ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 18, 2013
8:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lynn Gattis, Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Lora Reinbold, Vice Chair
Representative Harriet Drummond
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 21
"An Act relating to the length of a school week; and providing
for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 21 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 87
"An Act extending the special education service agency; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 87(EDC) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PRESENTATION: CHARTER SCHOOLS IN ALASKA
- HEARING POSTPONED TO 2/25/13
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 21
SHORT TITLE: FOUR-DAY SCHOOL WEEK
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) P.WILSON, T.WILSON, KREISS-TOMKINS
01/16/13 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/13
01/16/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/13 (H) EDC, FIN
02/15/13 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/15/13 (H) Heard & Held
02/15/13 (H) MINUTE (EDC)
02/18/13 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 87
SHORT TITLE: EXTEND SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICE AGENCY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HIGGINS
01/28/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/28/13 (H) EDC, FIN
02/15/13 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/15/13 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/18/13 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a review of HB 21, as one of the
joint prime sponsors.
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 21.
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards (AASB)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 21.
ELAINE PRICE, Member
School Board
Southeast Island School District
Coffman Cove, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 21.
BRUCE JOHNSON, Executive Director
Alaska Council of School Administrators
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 21.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE HIGGINS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 87, as prime sponsor.
TOM STUDLER, Staff
Representative Pete Higgins
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 87 and the proposed committee
substitute (CS), on behalf of Representative Higgins, prime
sponsor.
KRIS CURTIS, Legislative Auditor
Legislative Audit Division
Legislative Agencies and Offices
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 87.
PATRICK PILLAI, Executive Director
Special Education Service Agency (SESA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 87.
DR. P. J. FORD SLACK, Principal
Sitka High School
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 87.
ERIC GEBHART, Superintendent
Nenana City School District
Nenana, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 87.
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards (AASB)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 87.
MILLIE RYAN, Director
Resources Empowerment & Advocacy in the Community & Home, Inc.
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 87.
BRUCE JOHNSON, Executive Director
Alaska Council of School Administrators
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 87.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:02:27 AM
CHAIR LYNN GATTIS called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:02 a.m. Present at the call to order were
Representatives Gattis, P. Wilson, Seaton, and Saddler;
Representatives LeDoux arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 21-FOUR-DAY SCHOOL WEEK
8:02:49 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 21, "An Act relating to the length of a school
week; and providing for an effective date."
8:03:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as one of the joint prime sponsors, recapped the intent of HB
21, which is to allow a four-day school week opportunity to a
specific district. Provisions in HB 21 require the district to
show that the majority of the community, students and teachers
support the implementation of this program. Additionally, the
district will have to prove that the students are receiving the
equivalent of a five-day school week. They will also be
required to file quarterly reports to the Department of
Education and Early Development (EED) on student and teacher
performance and the effectiveness of the program. An individual
school within the district may elect to maintain a five-day week
rather than exercise the option. She stressed that the intent
is to extend local control to school districts.
8:04:32 AM
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), said that currently statute allows the
department to approve an acceptable plan, as submitted by a
district, to operate on a four-day per week school calendar or a
flexible/alternate schedule. The proposed bill will change the
approval authority for a 30-day period, transferring approval to
the office of the Alaska State School Board and Early Learning.
The authority is redirected but the process is not altered, he
pointed out. Further, it does not prevent the commissioner from
approving a school schedule change, during the same 30-day
period.
8:05:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for the difference in criteria
required for permit approval through the commissioner's office
versus the proposed 30-day application period.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that there are additional items in
the bill, which requires progress reporting, once the proposal
has been accepted. Existing statute allows the education
commissioner to approve an acceptable plan that provides the
equivalent of a five-day school week; the same as the bill
requires. However, the bill stipulates that the board consider
additional criteria, such as community involvement, and he
paraphrased from the bill, Sec. 1 paragraphs (2) and (3); which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
(2) has involved affected students, teachers, and the
community in requesting a four-day school week;
(3) submits public comment to the board that
demonstrates majority community support for the
request
8:06:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated his understanding that the
department's denial of the Craig School District's original
application was due to the lack of focus on student improvement;
a condition not stipulated in the bill. He asked if the current
authorizing criteria will require a focus on student
improvement.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY pointed out that statute must be interpreted
for academic purposes. The Craig district's request was
submitted indicating an interest for a three-day weekend, and
the academic program plan was not presented. Hence, approval
was withheld pending an academic plan, which the district was
hesitant in preparing prior to gaining approval. He suggested
that if the information the district is offering in support of
HB 21, had been submitted with the initial request, the
department would have been in a better position to offer
approval. He said his office will always focus on the student
and many questions remain unanswered, such as: how will an hour
longer day be structured for young children; will special needs
children be able to handle an extended day; and a student
missing an extended day will have one and one-quarter days to
makeup - how will that be addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON followed-up to note that the conditions
for approval proposed in HB 21 encompass criteria such as
flexibility and community desires, and asked whether it needs to
include academic achievement requirements. He expressed
interest in understanding the exact difference between the
current authority, in statute, and what is proposed, for the
single district, in HB 21.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY stated his belief that there is no
perceptible difference in the criteria established under current
statute from what is proposed in HB 21, and added that statute
does not speak to academic achievement.
8:12:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX hypothesized whether approval of the
district's request would have been approved if HB 21 had been in
effect when the initial application was under consideration.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY conjectured that the board would have
considered the request and the department would have expressed
concern.
8:13:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON commented that the bill sponsors have
noted concerns and the bill will be altered based on comments
from the previous hearings. She said that Craig is one of the
top rated, rural school districts and may have an advantage over
other rural districts that are struggling academically. The
plan that the school district is now submitting has been crafted
better than the previous request, she opined, and agreed that
the commissioner took the appropriate action on the initial
application.
8:14:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked the commissioner for a general
opinion on an altered school week.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that student outcomes are
paramount and Alaska has a number of flexible programs in place
to meet individual needs. In reviewing the effectiveness of how
four-day weeks perform in other states, he said many are
implemented for financial purposes, not because of a remote life
style. However, he said reports are indicative of successful
programs and he stated support for the pilot program.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER clarified that the programs are reported
as successful with regard to academic achievement or financial
economy.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said the financial aspect has not been
studied, but it would stand to reason that without having to
dispatch buses or provide food, among other services not being
provided one day per week, an economic benefit would result.
The academic outcomes appear to vary, with first year gains
typically being the highest, and as the program continues
results appear to remain relatively positive.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the department has had frequent
requests for four-day programs.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that Craig district has been the
only one. To a follow-up question, he said the reported results
of four-day programs are based on case studies, not data base,
critical analysis.
8:18:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON offered that financial savings can be
substantial, especially where bussing of children is routine,
and added that a pilot program could be helpful, as a four-day
schedule has not yet been tried in Alaska.
8:19:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated support for HB 21 and expressed
concern for a possible rise in latchkey attendance if parents
have a five-day work week.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested that the local areas will be
able to directly address the latchkey situation and it would be
part of the community decision, when considering a four-day
school week.
8:21:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he does not oppose HB 21, but
questions the purpose and usefulness of superseding current
statute. He voiced support for districts to work with the
commissioner's office to attain an alternative, flexible
schedule, and suggested it may place an unintentional and undue
burden on the board or the department.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY acknowledged that the steps for approving an
application through the board process may be cumbersome, but not
overwhelmingly so.
8:22:42 AM
CHAIR GATTIS expressed support for the Craig district's
community interest to operate a four-day pilot program. She
then turned to public testimony.
8:23:52 AM
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards (AASB), stated support for HB 21 and said the mission of
the association is to support student achievement through
effective local governance. The program may not work for all
districts, and he predicted that it would not be requested
universally; however, it is a good option to have for areas
where it fits community needs. He stressed the importance of
allowing and honoring local governance in a district.
8:25:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated support for local control and
reiterated that Craig is one of the best performing rural
districts in the state. He theorized that a lower performing
district might desire to adopt the program, and asked if AASB
believes that the state is in a position to make assessments to
determine the viability and effectiveness of a four-day week.
MR. ROSE said the association does not adjudicate these matters,
but the department and local school boards will make
determinations regarding program effectiveness.
CHAIR GATTIS commented that in a low performing school district,
whatever program a community embraces and becomes engaged
around, should be considered a viable possibility for
improvement.
8:27:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked about the performance of the
existing alternative schedules in Alaska.
MR. ROSE reported that the block schedule has been one of the
most effective methods districts have implemented, and although
a four-day week has not been tried in Alaska, the plan is
interesting to consider. Rather than requesting a teaching day
off, proposals for the fifth day have included a number of
options, such as: staff development, additional tutorial time
for students, or an alternative program that is not counted as
an official school day but which provides enrichment activities.
To a follow-up question he explained that the block scheduling
allows focus and compression of one subject into a longer class
period, such as 90 minutes versus 40 minutes. Absenteeism
presents a significant problem in a block schedule, as the
concentrated time on a subject is difficult to make up.
Attendance policies need to be tightened when a district chooses
to implement block studies. A four-day school week would
present a similar issue, as each day would represent 25 percent
of the week's studies.
8:31:28 AM
ELAINE PRICE, Member, School Board, Southeast Island School
District, stated support for HB 21 and reported that the parents
have led the initiative for a four-day school week, and stressed
that the school board neither proposed the idea nor proffered it
as a cost saving program. Regarding the question for latchkey
participants, she said the parents are a vocal group and the
district will know if a problem arises. The teachers are also
in favor of the four-day week and look forward to having more
contact time with their students, and expect to be available on
the fifth day, Friday, for special programs. The superintendent
appreciates the flexibility the schedule will allow, especially
in the area of vocational training. She said the standards and
test scores in the district are high, and this proposal has been
approached with concern to maintain, not compromise, the
district's academic standings.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked what criteria will be applied to
ensure a high level of academic performance is maintained over
the duration of the pilot plan period, and in deciding whether
or not to continue the four-day schedule.
MS. PRICE said test scores will be reviewed, as well as the
minutes of the ASC meetings. The meetings are well attended by
the community and provide a clear understanding of what is
occurring in each school. A number of variables affect test
scores, which include: teacher effectiveness, special need
students, class size, and attendance. She stressed that
academic oversight is a district priority and a close eye is
maintained on the achievements in the nine schools; steps would
be taken to rectify any backsliding.
8:36:34 AM
BRUCE JOHNSON, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School
Administrators, stated support for HB 21. The plan has been
well thought out and represents a serious endeavor, with little
risk. He said it may not suit many communities, but Craig
district seems to be a fit and he said it would be helpful to
have a pilot program; the information gained can only become
useful for future reference or application. The local control
aspect is important to respect and support, he finished.
8:37:57 AM
CHAIR GATTIS closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON reported that the sponsors will be
incorporating comments from the bill hearings and some changes
can be anticipated when it arrives at the next committee of
referral.
8:38:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented that the committee has supported
a policy for districts to take a variety of educational
approaches and he said this bill provides potential in the same
vein. He stated support for four extended school days with the
fifth day used for a variety of enrichment opportunities. The
pilot program will be interesting to follow, and if successful,
the schedule could prove helpful in other areas of the state.
Additionally, the new assessments that will be implemented based
on intellectual integration versus the current rote fact
learning method, may be better served by this schedule.
8:40:46 AM
CHAIR GATTIS underscored the importance for acknowledging
community support through legislative action.
8:41:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report HB 21 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 21 was reported from the
House Standing Committee on Education.
8:41:50 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:41 a.m. to 8:45 a.m.
HB 87-EXTEND SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICE AGENCY
8:45:38 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the final order of business would be
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 87, "An Act relating to allocations to the
special education service agency and extending the special
education service agency; and providing for an effective date."
8:45:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETE HIGGINS, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as the prime sponsor, introduced HB 87 and recommended that the
Special Education Service Agency (SESA) program be extended to
June 30, 2021. He stressed the importance for having a service
that provides support in a child's village to help them develop
abilities and become functional in the community.
8:47:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON noted that the auditor's report
supports continuance of the program. It also indicates that the
services provided are not available or duplicated through any
other entity.
8:48:55 AM
TOM STUDLER, Staff, Representative Pete Higgins, Alaska State
Legislature, paraphrased testimony from a prepared statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
The Special Education Service Agency (SESA) us a non-
profit organization established by the Alaska State
Legislature in 1986 under Alaska State statute (AS
14.30.600). SESA's role is to provide school
districts with training specific to a student's
disability. The availability of SESA's services
allows students, with low incidence disabilities, to
receive special education services in their home
community and keeps students with their families.
SESA provided service to 45 school districts and 223
students during the last school year. During this
time, SESA also provided 320 onsite consultations with
school districts. No other government agency or
private sector entity in the State provides
specialized assistance to school districts for
educating students.
The Special Education Service Agency is scheduled to
terminate June 30, 2013. In the opinion of the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee: the
termination date for this agency should be extended.
They recommend the legislature extend the termination
date to June 30, 2021. The Department of Health and
Social services and The Department of Education &
Early Development both support the extension of the
Sunset date to June 30, 2021.
8:51:07 AM
KRIS CURTIS, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Audit Division,
Legislative Agencies and Offices, paraphrased testimony from a
prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
The division of Legislative Audit conducted a sunset
review of the Special Education Services Agency also
known as SESA and issued our report last year. The
main objective of the audit was to determine if the
agency was operating in the public interest and
whether its termination date should be extended.
We conclude that SESA is serving a public need and is
essential in meeting the Federal law that requires the
State ensure that all children with disabilities have
available to them a free appropriate public education
that meets their unique needs. SESA serves over 200
students located in mostly non-urban locations through
its low incidence disabilities program.
We recommend extending SESA's termination date until
June 30, 2021. However, our recommendation for
extension comes with recommendations to improve
collaboration and oversight.
The biggest issue facing SESA is the flat funding of
its Low Incidence Disability program. The funding
level is set in statute and hasn't been increased in
14 years thereby decreasing the real value of its
budget by 36 percent. This has made it difficult to
hire qualified staff. SESA's unique organizational
structure has left it with no mechanism for seeking an
increase to its budget during the annual budgetary
process. SESA's funding as identified in the public
school funding statute provides an amount per student
as a "not less than" amount. Since SESA's funding
comes from the public school funding statutes, it is
funded through DEED. DEED could ask for increases as
part of its annual budget process but has chosen not
to do so since SESA reports to the Governor's Council
on Disabilities and Special Education which is
organizationally located within the Department of
Health and Social Services. DEED management does not
consider their department's responsible for monitoring
the adequacy of SESA's budget.
The Governor's council did support legislation to
increase SESA's during the past session but the bill
was not successful.
In recommendation No. 1 of the report, we hold DEED
management accountable for monitoring SESA because
DEED is responsible for fulfilling the federal law
regarding special education. Because DEED is the
entity the ultimately must meet the federal
requirement, it should be taking a more active role in
monitoring SESA. We recommend that DEED management
and SESA management collaborate to ensure SESA is
operating and funded as intended by the legislature.
DEED's commissioner does not agree with the
recommendation. Historically the funding for SESA has
been a legislative process and he sees no need for a
change. DEED does not want to be held accountable for
SESA's operations.
And we understand his viewpoint since the oversight
responsibility for SESA is fragmented and confusing.
Which brings me to the Auditor's Comments section of
the report. In the Auditor's Comments section of the
report, we discuss SESA's organizational structure
which has led to confusion as to oversight
responsibility for funding and monitoring SESA. SESA
is a nonprofit corporation created by statute to
report to the Governor's Council on Disabilities and
Special Education. It must report to the Governor's
Council, however, the council does not have budgetary
authority over SESA. As a component of public school
funding, SESA's main program, its Low Incidence
Disabilities program, is funded through DEED.
To further complicate matters, as a nonprofit
corporation, SESA has its own bylaws and its own board
of directors.
The Auditor's Comments Section of the audit explains
SESA's organizational structure and highlights the
need for legislative clarification as to which entity
should be held accountable.
The audit contains a second recommendation addressed
to SESA's board president to revise board policies and
improve SESA board oversight. There has been a fairly
recent change in the executive director position and
the board president has already initiated changes to
help improve oversight.
8:55:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked if there is concern for the
changes made by the board president, and whether the legislature
should consider any statutory amendments.
MS. CURTIS responded that the changes have not been audited but
opined that it appears the board is moving in the right
direction.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what the pros and cons would be for
placing SESA under the purview of the Department of Education
and Early Development (EED).
MS. CURTIS answered that the examination of that option was not
part of the audit. She clarified that the audit was based on
the eleven sunset criteria, required by statute, to evaluate the
agency. It has been concluded that the agency serves a public
need and specific issues were identified for further scrutiny.
CHAIR GATTIS opined that oversight is best served when one foot
is in each department.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON agreed, and conjectured that the
department would be challenged to incorporate funding for a non-
profit organization. She suggested that the required reports
from SESA be provided to both the governor's office as well as
EED.
8:58:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON addressed the topic of accountability and
opined that requiring diversified reporting can result in non-
accountability, stating "...when the buck doesn't stop anywhere,
it's easy to push it off onto somebody else." He asked if one
of the identified concerns is the lack of one state agency being
held accountable.
MS. CURTIS said accountability is spread out, and EED has a role
regarding funding and oversight of some planning documents.
Additionally, the non-profit board seats a member of EED staff.
However, statute separates responsibility between agencies. The
department's response to the audit highlighted that any change
to the low incidence disabilities budget requires a change in
statute and is addressed through the legislative process.
During the previous legislature, the governor's council
introduced legislation but it was not successful.
9:00:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that "a bureaucratic mess" has
ensued and suggested returning to the drawing board to consider
redesign options.
9:01:44 AM
PATRICK PILLAI, Executive Director, Special Education Service
Agency (SESA), introduced his presentation.
9:02:28 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:02 a.m. to 9:04 a.m.
MR. PILLAI provided a video illustrating the work of the program
in various Alaskan school locations, to demonstrate the outreach
work performed throughout the state by SESA.
9:11:11 AM
The committee took an at-ease at 9:11 a.m.
MR. PILLAI paraphrased the agency's mission statement, which
read: SESA provides consultation and training to support the
unique educational needs of individuals and the Alaskan
communities that serve them. He then provided a brief
background of the program, to state that SESA was created in
1986 as a not-for-profit corporation to meet federal
requirements of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA). Together with EED, SESA worked to create an
infrastructure, in accordance with session laws, to satisfy
objectives for providing a public education to individuals with
low incidence disabilities via a cadre of itinerant specialists
working throughout the school districts with an emphasis on
rural environments. The agency is governed by the Alaska
Governor's Council on Disabilities and Special Education.
Funding is received as a low incidence disabilities
appropriation through statute at a rate of $15.75 multiplied by
the previous year's average daily membership (ADM). He said
there has not been a funding increase for 15 years, thus the
proposal for a multiplier of 36 percent to come apace with
inflation. An annual one-half percent per year inflation
increase is requested for the ensuing eight years following
reauthorization.
9:14:54 AM
MR. PILLAI said that under AS 14.30.630(b)(1) SESA is required
to provide the following services: itinerant outreach services
to students who are deaf, deaf-blind, mentally retarded, hearing
impaired, blind and visually impaired, orthopedically disabled,
health-impaired in other ways, severely emotionally disturbed,
and to students with multiple disabilities; special education
instructional support and training of local school district
special education personnel; and other services appropriate to
special education needs. The agency is also involved in other
services, which include: operation of the Alaska Autism
Resource Center; facilitation of Bring the Children Home to
repatriate psychologically diagnosed children who have been
residing in facilities outside of Alaska; administration of the
state deaf-blind grant; and an indicators program to supply the
state with data for reporting purposes.
9:17:13 AM
MR. PILLAI drew attention to a map of the state with numbers
attached to each district to indicate students being served,
which total 260. He provided specific examples of students
being served by SESA specialists. Additional to student
services, training is also conducted to educate teachers, with a
primary focus is on rural Alaska. He pointed out that when
district's experience significant staff turnover, the SESA
specialist may hold the continuity factor of a student's
individual education program (IEP). Specific SESA services
include: on-site consultation with strategies based on
observation/modeling/evidence; in-service training for
professional development; host the Alaska State Special
Education Conference (ASSEC); assist with specific courses
designed and offered for university credit; participate on the
Alaska Deaf Education Advisory Board; and partner with other
non-profit organizations such as Stone Soup and the Center for
Human Development at the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA).
9:23:05 AM
MR. PILLAI directed attention to an image provided in the
committee packet illustrating the SESA website to point out the
user friendly format and how school districts can access the
necessary forms to request agency assistance. He then addressed
a graph titled "SESA FY 12 Student Consultation by District,"
and said it captures only the 1:1 student work, not professional
training, per district. He said an important aspect of SESA
services is the combination of evidence based practices and
targeted interventions. A loss of funding will result in the
reduction of these services, and an allotment request will
accompany an amendment to the bill when it comes before the
finance committee. He offered other reasons for the necessity
of a monetary increase, including the quality of professionals
required for staff, retention issues, and the ability to offer
competitive salary/benefit packages.
9:28:26 AM
CHAIR GATTIS opened public testimony.
9:28:52 AM
DR. P. J. FORD SLACK, Principal, Sitka High School, stated
support for HB 87 and urged members to speak with anyone
connected with SESA in any area of the state, and predicted that
positive feedback will result.
9:29:33 AM
ERIC GEBHART, Superintendent, Nenana City School District,
stated support for HB 87 and identified that he chairs the 28-
member Governor's Council for Disabilities and Special
Education; the governing board of SESA. He said five board
members handle the direct relationship with the agency, and he
reviewed the membership seats. The board supports both the
reauthorization as well as the proposed funding increase to
$21.50 per student, as recommended by the Legislative Audit
report. The capacity of the service to bring expertise to every
area of the state has already been illustrated, he finished.
9:32:07 AM
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards (AASB), commented that the creation of special education
was enacted in 1975 with the passage of [Public Law 94-142
(Education of All Handicapped Children Act) also known as,
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)]. The
special education mandate has been altered several times since
it was established and through the reauthorization process. The
means for meeting the mandate has remained a focus, and the
original promise of 40 percent federal funding has yet to reach
that level; currently the rate is approximately 14-16 percent.
The mandate is complicated and been revisited many times. The
administrative burdens have become extensive with each reworking
and continued honing of the law by advocates of special
education. Reporting is provided to the governor's council, EED
and the federal authorities, and, reiterating Representative
Seaton's sentiment, he said, "If everybody's responsible,
nobody's responsible." He said the extensive reporting
generates little response until an audit is performed. The work
conducted by SESA remains the best solution to address the
complicated requirements of the special education mandates in
place. He addressed Representative LeDoux's suggestion for
reworking the system and said IDEA has taken that approach but
the result has been additional administrative requirements. The
diversity of Alaska is immense and PL 94-142 requires that "all
kids will get the best bite of the apple that we can give." The
mandate has continued to become more complicated, since
inception, and received less attention and funding, and SESA is
the best possibility for meeting the requirements.
9:35:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether there are oversight steps
the committee should be considering.
MR. ROSE responded that special education is a huge, involved
issue, and assured the committee that SESA is handling the bulk
of the complications.
9:36:42 AM
MILLIE RYAN, Executive Director, Resources Empowerment &
Advocacy in the Community and Home, Inc. (REACH), said she has
served in the past as a SESA board member, and offered some
history for how SESA governance came about, adding that the
system has worked fairly well with minimal issues. A question
often raised is whether SESA duplicates intensive needs funding
and she said there are specific criteria and close oversight to
guard against that happening. Another question that often
arises is whether SESA employees are special education teachers,
but special education teachers are not specialists in specific
areas and are not prepared to receive children with low
incidence disabilities. Finally, she said the good work that
SESA provides is evident and offered an anecdote about a REACH
student who benefited and was able to maintain a residence close
to family due to the services provided.
9:41:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what services REACH provides.
MS. RYAN outlined the range of services provided through the
REACH agency, which include an infant learning program, and
respite and in-home services.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired whether REACH works with the
school districts.
MS. RYAN replied yes, very closely with complimentary and
transitional services, and to a follow-up clarified that the
services are not duplicative of the educational services SESA
provides.
9:44:28 AM
BRUCE JOHNSON, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School
Administrators, stated support for HB 87 and said this is a
valued, necessary service and districts would be taxed to fill
the void in the absence of SESA's expertise.
CHAIR GATTIS closed public testimony.
9:46:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 87, Version 28-LS0392\U, Mischel, 2/8/13,
as a working draft. There being no objection, Version U was
before the committee.
9:47:12 AM
MR. STUDLER said the CS changes begin on page 1, line 10,
represented in uppercase letters. He said this language would
be redacted to more clearly reflect the actuality of how the
retirement system is handled.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified the purpose of the CS by
paraphrasing from the language being proposed for removal, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
THE AMOUNT ALLOCATED TO THE AGENCY SHALL BE REDUCED
EACH FISCAL YEAR BY THE AMOUNT CONTRIBUTED BY THE
DEPARTMENT TO THE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM (AS
14.25) OR THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (AS
39.35) ON BEHALF OF EMPLOYEES OF THE AGENCY.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether there would be any fiscal
impact by this action.
MR. STUDLER stated his understanding that the change reflects
how the agency conducts business and does not alter funding. He
then deferred.
MR. PILLAI confirmed that the proposed CS does not affect the
funding of the agency in any way.
9:50:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to report CSHB 87, Version 28-
LS0392\U, Mischel, 2/8/13, out of committee with individual
recommendations, and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected, and stated his understanding
that one of the intents of the bill is to remedy the 15 years of
flat funding, and noted that the CS does not appear to
incorporate that intent. He expressed concern for continued
flat funding of SESA and opined that without a fiscal note the
state obligation to meet federal education requirements may be
in jeopardy. He proposed that a [letter of intent], from the
committee, be forwarded with the bill, when it comes before the
finance committee.
9:53:07 AM
CHAIR GATTIS, hearing no objection, announced that a [letter of
intent] would be forwarded with HB 87.
9:53:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection.
9:53:20 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:53 a.m. to 9:54 a.m.
9:54:17 AM
CHAIR GATTIS, hearing no further objection, announced that
CSHB 87(EDC) was reported from the House Education Standing
Committee.
9:54:46 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:56 a.m.