Legislature(2025 - 2026)ADAMS 519
02/26/2025 01:30 PM 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 |
|---|---|
| Adjourn | |
| Start | |
| Overview: Fy26 Department of Education and Early Development Budget |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 53 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 55 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 53
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; making supplemental appropriations;
making reappropriations; making appropriations under
art. IX, sec. 17(c), Constitution of the State of
Alaska, from the constitutional budget reserve fund;
and providing for an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 55
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program; and providing for
an effective date."
^OVERVIEW: FY26 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY
DEVELOPMENT BUDGET
1:35:03 PM
DEENA BISHOP, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
EARLY DEVELOPMENT, introduced the PowerPoint presentation
"Department of Education and Early Development FY2026
Governor's Budget Overview" dated February 26, 2025 (copy
on file). She began on slide 2 and relayed that the
Department of Education and Early Development's (DEED)
vision was to prepare students with the necessary knowledge
and skills to achieve their goals after they leave the K12
system. She stated that the department maintained a strong
vision for students. She advanced to slide 3 and briefly
referenced the department's statutory responsibilities,
which were listed on the slide. She continued to slide 4
and shared that the department's work continued to be
grounded in Alaska's Education Challenge, which had been a
nearly decade-long collaborative effort to shape the
state's educational priorities. She stated that the
initiative focused on five strategic priorities.
Commissioner Bishop advanced to slide 5 which outlined the
structure of the presentation. She would begin with an
organizational overview. She indicated that she would then
turn the presentation over to her colleague for a financial
summary and other high-level budget items. She continued to
slide 6 which included a list of definitions of acronyms
that were commonly used by the department.
Commissioner Bishop continued to slide 7 and explained that
the department operated under the authority of the State
Board of Education, which she reported to as commissioner.
Within DEED, she oversaw Deputy Commissioner Karen Morrison
and Director Kathy Moffitt of the Division of Innovation
and Education Excellence. She noted that the department
included several divisions, commissions, and boards,
including the Alaska State Council on the Arts (ASCA), the
Professional Teaching Practices Commission (PTPC), and the
Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education (ACPE).
Commissioner Bishop advanced to slide 8 and stated that
there were teams within each division that were responsible
for various functions and programs. She encouraged members
to examine the chart on the slide to gain a clearer
understanding of the department's operations. She relayed
that the Division of Innovation and Education Excellence
(DIEE) encompassed a range of programs and outcomes. She
moved to slide 9 which included detailed information on the
commissions and boards within DEED. She then turned the
presentation over to the department's acting administrative
services director.
1:38:19 PM
MONIQUE SIVERLY, ACTING ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, continued on
slide 10 and stated that the department's total budget was
$1.6 billion. She noted that the most significant decrease
would be seen on slide 13, which covered school finance and
facilities. She relayed that in the pie chart labeled
"expenditures," the green section represented funds
directed toward public education in Alaska. The pie chart
labeled "divisions" illustrated how funding was distributed
by division. She explained that funding for K12 education
was based on average daily membership (ADM), which would be
discussed further in the following slides.
Ms. Silverly advanced to slide 12, which outlined the
components within the various divisions. She explained that
the executive administration budget included the
Commissioner's Office and the State Board of Education,
both of which provided guidance, policy, and motivation to
departmental employees and school districts. She stated
that the executive administration budget totaled $2
million.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if members were comfortable with
the presentation's pace. He stated that he liked the speed
but acknowledged that members might have questions.
Representative Galvin stated that she would have questions
but was happy to hold them until the end of the
presentation.
Co-Chair Josephson indicated that members could ask
questions during the presentation if desired.
Representative Hannan noted that there was substantial
growth in "other" funds on slide 12 between the FY 24
actuals and the FY 25 management plan. She asked for an
explanation of the increase.
Ms. Silverly responded that the slide displayed FY 25
management plan authority, whereas FY 24 figures reflected
actual expenditures.
Representative Hannan asked if the department was on track
to use the full authority granted for FY 25 and whether it
would need the same level in FY 26.
Ms. Silverly replied that she would follow up with details.
Representative Allard asked where the department would
recommend cuts within the state's operating budget to
support the requested increase in DEED's operating budget.
Ms. Silverly responded that she did not have a
recommendation at the moment.
Commissioner Bishop added that the figures shown for FY 24
reflected actual expenditures and that the FY 25 management
plan showed authorized amounts. She explained that the
department had authorization to fill certain positions that
remained vacant, such as a deputy commissioner role. She
noted that the vacancies contributed to differences between
actual and authorized amounts. She asked if Representative
Allard was asking about the cuts for the following year.
Representative Allard acknowledged the state's tight budget
and limited funds and explained that her question was
intended to be general. She wanted to know the
commissioner's personal opinion as a taxpayer on where cuts
might be made in the state budget to accommodate the
requested increase in DEED's operating budget.
1:42:26 PM
Commissioner Bishop responded that she would follow up with
more information. She was not up to speed on other
department's budgets and was uncertain where other cuts
could be made.
Representative Allard stated that the response would be
helpful.
Co-Chair Josephson referred to slide 12 and asked whether
the executive administration component of the budget was
only growing by approximately $55,000.
Ms. Silverly responded in the affirmative.
Representative Johnson referred to the pie chart on slide
11 and asked if the $1.2 billion section in light yellow
reflected the total base student allocation (BSA) for the
previous year or if other components were included in the
section.
Ms. Silverly responded that the yellow section referred to
K12 district support and reflected the ADM.
Representative Johnson asked if the yellow section of the
pie chart would increase if the BSA were increased. She
asked if the other sections would increase similarly or
remain relatively the same.
Commissioner Bishop responded that if the legislature
increased only the K12 support through the BSA, the other
components would likely decrease in proportion if the
overall budget remained fixed. She explained that other
budget components contained small increases, such as $1.5
million for career and technical education (CTE), $1.5
million for teacher recruitment and retention, and $120,000
for a pilot nutrition services program. She stated that the
requested changes to the governor's budget within DEED's
proposal were minimal compared to other proposals. She
clarified that other divisions such as DIEE would
experience minimal differences.
Representative Johnson asked if the BSA distributions
within the district support portion were effectively
directly allocated to districts. She asked if DEED
exercised direct oversight over the other portion of the
pie chart, which reflected the department's internal
budget.
Commissioner Bishop responded in the affirmative. She noted
that the district support funds were primarily distributed
directly to school districts and that DEED's operational
budget represented the smaller portion of the pie chart.
The data provided by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) confirmed that DEED was one of the three smallest
agencies in state government in terms of staffing. She
stated that the majority of the work occurred in Alaska's
53 school districts, not within the department. She noted
that the other two smallest agencies were the Governor's
Office and the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs
(DMVA).
Representative Johnson asked if the $1.2 billion K-12
district support figure was based on the October 2025
student count and if there was any updated enrollment data
available.
Commissioner Bishop responded that the $1.2 billion
projection was based on enrollment estimates provided by
districts. She explained that under current statute, the
actual BSA figure would be determined by the 20-day
enrollment count in October, but the current budget was
based on the projections submitted in November by the
districts.
1:47:25 PM
Representative Galvin thought it was important to provide
the public with more context when using the term
"Innovation and Education Excellence." She asked whether
the DIEE portion of the pie chart represented the work
taking place within the DEED building in Juneau.
Commissioner Bishop responded in the affirmative.
Representative Galvin understood that DIEE's work primarily
involved determining how dollars flowed to schools as well
as managing the parameters for grant and federal funds. She
asked whether her understanding was accurate.
Commissioner Bishop responded by requesting to return to
slide 8. She noted that the slide showed the division's
areas of work, including Student and School Achievement,
which encompassed implementation of the Alaska Reads Act,
teacher certification, and early learning coordination. She
stated that the Early Learning Coordination Office had
approximately three employees. She noted that staff also
supported pre-kindergarten grants and CTE grants. She added
that additional employees worked on facilitating federal
grants.
Representative Galvin asked how many individuals from the
Juneau office were delivering the services listed on the
slide. She understood that most staff were located in
Juneau. She asked how current staffing levels compared to
staffing levels 15 years ago.
Commissioner Bishop responded that she did not have the
specific staffing numbers on hand. She stated that staffing
had decreased significantly over time. Some employees shown
on the earlier slide were part of ACPE, and the acting
director was available to provide additional detail. She
stated that approximately 50 positions were lost when
investment responsibilities were transferred to an outside
agency. Overall, the department had fewer employees than it
had five years earlier.
Representative Galvin stated that she had recently visited
the Juneau office and the building appeared almost empty
compared to previous years when it appeared to be full. She
thought that changes in staffing had occurred not only due
to ACPE but also due to the loss of subject-area
specialists who had previously supported Alaska's 53 school
districts. She observed that the specialists had assisted
smaller and more remote districts with science, math,
civics, home economics, social-emotional learning, and
other subjects. Some support remained, such as CTE support
and combined science and math specialists, but in some
cases, there was only one support person assisting in one
subject across all 53 districts.
Representative Galvin emphasized that historical staffing
reductions were significant, and she requested to be
provided with staffing data. She understood that some
districts might now rely on online resources to replace
prior departmental support, but the loss of state-level
expertise was a significant change. She suggested that the
shift could be attributed to a policy change, a change in
philosophy, or funding constraints. She stressed the
importance of recognizing there were fewer helpful
resources available for students.
Representative Stapp observed that there was a nearly
$400,000 discrepancy between actual expenditures and the
management plan on slide 12. He understood that there was a
change of two full-time positions, but he thought the
discrepancy seemed high for only two positions. He asked
for an explanation of the discrepancy.
Commissioner Bishop suggested that Ms. Silverly respond to
the question.
1:53:41 PM
Ms. Silverly responded that two full-time positions had
been added. The funding for the first position was
available within FY 24, but a technical adjustment was
required, and the position was deleted and reestablished
under a different funding code. The second was a research
analyst position. She confirmed that the $400,000
discrepancy was not simply because of wages for the two
positions, but also represented interagency authority,
which was not fully utilized each year.
Representative Stapp stated that he appreciated the
response, but it did not clarify the reason behind the
$400,000 discrepancy. He requested that further information
be provided in a follow up. He commented that the funding
still involved undesignated general funds (UGF) despite
being classified as interagency authority.
Representative Allard asked for job descriptions for the
two positions discussed.
Representative Hannan relayed that she remained interested
in the growth in the other funding category between the FY
24 actuals and the FY 25 management plan. She acknowledged
that the FY 25 numbers were based on authorization rather
than actuals but noted that the source of the other funds
was unclear. She asked whether the department had expected
federal funds or inter-agency transfers to cover the
amounts and requested that the explanation be included in a
follow up.
Co-Chair Josephson directed attention to slide 11. He asked
for clarification regarding the three categories within the
non-K12 district support section of the pie chart. He
noted that School Finance and Facilities was listed at $24
million, Child Nutrition at $77.5 million, and DIEE at
$210.5 million. He asked whether the Child Nutrition funds
were used to feed children.
Commissioner Bishop responded that the $77.5 million for
Child Nutrition did not remain within the department but
was distributed to school districts.
Representative Hannan asked if the DIEE directly benefited
students.
Commissioner Bishop responded in the affirmative. She
explained that some of the funds within DIEE were
distributed to districts in the form of grants. For
example, school accountability funds provided grants to
school districts identified through the assessment model as
needing improvement. The grants supported efforts to
improve educational outcomes. She added that there were
other grants within DIEE that supported initiatives such as
teacher retention and recruitment, about which she could
provide additional details in a follow up.
Co-Chair Foster asked where Head Start program funding was
in the budget.
Commissioner Bishop responded that the $13 million for Head
Start was included within the Early Development category.
She explained that within the Early Learning Coordination
component within DIEE, one employee was funded using
federal funds from the federal Office of Head Start, but
the rest of the Head Start funds were distributed to local
partners. She confirmed that $13 million went to all Head
Start programs across the state but additional smaller
specific amounts were allocated to Best Beginnings, Thread,
DOH, and Parents as Teachers.
1:59:25 PM
Ms. Siverly continued on slide 13 and stated that the
Division of Finance and Support Services (DFSS) had a
budget of $1.3 billion and included components such as the
Foundation Program, Pupil Transportation, and Child
Nutrition. She added that Broadband Assistance Grants (BAG)
had been moved from the Division of Libraries, Archives,
and Museums (DLAM), which would be reflected as a reduction
on slide 17.
Representative Stapp referred to the $21 million listed for
BAG and remarked that it appeared substantially lower than
what he recalled being appropriated in the previous year.
He asked for more information about the reduction.
Commissioner Bishop indicated that DEED was available to
respond to the question.
HEATHER HEINEKEN, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND SUPPORT SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT (via
teleconference), responded that she did not have the
comparison available currently but would follow up with the
information.
Representative Stapp thought that the numbers were
published on the department's website and that he could
likely look the information up himself. He expressed that
his primary interest was understanding whether the lower
number reflected reduced participation by school districts
in the program. He asked if the department could confirm
whether fewer school districts were applying for the
grants.
Commissioner Bishop responded that there had been districts
that no longer needed to apply for the funding. For
example, the Lower Yukon School District had transitioned
directly to Starlink and utilized burstable services. As a
result, that district was no longer using either Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) funds or state funds
because it had adopted different technology. The goal was
to bring all districts up to 100 megabits. If a district
already received service exceeding the 100 megabits
threshold, it would not qualify for funding.
Representative Stapp asked how it was possible that a
school district could move from a service that was
subsidized at 90 percent by the federal government and also
supported by a $21 million state grant, and yet still find
it more affordable to pay out of pocket for a different
service.
Commissioner Bishop responded that there had been
significant local pressure within the state to continue
receiving the federal money because the funds represented
resources coming into Alaska. She acknowledged that using
Starlink could be a cost-effective opportunity for school
districts as it did not consume as high a percentage of a
district's budgets. She emphasized that local stakeholders
still valued the federal funding.
2:04:08 PM
Representative Hannan asked whether the department could
provide the number of school districts that could not
obtain service greater than 100 megabits. She suggested
that a substantial reduction in spending suggested that
many districts might now have access to better services.
She speculated that the most remote districts likely
remained underserved and were still unable to access
adequate service levels. She asked how many districts
remained underserved. Although a decrease in spending could
be seen as a cost savings, the increasing need for online
testing and initiatives meant all districts required
consistent internet access. She did not believe that rural
districts should be held to the same standards as urban
districts. She noted that fiber optic access and Starlink
reliability could be problematic in extreme cold
temperatures.
Co-Chair Josephson requested that the department follow up
with the information if it did not have it readily
available.
Ms. Silverly continued to slide 14. She stated that DAS had
a budget of $7.3 million and the division included human
resources, grant administration, and procurement, and also
included the department's leases and IT components.
Ms. Silverly proceeded to slide 15 and reported that DIEE
had a budget of $210 million. The division contained most
of the programmatic funding allocated to school districts
and housed special education programs and CTE.
Representative Hannan asked how many employees were
currently working on teacher certifications and asked what
the current wait time was for teacher certification and
recertification. She noted that over the past few years,
the committee had received numerous complaints from
individuals seeking certification and from school districts
attempting to pay individuals whose certifications were
still pending. She asked for information about the backlog.
Commissioner Bishop responded that the most recent data
showed the average processing time was under eight weeks.
She had recently encountered two individuals who had
received their certifications within four weeks. Last year,
the department decided to continue accepting paper
applications while also processing online submissions,
which required staff to work in both systems
simultaneously. The department made the decision to
discontinue paper applications in the past summer. At that
time, there had been a backlog, and staff worked to process
all paper materials before fully transitioning to the
online system. At the beginning of the current year, the
department faced delays due to the processing of non-
traditional certifications which required individual
review, such as emergency certifications. Additionally, the
influx of certification requests driven by the Alaska Reads
Act created a significant volume of work, placing the
department as much as four months behind.
Commissioner Bishop relayed that the department redirected
two internal positions to assist with certification
processing which brought the total number of staff working
on certifications to seven. She stated that processing
times had returned to approximately four weeks as of the
fall of 2024, and the department aimed to maintain the
timeline. The long-term goal was to modernize the system,
which would allow both school districts and employees to
view the status of certification applications. Previously,
only individual applicants could track the progress of the
applications, but the new system would allow employers to
also see certification status as applicants moved through
the process. The department's target was a 30-day
turnaround time for certification, and it was approaching
its goal.
2:08:47 PM
Representative Hannan stated that the update was
encouraging but she still had concerns. She asked if the
transition to an entirely digital application process
created complications for non-traditional teachers, such as
those from foreign countries. For example, there might be a
teacher who had graduated from a college in the Philippines
and might still possess only paper-based transcripts. She
asked whether the department was experiencing a burden
related to digitizing such records for international or
non-traditional applicants.
Commissioner Bishop responded that the department did not
think the issue significantly impacted the backlog. She
explained that there was a growing interest in hiring
employees on visas through teacher recruitment and
retention initiatives. Many visa holders were transitioning
from J-1 visas to H visas, which provided more long-term
employment options. She stated that the trend had not
created bottlenecks in the certification process.
Commissioner Bishop emphasized that the real challenge was
with emergency certifications. She stated that standard
certifications followed set criteria, but emergency
certifications required an additional level of individual
review, which caused delays. She reiterated that
international teachers were not contributing to the
slowdown. The department sought to provide more support to
school districts through teacher recruitment and retention
initiatives. She noted that school districts were
responsible for sponsoring J-1 visas and that much of the
paperwork backlog existed at the district level. Part of
the department's funding request involved establishing a
statewide system to assist districts with processing the
applications. She reiterated that the backlog was more
likely to occur at the local level and not within the state
certification office.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if the box labeled "Federal,
Student and School Achievement" on slide 15 represented the
most vulnerable source of funding. He stated that the
federal administration had indicated that reforms were
under consideration and that the funding could be
restructured into a block grant or potentially eliminated.
He noted that the $157 million funding allocation appeared
uncertain compared to historical norms and asked if his
assessment was fair.
Commissioner Bishop replied that the funds were currently
congressionally approved and that the federal
administration alone could not make changes to the funds.
She clarified that the federal funds included entitlement
funds and were established through congressional approval.
She relayed that any modifications would require
congressional action and would depend on the U.S.
Congress's ability to cancel or redesign the funds. She
reiterated that the funding amount itself was
congressionally approved.
Co-Chair Josephson stated that he remained concerned about
broader trends. He noted that congress also approved funds
for the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID), but the funds had nevertheless become unavailable.
He stated that a definitive U.S. Supreme Court case might
be needed to confirm that appropriated funds under federal
law could not be undone. He noted that the issue remained
unresolved. He asked if there was confidence that the funds
in question would remain available for the current federal
fiscal year.
Commissioner Bishop replied that the USAID funds referenced
were competitive grants. She stated that the department
also had a competitive grant of $50 million over five years
for reading programs. She clarified that entitlement grants
were not subject to cancellation in the same way as
competitive grants and that entitlement grants could only
be changed through congressional action. She reiterated
that while competitive grant contracts could be canceled,
entitlement funds remained protected.
Co-Chair Josephson expressed appreciation for the
explanation.
2:14:05 PM
Ms. Siverly continued to slide 16. She explained that the
slide was included to show the FY 24 actual expenditures
for the Alyeska Reading Academy and Institute (ARAI). She
reported that the expenditures totaled $4.2 million.
Co-Chair Josephson asked why the slide remained in the
presentation.
Commissioner Bishop responded that the department wanted to
demonstrate that the program was closed out in the prior
year.
Ms. Siverly continued to slide 17 and stated that DLAM had
a total budget of $12 million. She explained that the
division brought communities together and assisted
libraries and museums across the state.
Representative Hannan noted that there had been issues with
library grants in the past. She asked for assurance that
the Public Library Assistance (PLA) grants were on track,
fully budgeted, and were intended to be fully expended in
FY 26.
Commissioner Bishop responded that it was a departmental
and divisional priority to ensure the grants were funded
first.
Ms. Silverly continued to slide 18 and relayed that Mt.
Edgecumbe High School (MEHS) served approximately 400
students per school year and had a total budget of $15.9
million. She stated that the amount included funding for
the aquatic center as well as facilities operations and
maintenance.
Co-Chair Josephson asked what the funding increases for
MEHS had been over the last decade. He acknowledged that
the question might be provocative.
Ms. Silverly replied that the department would follow up
with the information.
Ms. Silverly continued to slide 19 and relayed that the
Professional Teaching Practices Commission supported the
preparation, attraction, and retention of qualified and
ethical educators by enhancing professional performance and
promoting positive and preventative measures within
Alaska's teaching profession. She stated that the
commission's budget was $293,000.
Ms. Silverly continued to slide 20 and explained that the
Alaska State Council on the Arts (ASCA) had a budget of
$4.28 million. She explained that the council represented,
supported, and promoted the creative efforts of
individuals, organizations, and agencies throughout Alaska.
Co-Chair Josephson noted that there was growth in the UGF
spending for ASCA, which he thought was positive. He asked
whether advocacy groups and local community arts groups
were satisfied with the funding amount.
Commissioner Bishop responded that Mr. Benjamin Brown from
ASCA was available to provide more information.
2:17:39 PM
BENJAMIN BROWN, CHAIRMAN, ALASKA STATE COUNCIL ON THE ARTS,
noted that he served ASCA as a volunteer and had done so
since his appointment by former Governor Frank Murkowski in
2004. In response to the earlier question from Co-Chair
Josephson, he explained that ASCA was very satisfied with
the current budget figure. He expressed appreciation for
the recent increases to the National Endowment for the Arts
(NEA) budget made by the U.S. Congress. He thought that the
increases had resulted in slightly larger allocations in
the council's three-year partnership agreements, which were
grant contracts. He expressed gratitude to the governor and
OMB for submitting a budget in December of 2024 that fully
funded and matched the council's needs. He described the
funding as a prudent investment of state dollars because it
leveraged not only federal funds but also private funds
from foundations such as the Rasmuson Foundation and the
Margaret A. Cargill Philanthropies. He stated that Alaska
had the highest ratio of non-governmental funding of any
state arts agency in the country.
Representative Allard asked what the council did and what
kind of programs were operated by the council.
Mr. Brown responded that the council operated several
different programs. He remarked that the council was
probably best known in local communities for its grants to
arts organizations. Although the grants were not large,
they were critical. For example, there was a $21,000 annual
operating support grant to Valley Performing Arts in
Wasilla, which served as a foundational part of the
organization's budget and helped provide community theater
to local residents. The council also supported many arts
organizations in Juneau, Nome, and Ketchikan. The grant
recipients were typically small nonprofits that helped
Alaskans access arts and cultural activities in their daily
lives. The council also operated a much smaller individual
artist grant program that was typically around typically
around $2,000 and helped visual artists who had never held
a gallery show obtain necessary materials such as framing
supplies. He stressed that the small grants were critical
for individuals who otherwise might not be able to advance
their careers.
Mr. Brown added that the council was well known for its
Alaska Artistic License Plate Program, which had become
extremely popular. He thanked the legislature for its
assistance in changing the laws governing the program. He
noted that the fireweed license plates were now the most
widely distributed by the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
and that the modest surcharge from the plates was used to
support council programming. Additionally, the council
operated a contemporary art bank program, which placed
contemporary Alaskan art in state offices, including
legislative offices. He added that the council also
partnered with NEA and the Poetry Foundation to put on the
Poetry Out Loud competition. The competition encouraged
young Alaskans to memorize and recite poetry at the
classroom, school, district, and state levels. He announced
that the statewide final competition would take place on
Wednesday, March 5, 2025, and would be broadcast live on
Gavel to Gavel. He emphasized that the council operated a
wide variety of programs using minimal resources and that
community partnerships were vital in delivering the
programs.
Representative Allard stated that it was important for the
public to understand the full scope of the council's work.
She thought that Mr. Brown's comments served as an
effective public message.
Co-Chair Josephson agreed with Representative Allard. He
stated the committee would continue with the presentation.
2:21:14 PM
Ms. Siverly continued on slide 21 and stated that ACPE
oversaw postsecondary education needs. She reported that
the commission's responsibilities included the Alaska
Performance Scholarship (APS), Alaska Education Grants, and
the Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho (WWAMI)
program. She stated that the commission's total funding was
$53 million.
Ms. Silverly continued on slide 22 which detailed the FY 26
budget changes for DEED. She explained that K12 funding
formulas were fully funded according to statutory
calculations and the foundation program was funded at $1.13
billion, with a BSA of $5,960. She reported that pupil
transportation funding was set at $67.8 million.
Representative Galvin asked for more information about the
department's role in helping families and students better
understand their opportunities to qualify for APS. There
was legislation passed in the prior year [HB 148] that
brought about an increase of students in the university and
in trade programs such as CTE. She thought it would be
helpful to understand how the state was better delivering
messages to families and students about available
opportunities.
Commissioner Bishop deferred the questioned to her
colleagues with more detailed knowledge on the subject.
Representative Galvin added that part of the question was
understanding how the team was working together. She
thought that communication about available opportunities
had improved both before and after a student graduated.
2:23:49 PM
DEBORAH RIDDLE, DIVISION OPERATIONS MANAGER, DIVISION OF
INNOVATION AND EDUCATION EXCELLENCE, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, introduced herself.
KERRY THOMAS, ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COMMISSION
ON POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, introduced herself.
Co-Chair Josephson relayed that there was a question about
APS and how its availability was being promoted and
communicated.
Ms. Riddle responded that DEED started the process by
serving as the agency that provided eligibility information
to ACPE. She explained that the department collaborated
with school counselors and distributed information
regarding early award notifications, which had been
established through HB 148 in the previous year. She noted
that ACPE had a strong capacity for advertising and had
become a partner of the department. She explained that the
department worked to support ACPE in disseminating
information to school districts, and department staff
worked with both private and correspondence schools to
ensure that as many students as possible were informed of
available opportunities.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if Ms. Thomas had additional
comments.
Ms. Thomas reiterated that ACPE and DEED were strong
partners in providing information about the scholarship to
Alaskan families and postsecondary institutions. She noted
that ACPE employed communication methods to promote the
scholarship. She reported that ACPE communicated directly
with students and families, typically via email, and ACPE
representatives attended school events at both the K12 and
postsecondary levels, including college and career fairs.
She relayed that ACPE maintained strong partnerships with
the University of Alaska (UA) and other higher education
institutions. The goal was to ensure that institutions were
familiar with the scholarship program and were
communicating details to prospective students.
Ms. Thomas added that ACPE also conducted social media,
advertising, and digital campaigns to promote awareness of
the scholarship. There was a cross-agency workgroup that
included ACPE, DEED, school district representatives, the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD), and
UA. She explained that the goal of the workgroup was to
ensure that every student and family was aware of the
scholarship program at the beginning of high school. She
emphasized that early awareness was important because
students needed to plan in advance in order to meet the
scholarship's curriculum and grade point average (GPA)
requirements by graduation. She stated that the workgroup
was attempting to address the need from all possible
angles.
Representative Stapp referenced slide 22 and noted that the
pupil transportation program was calculated separately from
the foundation formula. He asked Commissioner Bishop to
explain the rationale for separating the program from the
rest of the foundation formula. He noted that the program
was a fixed cost.
Commissioner Bishop responded that she was not certain of
the historical origin of the separation, but she thought
that the approach made sense. She noted that fixed costs
varied significantly across Alaska and that separating the
costs allowed for clearer identification of the expenses.
She added that pupil transportation costs were based on a
per-pupil calculation but were separated to ensure that
funds intended for transportation were used for their
intended purpose, while other funds could be directed
toward classroom instruction.
Representative Stapp agreed and thought it was important to
understand how money reached the classroom. He noted that
different districts faced different fixed costs. For
example, residential electric rates in Fairbanks were
approximately $0.27 per kilowatt hour, while costs in
Ketchikan and Juneau were much lower. He asked whether the
commissioner had considered identifying other fixed costs
outside of pupil transportation and removing the costs from
the foundation formula to provide the legislature with a
clearer picture.
Commissioner Bishop responded that she had considered the
issue and noted that Fairbanks' energy costs also affected
pupil transportation. She explained that school buses were
required by law to maintain an interior temperature of 45
degrees before picking up a single student, which required
heated indoor storage that was not mandatory in other areas
of the state. She reported that she and her staff had
explored the idea of addressing fixed energy costs
directly.
Commissioner Bishop explained that historically, there had
been a 70/30 provision that required 70 percent of all
funds received by a district to be spent on instruction.
The provision had since been removed due to increasing
difficulty in adhering to it. She noted that some districts
spent as little as 8 percent of their budgets on energy,
while others spent more than 40 percent on various forms of
energy. She thought it would be prudent to review the last
three years of actual energy expenditures and to determine
an acceptable percentage of a district's operating budget
to be spent on energy. She suggested a starting range of 10
percent to 15 percent. If a district participated in energy
conservation efforts, the state could provide direct
payments for any energy expenditures exceeding the
established threshold. She emphasized that the goal was to
protect classroom instruction dollars by addressing
unavoidable fixed costs separately.
2:30:43 PM
Co-Chair Josephson stated that he was not an expert on the
foundation formula, but he believed that it already
accounted for district-level cost differentials and
disparities.
Commissioner Bishop responded that the formula included a
cost area differential; however, the disparity in energy
costs had grown significantly. She stated that the
volatility and magnitude of energy costs now exceeded the
predictable market basket costs used in the original
differential calculations, such as those for food and fuel.
She suggested that re-examining the cost area differential
could be helpful.
Representative Galvin commented that it was important to
ensure that resources were being allocated in a way that
was inclusive of students in rural Alaska. She stressed the
importance of ensuring that all Alaskan students and
families were informed about scholarship opportunities,
including the complexities of completing the Free
Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). She requested
that the department follow up with additional detail on how
resources were being allocated. In addition, she thought it
would be helpful to be provided with a demographic
breakdown of the over 900 students who had newly taken
advantage of APS. She asked whether the students were from
correspondence programs, from Anchorage, or from other
areas. She stated that understanding the ways in which the
program had been effective in reaching students would help
inform future funding decisions.
Co-Chair Josephson requested that the presenters include
the requested breakdown of students in the follow-up and
provide details about outreach efforts to rural Alaskans
regarding the scholarship.
2:33:32 PM
KAREN MORRISON, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, advanced to slide 23. She
stated that the chart showed total state aid and one-time
funding outside the foundation formula from FY 00 to fiscal
year 26. She moved to slide 24, which displayed the
historical trend of foundation funding and ADM over the
past 26 years. She noted that the slide included
preliminary data for FY 25 as well as projected data for FY
26. The table on the right side of the slide provided
detailed figures and showed that the projected foundation
funding for FY 26 was $1.13 billion with an ADM of 124,700.
Representative Galvin asked whether the department had
considered presenting information that accounted for the
inflationary cost of education rather than only the total
dollar amount spent. She noted that the purchasing power of
each dollar changed over time and it was important to
understand how inflation affected educational funding.
While dollar values might appear to increase, the real
value could decline. She reiterated the importance of
understanding the value of the dollar being spent. She
suggested including background data that showed an
inflation-adjusted trend.
Representative Stapp recommended examining a 20-year period
for inflation adjustment. He noted that the chart on the
slide showed that ADM was currently slightly lower than in
earlier years, while state aid had approximately doubled
since 2004. He suggested that showing the growth of fixed
costs over the time period would be helpful in
understanding how the costs related to the increase in
state aid.
Representative Allard stated that some members of the
public had expressed concern about crowded classrooms. She
asked the commissioner to share her perspective on the
issue. She recalled that the commissioner had previously
shared data and research that showed that classroom size
was not correlated to student learning outcomes, which she
agreed with. She asked the commissioner to share her
perspective.
2:37:10 PM
Commissioner Bishop responded that the reference came from
a book she had read that was a meta-analysis of educational
research. She could not recall the title of the book at the
moment. According to the book, class size was one indicator
of student learning outcomes but was not within the top
forty factors that impacted learning trajectories. She
asserted that other improvements and pedagogical practices
used in schools had greater influence than class size. She
offered to provide the book title or excerpted information
from it in a follow up. She indicated that teacher quality,
teacher feedback, and student engagement were among the
higher-impact factors. The educational research detailed in
the book demonstrated that class size was not the first
priority for improving student learning.
Representative Allard requested that the department provide
the information to members so that individual school
districts could better understand the research.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if the follow up would be the
report alone or the complete book.
Commissioner Bishop responded that she could extract the
specific section from the book addressing class size. She
explained that the study summarized which educational
factors had the most significant effects on student
learning. She stated she would be happy to provide full
copies of the book to members if desired.
Co-Chair Josephson expressed that he was skeptical of the
validity of the study. He stated that he found it difficult
to accept that class size was ranked outside the top forty
influencing factors and questioned the credibility of the
report. He noted that at large universities, introductory
classes might have hundreds of students, while small
universities had small class sizes. He reiterated his
suspicion of the book's data, though he acknowledged that
he had not yet reviewed it.
Representative Stapp directed attention to slide 25, which
addressed the growth of correspondence programs and the
decline in brick-and-mortar school enrollment. He
understood that one of the formulaic issues in the
foundation formula was that the school size multiplier did
not act as a positive indicator for a district like
Anchorage. He noted that Anchorage might see declines in
brick-and-mortar enrollment because of the declining BSA
amounts. He noted that Anchorage was discouraged from
closing schools, and it would receive reduced funding per
student under the current formula. He described the
situation as a "perverse incentive" to keep under-enrolled
schools open. He asked the commissioner to comment on the
issue and suggest potential solutions.
Commissioner Bishop responded that years ago, there had
been an incentive for districts to close schools, which
included a "hold harmless" provision to ease the financial
burden of school closure. Within the current formula, a
school functioned as a funding factor, which meant that
there could be financial advantages to maintaining more
schools. She explained that the school size factor favored
smaller schools and benefited many rural districts.
However, there was a "sweet spot" in the formula where
funding began to diminish with increasing school size. She
believed that at the high school level, the formula
provided less than one dollar per additional student after
reaching approximately 1,100 students. She clarified that
the reduction applied only to students exceeding the
threshold, as the state considered 1,100 students to be the
ideal school size.
Commissioner Bishop understood the ideal total was 450
students in elementary schools. She explained that schools
would receive less funding for any child enrolled in a
school after the 450 student threshold had been reached.
She explained that the structure addressed the economies of
scale that benefited larger cities. She noted that many
students had shifted to correspondence programs,
particularly over the past ten years and especially since
the COVID-19 pandemic. She explained the department had
examined strategies to provide funding to districts in
recognition of the fact that modern correspondence
education differed significantly from what it had been 20
to 30 years ago.
Commissioner Bishop continued that many parents had
discovered during the pandemic that they preferred having
more control over their children's education and valued the
flexibility it provided. She noted that many school
districts had adapted by developing flexible correspondence
models in which students participated both in traditional
brick-and-mortar instruction and online learning. She added
that districts continued to provide supports such as CTE,
special education, and English language learner services to
correspondence students. The governor's goal was to
recognize the support provided by districts to
correspondence students and to provide additional funding
in response. She acknowledged that the hold harmless
provision related to school closures only lasted about
three years, and including a school in the formula created
an incentive to keep schools open. She noted that there
were multiple factors involved and indicated that the
department was attempting to make improvements.
2:44:13 PM
Representative Stapp remarked that the growing popularity
of correspondence programs had created a unique situation
in which student enrollment shifted significantly from one
district to another. He observed that the foundation
formula did not appear to account for the shift. Once the
hold harmless period expired, districts often experienced a
significant and sudden drop in ADM. He noted that the
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District (FNSBSD) had
experienced a significant ADM drop. He asked if the
commissioner had any ideas on how to compensate for the
shift.
Commissioner Bishop responded that she was not certain of
the exact numbers related to FNSBSD; however, a school
closure triggered one type of hold harmless provision,
while a district-wide enrollment drop of more than 5
percent triggered another type of provision. She stated
that both provisions were currently enforced. She noted
that some school districts operated popular statewide
correspondence programs that had generally existed for a
long period of time. She explained that 32 school districts
had either launched correspondence programs or were
operating their own correspondence programs in an effort to
retain students. Many districts aimed to capture students
as they entered kindergarten because parents preferred to
retain rollover funds in the allotments, which could be
used for specific educational purchases. The process was
similar to how schools maintained a fund balance for
targeted purposes.
Commissioner Bishop relayed that districts sought to enroll
students early in their academic careers and retain the
students. When families chose to stay with a correspondence
program, it was often because the family was satisfied with
the services provided. She reiterated that two separate
hold harmless provisions existed: one for a 5 percent ADM
drop and one for school closures. She explained that when
students chose a correspondence program that generated less
funding, it created additional challenges as districts
received less funding for correspondence students than for
students enrolled in brick-and-mortar schools. She
explained that the disparity was one of the reasons the
department attempted to enhance funding based on student
needs, since districts were still providing services to
those students.
Representative Stapp understood that during the pandemic,
many students left brick-and-mortar schools and enrolled in
correspondence programs operated by their own school
districts. He stated that the shift created a funding issue
because the same student was now counted at 90 percent ADM
under the correspondence model, even though the student
remained in the same district.
Commissioner Bishop confirmed that students in
correspondence programs were funded at 90 percent ADM and
also did not generate any of the additional multipliers
included in the foundation formula. She emphasized that the
multipliers were where districts could actually increase
funding. She explained that the department had attempted to
provide multipliers to districts that operated
correspondence programs.
Representative Stapp asked whether the provision would be
included in the governor's education bill.
Commissioner Bishop responded in the affirmative.
2:48:35 PM
Representative Galvin asked for clarification on the
figures on slide 25. She noted that she had previously
heard a different figure for the projected correspondence
enrollment for 2026 than the 781 student decrease on the
slide. She had heard it would be a loss of around 2,000
students. She asked for clarification on whether the 781
figure represented the correct projection for the decrease
in correspondence enrollment.
Ms. Morrison responded that the total projected decrease in
ADM was 2,053 students. Of that total, 1,270 students were
projected to be lost from brick-and-mortar enrollment, and
783 from correspondence enrollment.
Representative Galvin asked whether more students were
projected to leave correspondence than brick-and-mortar.
Ms. Morrison responded that the comparison to the current
fiscal year showed a 61.9 percent decrease in brick-and-
mortar enrollment and a 38.1 percent decrease in
correspondence enrollment.
Representative Galvin reiterated that her understanding of
the projection was 1,270 fewer brick-and-mortar students
and 781 fewer correspondence students. She asked if her
understanding was correct.
Ms. Morrison responded that the correct number for
correspondence was 783.
Representative Galvin explained that she was trying to
understand the broader context. She believed the projected
decrease represented a higher proportion of correspondence
students leaving their programs than brick-and-mortar
students leaving the schools. She stated that there were
approximately 120,000 K-12 students in brick-and-mortar and
around 23,000 in correspondence.
Ms. Morrison confirmed that the proportionate loss for the
next year was expected to be greater in correspondence than
in brick-and-mortar.
2:52:12 PM
Representative Bynum remarked that the topic of education
spending and the obligations involved was a complex
conversation. He thought it was difficult to see how all
the components were actually impacting individual school
districts. He noted that districts were highly variable,
including Regional Educational Attendance Areas (REAAs) as
well as city and borough school districts, each with
different responsibilities. He hoped the department could
provide a high-level explanation of the various funding
sources.
Representative Bynum noted that the discussion thus far had
focused primarily on state aid, but earlier slides had
referenced federal dollars, including impact aid. The
federal funds were affected by specific state actions such
as the disparity test, which resulted in cost savings for
the state. He remarked that the state could choose not to
administer the disparity test while allowing school
districts to retain the full impact aid without a cap,
which would result in a greater obligation for the state to
fund schools. He asked if the department could briefly
explain the challenges related to providing data on non-
state funding, including federal dollars as well as
required and discretionary local contributions.
Commissioner Bishop responded that under the current
disparity test, approximately $82 million was applied
toward a local contribution in various REAAs or cities that
received federal impact aid. She stated that the disparity
test served as a balancing mechanism to ensure that there
was not more than a 25 percent difference in school funding
between the wealthiest and poorest districts. She explained
that within the 25 percent margin, there was a basic level
that all districts were required to contribute as well as
an upper limit that districts could choose to approach,
resulting in variability within the allowable range. She
noted that Ms. Morrison had experience working directly
with the formula and she suggested that Ms. Morrison speak
to her experience.
Ms. Morrison added that the total amount calculated under
the state's funding formula was considered the basic need.
She explained that the minimum required local contribution
or a portion of the district's impact aid was then
subtracted from the basic need total. She clarified that
the state did not directly receive any federal impact aid;
rather, the amount was simply used as a numerical factor
within the funding formula. After calculating the formula
and subtracting the necessary amounts, the state determined
its share of funding for each district and then added the
quality schools funding on top.
Representative Bynum remarked that the legislature had a
constitutional obligation to establish and maintain a
system of public schools open to all children of the state.
He asked whether it was correct to interpret the state aid
requirement as the minimum level of funding needed to meet
that constitutional obligation.
Ms. Morrison responded in the affirmative.
Representative Bynum understood that districts had the
ability to contribute additional funding to schools beyond
what was required to meet the constitutional obligation. He
stated that he would not delve into school bond debt
reimbursement, but he thought that most city and borough
school districts had the ability to fund the physical
school buildings that students attended. He asked for
confirmation that spending on school facilities was not
linked to the state's operational funding requirement.
Commissioner Bishop responded in the affirmative. She
stated that it was managed through a separate account.
2:58:00 PM
Representative Bynum suggested that when evaluating
education policy in the state holistically, it became clear
that Alaska approached funding differently depending on the
type of district. He relayed that REAAs and city or borough
school districts operated under vastly different funding
mechanisms. He pointed out that city and borough districts
were required to contribute to meeting the constitutional
obligation, whereas the state covered the obligation in
REAAs. He thought that the charts in the presentation did
not reflect the full picture of education funding because
local required contributions and federal dollars were
sometimes excluded.
Commissioner Bishop responded that the charts did not
account for all funding flowing into school districts. For
example, a local homeowner in Ketchikan or Anchorage might
pay a separate tax for a school construction bond in
addition to any taxes levied for school operations. She
clarified that the two were separate and distinct items
within the taxing authority.
Representative Bynum clarified that his intent was to make
the distinction clear. He acknowledged that he was not an
expert in REAAs or in the city and borough model, but he
had spent four years studying the foundation funding
formula and how it affected local school districts within
his district. He stated that the funding mechanisms were
highly variable across districts, and he wanted to
highlight the complexity of the system.
Representative Bynum shared that he had a second question
regarding an issue that had not been discussed. He noted
that the charts in the presentation showed trends in
funding, including increases that leveled off and the
incorporation of one-time funding. He noted that since the
foundation formula had last been studied in depth 25 years
ago, there had been a significant change related to the
special education multiplier. He had not heard anyone
address the changes to the special education multiplier or
how the resulting funding had impacted overall school
funding. For example, when the intensive special education
multiplier had increased in Ketchikan around 2009, it had
grown from a factor of five to a factor of 13 over a short
period of time. He explained that approximately 5 percent
of the district's funding had been attributed to intensive
special education in 2009. In 2025, roughly 35 percent of
the total funding was now tied to intensive special
education. He noted that while overall school funding may
appear to be increasing, much of the increase could be
attributed to the compounded effect of the higher
multiplier. He asked how the increased funding requirements
associated with intensive special education had affected
overall funding going into school districts.
Commissioner Bishop responded that under Alaska's funding
formula, all funds began with the ADM and then were ran
through various multipliers, including the small school and
large school multipliers. She explained that the result of
the process was one collective pool of funding at the
district level. Districts then allocated the funds through
internal budgeting processes to support their programs.
Commissioner Bishop added that that there were six
qualifying provisions a student needed to meet in order for
the district to receive funds for intensive special
education. She acknowledged that there was an increase in
funding related to intensive special education and stated
that the department was reviewing the current system,
particularly because once a student qualified, the funds
continued without routine auditing after the initial
determination. She stated that districts reported the data
themselves.
Commissioner Bishop relayed that the department was
considering a regulatory change to gain a clearer
understanding of how the funds were being used and to
better assess the ongoing need. She added that many young
children had been entering the system with intensive needs
and the department was considering how to address
transitions for higher need students as they grew older.
She did not have specific information on services within
Representative Bynum's district, but the data would be held
locally. She emphasized that all funds were placed in one
account, but the funds designated for special education
were specifically directed toward students with intensive
and low incidence needs.
3:03:51 PM
Representative Bynum asked if the department had observed a
statewide trend of more students being placed in the
intensive special education category. He reported that
prior to the multiplier change, there had been
approximately 35 students in the category in his district.
He stated that the current number had grown to between 125
and 130 students and had increased each year. He
acknowledged that some definitional changes may have
occurred but asked if the department had observed similar
trends statewide.
Commissioner Bishop confirmed that there had been a
statewide increase in students qualifying for intensive
special education funding. She stated that the trend was
most prevalent in schools in larger cities. She added that
the department could provide exact figures and a historical
trend analysis in a follow up.
Representative Bynum asked what substantial changes the
department had implemented over the last 20 to 25 years
that had resulted in better educational outcomes for
students, apart from the special education multiplier and
the Reads Act.
Commissioner Bishop responded that data from the era of the
No Child Left Behind Act and the High School Graduation
Qualifying Exam indicated that student achievement used to
be higher. She stated that direct investments CTE had also
contributed to improved opportunities for students,
although she would need to review student outcome data to
make a conclusive statement on the impact. She predicted
that the Reads Act would demonstrate a positive trend in
student achievement in the future.
Representative Bynum relayed that a consistent concern
reported by education leaders in his district had been the
increasing prevalence of mental health issues among
students. He stated that mental health issues affected
students' ability to learn and it was critical to address
the issues. He asked what kinds of creative strategies or
collaborative efforts the department was pursuing to
improve the state's response to the growing concern in
schools, such as partnerships with the Alaska Mental Health
Trust Authority (AMHTA).
3:07:27 PM
Commissioner Bishop responded that one strategy under
consideration was a bill sponsored by Representative Zack
Fields that aimed to eliminate cell phone usage among
students [HB 57]. She stated that data demonstrated the
harmful effects of cell phone usage on students' mental
health. She noted that Ketchikan had been a frontrunner in
a separate initiative involving partnerships with external
agencies, particularly the U.S. Department of Health and
Social Services. She explained that both the federal
government and the state had changed policies in the prior
year to allow districts to bill Medicaid and Medicare for
mental health services provided to students with
demonstrated needs who did not have Individualized
Education Plans (IEPs). Previously, only students with IEPs
qualified for such billing under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). School districts
historically had not been responsible for providing mental
health services; however, Alaska Department of Health (DOH)
Commissioner Heidi Hedberg had begun leading new
partnership efforts with external agencies. She stated that
under the new approach, outside agencies could now bill for
mental health services if a student's parent did not have
insurance and the student was not on an IEP.
Representative Bynum asked if DEED was working toward
modeling a program that could be replicated in other
districts.
Commissioner Bishop responded that DEED was collaborating
with DOH and had been actively engaged in the work since
the federal allowance was adopted at the state level the
previous year. She acknowledged that one of the primary
challenges was the shortage of clinicians in Alaska, but
the department was still exploring how to expand the
program statewide.
3:10:22 PM
Representative Allard asked for more information about the
increase in special education enrollment and the associated
rise in funding. She thought that the significant increase
in enrollment was particularly notable and stated that
numerous teachers had told her it was difficult to ignore
the link between increased diagnoses and increased funding.
She asked who was responsible for diagnosing students at
the earliest level. She inquired whether the responsibility
fell to a school counselor, nurse, teacher, or parent.
Commissioner Bishop responded that eligibility for special
education services was clearly defined under IDEA. She
stated that a school psychologist and the student's teacher
were required to be involved in the evaluation process.
There was substantial supporting documentation required for
a formal diagnosis. She added that for many students with
high needs or low incidence conditions, eligibility was
determined through medical diagnoses and made early in
life. The state also operated the Child Find program, which
identified eligible children as young as three years old in
order to begin intervention early and potentially alter the
child's developmental trajectory. She stated that Child
Find was funded through special education dollars. The
identification process was lengthy and governed by legal
statutes and regulations. She added that the department
hoped to move toward more regular reevaluation of students'
needs as they progressed through school, especially for
those receiving intensive behavioral support.
Representative Allard stated that she was concerned about
student behavior in relation to special education
enrollment. She asked whether the department had any
statistics regarding how many older students had been
evaluated for special education services, particularly
those diagnosed with ADHD or prescribed medication such as
Ritalin. She acknowledged that it was a complex question
but wanted to hear the department's perspective. She was
concerned that children were being misdiagnosed due to
limited recesses and shortened lunch periods. She noted
that in prior decades, children had longer breaks and there
were fewer behavioral interventions. She speculated that
the rise in diagnoses might be correlated with increased
funding allocations. She had not yet received an
explanation for the steep increase in Alaska's special
education population and found the trend alarming. She
suggested that limiting cell phone use might be part of the
solution.
3:13:45 PM
Commissioner Bishop responded that there was a law
prohibiting educators from recommending medication to
students. She stated that only medically trained
professionals were permitted to discuss medication and
school nurses could not prescribe it.
Representative Allard asserted that there was also a law
that said "you're not allowed to not do certain things to
your children" n and she alleged the Anchorage School
District (ASD) violated the law routinely.
Co-Chair Josephson interrupted and requested clarification
from Representative Allard. He stated that she had asserted
that ASD was violating the law, but he was unsure of what
she meant. He asked her to allow the commissioner to finish
her response and then stated that he did not know what her
comment was referring to.
Representative Allard replied that she did not trust the
actions that seemed to be forthcoming.
Co-Chair Josephson stated that he was simply unclear on the
actions she was referring to.
Representative Allard stated that she was speaking about
transgender students. She had read a document from ASD that
stated that students could use different names or identify
as a different gender without parental notification. She
understood that a federal law was being broken by the
district.
Representative Hannan stated that she wanted to address a
common misconception about special education. She stated
that many people held a narrow view of what constituted a
special education student and expressed appreciation for
Commissioner Bishop's inclusion of low incidence special
education. She noted that such students were typically
medically complex and had significant medical or cognitive
conditions identified near birth or caused by later medical
events. In small or remote communities in Southeast,
families with children requiring frequent medical care
often moved to larger communities such as Ketchikan, Sitka,
or Juneau, where access to pediatric care was more readily
available. She asked for more information on what a low
incidence special education student typically looked like.
Commissioner Bishop responded that intensive special needs
funding was primarily designated for low incidence special
education students, especially as the students aged. She
explained that the goal of special education was not to
label students but to provide early intervention to help
students succeed. She stated that in the first few years of
school, such students were often identified under the
category of "developmentally delayed," unless a medical
diagnosis or a physical or cognitive disability had already
been identified.
Commissioner Bishop explained that students who were
initially identified as developmentally delayed were
reassessed at age eight and were sometimes reclassified as
having a learning disability in areas such as reading or
math. The students might also continue receiving services
under the high-intensive needs category for special
education, which would require the assistance of a teacher
and potentially another adult supervisor. She stated that
the students often required support beyond the assistance
of a classroom teacher. She explained that some of these
supports included adult supervision, assistance with
toileting, medication administration, and transportation.
She reiterated that although the occurrence of such needs
was low in the general population, the intensity of
required support was often significant and typically
resulted from birth conditions or medical diagnoses.
Representative Hannan noted that in December of 2024, the
department had issued notice of proposed regulations
related to funding disparities. She stated that many
districts were concerned that the changes would be harmful,
including in her own district of Juneau. The concern
stemmed from the proposal to include local contributions
for activities traditionally outside the funding cap in the
disparity calculation, such as sports programs. She asked
whether the proposed regulations would be included on the
State Board of Education's March agenda.
Commissioner Bishop responded that the regulations would
not be on the March agenda. She stated that the department
was still receiving feedback from school districts and
anticipated bringing the regulations forward in June of
2025. She deferred further detail to Ms. Morrison.
3:19:17 PM
Ms. Morrison added that the regulations had already been
drafted and were currently under review by the Department
of Law (DOL). She confirmed that the regulations would not
be reviewed at the March board meeting because they were
not yet ready. The department did not take a formal
position but it had felt obligated to explore the issue
after media coverage in July of 2023 highlighted that the
Juneau School District (JSD) had exceeded the funding cap.
She noted that Alaska statute clearly defined both the
minimum required local contribution and the maximum cap.
The department's intent was to ensure equitable funding
across the state in alignment with the foundation formula.
Representative Hannan asked why the state had decided to
join litigation concerning Section 504 accommodations in
Texas. She noted that the accommodations were not for
special education students but for students with other
specific needs requiring support under federal law. She
expressed concern that if the lawsuit prevailed, it could
jeopardize school districts' ability to provide 504
accommodations. She asked whether DEED had been consulted
by DOL before Alaska joined the lawsuit. She hoped that the
state would not succeed in the litigation.
Commissioner Bishop responded that she had not provided
input into the decision to join the lawsuit.
Representative Tomaszewski asked for more information about
the projected number of students in both public and
correspondence schools. He inquired whether the department
had data disaggregated by high school graduates exiting the
system and by new kindergarten students entering the
system. He asked whether the numbers were available or
could be provided.
Commissioner Bishop responded that Legislative Finance
Division (LFD) Director Alexei Painter had previously
provided data indicating that the birth rates in 2020 for
children entering kindergarten were significantly lower
than the birth rates for students graduating from high
school. She stated that the decline in enrollment could be
attributed in part to lower birth rates. She asked if Ms.
Morrison had reviewed the data.
Ms. Morrison added that the data was lumped together by
grade as follows: kindergarten through third grade, sixth
through eighth grade, and ninth through twelfth grade. She
clarified that the data were not available by individual
grade level. She stated that she would check with the
department's data team to determine whether the requested
information could be extracted and provided.
3:23:26 PM
Representative Jimmie expressed her gratitude for the Head
Start and Parents as Teachers programs. She shared that her
two daughters had participated, and the programs had been
helpful. She relayed that many rural districts had
requested that the department consider reinstating co-
curricular activities and additional counseling services.
She asked if the department had any comments on the
request.
Commissioner Bishop responded that school districts
typically did not direct such requests to the department
but instead brought them to the legislature. She affirmed
that reinstating counselors and co-curricular activities
were considered high priorities by school districts. She
emphasized that keeping students engaged and supported
remained a significant focus for the department.
3:24:38 PM
Co-Chair Josephson thanked the presenters. He reviewed the
agenda for the following day's meeting.
HB 53 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 55 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| DEED HFIN FY26 Budget Overview 2.26.2025.pdf |
HFIN 2/26/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 53 |