Legislature(2025 - 2026)DAVIS 106
03/13/2025 08:00 AM House TRIBAL AFFAIRS
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 | |
| HB59 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 59 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 59-STATE-TRIBAL EDUCATION COMPACTS
8:05:47 AM
CHAIR DIBERT announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 59, "An Act relating to demonstration state-
tribal education compacts; relating to demonstration state-
tribal education compact schools; and providing for an effective
date."
8:06:38 AM
JOEL ISAAK, PhD, Compacting Consultant, Department of Education
and Early Development (DEED), on behalf of the sponsor, House
Rules by request of the governor, co-presented the PowerPoint on
HB 59 [hard copy included in the committee packet].
8:07:13 AM
DEENA BISHOP, EdD, Commissioner, Department of Education and
Early Development, on behalf of the sponsor, the House Rules by
request of the governor, introduced the PowerPoint on HB 59.
She explained that the proposed legislation would provide
community and tribal ownership of education in the state. She
pointed out that compacting would focus on Alaska Native culture
and knowledge, as it would provide an innovative approach
towards students' needs. She thanked the tribes and Dr. Isaak.
She moved to slide 2, and discussed the mission, vision, and
purpose of DEED. She moved to slide 3 and addressed Alaska's
education challenge, which has five shared priorities. Specific
to HB 59, she directed attention to the second priority, which
is to increase career, technical, and culturally relevant
education to meet student and workforce needs.
8:09:35 AM
DR. ISAAK moved to slide 4, which laid out the agenda for the
presentation. He noted that the presentation would be referring
to Senate Bill 34 [passed during the Thirty-Second Alaska State
Legislature]. He pointed out the resources at the end of the
presentation, as past committee questions have been answered
there.
DR. ISAAK moved to slide 5 and gave an overview of compacting in
education. He stated that within the concept of education,
compacting would not rely on a selective service; rather, it is
a whole-system approach. He explained that it is a government-
to-government agreement, noting the state-tribal compact for
child welfare services and the federal compact for Indian Health
Services (IHS). He indicated that IHS has become a model for
meeting the healthcare needs of people who live in large
geographic areas, but with small, spread-out populations. He
stated that, per IHS services, the federal government provides a
funding amount, and an agreement is made on the percentage to be
spent on each service; however, education is not funded in this
way, as it is funded through a formula. He explained that
compacting would not entail the tribe teaching only one subject
at a time; instead, it would consist of teaching grade bands.
He stated that the key pieces of compacting involve governance,
training, and reporting.
8:13:03 AM
DR. ISAAK stated that during the first tribal and state meetings
concerning HB 59, it had taken participants time to understand
the definition of "report." He directed attention to the roles
the state and the tribes would play in compacting for education,
as seen on slide 6. The state role has to do with funding,
accountability to the legislature, due process, and taking
direction from the State Board of Education and Early
Development (SBOE), as the head of DEED. He next addressed the
role of tribes, which includes the operation of Tribal Compacted
Public Schools (TCPS), employing staff, training teachers,
creating curriculum, having local governance, and reporting
through SBOE to the legislature. He pointed out that TCPS would
not be under a special program; rather it would represent
tribally operated public schools, like other public schools.
8:14:40 AM
DR. ISAAK moved to slide 7 and reiterated that compacting is a
government-to-government agreement. He added that tribes are
referred to as political subdivisions, and, under the Indian
Self Determination and Education Assistance Act, tribes have
self-determination. He noted the denseness and complexity of
federal law in reference to tribes, and he pointed out that much
of the information presented has come from the passage of Senate
Bill 34 and House Bill 123 [passed during the Thirty-Second
Alaska State Legislature]. He stated that this information has
been condensed into a supplemental document, titled "Compacts:
Tribal, State, Federal Partnerships" [copy included in the
committee packet]. He pointed out the explanation of the
difference between compacts and contracts on page 5 of the
supplemental document. He noted that this difference has been
firmly established in Indian law and policy. He clarified that
tribal compacting is not a race-based agreement, as tribes are
not considered a special-interest group. He explained that this
is because compacting is a government-to-government
relationship.
DR. ISAAK shared a personal anecdote about his childhood
experience of creating Native regalia during a rendition of
Thanksgiving. He stated that this had become a positive Native
experience for him at school. He noted that had happened during
the 1990s, when healthcare compacting was first being tested.
He pointed out that compacting has existed for 35 years,
emphasizing that compacting has "weathered as a consistent need"
and is a "firmly established, positive mechanism to provide
shared services."
8:19:37 AM
DR. ISAAK moved to slide 8 and explained the progression from
Senate Bill 34 to HB 59. He stated that Senate Bill 34 had
called for the following: negotiations between tribes, SBOE
consultation, district consultation, teachers' union
consultation, the creation of a report to the legislature,
drafted bill language, and an introduction of the legislation to
the legislature. He explained that HB 59 has also met these
same requirements. He added that it is linked with Senate Bill
34, as both pieces of legislation deal with the same complexity
of state and federal law.
DR. ISAAK moved to slide 9 and slide 10 and explained the
compacting application process. He said that for HB 59, DEED
"sprinted through this process," and he expressed the opinion
that the work went well. In looking for tribes to represent, he
stated that DEED had put out a request for applications, with
the following criteria: centering tribal voice; tribal community
and tribal administrative support; transformational design; the
capacity to carry out the work; strong expertise and
understanding in educational services in all grades; and diverse
representation.
8:23:05 AM
DR. ISAAK moved to slide 11 and pointed out the selected five
tribal partners, listed as following: Central Council of the
Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, Ketchikan Indian
Community, King Island Native Community and Village of Solomon,
Knik Tribe, and Qargi Academy. He clarified that the King
Island Native Community and the Village of Solomon applied
together, so technically there are six tribes. He added that
this list represents a consortium of tribes that can work
together.
DR. ISAAK moved to slide 12 and slide 13, which showed the
timeline, reemphasizing that DEED's process has been quick and
detailed. On slide 13, he explained the timeline concerning
DEED's scheduled meetings with districts and the teachers'
union. He emphasized the importance of providing clear
information to districts and the union. He noted that because
of public funding for education, there were also meetings with
business managers. He pointed out that all these meetings had
helped produce the final Legislative Report [copy included in
the committee packet].
8:26:52 AM
DR. ISAAK moved to slide 13, which showed an explanation of the
proposed legislation, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Premise: Public schools that are open to all students
and funded through public dollars.
Mechanism: Government-to-Government agreement (State-
Tribe) to establish Tribally Compacted Public Schools
for the purposes of Tribal self-governance and a
funding mechanism that integrates with the Department
of Education and Early Development with the Tribe
functioning as a school district.
Operation: Teachers that are certified through a
Tribal training process that the Department of
Education and Early Development verifies and issues
state licenses for Tribally Compacted Public School
Teachers.
Accountability: Background checks, audits, and
assessments are required. Under the State Board of
Education for the purposes of state-wide regulation
and maintaining one system of education in Alaska.
Evaluation: Tribes provide annual progress reports,
and DEED provides a summary alongside the Tribal
progress report to the legislature.
8:29:10 AM
DR. ISAAK paraphrased the sectional analysis of HB 59 {copy
included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Section 1: Amends uncodified law by adding a new
section outlining legislative intent. The section
indicates that the intent is to have the legislature
re-evaluate the establishment of demonstration state-
tribal education compacts (STEC) outlined in this act
in seven years.
DR. ISAAK pointed out that HB 59 would be uncodified law. To
explain the use of uncodified law, he used a metaphor equating
education with a multi-engine airplane. He explained that
compacting would be like adding a new engine to the existing
system, so the interface could be understood without "tinkering
with all the other engines" while the plane is flying. He added
that in this section the compact is the actual agreement, while
state-tribal education compacts (STEC) refer to the actual
schools. He noted that the proposed legislation would create
seven years for the program, giving the first two years as a
"runway to start," and then five years of operation.
8:30:20 AM
DR. ISAAK continued paraphrasing the sectional analysis, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 2: Amends uncodified law by adding a new
section outlining the authorization of STEC compacts.
Subsection (a) grants the Commissioner authority to
negotiate and execute compacts with the federally
recognized Tribes in Alaska that participated in
negotiation under the authority of ch. 43, SLA2022.
Subsection (b) outlines the required components of a
demonstration state-tribal education compact. Each
participating tribe must follow a template that
contains similar or equivalent terms outlined in the
required 11 provisions.
Subsection (c) states a demonstration state-tribal
education compact must be in effect by June 30, 2028.
Subsection (d) defines "participating tribe" as a
federal recognized tribe and tribal organization that
participated in negotiations under sec.1, ch. 43, SLA
2022.
Section 3: Amends uncodified law by adding a new
section outlining the operation of STEC schools.
Subsection (a) requires that a STEC school must
operate in accordance with the terms of the compact
executed in sec. 2.
Subsection (b) states that a STEC school is exempt
from all state statutes and regulations applicable to
school boards except for statutes and regulation made
applicable in sec. 2 of this Act, or in legislation
enacted or regulations adopted after the effective
date.
Subsection (c) outlines provisions to the operation
and management of a STEC school as if the school were
a district. This subsection outlines the requirements
relating to school operations (1) 2 that include
parental rights, compulsory attendance, the school
term, day in session and school holidays; literacy and
early reading information; miscellaneous provisions
applicable to school district operations;
transportation of students; requirements for annual
fiscal audit; authorizing cooperation with other
school districts; prohibiting discrimination based on
sex in public education; school safety and discipline;
regulations adopted by the state board of education
and early development to implement this paragraph that
are applicable to school districts and their schools.
Additional requirements (2) include state aid to
public schools including special needs, vocational and
technical instruction, and intensive services; and
procedures for payment of public-school funding an
imposing general requirements and limits on money
paid. Requirements relating to teacher employment and
retirement (3) include sick leave; teacher
certification; employment and retention of teachers;
the teachers' retirement system; and authorizing
collective bargaining by certified employees. Finally,
it outlines requirement for students and education
programs (4) that include educational services for
children with disabilities; sexual abuse and sexual
assault awareness and prevention; establishing health
education program standards, and bilingual-bicultural
education.
DR. ISAAK stated that subsection (c) outlines the operation and
management of STEC schools as if they were school districts. He
explained that this is uncodified law modeled after Mount
Edgecombe High School, which is considered a school district,
but it is not listed as this under Title 14 in the Alaska
Statutes. He noted that Mount Edgecombe High School interfaces
with Title 14 for reporting and funding.
8:34:19 AM
DR. ISAAK moved to the next subsection, which addressed the
subject of teacher certification. He stated that the tribes
would be directed to train teachers using Title 14 requirements.
He remarked that for tribal knowledge to be taught in compact
schools, the expertise of the tribal members would be needed.
He continued paraphrasing the sectional analysis, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Subsection (d) allows the state board of education and
early development to, upon request of the STEC school
(1) waive requirements of AS 14.20.020(b) or
14.20.022(b) allowing an individual with specialized
knowledge the tribe feels relevant in order to obtain
a teacher certificate or subject matter expert limited
teacher-certification; and (2) the department may
issue a teacher certificate to a person qualified
under AS 14.20.020(b) or 14.20.022(b) Certificates
issued in the section do not require a request from
the school board of the district or regional
educational attendance area in which the STEC school
is located.
Subsection (e) outlines that a STEC school may not
engage in secular activities, charge tuition, or
restrict enrollment.
Subsection (f) requires STEC schools have a physical
location only in school districts where the board of
the department has consulted with under sec. 1(c), ch.
43, SLA 2022 unless the STEC school is a
correspondence school.
Subsection (g) requires that the STEC act as the
"employer" for teachers in the school for the purposes
of participation in the teachers' retirement system
and that a teacher employed by the STEC school is a
member of the plan.
Subsection (h) designates the federally recognized
tribe or tribal organization under this act as a
"school district" and the STEC as a "public school"
for the purpose of providing an appropriate public
education for each child with a disability. As such, a
"governing board" or "school board" is established by
the tribe or tribal organization.
Section 4: Amends uncodified law by adding a new
section for facilities. Facilities of a STEC must
conform to applicable laws concerning public access,
health, safety, and fire code.
8:38:15 AM
DR. ISAAK moved to Section 5, which addressed federal and state
funding. He pointed out that designating STEC schools as school
districts would ensure federal funding. He continued
paraphrasing the sectional analysis, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Section 5: Amends uncodified law by adding a new
section regarding funding. The legislature may
appropriate funds to a STEC in the same manner as a
regional educational attendance area. This includes
state aid and grant funding. For the purposes of
federal aid, a STEC school is known as a local
education agency.
Section 6: Amends uncodified law by adding a new
section regarding reporting. Each STEC school shall
report to the commissioner data required for all
federal and state funding sources including
attendance, assessment data, and all data reported in
the state and federal report cards to the public as
well as the Annual Report to the Legislature.
Section 7: Authorizes the department and the board of
education to adopt implementing regulations.
Section 8: Sunsets the authorization of the
demonstration STEC program on July 1, 2036.
Section 9: Provides for an immediate effective date.
DR. ISAAK explained that HB 59 would create a pilot program, but
a new piece of legislation would have to be passed for the
program to continue after 2036. He stated that the mechanism in
the proposed legislation would be a continuation of Senate Bill
34, which has already identified the five tribes, [as previously
listed], but a new bill would be needed to make STEC permanent.
He expressed the opinion that keeping the process small would
help ensure that it works, thus the reasoning for using only
five tribes for the pilot program.
8:41:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK directed attention to Section 3,
subsection (c), and questioned whether it would conflict with
subsection (h). She asked whether, under STEC, the tribe would
function as the district and the school would function as a
school in the district, or if the school would function as the
district. She conjectured whether it could be either.
DR. ISAAK responded that the tribe would function as the school
district and operate like any other school district regarding
schools. He stated that the use of the term "district" in the
presentation and corresponding documents would refer to
"tribally compacted school district."
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK clarified that for a capital budget
request for a new facility, the line-item request would come
from the tribe, not the STEC school.
DR. ISAAK responded that the tribe functioning as a school
district would be putting in the capital budget request. He
added that the tribe would not have to go through DEED because
it is not an extension of the state; rather, it would be
functioning as a standalone.
8:44:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHWANKE thanked Dr. Isaak. She noted the
difficulty and complexity when basing new legislation on
preexisting statutes. She directed attention to Section 3 and
questioned DEED's process with teacher certification.
DR. ISAAK responded that all teachers would be under the
Professional Teaching Practices Commission (PTPC), including
compact schoolteachers. He noted the suggestion that the number
of seats on the board be amended to include tribal
representation. Because HB 59 would be uncodified, he said PTPC
operation would remain unchanged. He noted that changing this
has been discussed, but it is not within the proposed
legislation. He reiterated the concept of keeping the program
small, as this would help understand efficacies in reporting and
funding for teacher training, adding that the actual training
would need to be clarified so teachers could be evaluated.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHWANKE noted that many different tribes could
be involved in compacting. She questioned whether there would
be a singular type of teacher certification criteria for TCPS.
Concerning the five tribes, she questioned this process.
DR. ISAAK responded that this process would follow the
regulations, and skillsets would be outlined. He continued that
this would allow flexibility for tribes to tailor to its
individual needs, as different people groups would have
different ways to approach a topic. However, he explained that
the topics would need to be regulated. He reiterated that this
would still be flexible, as topics would not need to be "opened
up," but evidence would need to show requirements are being met.
8:50:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHWANKE asked whether STEC would settle
conflicts in a uniform way, such as school boards using the
policies written in handbooks. She reasoned that this would
create clarity.
DR. ISAAK replied that there would be policies recognized by the
state. He said that the Inupiat Community of the Artic Slope
(ICAS) and the Knik Tribe already have this in place. He added
that going through the compact negotiations would ensure these
pieces are identified preemptively.
8:52:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BURKE shared that she is a member of the ICAS
Tribe and has been the school board president for the North
Slope Borough School District. She directed attention to the
defined relationships between STEC and school districts in
Senate Bill 34; however, she noted that HB 59 does not have
this. She questioned how things like transportation and special
education would be addressed, and she questioned whether there
would still be a connection between the local school district
and the tribe.
DR. ISAAK stated that with tribes functioning as school
districts, this collaboration would continue to exist under
Title 14. He pointed out that districts could contract with
each other for services and shared facilities. He pointed out
that this is already happening all over the state, and he
expressed the expectation that STEC schools functioning as
school districts would be partners as well.
8:55:20 AM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP provided additional information on school
district's shared services and resources. Per the previous
conversation on certifications, she clarified that DEED already
operates with approved alternative teacher certifications, and
she gave details on the types of teacher certifications. She
noted that Type I and Type M certifications are for specialty
programs, which are mostly located in rural Alaska for
indigenous language immersion schools. While most other types
of certifications would be applied for by the teacher, she said
Type I and Type M would need to be applied for by the district,
or by the STEC school or the tribe operating as a school
district.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP added that currently there are regulations
and policies addressing this, and there would need to be an
expansion of these types of certifications in the statutes, per
the proposed legislation. For the record, she stated that all
safety training and responsibilities are absolutes within these
certificates.
8:58:14 AM
DR. ISAAK returned to the presentation and related that the next
slides would cover the 78-page Legislative Report on HB 59. He
explained how to navigate the report, as seen on slide 16. He
moved to slide 17 and stated that while making the report there
were two recurring questions: "Is this transformational?" and
"Is this best for kids?" He noted the hard work it took to come
to a consensus, as compacting is based on partnerships, with the
goal being transformation.
DR. ISAAK moved to slides 18 through 21, which addressed the
Legislative Report findings. He indicated that the report
relates an unabridged account of the discussions between the
tribes and DEED. He discussed governance, which would allow
tribes the local control and self-determination needed to
operate TCPS while interfacing with the parameters of Title 14.
He directed attention to the report finding that TCPS would be
funded per the foundation formula, under Title 14. This would
use the same student count cycle, formula multipliers, and
considerations as other school districts that do not have a
local contribution. He moved to the report finding on teachers
and school personnel, and he stated that, before the teachers
are certified and the schools open, the tribes must communicate
how they are meeting the regulations and statutes concerning
teacher certification. He stated that before STEC is funded, an
agreement would be completed to eliminate the unknowns, and he
pointed out that this is a strength of compacting. On slide 22,
he stated that Section 4 of the Legislative Report describes the
statutory framework of HB 59 in "layman" terms. He reiterated
that the proposed legislation was kept "tight," focusing on
testing the pilot program to meet the desired outcomes.
9:02:25 AM
DR. ISAAK directed attention to the supplemental guide to the
Legislative Report, titled "Cross Reference HB 59 and Senate
Bill 34 State Tribal Compacting Legislative Report" [copy
included in the committee packet]. He referenced the formatting
key at the top of this document. He directed attention to the
terms of the STEC agreement, as seen on page 1. He stated that
in the negotiations, it was asked what the conflict resolution
would be if a STEC school or DEED was out of compliance. He
pointed to Section 7 and Section 8 of the Legislative Report,
which addressed compliance, nonrenewal, and termination. He
stated that the compact would address noncompliance and how to
"get people back to the table." He briefly discussed examples
of this. In conclusion, he pointed out that the draft contract
agreement will have to be renegotiated if the proposed
legislation passes, as it is not binding at this point.
9:06:02 AM
DR. ISAAK moved to page 2 and directed attention to line 11
through line 14 of the supplemental guide, and he discussed the
details of insurance and liability that were communicated in the
draft compact agreement. At the bottom of page 2, he pointed
out that this is the "functioning as a school district"
language. He expressed the opinion that building the report
language was "like building a fighter jet or aircraft carrier."
He reiterated that writing the proposed legislation as
uncodified law has allowed for simplification and clarity
without having to understand the bulk of the supporting law. He
noted that in the report, the language "tribally compacted
public school district," is the same as the proposed
legislation's language, "functioning as a school district". He
reiterated that these are interchangeable clauses between the
two documents.
DR. ISAAK moved to page 4 and page 5 of the supplemental guide,
which covers teacher preparation and the recognition of out-of-
state teacher certification. He noted that these mechanisms are
already in place, and HB 59 would link into some of these. He
noted the teacher pieces concerning employee contracts and
evaluations. He expressed the importance of teacher training,
as this would be where the transformation of students in the
classroom would be initiated. He moved to page 6 and directed
attention to the conversations about the geographic areas of
TCPS and correspondence school programs.
9:10:53 AM
DR. ISAAK moved to page 8 of the supplemental guide and
discussed the powers of the governing body, regarding TCPS. He
stated that this was modeled after Title 14, Section 8, which
addresses the powers of a school district. He stated that the
duties of the governing body would include the assurance that
TCPS is following the law regarding federal programs and
requirements on bilingual and bicultural education.
DR. ISAAK explained the mechanisms for funding the pilot TPCS
program, as seen on the bottom of page 11 of the supplemental
guide. He stated that during conversations with the tribes on
start-up funding, it was decided that the proposed legislation
would follow the average daily membership (ADM) calculation in
the foundation formula. He noted that this option for funding
was chosen because of the variations in the cost of living
across the state.
9:15:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY questioned how local funding contributions
would work in the funding model.
DR. ISAAK replied that since tribes do not have taxing
authority, the calculation would be similar to regional
attendance areas (REAAs), as they do not have taxing authority.
He deferred to Commissioner Bishop.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP concurred with the response, stating this
would be exactly like REAAs.
9:16:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHWANKE pointed out that REAA districts are in
unorganized areas, but some include specialized districts that
are separate entities. She clarified that, if a STEC school is
in a borough, for example, it would be separate and not receive
any local funding.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP expressed agreement, as there would be no
obligation for incorporated areas to provide the STEC districts
with local funding.
9:17:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BURKE questioned whether the boroughs would be
making a contribution to STEC schools.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP responded that the local borough would not
make any contribution to the STEC districts, as they would be
operating as their own local education agency or district;
however, she added that STEC districts may receive federal
grants.
REPRESENTATIVE BURKE questioned whether local boroughs could
make a contribution, even though it is not required.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP responded that boroughs would be able to
provide grants to STEC districts, just like any grant to other
school districts, but would not be a requirement.
9:20:28 AM
DR. ISAAK added that currently there are no TCPS, but some
tribal schools operating now do receive local funding. He
observed that these current relationships between boroughs and
existing tribal schools would not go away.
9:21:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK clarified that TCPS would not receive a
required local contribution. She questioned the source of the
funding for the program. She noted the state funding and asked
whether tribal entities would be providing funding as well.
DR. ISAAK responded that there are ways that tribes as
governments are able to support school districts, but they are
not required to do so. He stated that the bulk of funding would
be through the existing formula for state school funding.
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK expressed concerned that there could be
funding shortfalls for these schools, since there would not be
an automatic contribution from the local government or tribe.
She questioned whether there have been conversations concerning
funding shortfalls.
DR. ISAAK clarified that the TCPS program [administrators] would
be aware that the funding is tied to the base student allotment
(BSA) and of the associated risks. Concerning existing
programs, he pointed out IHS. He added that as government,
tribes already provide services to their communities. He
advised the committee that this is where the partnerships can
help, as previously stated, tribes are already doing this for
their school districts, and he gave examples.
9:26:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY, concerning funding, questioned whether the
disparity test would be calculated, like with other school
districts. She questioned whether schools would be guaranteed
help from the tribes.
DR. ISAAK responded that the disparity test would still apply to
TCPS. He noted that this test would determine [whether a state
has equitable distribution of education funds across its
district to qualify for federal funding]. He responded that,
per the responsibility of the tribe, the compact agreement would
create transparency for the school, the state, and the
community. In response to a follow-up question on the process,
he stated that for compacting to go forward, a bill would have
to be passed, and then the negotiation would occur. He said
that the negotiation would update and outline the compact
agreement. Once the terms of the agreement are met, the school
would open.
9:30:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE UNDERWOOD expressed appreciation for the work
being done on the proposed legislation. She commented on the
strategic thoughtfulness in creating the bill, as it would be
both structured and flexible. She pointed out that HB 59 has
been tailored to the communities it would serve.
9:31:18 AM
DR. ISAAK highlighted that the goal is to be thoughtful partners
in the work. He referred to [page 11] and page 12 of the
supplemental reference, stating that this summarizes the items
that were in the Legislative Report, but not in HB 59. He
referenced the definition of "Alaska Native" in the Legislative
Report, acknowledging that using the concept of "blood quantum"
is problematic. He stated that inclusion language was adopted
from other sources, as it is a "sensitive topic." He deferred
to a review of the fiscal notes.
9:34:07 AM
HEATHER HEINEKEN, Director, Finance and Support Services,
Department of Education and Early Development, presented the
fiscal notes associated with HB 59. She directed attention to
the [four] fiscal notes [copies included in the committee
packet]. She stated that Fiscal Note 1 was prepared by the
Department of Administration, and it relates to the retirement
and benefits allocation. She pointed out that this is a zero
fiscal note, as the proposed legislation has no anticipated cost
for this. She added that teachers who are hired under the
proposed legislation must be certified to receive an allocation.
She stated that Fiscal Note 2 is a foundation formula
allocation, as the five state-tribal education compacts would
follow this formula. Concerning the student count of each of
the five tribes, she paraphrased from the fiscal note, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Central Council of the Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes
of Alaska- Juneau School District - projected 100 ADM
Ketchikan Indian Community - Ketchikan Gateway Borough
School District - projected 200 ADM
King Island Native Community and Village of Solomon -
Nome Public Schools - projected 120 ADM
Knik Tribe - Mat-Su Borough School District - projected
300 ADM and 300 correspondence ADM
Qargi Academy - North Slope Borough School District -
projected 100 ADM
MS. HEINEKEN stated that participating compact schools would
receive a one-time grant for their first operational year,
starting at 45 percent of BSA. She continued that, for fiscal
year 2026 (FY26), BSA would be $5,960, and the total estimated
cost of the one-time start-up grant would be $5.4 million, with
the foundation formula totaling $12.1 million. Combining these
amounts, the total projected cost would be $17.5 million. She
stated that Fiscal Note 2 is a zero fiscal note because the
funding mechanism would be a general fund transfer to the public
education fund. She stated that the financial impact from FY 26
to FY 31 can be seen in Fiscal Note 4. She noted that the
impact on associated school districts is indeterminate because
enrollment [numbers are unknown].
9:37:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BURKE questioned the projected ADMs listed in
Fiscal Note 2.
DR. ISAAK responded that these numbers reflect the tribes'
applications concerning capacity or existing enrollment. He
deferred to Ms. Heineken for the calculations.
MS. HEINEKEN responded that the projected numbers on the
applications were used in the fiscal notes.
9:38:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY suggested that the actual number of
students in these schools could be lower than the projections.
She questioned whether a school with less enrollment than
projected would be in a hold-harmless status. She questioned
how this would be handled.
DR. ISAAK responded that TCPS would function like any other
school district and would receive money only based on student
numbers. In response to a follow-up question, he stated that
the start-up grant would be based on enrollment, and this is
separate from the hold-harmless provision. He deferred to
Commissioner Bishop.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP stated that in order for the hold-harmless
provision to be triggered, enrollment would have to be already
established. If the total number of students did not come
through, the school would receive only the funds that its ADM
supports.
9:41:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHWANKE clarified that the startup was referred
to as a one-time grant; however, it would really be 45 percent
additional above ADM. She questioned whether the 45 percent
"bump" in ADM would go through the full-funding formula.
DR. ISAAK responded that the calculation for the dollar amount
of the grant would run through the formula, and the amount that
"kicks out" of the formula would be the amount eligible for the
grant. He stated that a grant mechanism would be used to
determine the funds going from DEED to the school districts.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHWANKE suggested that funding cuts from lower
ADM numbers could be a "catastrophic" loss to some existing
school districts. She expressed the hope that there have been
conversations with these school districts.
DR. ISAAK responded that this conversation has been happening,
as keeping the compact process small has given existing school
districts "a heads up." He pointed out that smaller communities
do not have extra school buildings, so facilities would be
shared, no matter what entity is operating the facility. He
explained that partners need to work together to share the costs
in the available spaces, as the pilot program is short, and
construction takes time. He expressed the goal of not creating
a division within school facilities and keeping the lines of
communication open.
9:46:02 AM
MS. HEINEKEN addressed Fiscal Note 3, concerning DEED's pupil
transportation allocation. She explained that the funding
impact is expected to be neutral, as any funding to TCPS would
reflect a decrease in funding to the associated district. She
stated that this is a zero-dollar fiscal note because the
funding mechanism is a general fund transfer to the public
education fund.
MS. HEINEKEN addressed Fiscal Note 4, which outlines the fiscal
impacts for the public education fund. She stated that this is
the funding mechanism for the foundation fund and the pupil
transportation allocation. She stated that each of the five
tribes listed for the compacting program would receive funding
from the foundation formula, along with the one-time start-up
grant. She repeated the amounts of the estimated cost of the
program and ADN for each of the five tribes, [as stated in the
discussion of Fiscal Note 2].
MS. HEINEKEN continued, giving a breakdown of the projected
funding for each of the five tribes, as follows: Central Council
of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska would receive the
total funding of $1.866 million; Ketchikan Indian Community
would receive the total funding of $3.357 million; King Island
Native Community and Village of Solomon would receive the total
funding of $2.752 million; Knik Tribe would receive the total
funding of $6.564 million; and Qargi Academy would receive the
total funding of $2.919 million. The totals reflect the
foundation fund and one-time start-up grant amounts for each.
She stated that the FY 27 to FY 31 projected cost is $12.1
million annually. She pointed out that impacts on existing
districts would be indeterminate because of potential enrollment
shifts. She stated that the actual foundation formula funding
for each TCPS would be determined after the student count in
October 2025, and the pupil transportation grants would be
allocated per pupil with no fiscal impact. She indicated that
there would be a one-time cost of $6,000 for legal fees to
implement the regulations. As students transfer, she noted that
existing school districts could be eligible for the hold-
harmless provision.
9:51:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY questioned whether existing schools would
be provided information for planning purposes concerning the
potential shift of student populations, which could result in
the loss of funding.
DR. ISAAK responded that, in concept, this would be the idea.
He noted that students who are not currently calculated would
create an indeterminate factor. He expressed the opinion that
projecting student movement is complex; however, the premise is
that impacted school districts would be informed within a year
of the projected enrollment.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY agreed that there would be collaboration in
sharing the enrollment.
9:54:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK questioned the ongoing cost of TCPS,
after startup cost in FY 26.
DR. ISAAK replied that the foundation formula funding would be
fluctuating per year, based on the adjusted ADM. He noted that
the $12.1 million would fluctuate as with any school district,
but it would be part of the annual calculation for the
foundation fund. He expressed the understanding that new,
reoccurring costs would not be added. He deferred to
Commissioner Bishop.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP expressed agreement with Dr. Isaak. She
reiterated that students who do not currently participate in
public education might enroll in TCPS.
9:56:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHWANKE asked whether the public education fund
had been used previously for the startup cost of charter
schools.
DR. ISAAK responded that in statute there is a calculation for
charter schools for their first year of enrollment.
9:57:25 AM
DR. ISAAK, concluding the presentation on slide 27 through slide
31, noted the appendix to the Legislative Report. He pointed
out that DEED has partnered with the Alaska Federation of
Natives to create an informational website, as seen on slide 27.
He stated that this was created during the passing of Senate
Bill 34, and the website captures much of the legal precedent.
He noted the links on slide 28 to the pilot evaluation, which
had been done with the Cook Inlet Tribal Council. He noted the
compacting information on DEED's website and the newsletter. He
ended the presentation, reinforcing the idea of partnership and
working together.
9:59:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DIBERT made closing comments and thanked the
presenters.
[HB 59 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 59 - Compacts Tribal, State, & Federal Partnerships.pdf |
HTRB 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 59 |
| HB 59 - HTA DEED State Tribal Education Compact Presentation.pdf |
HTRB 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 59 |
| HB 59 State Tribal Education Compacts.pdf |
HTRB 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 59 |
| STEC Legislative Report.pdf |
HTRB 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM |