Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
04/26/2024 08:00 AM House FINANCE
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 | |
| SB52 | |
| HB139 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 52 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 139 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 26, 2024
8:09 a.m.
8:09:14 AM
[Note: Continuation of 4/25/24 1:30 p.m. meeting. See
separate minutes for detail.]
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 8:09 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Co-Chair
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative DeLena Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Julie Coulombe
Representative Mike Cronk
Representative Alyse Galvin
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Will Stapp
Representative Frank Tomaszewski
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Loki Tobin, Sponsor; Mike Mason, Staff, Senator
Loki Tobin; Representative Justin Ruffridge, Sponsor.
SUMMARY
HB 139 CORRESPONDENCE STUDY PROGRAM FUNDING
HB 139 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
CSSB 52(FIN)
EDU INFO;INCREASE BASE STUDENT ALLOCATION
CSSB 52(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 52(FIN)
"An Act relating to education; requiring the
Department of Education and Early Development to
provide information relating to public schools on an
Internet website; relating to information on the post-
secondary education, career path, and residency of
graduates from high schools in the state; relating to
transportation of students; relating to state funding
for districts operating residential schools;
increasing the base student allocation; and providing
for an effective date."
8:10:41 AM
Co-Chair Foster invited the bill sponsor and her staff to
the table. He recognized Senator Scott Kawasaki in the
room.
Co-Chair Foster asked the sponsor to provide remarks on the
bill.
SENATOR LOKI TOBIN, SPONSOR, asked her staff to provide a
brief overview of the bill.
MIKE MASON, STAFF, SENATOR LOKI TOBIN, relayed that late in
the 2023 legislative session, SB 52 was amended into SB 140
in the House Finance Committee. He intended to explain how
SB 52 was drafted. Additionally, he would outline some of
the provisions that had been included and removed from SB
140. The bill included multiple references to chapter 40
SLA 2022, which was the Alaska Reads Act passed under HB
114 on the last day of the 2022 session. He detailed that
SB 52 was drafted in January 2023 prior to the full
implementation of the Alaska Reads Act, which was the
reason many of the provisions in the current bill were tied
to the effective dates of the Alaska Reads Act. Most often,
the effective date was July 1, 2023. He had spoken to the
Legislative Legal Services drafter the previous day and
confirmed that the bill would be cleaned up significantly
if there were a committee substitute (CS) because the
linkage between the Alaska Reads Act was currently broken.
He elaborated that the Alaska Reads Act was fully
implemented, and the effective dates had passed. The bill
would be cleaned up by a CS because much of the reference
to the Alaska Reads Act would be removed.
Mr. Mason relayed that Section 1 amended AS 14.03.120, the
statute governing reporting requirements for the Department
of Education and Early Development (DEED). The bill added
subsection (k), which required DEED to establish and
maintain a website that would serve as a data dashboard for
information about schools and student performance. The new
subsection (M) added by the Senate Finance Committee
directed the Department of Labor and Workforce Development
(DLWD) to collaborate with DEED to gather data on the
progress of each high school graduating class in the
district. The provision required the departments to gather
the data every five years until 20 years after the high
school graduation date of the high school class. He shared
that Senator Tobin had worked with Senator Click Bishop on
the concept. The goal was to try to track students post-
graduation to gather data in order for the legislature to
make good policy choices. Currently, much of the
information was unavailable or very challenging to obtain.
8:14:48 AM
Mr. Mason relayed that Section 2 of the legislation amended
Section 15 of the Alaska Reads Act to add subsection 20
requiring DEED to collaborate with DLWD to gather the data.
The bill contained several sections that would codify the
relationship between DEED and DLWD. Section 3 would amend
state law to add back collaboration. Section 4 would repeal
and reenact AS 14.09.010, the statute governing student
transportation services. He detailed that AS 14.09.010(a)
would increase the per student amount to school districts
for pupil transportation by about 11 percent. The provision
was added into the Senate Finance Committee. Section 5
would amend AS 14.16.200(b), the statute governing state
funding for school districts operating residential schools.
The section added by the Senate Finance Committee, would
increase the per pupil maximum monthly stipend to cover
room and board expenses by 50 percent.
Mr. Mason continued reviewing the bill. Section 6 amended
the Alaska Reads Act to increase the Base Student
Allocation (BSA) by an additional $680 in FY 24. He noted
it was the relationship between the Alaska Reads Act and
the BSA increase that would be broken if a CS were created.
He expounded that the Alaska Reads Act included the $30 BSA
increase, and Section 4 of the bill further amended it to
increase the BSA by another $680. He reiterated that the
current version of the bill was linked in several places to
the Alaska Reads Act. He clarified that the initial version
of SB 52 included a simple $1,000 BSA increase. He
highlighted that the Legislative Finance Division (LFD)
estimated that each $100 change in the BSA was projected to
increase state funding by around $25.7 million.
Mr. Mason noted that version B of the bill added a second
BSA increase of $348 in FY 25 and a single year inflation
adjustment in FY 26. He explained that the BSA increase in
the second year and the inflation adjustment had been
removed from the bill by the Senate Finance Committee.
Additionally, the FY 24 BSA increase was lowered to $680,
which mirrored the BSA increase considered in the House. He
noted that the dollar amount increase was also the
equivalent to the one-time education funding included in
the FY 24 budget and in the House and Senate versions of
the FY 25 budget. He reminded the committee that the
governor had vetoed half of the education funding increase
in 2023, which left an additional $87 million in one-time
education funding for FY 24. Section 7 amended statute
detailing the duties of DLWD to include the tracking of
students post-graduation.
Mr. Mason relayed that the final sections were the
effective dates. Section 8 set the effective date of the
increased pupil transportation, Sections 9 and 11 related
to the collaboration between DEED and DLWD and mirrored the
effective date of the Alaska Reads Act reporting
requirements and the effective date for the online data
dashboard would be July 1, 2024. Section 10 was the
effective date clause for student transportation,
residential schools, BSA, and tracking students post-
graduation provisions of the bill, which were all linked to
the Alaska Reads Act effective date of July 1, 2023.
Section 12 stipulated the reporting requirements for
tracking students post-graduation would take effect on July
1, 2025. He clarified that if a CS were to be drafted, the
bill would be simplified and would be much shorter.
8:18:57 AM
Co-Chair Edgmon discussed that when the governor vetoed SB
140, there was a reference to comprehensive education
reform that the governor felt was not adequate. He stated
that it was clear where the governor wanted to go with
charter schools. He asked if SB 50 got closer to the goal.
Senator Tobin answered that all of the testimony received
in the Senate Education Committee specified that reforms
best occurred at the local level provided by the
individuals who were the closest to the students attending
the schools. The committee heard that the most effective
way to make shifts in student outcomes was to empower
classroom educators and administrators to ensure there were
school counselors, guidance counselors, and nutrition
specialists who were not contracted out. She relayed that
each community needed something different and a statewide
approach to reform would not produce the desired outcomes
in every community.
Senator Tobin highlighted that the Northwest Arctic School
Borough recently redevised all of its science curricula to
be rooted in local indigenous knowledge. She explained that
it was reform that would impact the community, but it would
not be the right reform for the Anchorage School District
or potentially for a Southeast school district. She
believed that instead of trying to figure out from an
overarching state approach, an investment in schools,
locally designed curricula systems, local school boards,
and local classroom educators was the best way to improve
student outcomes. She remarked that it also led to a
reduction in class size, which was one of the single most
effective indicators of how to improve student outcomes.
She relayed that it would also lead to better teacher
retention, which was another predictor of how to improve
student outcomes. It would also improve the leadership
pipeline, which was directly related to the retention of
educators. She stated that all of the aforementioned items
led to better education outcomes and would come from local
decisions made at the local level.
8:21:27 AM
Co-Chair Edgmon shared that he had strong feelings about
the Alaska Reads Act when it had been implemented a couple
of years ago. He clarified that it had not been about the
law per se, but that it had been underfunded with a $30
BSA. He referenced an article published in the Ketchikan
Sentinel in the past six weeks about the significant catch
up work needed to properly resource the Alaska Reads Act.
He was not certain any current proposals under
consideration by the legislature would accomplish that. The
issue was still a concern and he hoped at some point the
state addressed the schools with teachers in the
rd
kindergarten through 3 grade who were struggling.
Senator Tobin agreed. The original fiscal notes for the
Alaska Reads Act were initially twice what they had been
when the bill passed. She pointed out that other states had
significantly resourced their implementation of evidence
based reading strategies and incredible outcomes. Alaska
was already seeing movement in many of its schools and
there would be better improvement if the program was
funded.
Representative Stapp stated that the committee had heard
and passed the vast majority of the bill in the past. He
did not see any change reflecting items in the governor's
veto letter [pertaining to SB 140] in SB 52. He noted that
the bill included provisions that he did not believe had
been passed previously by the House Finance Committee
including the data dashboard and long term tracking of post
high school graduates. He wondered about focusing on
something they had not tried rather than something that
they had.
Senator Tobin responded that the constitution directed the
legislature to maintain a system of public schools; it was
the legislature's obligation to do so. The bill before the
committee reflected the Senate majority's proposal of doing
so effectively, efficiently, and for the maximum benefit of
all of the state's public school systems. The legislature
had heard in public testimony and recognized through the
stakeholders' engagement that the crisis still existed. She
stated it was the legislature's responsibility to pass good
public policy by making sure policies were well vetted and
informed. She hoped that if the bill were to pass the
legislature, that all legislators would encourage the
governor to sign the legislation. She emphasized that the
legislature needed to pass good public policy to
improve/help its schools and help its communities.
8:25:09 AM
Representative Coulombe thanked Senator Tobin for all of
her work on education. She remarked that the bill
encompassed a lot of good aspects. She looked at the user
friendly website and guardrails around it. She could
currently look up a school to see how much each student
cost and their test scores. She asked what the website
proposed in the bill would offer that was not already
available.
Senator Tobin responded that two aspects of the data
dashboard should be considered. First, the department had
been using leftover Elementary and Secondary School
Emergency Relief (ESSER) from federal COVID-19 relief
resources to create the beginning of a dashboard; however,
the department was not currently statutorily required to
provide the information to parents. The goal was to help
provide statutory guardrails to ensure that information
going into the hands of parents was user friendly, easily
downloadable and comparable, and interactive. Additionally,
the goal was to ensure every district and community was
able to access the resource. She noted that there was low
bandwidth issues in some rural communities; therefore, the
bill provided additional guardrails to ensure that when the
next steps of the information system were available to
every parent everywhere.
Representative Coulombe asked how realistic tracking
graduates was. She noted the timeframe was long and it was
difficult to find people for that length of time. She
wondered if DLWD had told Senator Tobin it was something it
could easily do or if it would be an uphill climb.
Senator Tobin replied that DLWD already did the work and
was producing reports on the information. She elaborated
that instead of doing the work episodically with graduating
classes identified by the department, the bill would ensure
the work was done with every graduating class in order to
have better information when considering shifts and tweaks
to improve education outcomes.
Mr. Mason clarified that the [DLWD] Trends magazine was
included with information on SB 52, but he was not certain
he had included it in members' bill packets. The
information was available online. He shared that the
department had come in to talk about the process. He
elaborated that the information gathering had been a one-
time thing, but DLWD had communicated the desire to try to
collect the data as envisioned in the bill. He directed
members' attention to the DLWD fiscal note, OMB component
336. The note specified that the department could do the
work with current staff at a cost of approximately $30,000.
He stated that the work was something he believed the
department could do and that it was looking forward to
trying to do.
Representative Coulombe asked for clarification about the
transportation funding. She asked if the funding was
retroactive.
Mr. Mason responded that because of all of the linkages to
the Alaska Reads Act, the funding would essentially go back
to the current fiscal year, FY 24. He elaborated that if
the committee introduced a CS, it could update the date to
FY 25. He relayed that the hope had been that SB 52 would
pass the previous year; therefore, it was drafted as if it
would pass early in the 2023 session, which would have
enabled school districts to use the money for the FY 24
fiscal year. The way the bill was currently written, the
funding would be retroactive; however, he was anticipating
there would be a CS, which would change the effective date
to FY 25.
8:29:48 AM
Representative Coulombe remarked that the Alaska Reads Act
was likely the biggest statewide reform she had seen. She
pointed out that there were cases where reforms could apply
to the entire state. She understood there were regional
differences. She asked if there was anything statewide that
could be part of the reform category that would support the
Alaska Reads Act. She shared the concerns with
Representative Edgmon that it was an important piece. She
wondered if other ideas that could be applied statewide had
been discussed when considering the bill.
Senator Tobin answered that the Senate Education Committee
heard from many education advocates, stakeholders, and
experts over the past two years on things that could be
done from a statewide perspective. She expounded that items
included helping to deal with chronic absenteeism, which
was impacting all of the state's districts. Additionally,
looking at youth experiencing homelessness, which had an
incredible strain in Alaska's communities. She referenced a
recent DOJ report on behavioral health and the need to
expand school-based services so the state did not continue
to send young Alaskans out of state to get behavioral
health support. She believed a bill on that topic would
hopefully be heard soon by the House.
Senator Tobin believed that tribal compacting could have
some incredible impacts in Alaska. She relayed that for the
past three years the State of Alaska had been exploring how
it may enter into contractual agreements with tribal
entities to help improve education outcomes. The bill was
forthcoming; the legislature had not yet seen a regulatory
or statutory package from the governor's office. She
explained that there had been a robust public process on
the topic as the legislature continued to work on what
potential legislative interventions may be. She noted that
some of the other things the legislature heard regarding
charter school access and increasing correspondence funds
were new in the current year. She personally believed in a
deliberative, slow, incremental process when it came to
transformational change and implementing the changes
because she did not want deleterious effects to impact
students.
Senator Tobin relayed that the Senate Education Committee
had several hearings with charter schools, charter school
families, and school boards. The committee had been told it
was not a new authorizer that was needed. The committee had
learned that having charter schools rooted in local
community was critical. She elaborated that having families
be able to come together to specify desired education
options for their students meant the local engagement
existed from the beginning including going to their local
school board to talk about how ideas may be supported by
the local community and going forward in the approval
process. She noted that the state board was the final
authorizer for all charter schools in the state. She
explained that it would not necessarily result in better
outcomes if the process was shifted away from local
communities. The committee had heard that charter schools
needed legal help. She detailed there were charter schools
in the Fairbanks area that had signed predatory loans with
facilities and were unable to get out of the contracts. She
noted that the bill previously vetoed by the governor [SB
140] had included support for existing charter schools to
enable them to continue to improve their systems and
potentially serve more students. She thought it was very
reasonable comprehensive reform that was informed by
communities. She wanted to ensure that any changes would
improve student outcomes, not necessarily contribute to
destabilizing the system.
Representative Coulombe asked how Senator Tobin felt about
the charter school language in Representative McKay's bill
where they [the state board] could authorize a charter
school but the school could shop around for a school
district to avoid forcing a charter school on one school
district.
Senator Tobin replied that she had concerns, but she was
interested in hearing more about the idea in the Senate
Education Committee. Particularly, she thought about
federal impact aid; Alaska was the only state with the
ability to deduct federal impact aid from its state aid,
which meant there was a $90 million cost savings for
providing education to all of Alaska's students. She
elaborated that currently there could not be more than a 25
percent difference between one district that received the
lowest revenue and the district that received the highest
revenue. She considered what it would mean for schools
competing in districts. For example, she asked which
district had to count a charter school to their revenue
level if the Nome school decided to establish a charter
school in Anchorage. She questioned whether it would impact
the Nome district or Anchorage School District.
Additionally, she wondered whether it would push the state
out of compliance with federal impact aid and federal
disparity tests. She did not know the answer and believed
it was necessary to have the conversations. She also
wondered who would be responsible for providing mental
health services and guidance counseling to the students.
Under the example she provided, she wondered if the
services would come from the Anchorage School District or
the Nome School District. She believed the questions were
best flushed out in the public process.
8:35:50 AM
Representative Coulombe stated if felt like that was how
correspondence schools worked currently where the funds
were going to one area and the students were somewhere
else. She did not know if it was impacting the disparity
test. She asked Senator Tobin if she thought it would
function the same way as correspondence.
Senator Tobin responded that the state was starting to see
how it would impact communities. She relayed that the State
of Alaska failed its maintenance of equity test, which was
a stipulation on the state's federal ESSER relief funding.
She elaborated that the state had failed the test because
so many students from particular districts - Anchorage and
Kenai for FY 22 left their local districts and went to
correspondence programs outside of their communities,
taking the funding with them. The situation resulted in a
substantial decrease to average pupil spending in
communities even though the students still lived in those
communities. She stated the situation was having real
repercussions in Alaska. Due to the state's failure to meet
maintenance of equity, it currently had a high risk
designation for its ESSER grants and potentially it would
be required to pay back all $359 million to the federal
government if it did not move back into compliance. She
stressed that there needed to be more insight and input
into the ramifications before moving forward with any
additional programs that may have the same impacts.
8:37:33 AM
Co-Chair Foster stated his plan was to try to get all of
the education bills before the committee to find a path
forward. He realized SB 52 came far before the broadband
bill ended up being what it was. He wanted to make sure the
committee had all of the tools to work from. He noted that
Representative McKay's bill, HB 392, was also in the
committee. He explained that if the committee moved forward
with HB 392 it would have to go through the committee
process on the Senate side, which would take time. He
stated that one option was to modify the Senate bill and
move it forward, which would then need concurrence in the
Senate.
Representative Ortiz appreciated Senator Tobin's comments
about her overall preference for local control. He thought
there was a general belief amongst most legislators that it
was the way to go on a variety of levels, not limited to
education. He was the former principal at a charter school
and there were two charter schools in his community that
worked well. He explained that both of the charter schools
had gone through the approval process and were longstanding
with an important role in the overall education programs
provided in Ketchikan. He considered what could be done at
the state level to advance reform or improvement in
outcomes. He asked if teacher retention, particularly in
rural areas would be a considerable help to outcomes. He
shared that he had gotten better at his job as a teacher as
time went on. He discussed the importance of building
relationships with students and their families.
Senator Tobin responded affirmatively. The Senate Education
Committee had heard an outcry from many teachers asking for
a defined benefit. Teachers had shared that they could move
to the State of Washington and make $30,000 more and have a
pension. She stated there was something to be said that
teachers were willing to take a $30,000 pay cut and remain
in Alaska if they had a pension. She referenced a document
in members' packets titled "How Does Your Kindergarten
Classroom Affect Your Earnings? Evidence from Project Star"
(copy on file). She relayed that Project Star enumerated
11,571 students in Tennessee to determine how to improve
education outcomes. The first determination was that small
class sizes were significantly more likely to lead to
attendance in college and exhibit improvements in other
outcomes. The second finding was that students with a more
experienced teacher in kindergarten had higher earnings.
She stated that educator experience led to improved student
outcomes. She shared that she is a Ph.D. student
researching teacher quality and experience and its
relationship to student outcomes. She relayed that there
was a correlational and causal relationship. She elaborated
that an educator with five to seven years in the classroom
led to improved student outcomes by several points on any
standardized assessment.
8:43:37 AM
Representative Hannan stated that her concerns with the
Alaska Reads Act pertained ensuring there were adequate
funding resources for its implementation in addition to the
data to track it. She noted that the legislature looked at
the collective data of kids across the state. She provided
st
an example of a child who did not read at grade level in 1
grade and then moved four different school districts over
the next two years. She noted that the data was
confidential on an individual basis. She asked if there was
place in the data collection that DEED could have
mechanisms to help school districts know of any
interventions a student may have from a prior district when
they switch to a new school halfway through a school year.
She noted that the school the student was moving to partway
through the year would not receive any BSA funding for the
student because their former school would have received it.
She stated there was so much confidentiality that when an
individual kid's needs were identified by one school the
information did not follow them when moving schools (e.g.,
a second grade teacher knew a student missed half their
first grade year, but then the student moved schools). She
asked what it would take to include that type of
information in the data available to drive policy. She was
not suggesting a truant officer in every district improved
attendance, but when kids were not in class or moved
repeatedly it resulted in learning deficits.
Senator Tobin answered that there was very comprehensive
data reporting in the Alaska Reads Act; however, because
the legislation did not have the resources it needed,
educators across the state were struggling to get the
information to DEED. She stated that a significant increase
to the BSA would help fund additional support staff that
would be able to collect the data and provide it to DEED.
She believed a critical component of the Alaska Reads Act
was an annual convening of educators, experts, and early
education advocates to help the legislature understand
where there were holes and where there could be future
iterative designs made to the Alaska Reads Act.
Unfortunately, the panel was defunded the previous year.
There were resources included in the FY 25 budget to
convene the panel electronically. Information from the
panel would enable the legislature to make changes to the
legislation that were locally informed that would provide
for statewide reform. She shared that the Colorado Reads
Act had gone through five iteratives and she believed the
Alaska Reads Act would follow a similar path as the state
continued to realize where gaps existed. She believed there
were gaps in how the state tracked student performance from
district to district and as families moved. She thought it
was one area where the legislature could do some real work
to help get resources into schools and resources in the
DEED to track.
Senator Tobin provided closing comments on the bill. She
shared that she had been thinking about the concept of
accountability. She detailed that the legislature heard
frequently from individuals that more accountability was
needed in Alaska's public schools. One of the tools of
accountability was assessments. She noted that when there
was trauma in a community, disruptions to the learning
environment (e.g., a pandemic), and things happening in a
student's home life, students would not do well on a single
point in time assessment. She stated that other tools were
needed to help understand whether students were learning
what they were meant to learn. Additionally, the state
needed to ensure that students were tracked because the
goal was to get them out into the workforce and into the
places they could make a difference in the world. She
believed the provisions to opt out of state assessments
could be shifted. She detailed that students in brick and
mortar schools took the statewide assessments (about 86
percent of those students took the assessments). She noted
that the number of students taking the assessments in the
state's public correspondence programs and charter schools
was about 19 percent. She explained that the state did not
know how its correspondence and charter school students
were doing because it did not have the data from
assessments as one available tool. She noted that a bill
would be introduced on the Senate floor that day, which
would remove a parent's ability to opt out of assessments.
Co-Chair Foster thanked Senator Tobin and Mr. Mason.
SB 52 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 139
"An Act relating to funding for correspondence study
programs."
8:49:01 AM
Co-Chair Foster explained that the bill had been introduced
well before the recent court decision on the topic. He
noted that he intended to have a hearing on each of the
education bills in the House Finance Committee's possession
in order for the committee to think about how it wanted to
move forward and to be informed on all of the available
tools. He had hoped to have Legislative Legal Services to
speak to the court decision; however, it had not been
possible to get someone in time for the current meeting. He
asked to hear from the bill sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE JUSTIN RUFFRIDGE, SPONSOR, confirmed that
the bill had been introduced long before any of the [court]
decisions were made. He was able to offer his opinion but
could not speak to the legality of different court cases.
He relayed that HB 139 sought to put correspondence funding
on par with other funding in Alaska. The initial bill
sought to add a special needs factor, which other students
in the state received at a 1.2 multiplier in the foundation
formula. Correspondence programs were currently funded at
90 percent of the average daily membership (ADM) and did
not move through the foundation formula.
Representative Ruffridge explained that the bill was
intended to start the conversation about whether the
special needs factor should apply to correspondence
students. He acknowledged that sometimes the title was
confusing, and it should not be mistaken for the intensive
needs factor, which was a special multiplier for students
with an individualized learning plan (ILP) for very
specific disabilities or learning disabilities that
required them to have additional funding. He clarified that
the special needs factor applied to all students for
certain things like technical or vocational education,
advanced placement courses, and a host of other things
including athletics. He characterized it as a catchall for
all things that students may need that were above and
beyond the standard educational platform. He relayed that
HB 139 sought to add a special needs factor to
correspondence school students to bring them on par with
other students in the state.
Co-Chair Edgmon asked the same question he asked previously
to Senator Tobin and Representative McKay. He noted that
correspondence schools were a significant part of SB 140,
which had been vetoed by the governor. The governor's veto
letter had talked about the need for educational reform and
that the money attached to the bill for education,
including a large chunk for correspondence schools, did not
come with reform. He referenced Senator Tobin's comments
earlier in the meeting on assessments and the low number of
testing in correspondence schools. He asked for
Representative Ruffridge's comments on the topic.
Representative Ruffridge responded that assessments were a
broad subject. He was currently missing a discussion on
assessments with the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED) and after he was finished in the current
meeting, he would join the discussion and would report back
to the committee. He found assessments to be a considerable
concern. He elaborated that the assessments offered in
Alaska over the past decade had been unusable. He explained
that regardless of the testing percentage, it was difficult
to trust what was coming out of the assessments given in
the state. For example, the cut scores for the assessment
given in the past school year were altered to allow the
numbers of students deemed proficient to be higher. He
stated that if it was possible to manipulate the scores or
change the test entirely, he wondered if the amount of
funding put towards supporting assessments were rightly
spent. He thought the state needed to offer stability and a
necessity of tracking successes or failures, which he did
not believe was currently occurring. He considered the
question of whether students should be able to opt out [of
assessments]. He believed it was an important aspect,
particularly for students in rural Alaska. He spoke to
correspondence schools in general and explained that many
students located in remote areas who were being
homeschooled or were in a correspondence program typically
had to travel to a centralized location to test. He noted
the same was true for homeschool students located on the
Railbelt or road system.
8:56:41 AM
Representative Ruffridge continued to answer Co-Chair
Edgmon's question. He detailed that a centralized testing
was offered over multiple days and all students were
encouraged to go to take the test; however, due to the cost
of travel, many parents chose not to participate. He noted
that there was equality amongst all students in the state
to be able to opt out, but students in brick and mortar
schools were more likely to take the test because the test
was offered onsite and all of the resources were built to
get the students to that spot, while correspondence
students, by the nature of being at home, did not have the
same opportunity. Potentially with special needs funding
there could be some additional resources allocated to
allowing students to travel for testing purposes.
Representative Ortiz appreciated the intent of the bill to
increase [funding for correspondence schools] from 90
percent to 100 percent. He asked if Representative
Ruffridge would agree that the number had been originally
set at 90 percent with the understanding that the cost for
students to attend brick and mortar schools were higher in
relationship to facilities and access to activities.
Representative Ruffridge replied that he wanted to ensure
they were talking about the same bill. He noted there had
been a number of correspondence program conversations
recently. He detailed that SB 140 had included the ADM, the
ADM only, and 100 percent of ADM, which was different than
HB 139. He explained that HB 139 was amended in the House
Education Committee to retain the 0.9 percent funding,
which was reflected in the current version of the bill. The
bill added the special needs factor funding.
Representative Ortiz asked if the bill would be an avenue
to fix the problem in relationship to what had transpired
with the court decision. He wondered if the problem would
be solved by adopting an amendment to revert back to the
way funds were administered to correspondence programs in
2014.
Representative Ruffridge answered there would be a bill
introduced later in the day sponsored by the House
Education Committee that would include statutory language
to address the court decision. He advocated for an omnibus
fix for education. He believed a wholesale discussion was
needed. He shared that he had been a supporter of SB 140.
He thought that having the pieces in place to have the
conversation prior to the end of session was important. He
advocated strongly for the correspondence component in SB
140. He stated that the shorter answer to Representative
Ortiz's question was, "Yes, hopefully."
9:01:03 AM
Representative Galvin stated that there were population
assessments related to how the state was doing and student
assessments used by teachers that could be shared among
districts and schools. She thought both seemed to be
important, especially when thinking about accountability
for public funds. She referenced Representative Ruffridge's
mention of how difficult it was to travel [to take
assessments] for charter and correspondence students. She
believed Representative Ruffridge was suggesting that the
fix would be to raise the base funding for those particular
students. She wondered if the he would entertain the idea
of a reimbursement of costs individuals incurred as a
result of taking the test. She thought that route may be
more acceptable to people currently concerned about the
funding spent within that segment of education. She noted
that apparently there had been some reports that people
were going to private school all day and taking the full
allotment and using it for extras. On top of that, the
students were not taking the testing; therefore, the state
did not know how the public dollars were doing within the
public education realm.
Representative Ruffridge asked for a distillation of the
question.
Representative Galvin complied. She asked about opting out
of the testing, getting correspondence and charter school
students to take the test, and how the legislature may fund
it.
Representative Ruffridge made a distinction between charter
schools and correspondence. He believed charter school
students tested at a similar rate to those in brick and
mortar neighborhood schools. For the most part, charter
schools were brick and mortar neighborhood schools, which
had a slightly different operational model including boards
run by parents and with that could be run separate of the
school district in some sense. He relayed that
correspondence schools had a much lower testing rate. He
stated there was a long history of ways to leverage
homeschool students to take state testing including holding
their allotment for the following year for refusing to take
the statewide test. He relayed that it was a program run in
Alaska for many years. He noted it was not a kind or
particularly stable way of getting at the issue. He thought
the existing method was a much better way of administering
the program. He relayed that correspondence he had worked
with during his time in Alaska went out of their way to
make testing available to students. Ultimately, it came
down to whether a parent chose to take advantage of the
option. The option was the same option afforded to every
parent in the state, which was equally given.
9:06:00 AM
Representative Galvin stated heard so much about
accountability and accountability of public dollars. She
highlighted that it was very hard to assess how the state
was doing with its public dollars if it did not have some
measure of how the state was doing population wise. She
thought it may be a component to consider when thinking
through how to reform education to help improve all
students. She believed an additional component would be
improved sharing among educators on how the growth of the
state's students was going. She understood that all of the
things required resources.
Representative Cronk remarked that the lawsuit had been
backed by the National Education Association in support of
the state's brick and mortar schools. He remarked that the
state could not use public funds for private school. He
shared that he had been a teacher for 25 years. He thought
public school districts had violated the constitution
because they had paid for private school classes. He
elaborated that his school district used to pay Bringham
Young University to teach classes. He thought it was ironic
a lawsuit was filed against correspondence kids, yet the
school districts had paid for private school classes for
students. He did not believe there was a quick fix to the
situation at hand. He asked who was to say that McGraw Hill
was not a private company that the state was buying
curriculum from. He thought it was a much bigger issue now
that a judge had ruled "this was" unconstitutional. He
asked who would determine which curriculum company was not
private. He reiterated his comments about a district paying
for classes at the private Bringham Young University. He
thought it was an obvious violation of the constitution.
Representative Ruffridge answered that he had received some
clarity when looking at some of the correspondence programs
aligned with private schools in Alaska offering payment for
their tuition for children to attend private school
essentially full-time. He believed it was not the intention
of the correspondence program allotment. He thought the
judge's decision required clarity in some cases in terms of
how far it reached. He had looked up some of the minutes of
the constitutional convention and believed the intention
was that students attending a private school full-time
should not have state funds going to pay their tuition. He
thought it was a little less clear for classes, tutoring
services, and curriculums. He thought there was a
possibility the legislature could work on a fix of some
sort going forward. He believed it would be challenging and
that there would be some uncertainty working through the
situation. He did not want to be afraid of having the hard
conversations. Part of the conversation was addressing how
to fund correspondence schools because they were part of
the public education system in Alaska. He believed allowing
parents to have the opportunity to educate students at home
was envied by other states. He was supremely grateful to
his homeschooling opportunity as a child and thanked his
mother for her sacrifice.
Representative Cronk estimated that his district had over
half the correspondence students. He stated the argument
had been that using funds for classes at private schools
was not appropriate. However, public school districts had
been doing so since he was a teacher. He found it ironic
that it was possible to pick and choose what to fight
against. He supported correspondence. He found it
frustrating to see one entity picking on another, when the
practice had been going on for years.
9:12:48 AM
Representative Hannan asked for verification that the
provisions pertaining to the special needs factor would
apply to every child enrolled in correspondence versus
students identified with special needs.
Representative Ruffridge clarified that the special needs
factor already applied to every student attending a brick
and mortar school. He detailed that it was a 20 percent
multiplier to the ADM. He relayed that there was a very
specific difference between intensive needs, which a
student needed to apply for, and special needs, which
applied to every student. He believed special needs should
apply to all students.
Representative Hannan stated that every school needed to be
prepared by law to comply with the federal law to have a
certified special education teacher for students with
individualized education plans (IEP). She reasoned that
sometimes it was not cost effective because there was the
[special needs] factor and a lot of kids. She stated that
generally in correspondence there was a smaller number of
kids in a unit. She explained that even though the Galena
School District would receive the funding, there may not be
any kids in Kenai that needed the special education
services. She asked for verification that Representative
Ruffridge wanted the factor to be applied to every
correspondent student whether any services needed to be
delivered or not.
Representative Ruffridge believed they were conflating two
separate issues. He clarified that the special needs factor
was a catchall for a large number of things including
advanced placement classes, technical vocational education,
and other things. He noted that statute clearly laid out
the large list of services that applied. He encouraged
legislators to visit a correspondence program because they
offered some of the things that Representative Hannan was
concerned about. He highlighted one program in Juneau. He
elaborated that some of the things were offered at a very
high level and provided some coverage for occupational,
physical, or other needs without any additional funds. He
stated they were doing an incredible job of using the
limited resources available to provide even the intensive
needs services in some cases. Most of the certified
teachers available to students within homeschool programs
had years of teaching and homeschooling experience. He
elaborated that they were helping parents learn how to be
good teachers at home. He remarked the legislature
supported the Parents as Teachers program through the
budget process, but the program actually had nothing to do
with homeschooling. He thought the homeschooling programs
provided a large amount of support to parents and offered
special needs and other intensive needs services at home or
through the program, currently without additional funding.
He disagreed with the idea that the services were not being
offered within correspondence programs.
Representative Hannan remarked that there were three home
school centers in Juneau: Idea, Raven, and Homebridge. She
noted that she had visited all three.
9:17:59 AM
Representative Stapp remarked on the conversation and
stated that there was an attempt at a narrative regarding
accountability around homeschool kids. He thought there was
a misconception by many members of the committee about how
correspondence programs worked. He asked how many kids in
Alaska were currently in correspondence schools. He asked
for the total number of students enrolled in public school
in Alaska.
Representative Ruffridge answered that about 22,000 to
23,000 students were enrolled in correspondence programs.
There were about 100,000 students enrolled in brick and
mortar schools. He stated there a total of 128,000
students.
Representative Stapp estimated that 22,000 was about 24
percent of the total. He if it was reasonable to conclude
that if 14 percent of the 22,000 were testing, there was
not accountability for the kids not testing. He noted that
the vast majority of the kids in the school system were
testing and there were reliable numbers for how kids tested
and scored. He considered comments that a fraction of a
fraction of a total population did not have accountability.
He found it to be ironic that individuals did not see that
the problem was that the majority of the kids in the school
system were testing poorly. He asked if it was a fair
assessment.
Representative Ruffridge answered that assessments in
general as a singular measure of accountability was
probably the wrong thing. He relayed that in the case of
some of the court decisions he thought in some cases there
was very blatant signaling about what was happening and
likely DEED or the state board should have taken some
action to make sure it was clear what was not allowed. He
thought that was accountability. He did not necessarily
know that accountability had a single answer. He remarked
that because Alaska could not pick a test or score that
mattered, he thought it was a very poor measure of
accountability.
Representative Stapp asked if correspondence schools were
operated by public schools.
Representative Ruffridge responded affirmatively.
Representative Stapp stated that numerous committee members
had talked about local control. He asked if local school
districts had the ability to change the structure of how
they want to administer their homeschool programs, even
changing if they wanted to give an allotment or not. He
asked for verification that nothing compelled them to do
so.
Representative Ruffridge answered affirmatively. He relayed
that each district decided the allotment amount. He noted
it was incredibly varied.
Representative Stapp thought it was fair to say that when
people talked about local and accountability, they were
looking for a statewide solution for correspondence school
testing; however, local school districts already had the
ability to impose accountability metrics themselves by
changing the structure of their individual homeschool
programs because they were public schools.
Representative Ruffridge replied affirmatively. He relayed
that in his experience, local districts were highly
supportive of their correspondence programs because parents
wanted the option. He elaborated that because there many
options for correspondence programs throughout the state,
there was a bit of a push-pull competition going on for who
could take the best care of a student. He noted there were
three [correspondence programs] in Juneau and each one had
a connection to a specific district. Parents could choose
which one fit the needs of a certain group of people; they
may find a home in one and not find the supports they need
in another.
9:23:09 AM
Representative Stapp agreed. He considered how changing the
spend multiplier for correspondence students worked in
conjunction with the court case. He asked if correspondence
school funding was basically discretionary spending for
districts.
Representative Ruffridge responded affirmatively.
Representative Stapp stated that the court case even struck
down the 1997 statute regarding ILPs and allotments. He
asked what would happen with the increased funding for
correspondence schools if it was determined that allotments
and ILPs were not legal.
Representative Ruffridge answered that the funding would go
to the school district.
Representative Stapp asked if the district could do
whatever it wanted with the funds because it was
discretionary spending.
Representative Ruffridge agreed.
Representative Josephson appreciated Representative
Ruffridge's nuanced answer to Representative Cronk on his
understanding of the NEA backed case. He agreed that the
state constitution did not intend for the state to fire up
number two pencil factories because it could not purchase
them from a vendor. He did not believe that was what the
constitution intended. He addressed the accountability
component of the meeting conversation. He recalled that
when he worked as a public school teacher in western
Alaska, he had taken the GRE with a proctor in rural Alaska
when preparing to go to law school. He asked if a similar
system could be designed.
Representative Ruffridge remarked that he thought a number
two pencil factory and factories in general in Alaska were
a good idea. He agreed that a proctored exam could be done.
He was not certain what the options were in terms of online
availability and connectivity issues could occur. The
legislature had worked to address connectivity issues with
broadband assistance grants and other solutions. He noted
that the tests offered in person were proctored. There was
significant staffing and building rental that currently
occurred in order to administer tests for correspondence
programs. He thought it was an opportunity to ask some
questions about the idea and he thought it was a good line
of thinking to do so going forward.
9:26:57 AM
Co-Chair Johnson remarked that accountability and testing
was not really a part of the bill. She appreciated the
bill. She remarked on the idea of separating out
correspondence programs and providing less funding because
they were not located in a brick and mortar building. She
highlighted that the students still had to be housed
somewhere. She would love to have the same conversation on
accountability related to the entire education funding
instead of doing things piecemeal. She noted they had a
problem in Alaska with getting kids up to national
standards. She stated it did not start and end with
correspondence students.
Representative Ruffridge thought the answer when asking
about accountability in neighborhood schools was to look at
all of the information districts were providing back to the
state in terms of where the money went, how it was spent,
who was testing, how they were testing, etcetera. He stated
that correspondence programs were run by districts and all
of the same things provided to neighborhood schools related
to accountability for funds were offered through
correspondence programs as well. He noted that
Representative Stapp had an interesting line of questioning
about whether correspondence programs were district run,
district allocated, and district accountable programs. The
answer was yes. He found separating the programs out as
"other" was odd to him. He supported an omnibus approach
for education. He thought education should be considered on
a wholesale level including asking how neighborhood schools
and neighborhood schools were doing and if they were
getting the needed resources. He stated that the concept in
the bill was one component of the "three headed question."
He thought it was important to remember that the programs
were all district run, district allocated, and district
accountable and were ultimately accountable to DEED.
9:30:25 AM
Co-Chair Edgmon appreciated the comment. He highlighted
there were 19 remaining days in session. He fully supported
a comprehensive discussion on a holistic level as outlined.
He hoped work could be done over the coming interim to prep
legislators for the following session. He hoped the
governor could be involved in the larger discussion as
well. He believed there was support to do so for
correspondence, charter school, and brick and mortar
programs. He appreciated the commentary and Representative
Ruffridge's ability to respond to questions from all angles
including the lawsuit with the correspondence programs.
HB 139 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the next meeting
to take place immediately.
ADJOURNMENT
9:31:50 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 9:31 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 52 Public Testimony Rec'd by 051124.pdf |
HFIN 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM |
SB 52 |