does not get any federal funds directly, but his district does get federal funds through Title 1. CO-CHAIR ALLARD asked both Mr. O'Dell and Mr. Hayman if it is an accurate statement that they are asking for free and equitable opportunity for all students regardless if they are in brick and mortar or correspondence courses. She asked for confirmation on record. MR. O'DELL replied yes. MR. HAYMAN replied yes. 9:11:19 AM REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK asked for an explanation as to the disparity in amounts between the two fiscal notes to HB 139. 9:12:21 AM ELWIN BLACKWELL, School Finance Manager, School Finance and Facilities Section, Finance and Support Services Division, Department of Education and Early Development, explained that there are always two fiscal notes when dealing with a foundation program, and since DEED pays out of the public education fund, the foundation program fiscal note shows zero. The "capitalization" is then shown in the public education fund fiscal note. 9:13:06 AM MR. SEXTON pointed out that the dollar amount is listed in the analysis portion of the DEED fiscal note [included in the committee packet], on the second page, at the end of the first paragraph. 9:13:33 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked if the money goes to the district of record, and then the district of record decides how much money goes to the correspondence program. MR. BLACKWELL confirmed that the funding would go only towards the districts that have correspondence program students. He noted the allotment is a district decision on how much the allotment would increase, based on the increase in funding. 9:15:35 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that HB 139 was held over. 9:15:49 AM The committee took an at-ease from 9:15 a.m. to 9:16 a.m. HB 106-TEACHER RECRUITMENT; LUMP SUM PAYMENT  9:16:56 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 106, "An Act authorizing lump sum payments for certain teachers as retention and recruitment incentives; and providing for an effective date." 9:17:27 AM HEIDI TESHNER, Acting Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development, presented HB 106 on behalf of the bill sponsor, House Rules by request of the governor. She explained that recruitment and retention of teachers has long been an issue in Alaska. She stated that teachers have a tremendous impact on student achievement. She stated that priority number four of Alaska's Education Challenge is to prepare, attract and retain effective education professionals, and that HB 106 supports Alaska's teachers. She gave statistics on the number of teachers in the state, including teachers recruited from outside Alaska, and of teacher turnover. She reminded the committee of a task force ordered by the governor in 2020 to examine teacher recruitment and retention, and of the six essential areas identified by the task force, salary was ranked number one. The bill would provide 3 tiers of incentive payments related to the type of district. 9:21:43 AM MS. TESHNER explained that "doing the same thing" is not working, and the incentive payments are just a single solution. She noted the proposed incentives would be a pilot to see if it would improve teacher recruitment and retention, and to analyze fluctuations per district. In summary, she explained, there are years of data and discussion about investing in Alaska's teachers, and through the introduction of HB 106, the governor is showing he is listening to stakeholders and directly incentivizing those who work in the classrooms. 9:23:25 AM MS. TESHNER, in response to a question from Representative Story regarding retention and recruitment incentives, replied that in the fiscal note, an additional $6.4 million has been added to provide the payment directly to districts, so it does not become an unfunded mandate to come up with the mandatory reduction. In response to a follow-up question, she suggested that DEED could determine incentive pay through its annual survey. 9:26:01 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRAX gave his understanding that the 3 tier payments are based on regions, but each teacher in a given region will get the same bonus, and asked for clarification that is correct. MS. TESHNER responded that DEED would put out an application, and teachers would have to apply and certify that they had worked for the year. The districts would then distribute the payments that DEED approved. REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed his concern that a [three-year] "state-wide experimental plan" is being proposed, and it has been stated that there is 20 percent turnover every year. He asked whether the other 80 percent who stay would get a cut in pay. MS. TESHNER replied it is subject to appropriation, and there are other teacher recruitment efforts that will be forthcoming, but it will not be determined until the end of the three years whether or not things truly work. 9:29:48 AM REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY commented that if [teacher recruitment efforts] work, "keep doing it." MS. TESHNER replied it is one mechanism; if there is success at the end of the three years, it would be determined how best to move forward. 9:30:51 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD commented on recruitment and retention, and stated she was in favor of the bonus program. She reported hearing over and over that teacher salaries are not enough, and expressed her desire to "help that." She asked Ms. Teshner about rankings. MS. TESHNER replied she could not provide the information today but would follow up with the committee. 9:32:45 AM REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK asked Ms. Teshner to speak on how the lump sum payment compares to [a return to the] defined benefits system. MS. TESHNER replied she does not have an answer. She further stated that the bill is intended to determine whether the proposed incentives work. 9:33:43 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY stressed the importance of having an annual evaluation or report back to the legislature imposed under HB 139, as it would help with accountability. MS. TESHNER replied that DEED would have to create regulations around HB 106. 9:35:57 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked whether defined benefits would be addressed in the survey DEED is to provide. MS. TESHNER replied that retirement benefits is number four [in the survey]. REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked Ms. Tesher to read the top five. MS. TESHNER read the top five as follows: adequate compensation for assigned duties; positive workplace conditions; personal connections with students; retirement benefits; and good healthcare benefits. REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT commented that she appreciated the attention to the survey and trying to meet the needs of the practitioners. 9:37:42 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD indicated she wants educators to know that the proposed incentives "stay in their pockets," stay in the classroom, and go towards their retirement. She encouraged educators to get on board; it is solely a benefit to them. 9:38:31 AM REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK asked for information on other states that may have implemented a similar program, and if the states also offer defined benefits on top of "these lump sums." MS. TESHNER explained she can follow up with more information, but the amounts in the tiered incentive align with what other states have done; she stated she will get back to the committee with a more solid answer. 9:39:24 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD opined that the incentive would be great for families, those who are married to teachers, and in rural communities where she noted many times both spouses are teachers. Under HB 106, their income could be significantly increased. 9:39:59 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT pointed out that the State of Washington did something similar in 2020, and the State of Massachusetts in 1998, and she asked Ms. Teshner to provide more information on the outcomes of those states thus far. 9:40:36 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY provided her understanding that in Washington, there were parameters around lump sum payments, such as for teachers at high poverty schools. 9:42:08 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that HB 106 was held over. 9:42:54 AM ADJOURNMENT  There being no further business before the committee, the House Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:43 a.m.