Legislature(2023 - 2024)DAVIS 106
04/08/2024 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 | |
| HB392 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 392 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
April 8, 2024
8:11 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 Julie Coulombe
Representative Will Stapp
Representative Dan Ortiz
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 392
"An Act relating to education; relating to funding for Internet
services for school districts; relating to charter schools;
relating to transportation of public school students; relating
to correspondence study funding; relating to the base student
allocation; relating to funding for reading improvement plans;
relating to teacher retention and recruitment incentives; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 392(EDC) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 392
SHORT TITLE: EDUCATION FUNDING
SPONSOR(s): RESOURCES
03/18/24 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/18/24 (H) EDC, FIN
03/27/24 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
03/27/24 (H) Heard & Held
03/27/24 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/08/24 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
WITNESS REGISTER
TREVOR JEPSEN, Staff
Representative Tom McKay
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
392 on behalf of Representative McKay, prime sponsor.
DEBORAH RIDDLE, Director
Division of Innovation and Education Excellence
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
CSHB 392, Version T.
CHARLES VAN KIRK, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 392.
LUANN MCVEY, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 392.
LISA PARADY, Executive Director
Alaska Council of School Administrators
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 392 on behalf of
the Alaska Council of School Administrators.
DAVID NEES, representing self
Cooper Landing, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 392.
PENNY VADLA, representing self
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 392.
RACHEL LORD, representing self
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 392.
CAROLINE STORM, Executive Director
Coalition for Education Equity
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 392.
WINTER MARSHALL-ALLEN, representing self
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 392.
PATRICE LEE, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 392.
WILL MULDOON, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 392.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:11:28 AM
CO-CHAIR JAMIE ALLARD called the House Education Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:11 a.m. Representatives Prax,
McCormick, McKay, Himschoot, Story, Allard, and Ruffridge were
present at the call to order. Also present were Representatives
Coulombe, Stapp, and Ortiz.
HB 392-EDUCATION FUNDING
8:12:05 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 392, "An Act relating to education; relating
to funding for Internet services for school districts; relating
to charter schools; relating to transportation of public school
students; relating to correspondence study funding; relating to
the base student allocation; relating to funding for reading
improvement plans; relating to teacher retention and recruitment
incentives; and providing for an effective date."
8:12:53 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:12 a.m. to 8:13 a.m.
8:13:56 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 392, Version 33-LS1453\T, Bergerud,
3/28/24, as the work draft.
8:14:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT objected. She said she supported the
original version and would be able to withdraw a lot of
amendments if the committee were working with the original.
8:14:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY noted the importance of putting the changes
before the committee so the public could be aware.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD confirmed that was forthcoming.
8:15:17 AM
TREVOR JEPSEN, Staff, Representative Tom McKay, Alaska State
Legislature, provided an explanation of the proposed committee
substitute (CS) to HB 392, Version T. He briefly summarized the
sections that would be amended in the CS.
8:17:53 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 8:17 a.m.
8:18:04 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Prax, McKay,
Allard, and Ruffridge voted in favor of CSHB 392, Version T.
Representatives McCormick, Himschoot, and Story voted against
it. Therefore, CSHB 392, Version T, was adopted as the working
document by a vote of 4-3.
8:18:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY noted that public testimony was referenced
on the agenda.
8:19:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to adopt Amendment 1 to CSHB 392,
Version T, labeled 33-LS1453\T.11, Bergerud, 3/28/24, which read
as follows:
Page 6, line 7:
Delete "$6,640"
Insert "$7,373"
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that the amendment would
adjust the base student allocation (BSA) to reflect an amount
that would restore districts to an inflation adjustment.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD asked whether Representative Himschoot was
taking the increase from the permanent fund dividend (PFD).
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT affirmed that must be worked out.
8:20:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY offered her belief that the amendment was
strategically important for districts to have some certainty, as
they have been left scrambling. It would give them a clear
increase to help them plan and send a message to the public how
much education is valued. She further noted the high cost of
inflation, not using COVID-19 dollars, and she opined that [the
proposed increase] was affordable.
8:22:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked for clarity that the BSA would
increase to $1,413 under Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT responded, "It would increase the BSA
by $1,413."
8:22:44 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Himschoot, Story,
and McCormick voted in favor of Amendment 1 to HB 392, Version
T. Representatives McKay, Prax, Allard, and Ruffridge voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed to be adopted by a
vote of 3-4.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to adopt Amendment 2 to CSHB 392,
Version T, labeled 33-LS1453\T.15, Bergerud, 3/29/24, which read
as follows:
Page 1, line 6, through page 2, line 1:
Delete all material.
Page 2, line 2:
Delete "Sec. 2"
Insert "Section 1"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, line 26, through page 3, line 31:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that Amendment 2 would delete
the section authorizing the state board to authorize charter
schools. It is a significant policy change, and it would
provide more accurate numbers on waitlists for charter schools,
she said. She offered to revisit the section in the future.
8:24:57 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McCormick,
Himschoot, and Story voted in favor of Amendment 2 to CSHB 392,
Version T. Representatives McKay, Prax, Allard, and Ruffridge
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 T, failed to be
adopted by a vote of 3-4.
8:25:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to adopt Amendment 3 to CSHB 392,
Version T, labeled 33-LS1453\T.28, Bergerud, 4/1/24, which read
as follows:
Page 1, line 6, through page 2, line 12:
Delete all material.
Page 2, line 13:
Delete "Sec. 3"
Insert "Section 1"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, line 26, through page 3, line 31:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 6, following line 16:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 6. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
REPORT TO LEGISLATURE. The Department of
Education and Early Development shall, before
February 28, 2025, study or commission a study
relating to charter schools in the state, prepare a
report on the study, and deliver a copy of the report
to the senate secretary and the chief clerk of the
house of representatives and notify the legislature
that the report is available. The study and report
must address the following:
(1) the purpose of charter schools in the
state;
(2) the reasons parents choose to enroll
children in charter schools;
(3) the effect of charter schools on
traditional public schools;
(4) a comparison of the academic
performance of students attending charter schools with
the academic performance of students attending
traditional public schools;
(5) whether more charter schools are needed
in the state to meet the demand for charter schools in
the state;
(6) the efficacy of the current charter
school approval and appeal process; and
(7) recommendations regarding the future of
charter schools in the state."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that Amendment 3 does
something similar to Amendment 2 but takes it a step further in
that it would add a charter school appeals process and a study.
The study is in reference to making sound policies and knowing
more about how charter schools work and whether there should be
more of them. She noted there is nothing currently specific to
Alaska charter schools.
8:26:46 AM
MR. JEPSEN stated, "We do not support the amendment."
8:26:56 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Himschoot, Story,
and McCormick voted in favor of Amendment 3 to CSHB 392, Version
T. Representatives Prax, McKay, Allard, and Ruffridge voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 failed to be adopted by a
vote of 3-4.
8:27:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to adopt Amendment 4 to CSHB 392,
Version T, labeled 33-LS1453\T.10, Bergerud, 3/29/24, which read
as follows:
Page 1, following line 11:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(b) Before the board authorizes a charter
school under this section, a local school board shall
review the application for the charter school. Within
60 days after receiving the complete application for
review, the local school board shall issue a written
decision to the board recommending either approval or
denial of the application. The written decision must
include all relevant findings of fact and conclusions
of law."
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that Amendment 4 would add a
layer of local input as how to shape the charter school to make
it better. The proposed amendment would keep a local control
aspect to the process and the local board would not be left out,
she said.
8:28:26 AM
MR. JEPSEN stated that he had not heard the idea, and although
there could be potential merit to it, he indicated [the timing
of adding this concept] was "too soon" if the bill were to move
out of committee today. He suggested the policy could be
revisited at a later time.
8:28:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY opined that the amendment was reasonable,
supported local boards, and would be helpful in the decision-
making process.
8:29:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT apologized that the amendments are a
"first look" for many people and shared her understanding was
that public testimony would be today and amendments at a date to
follow.
8:30:10 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:30 a.m. to 8:34 a.m.
8:34:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 4 was adopted.
8:35:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to adopt Amendment 5 to CSHB 392,
Version T, labeled 33-LS1453\T.18, Bergerud, 3/29/24, which read
as follows:
Page 2, following line 1:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 14.03.255(b) is amended to read:
(b) A charter school shall
(1) keep financial records of the charter
school;
(2) oversee the operation of the charter
school to ensure that the terms of the contract
required by (c) of this section are being met;
(3) meet regularly with parents and with
teachers of the charter school to review, evaluate,
and improve operations of the charter school; [AND]
(4) meet with the academic policy committee
at least once each year to monitor progress in
achieving the committee's policies and goals; and
(5) submit a report to the department by
March 31 and October 31 of each year that includes
(A) the current charter school capacity,
including how many students may enroll in each grade;
(B) the number of students enrolled in each
grade;
(C) the number of students on the charter
school's waiting list;
(D) the name and grade of each student on
the charter school's waiting list;
(E) the number of teachers employed at the
charter school and the grade levels for which each
teacher provides instruction; and
(F) the number of vacant teacher positions
at the charter school and the corresponding grade
levels for each vacancy."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that the concept behind
Amendment 5 goes back to what she opined was missing data that
would help create better policy. Charter schools would submit a
report twice a year relating to their capacity and what
waitlists look like. The amendment would allow a closer look at
this sector of public schools.
8:36:29 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD asked whether the Department of Education and
Early Development (DEED) had staff present to answer questions.
8:36:48 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:36 a.m. to 8:37 a.m.
8:37:30 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD asked Mr. Jepsen whether reporting is required
of all public schools or is being requested from just charter
schools.
MR. JEPSEN deferred to DEED to touch on reporting and tracking
procedures.
8:37:58 AM
DEBORAH RIDDLE, Director, Division of Innovation and Education
Excellence, Department of Education and Early Development,
confirmed that DEED collects data on student demographics and
counts per grade by school, but DEED does not collect
information on waiting lists.
8:38:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that she was looking for ways
to have firm data to guide policy making as to what wait lists
consist of, and for families to be accommodated. There are
unique things about charter schools that she opined "we are not
getting."
MS. RIDDLE related the timelines when DEED collected various
data but stated that DEED did not collect the capacity.
8:40:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked Ms. Riddle whether she had
current information on waitlists.
MS. RIDDLE confirmed she did not.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT inquired what the waitlists look like
in October and in March and whether charter schools need to be
added. She stressed that that Amendment 5
would help to get the specific data.
MS. RIDDLE clarified that DEED could add the data collection
about wait lists in the summer.
8:41:38 AM
MR. JEPSEN said that currently it is up to the individual
districts to publish those numbers, and it is up to them to
choose if the information will be made public.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD asked whether the numbers could be acquired by
local government control.
MR. JEPSEN concurred that was correct.
8:42:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT observed that we [the legislature] are
now making a state level policy on something that has always
been locally handled, and she asked whether state level data
would be needed to inform that policy.
MR. JEPSEN replied that that would be a policy call and it could
be an option, but it should be left to committee members.
8:43:18 AM
MS. RIDDLE added that DEED collects only that data which is
required through regulation in statute.
8:43:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT offered her appreciation for the input
into the amendment and maintained that the legislature needed
clear data to make big decisions, and since charter schools are
high performing, she offered her belief that it is a big
decision the legislature must make whether to change a system
that already performs well.
8:44:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked the amendment maker why the level of
data was needed in reference to the name and grade of each
student on the charter school waiting list.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT assured Representative Prax that the
data would not be made public; it would be an internal data
point. The specific data would be needed so a potential family
could put their names on multiple lists, she explained.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX sought clarity as to why the number of
teachers and the grades they provide instruction for would be a
requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said the justification is to get a
sense of class sizes at charter schools and to have the
information for neighborhood schools as well.
8:45:45 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD commented that general information on public
schools is already available, and she expressed that the
proposed amendment could be a privacy concern.
8:46:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY questioned why Amendment 5 would gather
more information for charter schools than is gathered for public
schools.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD reiterated that charter schools are public
schools.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT responded that if information is not
being gathered for neighborhood schools, then she would welcome
an amendment to do that. She said the proposed amendment deals
with the change being made to charter school policies and she
expressed that it would be nice to have the data with the intent
to help make informed decisions.
8:47:15 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McCormick,
Himschoot, and Story voted in favor of Amendment 5 to CSHB 392,
Version T. Representatives Prax, McKay, Allard, and Ruffridge
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 5 failed to be adopted
by a vote of 3-4.
8:47:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to adopt Amendment 6 to CSHB 392,
Version T, labeled 33-LS1453\T.9, Bergerud, 3/28/24, which read
as follows:
Page 1, line 2, following "funding":
Insert "and programs"
Page 2, following line 25:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 4. AS 14.03.310 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(f) A district that provides for an annual
student allotment under this section shall annually
provide a copy of the records maintained by the
district under (d)(3) of this section to the
department. The department shall maintain a database
that contains the records maintained by the department
and districts under (d)(3) of this section."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that the amendment added a
new subsection to the bill that would help to track how the
student allotment is being used. There would be a report to
DEED and the department would keep a record of how families are
using the allotment. With the investment, she said she hoped
for a good sense of how the public dollar is being invested.
8:48:57 AM
MR. JEPSEN clarified that it is reported online how much of the
allotments are offered to parents, and he offered his belief
that the additional counting of the funds and where they are
spent are not tracked.
8:49:37 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 8:49 a.m.
8:49:57 AM
MS. RIDDLE explained that the allotments to correspondence
schools are up to the districts to collect and track.
8:50:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT offered final comments and noted that
state public dollars are being invested in correspondence
schools and the state is about to make an even greater
investment; therefore, she said she felt there should be some
accounting for the investment at the state level. She clarified
that as a policy maker, she was challenging the reporting and
wished to know how the allotments would be used.
8:51:15 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Story, McCormick,
and Himschoot voted in favor of Amendment 6 to CSHB 392, Version
T. Representatives Prax, McKay, Allard, and Ruffridge voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 6 failed to be adopted by a
vote of 3-4.
8:51:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to adopt Amendment 7 to CSHB 392,
Version T, labeled 33-LS1453\T.25, Bergerud, 4/1/24, which read
as follows:
Page 1, line 3, following "plans;":
Insert "relating to national board certification
for teachers;"
Page 6, following line 8:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 8. AS 14.20 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 14.20.225. Teacher incentive payments and
reimbursement of costs relating to national board
certification. (a) In January of each year, a district
or the department, as applicable, may pay an incentive
payment of $5,000 to each teacher who is employed by
the district or the department and who holds a current
and valid national board certification.
(b) A district or the department, as applicable,
shall reimburse each teacher who is employed by the
district or the department and who is pursuing a
national board certification for the costs the teacher
incurs in pursuing the national board certification.
The district or the department, as applicable, shall
reimburse the teacher on an ongoing basis for the
costs incurred by the teacher and not later than 60
days after the teacher makes a request for
reimbursement.
(c) The department shall provide sufficient
funding, subject to appropriation and in addition to
the state aid received under AS 14.17, to a district
to make national board certification incentive and
reimbursement payments as provided in this section.
(d) Nothing in this section prohibits a district
or the department from providing additional monetary
incentives to a teacher.
(e) In this section,
(1) "district" has the meaning given in
AS 14.17.990;
(2) "national board certification" means
individual achievement of national professional
teaching standards as certified by a nationally
recognized board."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 6, following line 16:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 10. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
APPLICABILITY. (a) Section 8 of this Act applies
to a contract or collective bargaining agreement that
becomes legally binding on or after the effective date
of sec. 8 of this Act.
(b) AS 14.20.225(b), added by sec. 8 of this
Act, applies to costs a teacher incurs on or after the
effective date of sec. 8 of this Act."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that the intention of the
amendment would add an important way to improve overall teacher
quality to districts and would provide a pay incentive to
teachers who have achieved National Board Certification.
8:52:40 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD asked whether the bonuses would include
maintenance workers, janitors, and administrative staff.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that there may be a way it
could be done for classified staff, as they have certain
standards they could work towards; however, there is no
formalized program currently set up.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD asked for an idea of where in the budget "this
would come from."
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT responded that the incentive should be
considered on its merits and would be figured out if it is a
good idea.
8:54:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK commented that questions [about the
budget] are better suited for the next committee of referral,
the House Finance Committee. He added that the legislature has
a responsibility to look at the policy choices they are making.
8:54:48 AM
MR. JEPSEN noted that an earlier version of the bill included a
teacher incentive program but was taken out. He added that he
fully supported a teacher incentive program but for a separate
bill. He pointed out the incentive language in the proposed
amendment is a "may" clause and there is no requirement that the
bonuses would even get paid.
8:55:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked the sponsor of the amendment whether
school districts would be prohibited from paying the bonus at
the current time.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT referred to subsection (c), line 18,
and explained that the district would function on a
reimbursement basis and choose whether to offer the incentive.
8:56:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY reiterated that he opposed the amendment
and maintained his objection.
8:57:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT opined that the amendment offers a way
to improve teacher quality in the state and would be an
important tool to incentivize teachers. Those who succeed could
be reimbursed, she said.
8:57:59 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Himschoot, Story,
and McCormick voted in favor of Amendment 7 to CSHB 392, Version
T. Representatives Prax, McKay, Allard, and Ruffridge voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 7 failed to be adopted by a
vote of 3-4.
8:58:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to adopt Amendment 8 to CSHB 392,
Version T, labeled 33-LS1453\T.8, Bergerud, 3/29/24, which read
as follows:
Page 6, lines 4 - 5:
Delete "multiplying the ADM of the correspondence
program by the special needs funding factor as
provided in AS 14.17.420(a)(1) ["
Insert "using [MULTIPLYING] the ADM of the
correspondence program reported under AS 14.17.500(a)
and 14.17.600(a) [BY"
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY objected.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY explained that the amendment would allow
correspondence programs to receive the full average daily
membership (ADM) multiplier only in the foundation formula, and
it would create a much more reasonable amount, she stated.
8:59:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT noted that the formula was requested by
superintendents last session and that she strongly supported the
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX offered his belief that providing the extra
funding could provide flexibility and improve student outcomes.
9:00:24 AM
MR. JEPSEN pointed out that any time the correspondence factor
is changed, it results in increased funding for districts, and
they must spend it on correspondence programs.
9:00:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY offered his understanding that the
amendment would reduce funding for the education system in
Alaska and therefore opposed the amendment and maintained his
objection.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY explained that with the underlying bill,
the correspondence programs would get an increase to their
programs.
9:01:50 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 9:01 a.m.
9:01:53 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Himschoot, Story,
and McCormick voted in favor of Amendment 8 to CSHB 392, Version
T. Representatives McKay, Prax, Allard, and Ruffridge voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 8 failed to be adopted by a
vote of 3-4.
9:03:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to adopt Amendment 9 to CSHB 392,
Version T, labeled 33-LS1453\T.6, Bergerud, 3/28/24, which read
as follows:
Page 6, following line 8:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 8. AS 14.17.470 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(b) On July 1, 2025, the department shall
increase the base student allocation by a percentage
equal to the average percentage of increase over the
preceding four calendar years in all items of the
Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers for urban
Alaska prepared by the United States Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 6, following line 16:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 10. Section 8 of this Act takes effect
July 1, 2025."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 6, line 17:
Delete "This"
Insert "Except as provided in sec. 10 of this Act,
this"
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY objected.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said that the amendment would "inflation
proof" for the next fiscal year and is based on a four-year
average of the consumer price index (CPI) for Anchorage. It
would help smooth out what could happen with inflation and
provide more stability for districts. It is critically
important that the legislature help set good education funding
policy, she opined.
9:06:08 AM
MR. JEPSEN stated, "We do not support the amendment."
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked Mr. Jepsen to elaborate.
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY interjected that he would elaborate and
stated that he maintained his objection because the amendment
would reduce the power of the legislature to appropriate, and
the amendment also leaves out the plan for if the CPI went down.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT offered her understanding that it is
based on a four-year average so a downturn would be absorbed.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY agreed, and she explained that the
amendment was vetted by the Legislative Finance Division, which
recommended rather than a one-year inflation setting, to do the
four-year to smooth out over four years any downturn that
happens.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked Representative McKay when the
last time was that the CPI dropped.
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY stated that it could go down and he could
not predict the future.
9:08:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed that there were a couple reasons
he did not support the amendment, one being that the CPI is not
necessarily related to the cost of operating the school.
Additionally, he said he thought it unlikely that the CPI could
go down, but it could essentially create an automatic increase
in education funding and there are other needs to consider in
the budget, such as a greater need for emphasis on mental health
services.
9:10:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK offered his support for the amendment
and questioned how the body is adequately funding education if
the body is not funding schools with consideration for
inflation. He added that if formulas are not being adjusted for
inflation, then the body is not fulfilling its constitutional
obligation which is to adequately fund schools.
9:11:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY noted that education has been flat funded
since 2017 and inflation has been skyrocketing; and Amendment 9
would average out inflation and help districts with their fixed
costs.
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY maintained his objection and pointed out
that the $680 increase to the BSA is the largest BSA increase in
state history, and that both federal and local monies school
districts get have been increasing the past 10 years.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY stressed that districts are struggling with
the results of flat funding over the years, and the amendment
would help to "catch up" on that.
9:13:35 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McCormick,
Himschoot, and Story voted in favor of Amendment 9 to CSHB 392,
Version T. Representatives McKay, Prax, Allard, and Ruffridge
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 9 failed to be adopted
by a vote of 3-4.
9:14:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY [indicated she would not be offering]
Amendment 10.
9:14:30 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:14 a.m. to 9:15 a.m.
9:15:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to adopt Amendment 11 to CSHB 392,
Version T, labeled 33-LS1453\T.26, Bergerud, 4/1/24, which read
as follows:
Page 6, line 13:
Delete "$180"
Insert "$500"
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY objected.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY explained that the amount in the amendment
would be changed to $500 from $180 for reading help, and she
further noted that learning to read is a foundational skill for
children to understand other academic subjects. She offered her
belief the change is "targeted help," and the amount would do
much to move the supports in place for kids to read at grade
level.
9:16:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether the amendment sponsor got a
calculation of how the proposed amount would affect the BSA.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY replied that DEED could provide an answer
on the math.
9:18:00 AM
MR. JEPSEN provided an explanation that the K-3 Alaska Reads Act
funding is outside the formula and does not get any of the
multipliers.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX recognized that it is outside the basic
formula, and expressed his understanding that improving reading
ability in the early grades would reduce the need for extra help
in later grades. He stated that he opposed the amendment.
9:19:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT added that the amendment would support
after school tutoring, individual reading plans, and summer
schools, which are all additional expenses districts are bearing
currently.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD asked the amendment sponsor whether it had been
decided upon where the money would come from within the budget.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY replied that the House Finance Committee
could best make that decision. She further reminded the
committee about all the extra intervention that DEED has put
significant dollars towards, but there is an amount of resources
needed to make sure goals can be met.
9:22:35 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McCormick,
Himschoot, and Story voted in favor of Amendment 11 to CSHB 392,
Version T. Representatives Prax, McKay, Allard, and Ruffridge
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 11 failed to be adopted
by a vote of 3-4.
9:23:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to adopt Amendment 12 to CSHB 392,
Version T, labeled 33-LS1453\T.7, Bergerud, 3/28/24, which read
as follows:
Page 6, lines 4 - 5:
Delete "multiplying the ADM of the correspondence
program by the special needs factor in
AS 14.17.420(a)(1) [90 PERCENT]"
Insert "(1) multiplying the ADM of the
correspondence program by 90 percent; and
(2) multiplying the number obtained under (1) of this
section by the special needs factor in
AS 14.17.420(a)(1)"
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY objected.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said the amendment would keep the .9 ADM
for correspondence programs but allow them to still be included
in the special needs factor. Neighborhood schools have more
responsibilities, and correspondence programs should stay at the
.9 level, she opined.
9:24:55 AM
MR. JEPSEN offered to "quantify some math" with the amendment
and expressed his belief that correspondence program funding
needed to be increased, and when that factor is increased, it
increases school district funding.
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY reiterated his opposition to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT reflected on a previous comment
Representative McKay made last session that ".9 made sense to
him," because correspondence programs do not operate buildings.
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY replied that he did not recall the comment.
9:26:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY gave final comments and stated that the
current bill reflects a $47 million increase to correspondence
schools but leaving it at .9 would leave it at a $30 million
increase which includes the BSA increase.
9:27:32 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Story, McCormick,
and Himschoot voted in favor of Amendment 12 to CSHB 392,
Version T. Representatives Prax, McKay, Allard, and Ruffridge
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 12 failed to be adopted
by a vote of 3-4.
9:28:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to adopt Amendment 13 to CSHB 392,
Version T, labeled 33-LS1453\T.27, Bergerud, 4/1/24, which read
as follows:
Page 6, following line 8:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 8. AS 14.17.470, as amended by sec. 7 of
this Act, is amended to read:
Sec. 14.17.470. Base student allocation. The base
student allocation is $6,760 [$6,640]."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 6, following line 16:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 10. Section 8 of this Act takes effect
July 1, 2025."
Page 6, line 17:
Delete "This"
Insert "Except as provided in sec. 10 of this Act,
this"
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY objected.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY explained that the amendment would increase
the BSA by $205 million in state aid. It would help to keep
class sizes down and keep counselors and librarians. It is a
significant policy, she said, and would send the message that
the state needs to fund districts in advance to help stabilize
them, and that the body is keeping up with its constitutional
obligations to maintain public schools.
9:29:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY restated his opposition to the amendment
and pointed out again that the underlying bill already contained
a $680 BSA increase which is the largest in state history.
9:30:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT drew attention to the bill that was
supported last year, and she pointed out that the proposed
amendment represents where the body stood at that time.
9:31:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX commented on the body's constitutional
obligation and noted that the wording is "to establish and
maintain a system of public schools", not meaning whatever the
districts ask for is required to be funded. He opined that $680
for the BSA was generous.
9:31:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK, on the sentiment of adequately funding
schools, pointed out the conditions in some of the schools in
the state and what has to be endured; therefore, he disagreed
that schools are actually being maintained.
9:32:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY shared that it was hard for her to hear
from parents about how services to their children's education
have been disappearing the last few years. She said she firmly
believes in the constitutional obligation to keep up with
inflation costs, and she indicated the increases and adjustments
are not being maintained. She urged a yes vote to the
amendment.
9:33:44 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Himschoot, Story,
and McCormick voted in favor of Amendment 13 to CSHB 392,
Version T. Representatives Prax, McKay, Allard, and Ruffridge
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 13 failed to be adopted
by a vote of 3-4.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY [indicated she would not offer] Amendment
14.
9:34:34 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD opened public testimony on HB 392, as amended.
9:34:53 AM
CHARLES VAN KIRK, representing self, testified during the
hearing on HB 392. He opined that there are local issues that
have increased challenges with regard to proper funding for
children in Juneau and the BSA has exacerbated the problem with
the Juneau School Board. He further noted that it has created a
division in the community and has become a "terrible situation"
in Juneau and affects the mental health of children. He said he
supported an increase for the BSA but recommended that the body
should look to future funding methods for possible rising
inflation.
9:37:38 AM
LUANN MCVEY, representing self, stated that she is speaking to
the body as a retired educator, and that she supported most
aspects of the bill, mainly raising the BSA to $680. She said
children's reading ability is especially important and the more
children struggle, the more behind they get; therefore, a
reading program with additional targeted instruction should be
addressed. It costs extra money to bring these students up to
speed and make a difference for kids, she opined. She urged the
committee to reconsider the amendments that were turned down.
9:39:46 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD noted time constraints and further public
testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT interjected that there may be more
testifiers in room who have been waiting.
9:40:05 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 9:40 a.m.
9:41:03 AM
LISA PARADY, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School
Administrators (ASCA), testified in support of HB 392. She said
ASCA appreciates the $680 "inside the BSA." The importance of
having the "money inside the model" helps provide stability for
districts and administrators to have their contracts issued and
signed, like any business would, she said. She noted she
appreciated the amendments brought forward and that $680 for the
BSA is a great start. In closing, she said ASCA supports
charter schools and acknowledges the supports outlined in the
bill but does not support the approval of the authorization to
the state board.
9:43:55 AM
DAVID NEES, representing self, shared that he was a member of
the 2014 Sustainable Education Task Force and opined that HB 392
is an excellent bill, as written. He said he was happy for some
of the omissions but said there are some difficulties posed to
charter schools in regard to their processes. He recommended
that the committee fix the part of the "charter school clause"
as most states do allow multiple authorizers of charter schools.
9:46:12 AM
PENNY VADLA, representing self, provided her background in
education and noted her concern that education does not receive
continued support and the last few years [districts] have had to
fight for the support to educate children. She added that she
is in favor of the $680 and supported the Alaska Reads Act
especially for children who have difficulties. She said she
supported local control over charter schools and that districts
know what is best for their respective charter schools. She
applauded the legislators who support the bill and who recognize
the need to continue to support students' education.
9:48:21 AM
RACHEL LORD, representing self, testified in support of HB 392
and gave a personal background of her experience in public
schools. She stressed that she believed it is the state's
constitutional obligation to adequately maintain functional
public schools. She said she strongly supported the increase to
the BSA and maintaining local school board engagement over
charter schools. She expressed her frustration that BASIS was
not updated with amendments, as it makes it incredibly difficult
to follow along.
9:50:22 AM
CAROLINE STORM, Executive Director, Coalition for Education
Equity, testified in support of HB 392 and said she was
encouraged to hear the amendments, but disappointed about those
that did not pass. She opined that additional money is needed
inside the BSA and that the Coalition for Education Equity fully
supported the increase; however, it is not enough. She added
that the coalition does not support the charter schools being
approved at the state level.
9:51:56 AM
WINTER MARSHALL-ALLEN, representing self, shared that she is a
teacher who has experienced the lack of funding and what it
does. She stated that the legislature can do better on how
money can be better used, and she asked the committee to come
together to address much needed funding. She concluded that
there should be charter access but also local control.
9:54:03 AM
PATRICE LEE, representing self, thanked the committee for the
$680 increase to the BSA but that there are many parts of the
bill that do not meet the approval with the large number of
people she works with on a daily basis. She further expressed
her belief that charter schools need to remain in local control.
She said classroom sizes affect students' abilities to focus and
this is not being discussed adequately. The financing is the
responsibility of the [House] Finance Committee, she opined, and
she noted her concern that the [House] Education [Standing]
Committee may have circumvented some of right of the House
Finance Committee to do its job by having all the 3 to 4 votes,
which is unsettling for people, because it tends to appear it is
a political vote as opposed to ideological. She stressed that
committee members should explain their position.
9:56:22 AM
WILL MULDOON, representing self, stated that he supported the
increase to the BSA, and the transportation increase is much
needed. He noted that the committee had not met for three weeks
but was more dysfunctional when they finally did meet, and he
urged committee members to reflect on that.
9:57:39 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD closed public testimony on HB 392, as amended.
9:58:03 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE moved to report CSHB 392, Version 33-
LS1453\T, Bergerud, 3/28/24, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
9:58:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McKay, Story, Prax,
Allard, and Ruffridge voted in favor of CSHB 392, Version T, as
amended. Representatives McCormick and Himschoot voted against
it. Therefore, CSHB 392(EDC) was reported out of the House
Education Standing Committee by a vote of 5-2.
9:59:29 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:59 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 392 Fiscal Note #2 DEED-BAG.pdf |
HEDC 3/27/2024 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 392 |
| HB 392 Fiscal Note #1 DEED-FP.pdf |
HEDC 3/27/2024 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 392 |
| HB 392 Fiscal Note #3 DEED-SSA.pdf |
HEDC 3/27/2024 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 392 |
| HB 392 Fiscal Note #4 DEED-MEHS.pdf |
HEDC 3/27/2024 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 392 |
| HB 392 Fiscal Note #5 DEED-PEF.pdf |
HEDC 3/27/2024 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 392 |
| HB 392 Sectional Analysis Version A.pdf |
HEDC 3/27/2024 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 392 |
| HB 392 Sponsor Statement Version A.pdf |
HEDC 3/27/2024 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 392 |
| HB 392 Version A.pdf |
HEDC 3/27/2024 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 392 |
| HB 392 – Alaska Education Funding Presentation (HEDU).pptx |
HEDC 3/27/2024 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 392 |
| CSHB 392.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 392 |
| HB 392 Amendment - T.9.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 392 |
| HB 392 Amendment - T.15 -.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 392 |
| HB 392 Amendment - T.11.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 392 |
| HB 392 Amendment - T.10.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 392 |
| HB 392 Amendment - T.18.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 392 |
| HB 392 Amendment - T.25.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 392 |
| HB 392 Amendment - T.28.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 392 |
| T.5.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |
|
| T.6.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |
|
| T.8.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |
|
| T.13.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |
|
| T.7.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |
|
| T.26.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |
|
| T.27.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |
|
| Public Comment as of 4.9.24 Redacted.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |