Legislature(2025 - 2026)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/17/2025 03:30 PM Senate EDUCATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation(s): Uaa Teacher Apprenticeship Program | |
| HB69 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 69 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 69-EDUCATION FUNDING: INCREASE BSA
3:51:37 PM
CHAIR TOBIN reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 69(RLS) am "An Act
relating to education; relating to open enrollment in public
schools; relating to school and student performance reports;
relating to school and district accountability; relating to
charter schools; relating to an annual report for correspondence
study programs; relating to the base student allocation;
relating to reading proficiency incentive grants; relating to
wireless telecommunications devices in public schools; relating
to the duty of the legislature to pass a public education
appropriation bill; relating to the duty of the governor to
prepare a public education appropriation bill; establishing the
Task Force on Education Funding; relating to a report on
regulation of school districts; and providing for an effective
date."
3:52:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REBECCA HIMSCHOOT, District 2, Alaska State
Legislature, Sitka, Alaska, Sponsor of HB 69. She stated that
her district spans a 500-mile stretch of coastal Southeast
Alaska from Yakutat to Hydaberg. She noted that the district
includes 21 communities, 11 school districts, 10 tribes, and
nine village corporations. She moved to slide 2, Contents, and
said the presentation would cover the following:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Contents
Rising Costs and Rising
1. Vacancies
2. Timeline of HB 69
3. Provisions of the Bill
4. Open Enrollment
5. Charter Support
6. Proficiency to Growth
7. Reads Act Amendment
8. Questions?
3:53:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to slide 3, Rising Costs, and
explained that HB 69 originally aimed to address the issue of
flat funding in the Base Student Allocation (BSA), which is the
core of Alaska's education funding formula. She emphasized that
funds outside the BSA often fail to reach classrooms, cannot be
used for contract bargaining and create instability for hiring
due to their one-time nature. She noted that while districts
have received some one-time funding, overall school funding
policy has not kept pace with inflationnearly 40 percent
inflation compared to less than 7 percent BSA growth since 2011.
She stated that HB 69 sought to restore the BSA's purchasing
power to its 2011 level through a phased increase of $1,808 over
three years, starting with a $1,000 increase and then adding
$404 with inflation proofing.
3:55:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to slide 4, Rising Vacancies,
which displays three graphs: Cultural Exchange Educators in
Alaska, Alaska First Day Certified Position Vacancy Rates and
Number of Emergency Certificates. She stated that flat funding
has led to several challenges, including a high number of
unfilled teaching positions. On the first day of school in 2025,
there were 600 certified staff vacancies statewide, meaning 600
classrooms lacked a certified teacher. She noted a rise in the
use of emergency certificates, which was previously uncommon,
indicating districts are struggling to recruit fully certified
educators while competing in a national labor market. She added
that Alaska teacher salaries now lag about 25 percent behind the
national average and that some districts have resumed
international hiring to fill persistent vacancies.
3:56:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to slide 5, Timeline of HB 69,
and discussed the various changes to the bill:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Timeline
• Introduced in the House: January 24, 2025
• Heard in HEDC 4 times: January 27, January 29,
February 3, February 12
• 1 amendment offered
• Public testimony in HEDC: January 29
• 143 testifiers, 5 hours and 32 minutes of verbal
testimony, 90.2 percent in favor, >800 emails
received
• Heard and moved from HFIN: February 20
• Heard in HRLS: March 5
• 4 amendments offered, 1 adopted
• Debated on House Floor: March 10, 11, 12
• 54 amendments offered, 4 adopted
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT stated that HB 69 was heard four times
in the House Education Committee, during which the amendment
deadline was extended, resulting in the submission of one
amendment. She reported that public testimony lasted five and a
half hours, with over 800 emails received. Approximately 90
percent of the emails were in support of the bill. After passing
quickly through House Finance, the bill entered the Rules
Committee, where additional policy measures beyond funding were
added, as requested. She emphasized that funding itself is a
form of policy and noted that the bill reached the House floor
last week with 54 amendments offered.
3:57:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to slide 6, Provisions of the
Bill, discussed what the bill currently contains:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Provisions of the Bill
• Codifies open enrollment in public schools within
districts
• Expands accountability reporting to include
student academic growth
• Expands authorization avenues for charter schools
• Increases the BSA
• Regulates cellphone use in schools
• Provides reading proficiency incentive grants
• Establishes a task force to evaluate school
funding
• Requires education funding to be passed early in
the legislative session
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT acknowledged that the current
version of HB 69 has changed significantly from the
original and includes several additions she has not fully
studied. She noted that the bill now includes provisions
for intra-district open enrollment, aligning with trends in
other states, with nine having existing statutes. HB 69
expands accountability measures to include student academic
growth rather than relying solely on single-day proficiency
scores, recognizing Alaska's strengths in student growth.
The bill also streamlines the charter school renewal
process for high-performing schools and includes other
procedural updates, such as shorter appeal timelines.
3:59:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT highlighted that the bill
increases the Base Student Allocation (BSA), which benefits
all public education forms in Alaska, including charter,
neighborhood, and correspondence schools. The bill also
requires school districts to develop policies on cell phone
use with guidance from the Department of Education. It adds
reading proficiency incentive grants for students in grades
K6 and establishes a task force to examine broader school
funding issues such as transportation formulas, funding
adequacy, and insurance billing. Finally, the bill mandates
early passage of education funding during the legislative
session.
4:00:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to slide 7, Open Enrollment, to
discuss this provision in more detail:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Open Enrollment
Included Not Included
Choice within districts State-funded transportation
Capacity-based admission Private school access
Lottery-based admission Guaranteed placement
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that HB 69 includes a
provision for intra-district open enrollment, allowing families
to choose a school other than their assigned neighborhood school
within the same district. She described the value of
neighborhood schools, especially in areas with limited options,
where schools foster close-knit community relationships. Under
the new policy, families may apply to other schools outside
their zoned boundaries but must provide their own
transportation. Enrollment would be determined through a lottery
system, and districts would set policies based on each school's
capacity.
4:01:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to slide 8, Charter Provisions,
AND stated that the charter school provisions in HB 69 currently
include reauthorization language and an expanded appeal process.
She noted that the bill contains approximately seven new
measures related to charter schools and preferred to discuss
those in detail during Sectional Analysis to ensure accuracy.
Additionally, the bill establishes a charter school coordinator
within the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED)
to assist families with starting charter schools, navigating
policy and regulations, managing renewals, and working with
districts to support new school launches:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Charter Provisions
• Streamlined process for reauthorization
• Expanded appeal process
• State support through the establishment of a charter
school coordinator in DEED
• Policy and regulation guidance
• Assist with charter applications
• Coordinate with districts
4:01:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to slide, Proficiency to Growth,
and highlighted a key shift in HB 69 from measuring student
proficiency at a single point in time to focusing on academic
growth:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Proficiency to Growth
• An amendment that shifts the perspective on testing
from benchmarks to growth
• Section 5: AS 14.03.120(a) "A district shall annually
file with the department, and make available to the
public a report that (3) includes a means of measuring
student academic performance over time
• Acknowledges the spectrum of learning and abilities
within the classroom
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that standardized tests
reflect only one moment and can be affected by factors such as
lack of sleep, hunger, or personal trauma, making them
unreliable as sole indicators of a student's abilities. The bill
incorporates growth-based assessment, building on existing tools
like the MAP (Measures of Academic Progress) tests, and requires
the state to emphasize growth in statute.
4:02:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to slide 10, Reads Act Support,
and described incentive grants included under the READS Act. She
said $450 per student in grades K6 who either reads at grade
level or demonstrates improvement would be awarded to districts.
While the grant does not directly fund interventions like after-
school or summer programs, she noted it offers meaningful
rewards for student progress:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Reads Act Support
• Introduces reading proficiency incentive grants
• $450 for each student in grades K-6 who reads at grade
level OR shows improvement in reading
• Grant awarded at the district level
4:03:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT began the sectional analysis for HB 69:
[Original punctuation provided.]
HOUSE BILL 69
SECTIONAL ANALYSIS
Version W.A
Section 1: AS 14.03.080 (a) is amended so that a
school age child is entitled to free public education
at their assigned school or a parent selected school
within the district.
Section 2: Makes conforming changes to sunset the open
enrollment provision in the bill after three years.
Section 3: Adds new subsections to AS 14.03.080 (i),
(j), and (k) that establish that parents may apply for
transfers within the student's district, with lottery-
based enrollment and sibling priority. Districts are
required to report data on the number of vacancies,
number of applications approved and denied, and
explanation of the reasons for the denials. The
department shall develop an appeal process for
denials.
Section 4: AS 14.03.120(a) is amended so that the
annual district report includes information on student
academic performance over time in place of information
on the achievement of district goals and priorities.
Section 5: AS 14.03.120(d) is amended so that the
annual district report includes specific information
on norm referenced achievement tests that measure
student academic performance over time and the
requirement for districts to provide information on
parent, student and stakeholder involvement in
learning is eliminated.
Section 6: AS 14.03.123(a) is amended so that the
performance designation of each school is based on
student academic performance over time.
Section 7: AS 14.03.123(f) is amended to require the
department to also establish standardized assessments
that measure student academic performance over time as
part of the accountability system for schools and
districts.
Section 8: AS 14.03.123 is amended by adding two new
subsections that mandate assessments do not take more
than three hours of instructional time each school
year and that the National Assessment of Educational
Progress cannot be used to measure student academic
performance over time.
Section 9: Amends AS 14.03.253 (b) to specify that the
State Board of Education must issue a decision
regarding an appeal of the denial of the charter
school application within 45 days instead of the
existing 90 day requirement.
Section 10: Amends AS 14.03.255 (c) to specify that
before a local school board terminates a charter
school contract, written notice and a reasonable
opportunity to remedy the issue is provided.
Section 11: Adds new subsections to AS 14.03.255 (e)
and (f) that specify that a charter school may carry
forward up to 10 percent of its unreserved budget,
with annual review of the year-end budget by the local
school board. The local school board is directed to
make the contract renewal process as simple as
possible.
Section 12: Amends AS 14.03 by adding a new section
that allows a charter school to appeal to the
commissioner when a local school board terminates a
contract and requires the commissioner to issue a
written decision on the appeal within 90 days.
Section 13: Amends AS 14.03.260 (a) to increase the
allowable administrative costs that a local school
board can deduct when calculating a charter school's
budget from 4 percent to 8 percent.
Section 14: Clarifies AS 14.03.275 to specify that
charter school contracts can be renewed for successive
terms.
Section 15: Amends AS 14.03 by adding a new section
that establishes a charter school coordinator in the
department of education.
Section 16: Amends AS 14.03.300 to add new subsections
(c) and (d) that specify that school districts and the
department must submit an annual report on
correspondence programs, covering enrollment,
demographics, fund use, assessment scores, and
curriculum reviews, with the department forwarding
reports to the State Board of Education.
Section 17: Amends AS 14.07.020(a) so that the
department is required to use an assessment of student
academic performance over time when determining an end
date for department intervention in a low performing
district.
Section 18: Amends AS 14.07.168 to require that the
report in Section 16 (d) of the bill be included in
State Board of Education's annual report to the
Legislature.
Section 19: Amends AS 14.07.168 to require that the
report in Section 16 (d) of the bill be included in
State Board of Education's annual report to the
Legislature.
Section 20: AS 14.11.019 is amended with conforming
language relating to the requirement in Sections 27
and 28 of the bill for a separate appropriation bill
to fund public education.
Section 21: AS 14.11.100(c) is amended with conforming
language relating to the requirement in Sections 27
and 28 of the bill for a separate appropriation bill
to fund public education.
Section 22: Increases the BSA $1,000 from $5,960 to
$6,960.
Section 23: Adds a new section, AS 14.30.733, that
provides that, subject to appropriation, school
districts are eligible to receive reading proficiency
incentive grants of $450 per student for kindergarten
through sixth grade students.
Section 24: Conforming changes to account for the
existing sunset of the Reads Act in 2034.
Section 25: Adds new section of law, AS 14.33.300, to
require the department to create a model policy
regulating non-school issued wireless device use in
public schools, with exceptions for medical,
translation, emergency, or educational use. School
districts must adopt and share a policy, which must
also have exceptions for medical, translation,
emergency, or educational use. A school district may
adopt the model policy established by the department
or it may adopt its own policy. Defines "Wireless
telecommunications device."
Section 26: AS 24.20.140(a) is amended with conforming
language relating to the requirement in Sections 27
and 28 of the bill for a separate appropriation bill
to fund public education.
Section 27: AS 37.07.014 is amended with a new
subsection that requires a separate appropriation bill
for public school funding to be passed by the
legislature by March 15.
Section 28: AS 37.07.020(a) is amended to require the
governor to prepare a separate appropriation bill for
public school funding by December 15.
Section 29: Repeals AS 14.03.123(c)(2),
14.03.123(c)(3), and 14.03.123(c)(5) relating to the
requirements for a statewide student assessment system
and Sections 6 and 7 of the bill that require student
academic performance overtime to be the principal
indicator of school performance. Section 29 also
repeals 14.03.123(e), eliminating a program to
recognize high performing schools.
Section 30: Repeals the open enrollment provisions on
July 1, 2028.
Section 31: Adds new section to uncodified law that
establishes a legislative Task Force on Education
Funding to analyze funding and accountability, make
recommendations, and submit a report by the start of
the Second Regular Session of the 34th Legislature.
The Task Force expires on January 31, 2026.
Section 32: Adds new section to uncodified law that
specifies that the Alaska Department of Education must
submit a report on recommendations to reduce
regulatory and statutory burdens on school districts
by the start of the Second Regular Session of the 34th
Legislature, notifying legislators once available.
Section 33: Adds applicability provisions to
uncodified law that specify that sections 9 14 of
this Act apply to contracts that are legally binding
on or after the effective date of this Act.
Section 34: Repeals the open enrollment provisions
effective on July 1, 2028.
Section 35: Conforming changes to account for the
existing sunset of the Reads Act in 2034.
Section 36: Conforming changes to account for the
existing sunset of the Reads Act in 2034.
Section 37: Provides an effective date of July 1,
2025, with exceptions for repeal provisions outlined
above.
4:05:19 PM
SENATOR CRONK asked for clarification on the scope of the open
enrollment policy in HB 69. He inquired whether the policy
applies only to brick-and-mortar schools or if it would allow,
for example, a student in Fairbanks to enroll in a homeschool
program based in Galena.
4:05:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT stated that, after checking with the
legal department, HB 69 only addresses within-district
enrollment.
SENATOR CRONK asked whether the within-district open enrollment
policy only applied to brick-and-mortar schools.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT replied correct, for neighborhood
schools.
4:05:52 PM
CHAIR TOBIN SENATOR TOBIN asked whether the proposal would
guarantee students the opportunity to attend their neighborhood
school or would it require neighborhood schools to have a
lottery process.
4:06:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT stated her belief that students would
have the right to attend their neighborhood school as a first
priority but could choose to attend a school in a different
neighborhood.
4:06:35 PM
CHAIR TOBIN referenced existing statutes that define charter
school admission processes and priority admissions. She asked
how the proposal would affect those specific provisions and
statutes.
4:06:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT stated she did not know how the
proposal would affect charter school admissions. She noted that
charter schools currently use a lottery system and questioned
whether students from other neighborhoods would be added to the
existing lottery, included in a separate lottery, or excluded
entirely.
4:07:12 PM
CHAIR TOBIN asked whether there had been any discussion or
questions regarding the administrative impact on school
districts related to the reporting requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT replied she didn't know.
CHAIR TOBIN asked whether the term "parent" in SB 69 includes
legal guardians, step-parents, or other individuals responsible
for the child. She sought clarification on whether "parent" is
broadly defined or limited to specific roles.
4:07:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT stated she did not know the definition
of "parent" in SB 69 and would need to review the current
statute. She noted that her school district uses the term
"Family" because it is more encompassing.
4:07:53 PM
CHAIR TOBIN found no further questions on SB 69 Sections 1-3 and
stated her belief that the next few sections detail academic
performance over time.
4:08:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT remarked that she wished she had
created a map outlining the purpose of each section because some
later sections relate to topics discussed in early sections of
SB 69. She explained that Section 4 addresses student academic
performance over time, which she interpreted broadly as student
growth. She noted this growth is tied to the district's annual
goals, priorities, and school improvement plan.
4:08:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that Section 5 requires
districts to report student growth using norm-referenced tests
to provide objective evidence rather than subjective
evaluations. She stated that Section 6 would revise the existing
performance designation to focus on growth instead of
proficiency. Section 7 reinforces the need for standardized
assessments to ensure growth is measured beyond teacher opinion.
She identified Section 8 as the final section addressing the
shift from proficiency to growth and noted it eliminates use of
the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which
currently samples about 5 percent of students every other year
and does not accurately represent statewide performance. She
expressed concern about Section 8's restriction of assessment
time to three instructional hours, explaining that current
assessments like Measures of Academic Progress (MAP),
administered three times a year, often require more time
depending on the student, making the time limit problematic.
4:10:41 PM
SENATOR STEVENS expressed appreciation to Representative
Himschoot for defending a bill she did not fully write. He asked
for clarification about the NAEP test, specifically whether
federal funding depends on participation and if those funds
would be at risk if NAEP is no longer administered. He then
raised a second question related to funding, referencing the
Base Student Allocation (BSA). He stated that while some claim a
BSA increase would not affect charter or homeschool students,
his understanding is that funding would follow each student
across all public education programs.
4:11:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT acknowledged expressing concern on the
floor and stated she supports shifting the focus from
proficiency to growth but is uncertain whether federal reporting
on the NAEP is still required. She noted she has not yet
confirmed the federal requirements. In response to the question
about the Base Student Allocation (BSA), she confirmed that it
supports all types of public education, including homeschool
programs, charter schools, and neighborhood schools. She
emphasized that any increase in funding would benefit all
students across the system.
4:12:02 PM
SENATOR KIEHL stated that the NAEP is mentioned in the section
of SB 69 related to the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED) assigning performance designations to
schools. He said he did not interpret the bill to mean Alaska
students would stop taking the NAEP or that the state would stop
reporting scores, but rather that NAEP results would no longer
be included in individual school performance designations. He
asked for clarification on this interpretation.
4:12:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT stated her understanding is that the
NAEP will still be administered but will no longer be used in
statute as the measure of a school's success or failure. She
emphasized that she is not completely certain but believes that
is the intent.
4:13:05 PM
CHAIR TOBIN asked a question specific to Section 4, which
requires school districts to report on academic growth. She
noted that DEED already collects and reports this data for
districts. She questioned whether this requirement would add an
administrative burden by duplicating reporting responsibilities.
She expressed confusion about the purpose of having both
districts and DEED report the same information.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT stated she could not say for certain
whether Section 4 creates an additional burden. She noted that
the public report card on the website for DEED already includes
academic growth data. She suggested the requirement may be
redundant and districts might not need to take further action,
but she could not confirm that.
4:14:02 PM
CHAIR TOBIN referred to Section 8, which limits schools and
districts to using no more than three hours of instructional
time per school year for assessments. She noted the existence of
multiple assessments, including the AK-STAR, progress
monitoring, and reading proficiency assessments required under
the Alaska Reads Act. She asked how this time restriction might
affect other types of assessments teachers routinely conduct in
the classroom.
4:14:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT noted that while each Dynamic
Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) test takes
about one minute, the total time adds up when combined with
other assessments such as MAP testing and possible selection for
NAEP. She raised concern about the broad use of the term
"assessment" and questioned whether it includes formative
assessments, such as weekly spelling tests. She suggested the
language in Section 8 needs further clarification to avoid
confusion.
4:15:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that the next sections of HB
69 focus on charter schools. Section 9 shortens the state
board's deadline to decide on a denied charter application from
90 days to 45. Section 10 requires that school boards provide
charter schools an opportunity to remedy issues before
termination. Section 11 permits charter schools to carry over up
to 10 percent of their unreserved budget annually, which some
districts already allow, or cap. Section 12 introduces a new
appeals process allowing charter schools to appeal terminations
to the commissioner, who must issue a written decision within 90
days. Section 13 adjusts the administrative indirect cost rate
that districts may deduct from charter school budgets from 4
percent to 8 percent, seeking a balance after reducing it from
the previous 10 percent. Section 14 clarifies that charter
school contracts may be renewed for successive terms, a point
not currently addressed in statute. Section 15 adds a charter
school coordinator position to the Department of Education.
4:17:02 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN referring to Section 13, questioned the use of
an arbitrary percentage for administrative costs that charter
schools must remit to districts. He suggested an alternative
approach where districts track actual administrative expenses
and bill charter schools accordingly, possibly through
interagency transfer or a similar model. He wondered which party
would benefit more under that system and asked whether this
approach had been considered.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT stated that to her knowledge, the
alternative model had not been considered. She explained that
administrative costs often include functions such as record
keeping and test administration, including the need for a
district test coordinator for assessments like the World-Class
Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA ACCESS), which not all
students take. She noted that some specialized paperwork is also
involved. While she acknowledged that calculating exact costs
might be possible, she suggested it could be difficult.
4:18:32 PM
SENATOR STEVENS referring to Section 12, asked whether the
Commissioner of Education would have the authority to require a
school district to keep a charter school open after the district
decides to terminate it. He questioned if the commissioner's
written decision within 90 days could override the local board's
judgment, thereby forcing the district to continue managing a
school it no longer considers legitimate.
4:19:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT replied in the affirmative.
4:19:27 PM
SENATOR KIEHL referred to the appeal process and noted a concern
raised by the Senate President about the status quo. He
questioned whether the 45-day deadline for the State Board to
act might lead to a rushed or ill-considered review, especially
if the process lacks sufficient time or information and risks
becoming political rather than substantive. He stated that, as
he reads the statute, the Commissioner can review and possibly
supplement the school board's record before issuing a decision.
He asked whether the 45-day limit applies only to the State
Board after the Commissioner completes her review, or if it also
constrains the Commissioner's timeline.
4:20:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT clarified that Sections 9 and 12
address different processes: Section 9 sets a 45-day deadline
for decisions on denied charter school applications, while
Section 12 pertains to the termination of existing contracts.
She noted that the State Board meets quarterly, so a 45-day
deadline could fall between scheduled meetings, which might
create logistical challenges.
4:21:16 PM
SENATOR KIEHL responded that the Commissioner may not be subject
to a specific deadline before the State Board's involvement,
making the timeline potentially manageable in coordination with
the Board that employs her. He then asked about the necessity of
the language in Section 14 regarding charter school renewals. He
questioned what problem it aims to solve, noting that the
charter school in Juneau has operated continuously for decades
without issue.
4:22:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT stated that although it may not have
been included in the sectional analysis, HB 69 includes language
requiring "as simplified a process as possible" for charter
school renewals. She explained that the issue being addressed is
that while charter schools are allowed to renew, the current
practice often requires them to repeat the entire original
application process. The intent of the bill is to clarify in
statute both the right to renew and the expectation that the
renewal process be simplified.
4:22:31 PM
SENATOR KIEHL questioned the use of the phrase "as simple as
possible" in statute, suggesting it could be interpreted to mean
that a charter school need only send an email stating, "We'd
like to keep going." He asked whether this is the limit the
language places on the board's review.
4:22:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT responded that she would need to look
more closely at SB 69 but believed the language allows the local
school board to determine what constitutes "as simple as
possible" for the renewal process. She stated that if a board
considered a single email sufficient, that could meet the
requirement under the bill.
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether the board could make the process any
simpler than a one sentence email request.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT remarked that, theoretically, a
statement expressing intent to continue, without even an email,
is simpler.
SENATOR KIEHL suggested that allowing some level of substantive
review during the charter renewal process may be appropriate. He
recommended discussing possible adjustments to the language in
HB 69.
4:23:39 PM
SENATOR STEVENS questioned the constitutionality of allowing the
State Board of Education to overturn a decision made by a local
school board. He referenced the principle of local control in
the state constitution and asked whether the issue had been
reviewed from a constitutional standpoint.
4:23:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT replied no.
SENATOR STEVENS suggested getting a legal opinion on the matter.
4:24:11 PM
SENATOR KIEHL referring to the indirect cost cap, he asked
whether Representative Himschoot knew what the Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED) charges for its indirect
rate on federal grants.
4:24:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT responded that she did not know the
exact rate and believed it varies rather than being a fixed
amount. She added that the chair might have that information.
4:24:41 PM
SENATOR KIEHL stated he does not have a philosophical objection
to placing a cap on indirect costs but suggested it would be
useful to determine whether the proposed rate is close to an
appropriate balance. He recommended hearing from financial
experts to ensure the cap is set within a reasonable range.
4:25:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT followed up on Senator Kiehl's question
regarding Section 11 and charter school renewals. She clarified
that HB 69 states the "renewal process must be as simple as
possible," emphasizing the word "process." She explained that
this language implies the local school board would require more
than just an email, as a process involves defined steps or
documentation.
4:25:49 PM
CHAIR TOBIN said the committee would take note of the discussion
and may invite representatives from the 32 school districts with
operational charter schools to provide insight on administrative
costs and overhead. She also noted that federal indirect rates,
especially for tribal organizations, are often substantial.
4:26:13 PM
CHAIR TOBIN stated that she consulted the legislative legal
regarding the appeal process for a terminated charter school
contract. She was directed to AS 43.82.445, which addresses the
administrative termination of contracts. According to
legislative legal, because a contract is an administrative
component of a school board's relationship with another entity,
termination of a charter school contract would follow this
statute. This pathway includes provisions, also reflected
earlier in HB 69, that give charter schools the opportunity to
address issues identified by the school board before
termination. Additionally, if a contract is terminated, the
charter school may pursue a court proceeding to present its
case. She noted there appears to be confusion about the correct
process following termination and suggested Section 12 could be
reconsidered in light of the broader protections already
outlined in AS 43.82.445.
4:27:45 PM
CHAIR TOBIN expressed concern about Section 14, which allows
charter schools to be renewed for successive terms but does not
clearly define a "successive term" as an additional 10 years.
She noted that feedback from both the charter school and school
board communities has highlighted the need for local school
boards to have the authority to impose additional checks and
balances when an application raises concerns. These measures
would help ensure compliance with state statutes, record-keeping
requirements, and student learning standards. She stated that
this is an area she would like to explore further.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT noted that Section 14 states a charter
school contract may be for a term of not more than 10 years. She
interpreted this to mean that a district could choose a shorter
term, such as five years, though she acknowledged she is not
fully certain.
4:29:02 PM
CHAIR TOBIN said the committee would move to the sections of HB
69 dealing with correspondence programs.
4:29:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT stated that Section 16 is the only
section addressing this topic and explained that it continues
the reporting requirement initially created by House Bill 202,
sponsored by her colleague from the Palmer area. Although House
Bill 202 focused on making Narcan kits and training available in
schools, an additional education measure was added at the end of
the session requiring a report on correspondence schools. That
report includes data on enrollment, demographics, fund use,
assessment scores, and curriculum reviews. Under Section 16 of
HB 69, this report would no longer sunset but instead become an
annual report submitted to the State Board of Education.
4:30:12 PM
SENATOR STEVENS referenced a recent statewide poll indicating
that Alaskans want assurance that education funds are spent
wisely and that students are achieving success. He expressed
concern that, while assessment scores are required for
correspondence programs, the opt-out rate is high. He recalled
that approximately 60 percent of correspondence students
participate in assessments compared to about 80 percent in
brick-and-mortar schools. He asked whether there had been
consideration of tightening the opt-out provision to ensure more
correspondence students are tested. He shared an anecdote about
a parent valuing a homeschool program because it made it
possible for her child to take horseback riding lessons, which
raised concerns for him about whether education funds are being
used effectively and whether student outcomes are being
adequately measured across all school types.
4:31:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT responded that the amendment adding
this reporting language to the bill did not include changes to
the assessment opt-out provision, and she did not seek to expand
it at the time, though she believes there is room for
discussion. She clarified that the opt-out language applies to
all public school students. However, while brick-and-mortar
schools have a testing participation rate around 92 percent,
correspondence or homeschool programs have a much lower rate,
closer to 14 percent, which brings the overall public school
participation rate down to the 80 percent range.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT noted that some districts offer
increased allotments to students who choose to test. She also
acknowledged challenges specific to homeschool testing,
particularly with online delivery of norm-referenced
assessments. She raised concerns about test administration in
homeschool settings, where having a parent serve as proctor may
not ensure a valid testing environment. Despite these
challenges, she emphasized that there is growing interest in
strengthening accountability across all public education
settings.
4:33:14 PM
SENATOR STEVENS acknowledged the participation rates shared by
Representative Himschoot; 92 percent in brick-and-mortar schools
and 14 percent in homeschools. He remarked that he knew she
would have those figures.
4:33:23 PM
SENATOR TOBIN noted that homeschooled students across the state
have lower graduation rates, which she finds significantly
concerning. She emphasized the importance of ensuring that all
students, including those in homeschool programs, are career-
ready upon graduating from high school.
4:33:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that some students enter
homeschool programs as a credit recovery option, which can
contribute to lower graduation rates. She acknowledged that this
context makes the data understandable but emphasized the need to
be mindful of how low those rates are and opined that it is an
area that should be monitored.
4:33:51 PM
CHAIR TOBIN resumed discussion of the next sections of HB 69.
4:33:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT stated that Section 17 continues the
bill's emphasis on shifting from proficiency-based measures to
growth-based metrics. She explained that this section relates to
how the Department of Education determines where to intervene,
using growth data to identify and support the state's lowest-
performing districts. Section 18 requires that the
Correspondence School Report be included in the State Board of
Education's annual report to the legislature. Section 19
contains conforming language. She noted that Section 20-21 are
the portion of statute requiring the governor to create a
separate education budget, and requires the legislature to act
on that budget by March 15.
4:35:27 PM
CHAIR TOBIN said for a summary of Sections 27 and 28 also.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that Sections 27 and 28
require the governor to prepare a separate education
appropriation bill by the existing December 15 deadline. These
sections also require the legislature to pass the education
funding appropriation by March 15. She noted that these
provisions are directly tied to the earlier sections on
education budgeting.
4:36:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT stated that Section 22 is especially
important to her. She explained that HB 69 removes the automatic
escalators of the 404 successive fiscal years in an effort to
reach a compromise that could gain broader support, noting that
BSA increases have been proposed in the last four legislatures,
but none have passed. She emphasized that funding within the BSA
provides districts with stability and predictability, allowing
for strategic planning and collective bargaining, often leading
to increased educator salaries and direct support to classrooms.
She explained that Section 23 establishes a Reading Incentive
Grant of $450 per student for kindergarten through sixth grade,
which was amended in the Rules Committee. Regarding Section 24,
she clarified that it includes conforming changes and addressed
confusion caused by her earlier use of incorrect terminology in
the Rules Committee. She stressed that the bill does not repeal
the Alaska Reads Act, which already contains a 2034 sunset
clause. Instead, the conforming language ensures that the new
provisions continue beyond that sunset date.
4:37:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that Section 25 requires the
Department of Education to address cell phone use in schools.
Local districts must adopt a policy, either by using a model
policy provided by the department or creating their own, but
they cannot opt out, action is mandatory. She noted that the
policy must allow exceptions for medical needs, translation,
emergencies, or educational purposes. Additionally, in small
districts or other cases, a superintendent or teacher may permit
cell phone use beyond the standard policy.
4:38:43 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN asked whether the language in Section 23(2)
extends the READS Act requirements to teachers in grades 4
through 6. He specifically questioned whether those teachers
would now be required to complete additional training similar to
that required for K3 teachers, such as training in Language
Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS) or other
modalities. He sought clarification on what the provision
entails for upper elementary educators.
4:39:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that Section 23(2) was
written separately for grades 4 through 6 because those students
do not participate in DIBELS or other benchmark tests used under
the READS Act for younger grades. Instead, a different English
Language Arts assessment would be used to determine which
students meet the requirement. She clarified that this provision
does not affect educators or require additional training for
teachers in grades 4 through 6; the separate section was
necessary solely due to the use of a different assessment
measure.
4:39:47 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN referred to Section 25 on cell phone policy,
noting that the Education Committee recently heard a different
bill on the same topic that proposed a stricter approach. He
shared that principals, as well as his own experience as an
educator, indicate that vague or flexible ("squishy") cell phone
policies tend to be ineffective. He asked for an explanation of
why HB 69 uses more flexible language instead of a firmer
standard.
4:40:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that the language in Section
25 originated from another bill already moving through the
House. She added that, in her home district, cell phone use has
been effectively managed, meaning banned, at the middle school
level for at least five years. She emphasized that local school
boards, principals, and school leaders are often best positioned
to determine what type of policy works for their specific
context, whether strict or flexible.
4:41:13 PM
SENATOR KIEHL requested confirmation on whether the tests used
to determine eligibility for proficiency incentive grants in
grades K3 and subsequently 46 are administered once per year.
4:41:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT responded that she was not fully
certain where the READS Act requirements currently stand but
explained her understanding that students in grades K3 are
tested until they reach proficiency. She believed that
proficiency must be demonstrated multiple times, possibly three
times, but welcomed correction on the specifics.
4:41:48 PM
CHAIR TOBIN clarified that under the current approach, if a
student demonstrates proficiency on the first assessment, no
additional assessments are required. However, if the student
shows signs of struggling, they may take a second and third
assessment to help educators determine whether the student is
making progress toward proficiency.
4:42:06 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether proficiency occurs every year.
CHAIR TOBIN replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT stated her belief that continuous
progress monitoring occurs throughout the school year. She
explained that proficiency is typically demonstrated by showing
proficiency on three separate tests. In cases where that
benchmark is not met, the student would continue to be monitored
and tested regularly to track progress.
4:42:29 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked for clarification on the criteria for
receiving the proficiency incentive grant. He questioned whether
demonstrating improvement on any one of the three assessments
qualifies a student for the grant, or if the student must show
improvement across all threeor the remaining two if the first
does not indicate proficiency. He sought a clear explanation of
what specifically qualifies a student for the funding.
4:42:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT responded that the specific criteria
for qualifying for the proficiency incentive grant would likely
be defined in regulation.
SENATOR KIEHL suggested that the legislature should decide when
the money is spent, rather than leaving that decision to
regulatory authority. He stated his belief that there is a
constitutional separation of powers issue.
4:43:15 PM
CHAIR TOBIN referred to [HB 69, page 13,] line 25, which
mentions "the statewide screener." She noted that while many
schools have adopted DIBELS, not all have, and the Alaska Reads
Act allows for alternative screeners or student portfolios. She
expressed concern that these alternatives are not referenced in
the current bill language. She warned that this omission could
exclude emergent students, such as those learning Indigenous
languages for which no established screener exists, from
receiving funding, which she finds troubling.
4:43:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT stated that Section 26 contains
conforming language related to Sections 27 and 28, which address
the requirement for the Appropriations Bill to be passed by
March 15. She explained that Section 29 continues the bill's
emphasis on shifting the focus from proficiency to growth. She
then requested to move ahead to Section 31.
4:44:32 PM
CHAIR TOBIN asked about Section 29, noting that it repeals the
ability for schools to receive a special designation based on
performance and includes language related to federal funding,
such as Title I. She expressed concern about whether this change
could affect schools that currently receive special state
designations tied to performance or low-income status. She
specifically questioned if the repeal could impact eligibility
for certain federal funding streams, such as Title I, which
allows some schools to provide all students with free lunch
based on full Title I designation.
4:45:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT replied she did not know those details.
4:45:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT stated that Section 30 repeals the Open
Enrollment provision after three years, allowing the policy to
be tested and revisited later. She explained that Section 31
creates a task force on education and funding to analyze current
systems and make recommendations. The task force could examine
various components, including the foundation formula,
transportation funding, and insurance pooling. Section 32
directs the Department of Education to recommend ways to reduce
regulatory and statutory burdens on school districts,
essentially producing a "report on reports" to identify which
requirements are unused, unhelpful, or unnecessary at the
federal or departmental level.
4:46:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said the remaining sections are
conforming and repealing language.
4:47:00 PM
CHAIR TOBIN announced invited testimony on HB 69.
4:47:19 PM
MICHAEL ROBBINS, Superintendent, Ketchikan Gateway Borough
School District, Ketchikan, Alaska, testified by invitation on
HB 69. He provided the following testimony.
[Original punctuation provided.]
For the record, my name is Michael Robbins, and I have
the honor of serving as the Superintendent of the
Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District.
I speak in support of House Bill 69-a bill that is
critical to breaking the cycle of budget cuts,
frustration, and division that has been weighing down
our schools in Alaska for far too long.
Schools should be the place where we all come
together-where parents, families, teachers, school
boards, communities and legislators rally around a
common goal: doing what's best for kids, investing in
them and their future. But let's be honest-that's not
what's happening in Alaska right now.
4:48:13 PM
MR. ROBBINS continued his testimony:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Instead, for years and years, we have been stuck in
this exhausting cycle of division over school funding.
Every year, districts across the state struggle to
balance budgets that don't stretch far enough. Every
year, we have to make impossible choices about which
programs to cut, which staff to reduce, and which
students will lose access to something that could
change their lives.
Administration has been cut first to protect the
classroom. In my district we have cut the Deputy
Superintendent, Curriculum Director, Technology
Director, and a Vice Principal. Only 1.7 percent of our
district budget is made up of district office
administration.
In some cases, School board meetings have turned into
battlegrounds, people pointing fingers instead of
working together. It's not just happening in
Ketchikan-it's happening across the state. And it's
tearing communities apart, pitting board members
against teachers, teachers against administration,
parents against schools, and schools against the state.
Including students and parents crying at the House
Education Committee.
One of the most overlooked but most critical aspects
of education funding is its direct connection to
economic development. Investing in our schools isn't
just about improving test scores-it's about building
a stronger workforce, attracting businesses, and
creating long-term economic stability for Alaska.
This includes my district where we are part of the
apprenticeship program talked about earlier. Trying
to find teachers and having over 600 openings in the
state causes a crisis, not only for administrators
who have to hire but also students.
4:49:50 PM
MR. ROBBINS continued his testimony on HB 69:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Here's the reality:
• A strong education system attracts families and
businesses. Companies want to set up in communities
where their employees can send their kids to high-
quality schools. If Alaska wants to attract and
retain talent, we need a public education system
that people have confidence in.
• A well-educated workforce drives economic
growth. When students graduate with strong literacy,
math, and career skills, they are better prepared to
enter the workforce, fill high-demand jobs, and
contribute to the economy.
HB 69 is more than a school funding bill-it's an
economic investment. It's a chance to strengthen our
schools, prepare our workforce, and build a future
where Alaska is a place where people want to live,
work, and invest.
Let me paint a picture of Ketchikan.
• Over the past two years, we've had to cut 22.2
percent of our staff-going from 415 employees to
323.
• Our Career and Technical Education (CTE) programs
have been slashed. That means fewer opportunities for
kids to learn real-world skills and find pathways to
careers. Specifically our aviation program, culinary
arts program and our maritime program has been reduced
or eliminated.
• We had to cut back our summer school program for
middle schoolers-kids who need that extra support to
stay on track.
• Our pupil-to-teacher ratio has increased at the
middle and high school by seven students and
elementary school by five students.
• We've had to cut back on our district office
staff. That might not seem like a big deal to some,
but it's affected everything-from curriculum
development to grant writing. In my first two years
at the school district we brought in over $5.5
million grants. This year we've brought in $0
because we don't have the people to manage or write
our grants in our district office.
• Let's talk about the $1,000 per student increase
in the Base Student Allocation-what it actually
means for us. This isn't just about "more money for
schools." This helps us close our $5,800,000 deficit
that we would have.
• It will help us rebuild support RTI/MTSS program
for our 4th-6th graders, who need structured
interventions to get back on track after COVID-
related learning loss.
4:51:53 PM
MR. ROBBINS added that a lot of schools in Alaska, particularly
Western and Northern Alaska didn't go to school for a year. When
students returned they were wearing masks which affected
language development for the students that are now in 4th - 6
grade. He stated that while he supports the READS Act it takes
money away from intervention programs these lost grades.
MR. ROBBINS continued reading his testimony:
One of the most important aspects of HB 69 is the
investment in early literacy through the READS Act and
the incentive model for student growth.
Our K-3 reading scores need to improve. And we know
that when students are reading at grade level by the
end of 3rd grade, their chances of long-term academic
success skyrocket. But if they fall behind in those
early years, it's a long, uphill battle to catch up.
This bill provides the funding and support to create
sustainable literacy interventions that will not
only help students. This is more than just one time
funding. It builds long-term literacy systems that
we need in our schools. Not only in K-3rd grade, but
K-6th grade. Also, it creates reading teachers in
the high school. You can have students that know how
to read but know how to read for content, which is
critically important. The resources given for the
READS Act help as a waterfall affect for our high
school teachers.
4:53:48 PM
MR. ROBBINS stated the Ketchikan school district is in favor
of HB 69 and believes it will significantly help the district
and students.
4:54:10 PM
CHAIR TOBIN stated that in various education circles, fourth,
fifth, and sixth graders are increasingly referred to as the
"lost generation." She emphasized that it is unacceptable to
consider any group of students lost due to a lack of investment.
She affirmed the commitment of the committee to work toward
ensuring that students receive the resources they need to
recover and succeed.
4:54:55 PM
CHAIR TOBIN [held HB 69 in committee.]