Legislature(2023 - 2024)DAVIS 106
04/28/2023 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 | |
| HB111 | |
| Presentation(s): Alaska's Education Funding | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 106 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 111 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
April 28, 2023
8:01 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
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Dan Ortiz
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 111
"An Act relating to public school students who are deaf or have
a hearing impairment."
- MOVED CSHB 111(EDC) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PRESENTATION(S): ALASKA'S EDUCATION FUNDING
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 111
SHORT TITLE: EDUCATION FOR DEAF & HEARING IMPAIRED
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) ALLARD
03/13/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/13/23 (H) HSS, EDC
03/22/23 (H) HSS REFERRAL REMOVED
03/22/23 (H) BILL REPRINTED
04/24/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
04/24/23 (H) Heard & Held
04/24/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/26/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
04/26/23 (H) Heard & Held
04/26/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/28/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
WITNESS REGISTER
LINDSEY CAUSER, Staff
Representative Jamie Allard
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Allard, prime
sponsor, presented the summary of changes for HB 111, Version S.
ED KING, Staff
Representative Tom McKay
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave the PowerPoint presentation, titled
"Alaska's Education Funding."
CONOR BELL, Analyst
Legislative Finance Division
Legislative Affairs Agency
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the PowerPoint
presentation, titled "Alaska's Education Funding."
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:01:00 AM
CO-CHAIR JAMIE ALLARD called the House Education Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:01 a.m. Representatives Prax,
McKay, Himschoot, Story, Ruffridge, and Allard were present at
the call to order. Representative McCormick arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 111-EDUCATION FOR DEAF & HEARING IMPAIRED
8:02:12 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 111, "An Act relating to public school
students who are deaf or have a hearing impairment." [Before
the committee, adopted as the work draft on 4/24/23, was the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 111, Version 33-
LS0504\S, Marx, 4/22/23, ("Version S").]
8:02:40 AM
LINDSEY CAUSER, Staff, Representative Jamie Allard, on behalf of
Representative Allard, prime sponsor, paraphrased from the
summary of changes for HB 111, Version S, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Section 1 was not in version A
This section allows parents to determine the child's
chosen method of communication, requires school
district to provide information regarding the tools
and resources available to the child, inform the
parents of their rights and the school districts
duties and provide services for their chosen method of
communication. It also includes key term definition.
Section 1 of version A is now Section 2 of version S:
This section will codify the existence of a
centralized school of the deaf, moving it from Admin
Code to Statue.
Section 2 of version A has now been deleted.
MS. CAUSER stated that the term "least restrictive environment"
is no longer in Version S. She continued that Legislative Legal
Services had been referred to on the differences between
"administrative code" and "statute," and it was explained that
an item in administrative code could be changed at any time by
the department, while statute would provide more security. She
continued that by putting the proposed legislation in statute it
would give the deaf community more security.
8:05:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY questioned why "least restrictive
environment" was removed from Version S.
MS. CAUSER responded that the initial iteration of the bill had
caused concern that deaf and hard of hearing students would be
forced to go to school in Anchorage, while Version S would allow
more clarity concerning parental rights.
8:06:24 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:06 a.m. to 8:15 a.m.
8:16:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed appreciation for the explanation
that "least restrictive environment" did refer to an education
environment.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY questioned whether there had been a
consideration to add a provision for parental training on the
chosen teaching methods. She stated that parents have related
to her that school districts have not helped them learn sign
language or pay for an interpreter.
MS. CAUSER replied that on page 1, line 5 to line 15 of the
proposed bill, the school districts would be directed to provide
information, including giving directions on different methods of
communication. She then directed attention to page 2 of the
bill, line 3 to line 6, which would also require that districts
provide services. She stated that the intention is standard
information and training would be provided, so parents would
understand the different methods of communication to choose
from.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY questioned whether districts would be
required to provide training to parents on the teaching method.
She expressed the opinion that this is missing from Version S.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD expressed disagreement.
8:19:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE moved to report CSHB 111, Version 33-
LS0504\S, Marx, 4/22/23, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objections, CSHB 111(EDC) was reported out of the House
Education Standing Committee.
8:20:06 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:20 a.m. to 8:21 a.m.
8:21:07 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD reiterated that CSHB 111(EDC) was reported out
of the House Education Standing Committee.
8:21:15 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:21:15 a.m. to 8:23 a.m.
8:23:52 AM
^PRESENTATION(S): Alaska's Education Funding
PRESENTATION(S): Alaska's Education Funding
8:24:15 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that the final order of business would
be the review of Alaska's education funding.
8:25:06 AM
ED KING, Staff, Representative Tom McKay, gave a PowerPoint
presentation, titled "Alaska's Education Funding" [hard copy
included in the committee packet]. He stated that the
presentation will address the different funding mechanisms for
the districts across Alaska, and it will answer two questions,
as seen on slide 2. He stated that the first question concerns
where the funding for education in the state comes from, while
the second question addresses why this funding is higher than
the average in the country. He reiterated that the presentation
is an exploration and not based on statistical analysis.
MR. KING, in response to Co-Chair Allard, shared that he is a
professional economist. He stated that he is currently the
committee resources aide for Representative McKay. He stated
that he is available to help in terms of his expertise on data.
He continued that he is presenting available data to the public
in different ways to "spark questions." He cautioned against
taking the presentation as advice.
MR. KING moved to slide 4 and addressed the sources of the
state's education funding in 2023. He pointed out that funds
come from the local and the federal governments. He stated that
the Foundation Formula and the base student allocation (BSA)
calculation generates around 40 percent of all funding; however,
he advised that it is more complicated than this. He pointed
out that the 2023 funding estimate is $2.7 billion.
8:28:47 AM
MR. KING moved to slide 5, showing 2020 data from the most
recent national census report. From this data, which includes
the Foundation Formula plus other grants, the state distributes
to the school districts around $1.2 billion. On top of this,
the state also provides transportation funding and indirect
funding, which are separate from the Foundation Formula, with a
total of $1.6 billion. He stated that local governments also
contribute to districts and this totals $516 million. He
pointed out that most of the federal funding is impact aid, and
this is funding for schools with children whose parents are
federal employees. He stated that this plus other sources total
$381.8 million. In response to a committee question, he stated
that the slide only shows revenue streams and not the cost of
the actual program.
MR. KING, in response to a committee question, stated that on
slide 5 school bond debt reimbursement and building maintenance
are represented under "other funding." He reiterated that the
slide is only showing revenue streams and not expenditures.
Continuing, he stated that the total funding from slide 5 going
to the school districts in 2020 was $2.6 billion. He moved to
slide 6, which showed a historic comparison of funding. He
pointed out the difference between the 2021 budget and the
budgeting for 2024, as there is an inflation value. He reminded
the committee that because the level of funding has not
increased, the funding represented is actually below this level.
He concurred with a statement from Representative Himschoot,
that if the total funding increases, it is not necessarily an
increase in state funding, as it could be because of federal or
local increases.
MR. KING pointed out the bump in funding in 2015, as seen on
slide 7. He stated that the bump only concerns state funding,
as everything else stayed flat. He explained that this was to
reduce the districts unfunded liability to retirement accounts.
He explained this further and pointed out that the fund transfer
in 2015 was to reduce future payments to the unfunded liability,
as after this the funding flattened.
8:36:25 AM
MR. KING concurred with Co-Chair Allard, that there was an
increase in education funding from 2002 to 2020; however, he
stated that this graph is not adjusted for inflation. In
response to a follow-up question, he stated that BSA is included
in the grant portion of the graph. He estimated that the
funding for education since 2002 is at an 80 or 90 percent
increase.
MR. KING, in response to Representative Story, stated that the
adjustment for inflation would be about 55 percent. He remarked
that when oil prices rose in 2008 and 2009, there was a
significant change to the Foundation Formula. He stated that
considering this would change the rate relative to inflation.
In response to a follow-up question, he reiterated that this is
only looking at revenue taken in by districts. He added that
the school districts have the capability to move funding streams
through different categories of expenditures.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD suggested that if school districts do not have
enough transportation funding, they can reallocate funds into
transportation.
MR. KING stated that this might have been the case.
8:40:12 AM
MR. KING, in response to Representative Himschoot, stated that
the district-cost factor was added in 1998, and the factors
themselves have changed at least once since then.
MR. KING moved to slide 8 and pointed out the state funding for
school districts is much greater than the local funding. He
explained that this is one of the reasons used to explain why
Alaska's state funding for education is higher than other
states. He discussed the difference between state and local
contributions for education and explained that Alaska's
constitution requires the legislature to be the appropriating
body, and this is why education funding in Alaska relies more
heavily on state funding.
MR. KING, in response to Representative Prax, concurred that the
state's constitution uses the term "maintain" for education, as
opposed to the term "fund;" however, he expressed the
understanding that the courts have interpreted the language to
be defined to include funding.
MR. KING, in response to Representative Story, stated that slide
8 is not inflation proofed. He said that he would follow up
with this information to the committee. In response to a
question from Representative Prax, he stated that comparing the
adjusted inflation in other industries would be beyond the scope
of the presentation, and it would take considerable time.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed the understanding that the
Legislative Finance Division has made an adjustment for
inflation, and it shows that the state's education system has
lost "buying power." She expressed doubt that this has been
done between different industries.
8:46:34 AM
CONOR BELL, Analyst, Legislative Finance Division, Legislative
Affairs Agency, Alaska State Legislature, stated that when the
finance division adjusts for inflation for education it uses the
consumer price index (CPI) for all items; however, it has been
acknowledged that the cost structure for school districts may be
different, and not perfectly represented by CPI. He continued
that it would be difficult to individualize all the items.
MR. KING, on the same topic, cautioned against evaluating
inflation without understanding exactly what is being compared.
He explained why this is important.
8:49:06 AM
MR. KING moved to slide 9, which looks at the state and local
proportional funding since 2002. He pointed out that the state
is the primary funder of education, and its share has increased
slightly. He moved to slide 10, which looked at the wide range
of state and local education funding splits in the country. He
pointed out that Alaska has one of the higher rates of state
funding at 74 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT pointed out the adjustment for CPI
applies mainly to Anchorage. She expressed the understanding
that another adjustment beyond CPI needs to happen in rural
places in the state.
MR. KING replied that this is one of the state's biggest
problems. He explained that data for rural and small
communities is lacking, so the information from the urban
centers tends to overtake; however, because of the small size of
population in the rural places, this data does not change the
numbers very much. In addition, he added that there is an
effect in the rural communities that is not captured in urban
data. He stated that he would speak to this later in the
presentation. In response to a follow-up question concerning
county funding in the Lower 48, he stated that all funding from
the local level subunits is contained in the local funding
category.
8:52:56 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD commented that in her research she has found
states with higher state spending on education have poorer
education results.
MR. KING replied that the whole point in visualizing data is to
invite these questions. He continued that it is interesting;
however, he would need to check the data for validity.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY responded that Minnesota [which has higher
state spending on education] has a strong achievement record in
education, but there is a high achievement gap in the
subpopulations.
MR. KING, in response, stated that the key question would be how
to fund government, whether the money stays where it is
collected, or whether it should be distributed to other
districts where it is needed.
8:54:50 AM
MR. KING, moving to slide 11, pointed out that Alaska receives
more per capita in federal funding than any other state. In
response to a question from Representative Story, he expressed
the belief that the graphic shows the state receives more
federal funding because of the military infrastructure and
federal employees. In response to a follow-up, he stated that
the state receives more federal funding in [other state
departments as well], not just education.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT commented on the amount of national
forests in the state and questioned whether funding in relation
to this would go to the schools.
MR. KING replied there would be additional federal funding for
federal lands in the jurisdiction, but this would not
necessarily be tied to school funding, but as it is
unrestricted, it could be used for this purpose.
8:58:13 AM
MR. KING moved to slide 13 to look at the large picture of how
the state spends its educational funding. He noted that Alaska
is a "high spending state" when it comes to education, and
according to the most recent data this is $18,313 per student in
fiscal year 2020. To align with the average in the country, the
state would need to cut around $6 million in the budget. He
pointed out that the high operating costs in Alaska create a
per-student amount of $1,020 above the national average. He
expressed the understanding that the number of small schools
contributes to these uncontrollable costs.
MR. KING, in response to Representative Story, stated that
operating costs would cover maintenance, insurance, sewer,
utilities, and major operations. He added that some salaries
and benefits are included in this. Continuing with the
presentation, he stated that Alaska has a higher cost of living
than other states; therefore, even if it were at the national
average, there still would need to be more funding. He stated
that making this adjustment, as seen on slide 15, would explain
around $91 million of the additional funding. He added that the
cost of rural areas also explains the additional amounts, but he
does not have this data. He pointed out the differences between
urban school funding and rural school funding on slide 16. It
indicated that rural schools have a higher cost of operation.
MR. KING stated that if the higher operating costs and the cost
of living are removed, there is still $400 million in
unexplained additional cost over the average. If this amount is
separated between the data for instruction and the data for
support, as seen on slide 17, he pointed out that about $153
million is contributed to instruction, while $240 million is for
nonoperating support. He discussed these definitions and
amounts in detail.
MR. KING, in response to a committee question, stated that
paraprofessionals are included in the instruction category, as
the support category would be the funding to send teachers to
conferences. He stated that if it were direct training for
instruction, it would be in the instruction category, while
general training would be in the support category.
9:07:57 AM
MR. KING moved to slide 19, which compared data of the 50 states
broken down into the individual categories of instruction versus
support. The graph showed that, after a cost-of-living
adjustment, Alaska is around the national average for the cost
of instruction; however, considering the need for a raise in pay
for teachers in rural Alaska, he pointed out this actually
should be considered lower than average pay for teachers. He
indicated that the data shows that any additional education
funding is not going to the teachers. He suggested that the
higher cost of instruction in the state is because of the
unfunded liabilities for retirement plans for teachers who have
already retired.
MR. KING, in response to a committee question, stated that term
benefits do include health care costs; however, he expressed
uncertainty concerning how much of the benefits are health care
costs. He stated that other state departments in Alaska also
must account for the unfunded liability.
9:11:38 AM
MR. KING, moving to slide 21, remarked that if the state were to
fund education on the national average, it would cost around
$1.8 billion in total funding from all sources. Amounts not
included in this are $135 million from the higher cost of
operations and $91 million from the higher cost of living. He
surmised that not much could be done about either of these. He
explained that teacher benefits, support, and some other things
are somewhat controllable. He moved to slide 24 to show a
breakdown of what contributes to higher-than-average education
funding in the support category. He pointed out that general
administrative costs are not higher than average, and he
suggested gains cannot be made here. He stated that the two
largest categories are pupil support and instructional staff
support, and these could be reviewed. In response to a
committee question, he reiterated that the graph on the slide
only shows the additional expenditures in the support category,
and the instruction category is not included.
MR. KING, discussing slide 25, indicated that the graph shows
the cost of instruction support has grown much faster than any
other category, and this could be of interest. In response to a
committee question, he stated that classroom aides would be
counted under instruction, not instruction support.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY suggested that because of the increase in
training with technology, the growth in instruction support
would "make sense."
MR. KING pointed out that, the way the chart of accounts is
written, if you were delivering education directly as a teacher,
this would be counted as instruction, while using technology
outside of the classroom would be counted as instruction
support. He stated that it is of interest that the cost of
instruction has grown; however, special education (SPED)
instruction and support has grown at a faster rate. He moved to
the next slide to show an up-close view of the change in cost of
instructional support by district. He indicated that the rural
areas have a more dramatic change. In response to a committee
comment, he stated that the dramatic change in the funding for
the Lower Kuskokwim School District could be because of the
bilingual program, but it could also be contributed to the
certified teacher program. He noted that special needs funding
outpaced other instruction growth. In respect to what this
means, he discussed how the Funding Formula addresses special
needs funding with the average daily membership (ADM) multiplier
and the intensive needs multiplier.
9:25:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT commented that federal law requires
funding for SPED; however, much of SPED in the state is unfunded
by the federal government.
MR. KING pointed out there are additional funds for SPED from
other sources, in addition to the state funding. He added that,
if overfunded, these funds could be used for other needs.
MR. KING, in response to a question from Representative Prax
concerning tracking SPED funding, replied that it can be
determined how much is being spent on the two categories of
special needs instruction and special needs support. Continuing
to slide 28, he pointed out that special needs funding is higher
than expenditures. He advised that he is not making any policy
recommendations; however, he noted that from a study in 2015, it
was pointed out SPED funding is not tied to the number of
students who require these needs. He stated that the study
observed that some districts are over funded while others are
underfunded. He discussed the variety of ways districts could
be categorizing SPED students, which would create unverifiable
data.
9:30:59 AM
MR. KING, in response to a committee question, replied that the
graph on slide 28 should include English learners and gifted
students; however, it would be up to district reporting. In
response to a follow-up question, he stated that the expenditure
line on the graph contains two categories reported by districts.
He added that he has made no analysis regarding this.
MR. KING, in response to a committee question, replied that the
chart has not been inflation proofed. He explained that if both
lines on the graph were inflation proofed, the distance between
the lines would still be the same. He continued that he is
unaware of a reported number of SPED students. He added that
the number of intensive-needs students is reported, and the
number of these students has increased.
9:34:08 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
9:34:13 AM
MR. KING, in response to a committee question concerning the
number of students included in SPED, replied that districts
report expenditures as special needs to the department;
therefore, he does not have this information. In response to a
follow-up question, he expressed the opinion that a SPED
classroom would be a classroom where the teacher is a SPED
instructor. In response, he stated that the funding for
intensive special needs is included in the graph, combined with
special needs funding.
9:36:41 AM
MR. KING, in addressing the next slide, observed that Alaska may
not want to be average; therefore, the premise might not be
correct that the state is spending more money than the average.
He added that this would be a policy decision for the
legislature. He pointed to the graph on slide 29 and stated
that this shows all 50 states plotted per the proficiency of
their fourth graders, compared to instruction spending, and
adjusted for the cost of living per student. He stated that
cost of operations was not included because it is distortive.
He suggested that if more money were spent in the classroom for
instruction, the results would be better. He explained that the
states above the line on the graph may be outspending their
results, while states below the line have better results than
expected. He pointed out that Alaska is above the line because
of the higher benefits and the unfunded liability, and once this
is adjusted for, Alaska would be on the line, which represents
the average. In response to a committee question, he explained
that outcomes on this graphic represent the proficiency of the
fourth graders on the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) test. He continued that this shows the number
of students who scored above basic. He moved to the last slide,
which listed the takeaways from the presentation.
9:40:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT commented that a decision needs to be
made on how to measure the success of Alaska's schools. She
further discussed whether this should be with or without tests.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed agreement with Representative
Himschoot on determining outcomes.
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY expressed the importance of determining
where this significant amount of money is going.
9:43:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed appreciation that the
presentation confirmed some other findings. She expressed
interest in learning more about the support categories. She
discussed some fixed costs and how these may be increasing.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD commented that BSA is not the only funding for
education.
9:45:43 AM
MR. KING, in response to closing comments, stated that using the
value metric was important because a common base of comparison
should be used if there is going to be a comparison with other
states. He allowed that it is not the only metric that could
have been used. He stated that how the state wants to determine
success is a decision the legislature should make. He suggested
that whatever is measured should be measured over time. He
commented that districts' cost factors have been static for
decades; however, the cost of fuel is not static, so when the
cost of fuel goes up, this comes out of the classroom. He
suggested that there are better opportunities for the state to
allocate its funding, as discussed in the presentation.
9:47:08 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:47 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Alaska Education Funding.pptx |
HEDC 4/28/2023 8:00:00 AM |
Alaska Education Funding |
| HB111 Summary of Changes.pdf |
HEDC 4/28/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 111 |