Legislature(2023 - 2024)DAVIS 106
04/21/2023 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation(s): Future Broadband Projects in Alaska and Impacts to Education | |
| HB144 | |
| HB139 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 144 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 139 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
April 21, 2023
8:00 a.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Justin Ruffridge, Co-Chair
Representative Mike Prax
Representative CJ McCormick
Representative Tom McKay
Representative Rebecca Himschoot
Representative Andi Story
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jamie Allard, Co-Chair
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Cliff Groh
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): FUTURE BROADBAND PROJECTS IN ALASKA AND IMPACTS
TO EDUCATION
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 144
"An Act relating to education tax credits; and providing for an
effective date by repealing the effective date of secs. 1, 2,
and 21, ch. 61, SLA 2014."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 139
"An Act relating to funding for correspondence study programs."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 144
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL EDUCATION TAX CREDITS SUNSET
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) RUFFRIDGE
03/29/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/29/23 (H) EDC
04/19/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
04/19/23 (H) Heard & Held
04/19/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/21/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
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
04/12/23 (H) Heard & Held
04/12/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/17/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
04/17/23 (H) Heard & Held
04/17/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/19/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
04/19/23 (H) Heard & Held
04/19/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/21/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
WITNESS REGISTER
CHRISTINE O'CONNOR, Executive Director
Alaska Telecom Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation, titled
"Broadband Projects in Alaska: Impacts for Education."
HEATHER CAVANAUGH, Vice President
External Affairs and Corporate Communications
Alaska Communications
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation, titled
"Alaska Fiberoptic Project."
CHRIS REITAN, Superintendent
Craig School District
Craig, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 139.
TREVOR JEPSEN, Staff
Representative Tom McKay
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative McKay,
explained Amendment 8 to HB 139 and answered questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:00:20 AM
CO-CHAIR JUSTIN RUFFRIDGE called the House Education Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. Representatives
Ruffridge, Prax, McKay, and Himschoot were present at the call
to order. Representatives McCormick and Story arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
^PRESENTATION(S): Future Broadband Projects in Alaska and
Impacts to Education
PRESENTATION(S): Future Broadband Projects in Alaska and Impacts
to Education
8:01:04 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE announced that the first order of business
would be the presentations on future broadband projects and
their impacts on education.
8:02:04 AM
CHRISTINE O'CONNOR, Executive Director, Alaska Telecom
Association (ATA), provided a presentation, titled "Broadband
Projects in Alaska: Impacts for Education" [hard copy included
in the committee packet]. She shared a brief personal history
and a history of ATA. She gave an overview of the presentation
and began by addressing the "massive" amount of changes over the
past six years in broadband. She pointed out that ATA has
invested $1.7 billion in capital expenditures alone. She moved
to slide 4 to show a 2010 map of the broadband and microwave
capacity in Alaska. She stated that since 2010 federal
programs, as listed on slide 5, have affected the map. She
noted that grants from the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTAI) have been used in conjunction
with state and private funds. She stated that the federal
Schools and Libraries Program (E-Rate) provides a major amount of
funding for schools, and it is a crucial program for connecting
schools with libraries. She moved to slide 7 and stated that
the Alaska School Broadband Assistance Grant (BAG) program
leverages the federal E-Rate funds to allow small schools to
have a broadband speed of at least 25 megabits per second
(Mbps). She stated that this program has tripled the speeds for
the small schools, while the cost has dropped, as seen on the
graphs on slide 9 and slide 10.
8:07:28 AM
MS. O'CONNOR addressed the decrease in the cost of broadband.
She discussed the federal ReConnect grant program recipients
along with their funding partners, as seen on slide 11 through
slide 32. She stated that these grants target unserved
locations, which are abundant in Alaska. The federal funding
amounts to over $300 million, with companies matching these
funds. She added that another round of funds could be expected.
MS. O'CONNOR, moving through the slides of projects funded by
ReConnect, listed the grants to Alaska Power and Telephone for
Prince of Wales Island, Klukwan, and Skagway. She stated that
this includes fiberoptic cables going to residential homes. She
added that Anaktuvuk Pass and Point Lay received a grant to
replace satellite backhaul. She noted the ReConnect grants to
Cordova Telecom, which has helped create new microwave towers in
Yakutat and a fiber cable from Cordova to Seward.
MS. O'CONNOR continued listing projects that received ReConnect
grants, such as Mukluk Telephone in Nome, GCI Aleutians Island
Fiber, and Airraaq Phase II in Bethel. She discussed how fiber
cable projects could deliver any needed broadband speed, with
gigabit speed allowing schools to do anything. She reiterated
that all these include fiberoptic cables to residential homes.
8:11:48 AM
MS. O'CONNOR noted the Tanana Chiefs Conference received
ReConnect funding for a fiber network in the Yukon-Koyukuk area.
She pointed out the "pretty steep price tags," as the distances
for cables are long in Alaska. She explained that these
programs are being implemented because the federal government
has committed to broadband for every American.
MS. O'CONNOR stated that the second major federal funding
program is the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program (TBCP),
with a total of $3 billion. She stated that every Tribe could
apply for $500,000 for usage and adoption activities, while the
remainder of the fund of around $3 million is for deployment
projects. She added that many of these projects connect into
the projects already funded by ReConnect. She pointed out
several projects that are receiving a TBCP grant, as seen on
slide 22 to slide 29. The projects include Bethel Native
Corporation collaborating with GCI, Calista Corporation
collaborating with Alaska Fiberoptic Project, Choggiung,
Limited, collaborating with Nushagak Cooperative, and Doyon,
Limited, collaborating with Alaska Communications. She stated
that the Kenaitze Indian Tribe, Metlakatla Power and Light, the
Native Village of Port Lions, and Tlingit and Haida are all also
receiving funding. She discussed the three projects that are
not funded by the grants but have otherwise continued to build
infrastructure. These projects are OTZ Telephone Cooperative,
Alcan ONE - Matanuska Telecom Association, and Ketchikan Public
Utilities.
8:17:00 AM
MS. O'CONNOR compared the broadband map, titled "Middle Map
2010" to the map, titled "Middle Map 2023." She pointed out
that many major gaps have been filled in in just a few years;
however, she advised that there is more progress that needs to
be made. She stated that the programs listed under TBCP and
ReConnect will continue, but there will also be federal funding
from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which
includes $42 billion to create grants for broadband. She stated
that these allocations are being determined under the Broadband
Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program, and Alaska's
allocation will be released soon. She stated that IIJA has set
how the funding can be spent, as described on slide 35. She
stated that the funding would first go to unserved and
underserved communities.
8:20:51 AM
MS. O'CONNOR moved to slide 37 and stated that the Alaska
Broadband Office is working on a timeline set by statute, with
many steps and analyses needed. She moved to the next slide to
conclude the presentation and reviewed the steps that would need
to be taken. She noted that in the future, there will be grant
opportunities for collaboration, planning for the broadband
office, permitting for implementation, and the need to address
sustainability, as once broadband infrastructure is built it
will need maintenance.
8:22:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX questioned what Alaskans should expect from
this funding.
MS. O'CONNOR replied that the answers depend on whom a person is
and what he/she is trying to accomplish. She acknowledged that
a person could not operate in today's economy and systems
without a minimal amount of connectivity. She referenced
education and how it is improved by connectivity, especially in
remote areas. She noted that the infrastructure cost is a
"sticker shock." Comparing the cost, she pointed out that a
small community would not be expected to pay for its airport.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK reminded the committee of the expensive
and limited Internet available in rural Alaska. He stated that
the Internet helps residents participate in things in the world
outside of their small communities, with education being a
critical example.
8:26:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY discussed how technology creates
opportunities for the teaching profession, including
professional development.
8:27:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY stated that he attended law school remotely
through the Internet; therefore, education in particular can
benefit tremendously from this connection. He suggested that
brick-and-mortar schools might no longer be needed in the
future. He questioned whether BAG legislation has been
introduced.
MS. O'CONNOR expressed uncertainty about whether BAG legislation
has been introduced, but it has been discussed. She expressed
the understanding that the BAG program started in 2010 with 10
Mbps for an entire school, and now it is at 25 Mbps. She
commented that this is not enough for a school, and the goal
should be much higher. She stated that the concept of
increasing the BAG program to 100 Mbps would make sense.
8:30:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT questioned the cost for every school to
move from 25 Mbps to 100 Mbps.
MS. O'CONNOR answered the BAG program works alongside E-Rate,
which is counted on a different fiscal year; therefore, nothing
could happen for the next year. She stated that if Mbps were
increased, it would be an incremental increase, with $8.3
million in the first year, and 12.9 million in the following
year. There is a phase-in period because all the projects are
not yet built. In response to a follow-up question concerning
the disparity between urban and rural schools, she stated that
the average speed in rural schools is 34 Mbps while urban
schools have 736 Mbps, and she advised that this is a "huge"
difference.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT, considering maintenance, questioned
how this can be done in light of other issues in rural
communities, like water and sewers.
MS. O'CONNOR replied that this question addresses an issue that
is being thought about constantly. She stated that there are
already opportunities and mechanisms in place to help sustain
new broadband networks. She mentioned the different funding
mechanisms, and she added that the grants are not awarded unless
sustainability is shown.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT expressed the understanding that the
BAG program is state funded, and it would help schools obtain a
higher internet speed. She questioned whether the 25 Mbps on
BAG needs to be changed.
MS. O'CONNOR stated that when functionality is analyzed, 25 Mbps
is limited. Increasing to 100 Mbps would allow schools to have
online testing and videos. She continued that with BAG only 25
Mbps is available.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT commented that some teachers are
successful utilizing the Internet, while others are not. She
expressed the opinion that there are limits in providing all
education through the Internet, as there is a connection between
physically present individuals. She questioned the telehealth
component in all of this.
MS. O'CONNOR stated that telehealth is just as big as education,
and there are parallel federal programs supporting rural health
care.
8:36:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK expressed appreciation that the public
safety component of connectivity was mentioned. He expressed
the understanding that some rural communities are getting
fiberoptics before urban areas. He questioned whether this
would translate to less expensive prices for rural areas.
MS. O'CONNOR responded that this is a critical issue. She said
that it is a "chicken and an egg" issue, as broadband
infrastructure must be built, but it has to be affordable and
sustainable. She stated that IIJA has many provisions dealing
with affordability, and many of the grant programs are
committing to Anchorage rates in rural Alaska. She stated that
the trend is - the more the network is built out the more costs
have dropped.
8:38:38 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE questioned the relationship between internet
speed and bandwidth. He questioned whether broadband will be
big enough for the amount needed and whether there is a cap on
the amount of data.
MS. O'CONNOR responded that most of these projects use fiber.
She compared fiber cable to a firehose as opposed to a garden
hose, with virtually unlimited capacity. She stated that all of
the projects would alleviate any limit, while the capacity for
data is limited by the specific grant requirement, and this
depends on the project. She acknowledged that some data
packages are unlimited. She continued that the issue leads to
balancing cost with affordability and usage needed, and this is
a complex matrix. In response to a question concerning
legislation on data capping, she stated that after looking
further into the BAG program, she would provide the committee
with an answer on this.
8:40:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY questioned the cost per month of broadband
for the Anchorage area versus the rural areas.
MS. O'CONNOR responded that this varies by region. She stated
that in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley a very fast package costs
under $100, whereas in some of the rural areas a 25 Mbps package
costs $300. In response to a follow-up question, she stated
that there are pockets around Anchorage and Fairbanks with no
service. She stated that the Alaska Broadband Office is working
on this. She responded that there are grants to families for
broadband services, including the Affordable Connectivity
Program, which is part of IIJA. She stated that this could save
a family up to $75 a month.
8:44:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK questioned the sustainability
requirements. He expressed concern that this could be a barrier
for some communities to receive funding.
MS. O'CONNOR replied that the broadband providers are in a
little better position than other utilities, as these providers
have been participating in sustainability for decades. She
mentioned programs that have this function that are already in
place. She stated that the connections have a 30-year estimated
lifespan, but some engineers are now putting this at a 50-year
lifespan.
8:46:50 AM
MS. O'CONNOR, in response to a question from Representative
Himschoot, stated that the residential locations are called "the
last mile," and the same provider who brings broadband to the
community from the "middle mile" reaches these locations.
8:48:24 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:48 a.m. to 8:50 a.m.
8:50:33 AM
HEATHER CAVANAUGH, Vice President, External Affairs and
Corporate Communications, Alaska Communications, provided a
presentation, titled "Alaska Fiberoptic Project" [hard copy
included in the committee packet]. On slide 1 she pointed out
the list of the project's partners. She stated that Alaska
Communications is a statewide broadband provider serving some of
the school districts. The goal of the fiberoptic project is to
provide reliable, affordable, high-speed broadband in 20
unserved communities along the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers, as
seen on slide 2. She moved to slide 3 through slide 7 which
showed maps for the project. She stated that there are three
segments of the project, which starts in Holy Cross, moves to
the Kuskokwim River, past Bethel to Napakiak. She stated that
segment 1 is in partnership with Doyon, Limited, fully funded
through a NTAI grant, and in the permitting stage. Segment 2 is
in partnership with Tanana Chiefs Conference and Gana-A'Yoo,
Limited, and it is in the grant application stage; therefore,
not yet funded. Segment 3 is in partnership with the Calista
Corporation, and it is in the permitting stage. She added that
middle mile and last mile fiber cable will be brought to the
communities, and this includes each home, providing unlimited
and available Internet everywhere.
MS. CAVANAUGH stated that Alaska Communications is committed to
affordability, providing the same rates to every community as
provided in Anchorage and Fairbanks. She discussed the
Affordable Connectivity Program, which provides unlimited
service at $75 a month. She moved to slide 10, which shows the
timeline for the project. If everything goes as planned, she
said, the project should be complete in the winter of 2025.
8:54:28 AM
MS. CAVANAUGH, in response to a committee question, stated that
in this region along the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers, Alaska
Communications does not serve many of the schools. In response
to a follow-up question, she stated that another provider serves
the schools.
8:55:20 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE, referring to affordability, questioned
whether other providers are making the same affordable deal as
Alaska Communications.
MS. CAVANAUGH responded that she could only speak to the plans
offered by Alaska Communications. She added that NTAI grants
allow these plans to be affordable because this funding covers
the capital cost of the infrastructure. In response to a
follow-up question, she stated that Alaska Communications does
not cap data, and it has always offered unlimited Internet.
8:56:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY questioned why the BAG programs have data
caps.
MS. CAVANAUGH replied that the data caps she referenced are for
home internet usage. She stated that when Alaska Communications
serves school districts, it provides the internet speed the
district asks for, and this depends on whether the district has
fiber. She continued that this becomes a struggle when content
is brought from the Lower 48, and with limited capacity, this is
very expensive and not feasible to do unlimited data. She
stated that this is still evolving over time.
8:58:45 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE questioned whether the Internet could "live"
in Alaska.
MS. CAVANAUGH responded that in reference to the Internet living
in the Lower 48, this is an oversimplification. She continued
that the Internet could be based in Alaska; however, it would
have to be "hauled" to Alaska. She further explained the
complexity of internet servers and the technology.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE commented on the amount of money and
infrastructure coming to Alaska. He questioned whether there
are any plans to have "the Internet live in Alaska."
MS. O'CONNER responded that there has been discussion on this
topic. She stated that for IIJA to fund this, the statute
requires the unserved and underserved to be supplied with
Internet first. She expressed the opinion that doing more would
not fit this funding.
9:01:21 AM
MS. CAVANAUGH, in response to a committee question, replied that
the fiber cable has a very long lifespan, up to 50 years. She
stated that the electronics often need to be replaced and
maintained. She stated that what makes this affordable is the
federal and state funding.
9:02:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY addressed the urban areas that do not have
Internet. She questioned how the committee could be updated on
these areas.
MS. O'CONNOR replied that the Alaska Broadband Office would be
able to provide these updates. She stated that the director is
working on this problem, as it is a priority. She pointed out
that an eligible area will have less than 80 percent served.
She suggested that changing the map could address this.
9:04:29 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:04 a.m. to 9:10 a.m.
HB 144-REPEAL EDUCATION TAX CREDITS SUNSET
9:10:47 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 144, "An Act relating to education tax
credits; and providing for an effective date by repealing the
effective date of secs. 1, 2, and 21, ch. 61, SLA 2014."
9:11:20 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE opened public testimony on HB 144. After
ascertaining that there was no one who wished to testify, he
closed public testimony.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE announced that HB 144 was held over.
9:11:58 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:11 a.m. to 9:13 a.m.
HB 139-CORRESPONDENCE STUDY PROGRAM FUNDING
9:13:28 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 139, "An Act relating to funding for
correspondence study programs." [During the meeting on 4/19/23,
Amendment 2 was moved but did not pass.]
9:13:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to adopt Amendment 3 to HB 139,
labeled, 33-LS0582\B.5, Marx, 4/12/23, which reads as follows:
Page 1, line 8, following "multiplying":
Insert "(1)"
Page 1, line 9:
Delete "the special needs factor in
AS 14.17.420(a)(1) [90 PERCENT]"
Insert "90 percent; and
(2) the number obtained under (1) of this
subsection by the special needs factor in
AS 14.17.420(a)(1)"
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT referred to a letter the committee
received in January from seven superintendents who requested
more equity for the funding of special needs students in
correspondence schools. She stated that the provisions in the
amendment would affect about 10 percent of all special needs
students served, whether it is an extra learning opportunity
(ELO), a gifted student, or a student requiring an
individualized education program (IEP). She stated that the
request is for 90 percent plus the special needs funding factor
of 1.2 percent.
9:15:16 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE maintained his objection. He expressed
awareness of the referenced letter; however, he suggested that
the equity requested is already contained in the current
iteration of the proposed legislation.
9:16:11 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McCormick, McKay,
Himschoot, and Story voted in favor of the motion to adopt
Amendment 3 to HB 139. Representatives Prax and Ruffridge voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 was adopted by a vote of 4-
2.
9:17:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT [moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 7
to HB 139, as amended], labeled, 33-LS0582\B.11, Marx, 4/17/23,
which reads as follows which read as follows:
Page 1, lines 8 - 9:
Delete "multiplying the ADM of the correspondence
program by the special needs factor in
AS 14.17.420(a)(1) [90 PERCENT]"
Insert "determining [MULTIPLYING] the ADM of the
correspondence program reported under AS 14.17.500(a)
and 14.17.600(a) and, if the correspondence program
meets the requirements of (b) of this section,
multiplying the ADM of the correspondence program by
the special needs factor in AS 14.17.420(a)(1) [BY 90
PERCENT]"
Page 1, following line 9:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 14.17.430 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(b) To qualify for the special needs factor
multiplier under (a) of this section, a correspondence
program must
(1) offer gifted and talented education and
English learner services; and
(2) file with the department a plan that
indicates the gifted and talented education and
English learner services that gifted and talented
education and English learner students will receive."
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that correspondence schools
serve IEP students, English learners, and gifted students, and
they need additional support to meet their standards. She noted
that IEP students have federal requirements; however, these
other students with Tier II support should have accountability.
She continued that Conceptual Amendment 7 is an accountability
amendment, as it would provide assurance that the multiplier is
used for its intended purpose in correspondence schools. The
amendment would require a plan of service, similar to brick-and-
mortar schools, for English learners and gifted students.
9:19:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed the understanding that, per [the
Foundation Funding Formula], districts would receive a 20
percent funding [factor] for each special needs student, and
this would be multiplied by the number of special needs students
in the district. He questioned the accountability for any extra
funds from this.
9:23:39 AM
CHRIS REITAN, Superintendent, Craig School District, responded
that for students attending brick-and-mortar schools, there is a
1.2 special needs funding factor applied to every student. He
stated that brick-and-mortar schools and correspondence programs
are required to have IEPs for gifted students and service for
English language learners, regardless of funding. In response
to a follow-up question, he stated that any leftover funds go
into the general fund for the district, and its board will
allocate the funds. He advised that the special needs funding
factor is not a one-to-one correspondence with each student.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE added that the 1.2 funding factor does not go
to a specific student.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed the understanding that if a school
has 20 students with special needs, the school will receive the
same amount of funding.
MR. REITAN expressed the understanding that this would be
correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX made the point that currently there is no
accountability in districts for whether the funds are applied to
the intended purpose. He questioned why there should be any
additional requirements on correspondence schools. He argued
that currently the responsibility is on the parents of students
in correspondence schools, and this is a "better system."
9:27:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed the understanding that this is a
block grant; therefore, IEPs would have to be met, as this is a
federal requirement. She suggested that these block grants are
"eaten up" by special education students and nothing is left for
CTE, as it is not mandated. She questioned her understanding of
this.
MR. REITAN, in response, stated that all school districts have
access to Title 6B, which includes the federal grant for special
education, as well as the Carl Perkins Grant, which is CTE
funding. He stated these block grants do not come close to
covering costs for schools to run a CTE program or to meet the
needs of special needs students. He continued that all
districts must use general funds to offset these costs, and this
comes through the base student allocation.
9:30:10 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE clarified that the gifted and English learner
qualifiers are already met by correspondence schools.
MR. REITAN replied in the affirmative.
9:31:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT made the point that the delivery model
for correspondence schools is different. If additional funding
is to be given, she expressed the desire for more
accountability. She stated that this would add a plan
specifically made for correspondence schools, as the district's
plan would not sufficiently explain how the money is being used
and the students are being supported.
9:31:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed agreement that this is a different
model; however, there are already recording requirements for
special needs funds. He expressed the opinion that whoever is
delivering the services should be trusted, as there is no method
of accountability for any entity. He suggested that this would
add a "paperwork burden that nobody will look at."
9:33:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY clarified her understanding that now the
block grants and the factor funding is supposed to go to special
needs, CTE, and gifted students, and the amendment would make
this the same for correspondence programs.
MR. REITAN responded that his understanding of "block grants"
means title grants and federal dollars. He stated that specific
plans need to be made to receive these funds, and the plans must
be approved at the department level. Regarding the 1.2 factor
for gifted, English learners, and special needs students, he
said that all correspondence schools are required to develop a
student learning plan in collaboration with the parent and the
teacher, and if appropriate, a special education teacher. This
plan drives the program for the student and all the curriculum
purchases. For correspondence programs, many students have a
robust plan, so some of this is already built in.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY confirmed she was using the incorrect term,
"block grant," and she should have used the term "special needs
factor" instead. She questioned whether the amendment is
needed.
MR. REITAN replied that he concurs with Representative Prax's
interpretation, and no additional accountability measures are
needed.
9:37:44 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE maintained his objection.
9:37:52 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:37 a.m. to 9:38 a.m.
9:38:15 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McCormick,
Himschoot, and Story voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 7 to
HB 139, as amended. Representatives Prax, McKay, and Ruffridge
voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 7 failed by a
vote of 3-3.
9:38:54 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:38 a.m. to 9:44 a.m.
9:44:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY moved to adopt Amendment 8 to HB 139, as
amended, labeled, 33-LS0582\B.12, Marx, 4/14/23, which reads as
follows:
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "funding for"
Page 1, following line 2:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Section 1. AS 14.03.310(a) is amended to read:
(a) Except as provided in (e) of this section,
the department or a district that provides a
correspondence study program shall [MAY] provide an
annual student allotment to a parent or guardian of a
student enrolled in the correspondence study program
for the purpose of meeting instructional expenses for
the student enrolled in the program as provided in
this section."
Page 1, line 3:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 2"
Page 1, following line 9:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 14.17 is amended by adding a new
section to article 2 to read:
Sec. 14.17.530. Minimum expenditure for
instruction. (a) A district that provides a district
correspondence program, including a district that
offers a statewide correspondence study program, shall
budget for and spend on the correspondence program
component of the district budget in each fiscal year
an amount equal to at least 95 percent of the funding
allocated to the district for the correspondence
program under AS 14.17.430. The district shall spend
at least 60 percent of the amount calculated under
this subsection on annual student allotments required
under AS 14.03.310(a).
(b) The commissioner shall reject a district
budget that does not comply with (a) of this section
and, unless a waiver has been granted by the board
under (d) of this section, shall withhold payments of
state aid from that district, beginning with the
payment for the second full month after rejection and
continuing until the school board of the district
revises the district budget to comply with (a) of this
section.
(c) The commissioner shall review the annual
audit of each district for compliance with the
expenditure requirements of (a) of this section, and
calculate the amount of the deficiency, if any. If the
commissioner determines that a district does not meet
those requirements, the commissioner shall advise the
district of the determination and deduct that amount
from state aid paid to the district for the current
fiscal year. A deduction in state aid required under
this subsection begins with the payment for the second
full month after the determination, unless a waiver
has been granted by the board under (d) of this
section.
(d) A district that the commissioner determines
to be out of compliance with the requirements of this
section may, within 20 days after the commissioner's
determination, request from the board a waiver from
the imposition by the commissioner of a deduction in
state aid payments under (b) or (c) of this section.
The request must be in writing and must provide an
explanation of the reasons for which the district is
unable to comply with the requirements of this
section. The district shall also submit the request to
the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee. The
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee shall review
the district's request and forward its recommendations
on the request to the board. The board may grant the
waiver if the board determines that the district's
failure to meet the expenditure requirements of this
section is caused by circumstances beyond the control
of the district.
(e) The commissioner shall submit an annual
report on actions taken by the commissioner or the
board under this section to the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee by April 15 of each year.
(f) In this section, "correspondence program
component" means expenditures for a district
correspondence program."
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE objected.
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY stated that the amendment would put
spending requirements on correspondence school funds. He
deferred to his chief of staff for discussion.
9:44:48 AM
TREVOR JEPSEN, Staff, Representative Tom McKay, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative McKay, explained
Amendment 8. He stated that the first part of the amendment
would require 95 percent of correspondence funding to be spent
on the program. He continued that 60 percent of the remainder
of these funds must be used for student allotments. He stated
that the remainder of the amendment outlines the system for the
commissioner to affirm the policies. He stated that currently
in statute there is no spending requirement that the funds be
spent on correspondence students or allotments, so all the funds
are allocated to districts based on the number of correspondence
students. He suggested that there has been no evidence of the
misuse of funds; however, putting this into statute will make
sure this trend continues. He expressed the opinion that
student allotments should be increased, and this is the
underlying spirit of the bill.
MR. JEPSEN addressed the impact of the amendment and noted that,
with the passing of Amendment 3, the numbers in Conceptual
Amendment 8 are reduced by 10 percent. He added that under the
previous iteration of the bill, correspondence students' funding
would be increased to $7,142, and with this amendment, the
districts would have to spend 95 percent of this on the
correspondence program. He added that with the minimum student
allotments, this would be $4,071. He stated that the rest of
the funding would be used for overhead. He used the IDEA
correspondence program as an example to show how the amendment
would affect the current situation. He concluded that this
amendment would ensure the majority of the funds would go to the
students.
9:49:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX commented that the IDEA program is being
used as an example, and this program has a set of challenges;
however, other programs would have different challenges, such as
different administrative expenses. He argued that the amendment
would not account for this. He expressed the understanding that
the proposed amendment would prevent correspondence programs
from becoming bureaucratic; however, he suggested that this
would only work for urban programs. He expressed the fear that
there would be unintended consequences, and some programs may be
shut down.
9:51:47 AM
MR. JEPSEN responded that if a program cannot afford this, there
is a waiver system in place. He stated that he has reached out
to nine correspondence programs and discovered that this
allotment amount going to the student is common. In response to
a follow-up question, he stated that the waiver system is in
place, and this would help any new correspondence programs get
started. He suggested that there would be a process for
programs to expand or start anew.
9:54:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT requested that Mr. Reitan speak to the
amendment.
MR. REITAN expressed concern about elected school board members
maintaining local control of their budget. He suggested that
this would limit their ability. He expressed another concern
that the smaller correspondence programs would not be able to
survive the market, even with the waiver. He expressed the
opinion that with the proposed amendment, new programs would not
be able to start.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT questioned Mr. Jepsen whether any
district is currently giving more than 60 percent to the student
allotment.
MR. JEPSEN reiterated that of the schools he spoke with none
were giving more.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT expressed concern about local control
and sought to confirm that districts are currently spending the
funding they receive for correspondence programs on these
programs.
MR. JEPSEN replied that this is correct.
9:57:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX moved to table Amendment 8.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected. She expressed concern about
local control; therefore, tabling the amendment would not change
this.
9:58:25 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Prax, McCormack,
McKay, and Ruffridge voted in favor of the motion to table
Amendment 8 to HB 139, as amended. Representatives Story and
Himschoot voted against it. Therefore, by a vote of 4-2,
Amendment 8 was tabled.
9:59:02 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE announced that HB 139, as amended, was held
over.
9:59:20 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:59 a.m.