Legislature(2025 - 2026)DAVIS 106
04/09/2025 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB76 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 76 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 76-EDUCATION:SCHOOLS; GRANTS; FUNDING; DEBT
8:03:18 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 76, "An Act relating to education; relating to
public school attendance; relating to mobile communication
devices in schools; relating to reading proficiency incentive
grants; relating to authorization of charter schools; relating
to transportation of students; relating to school bond debt
reimbursement; relating to funding and reporting by Alaska
technical and vocational education programs; authorizing lump
sum payments for certain teachers as retention and recruitment
incentives; and providing for an effective date."
8:04:23 AM
DEENA BISHOP, Commissioner, Department of Education & Early
Development, on behalf of House Rules by request of the
governor, presented HB 76 to the committee. She began a
PowerPoint presentation associated with HB 76 [included in the
committee packet] on slide 2, which outlined the mission,
vision, and purpose of the proposed legislation and moved to
slide 3, which described the Statutory duties of the Department
of Education and Early Development (DEED). She continued to
slide 4, which listed five specific "shared strategic
priorities" that the DEED is taking to address education
challenges in Alaska and moved to slide 5, which highlighted the
primary sectional components of HB 76. She continued to slide
6, which described how the proposed legislation would bring a
more targeted and sustained investment in Alaska's education
system and moved to slide 7, which outlined HB 76's proposed
open enrollment policy.
8:09:18 AM
CO-CHAIR HIMSCHOOT asked what the need for open enrollment
schools is and asked Commissioner Bishop what she should "tell
her communities that only have one school". She asked, "if
every school was excellent, why would you choose to leave your
neighborhood school".
COMMISSIONER BISHOP said that trust in public education had
generally eroded after the Coronavirus Pandemic and said that it
is her goal to have people love the school that is within their
community. She used an example of teachers and students
attending school in the Anchorage School District (ASD) that
lived in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley to explain the necessity
of school choice in Alaska's public schools. She said that
having "everything for everybody" in Alaska's public schools
can't work, because it would be unaffordable, but schools can be
the "very best school for somebody".
8:16:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EISCHEID shared his concern with regards to
equitability of the notion of school choice, especially
concerning school transportation. He commented that
transportation funding for public schools has been underfunded
by the state in recent years and said that it could be
unaffordable for parents living within district 22 to drive
large distances for schools outside of their neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP said that Representative Eischeid's
understanding of school choice was a "misnomer" and explained
that HB 76 did have language that would allow for school
districts to set up a school transportation system that would
allow for school choice.
8:21:59 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY asked what a "needs-based approach" to school
choice might mean.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP answered that there are several programs
currently in operation that allow for reimbursement of food and
transportation costs created by school choice.
8:24:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DIBERT asked if there are any "planned
protections" for title I schools to keep science, technology,
engineering, & mathematics (STEM), music, and special education
resources active.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP explained that "open enrollment is a
philosophy that allows choice" and said that it is the goal of
the DEED to have neighborhood schools that everyone loves. She
said that public schools need to have parent choice and
involvement and teachers that love teaching there.
8:27:42 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY asked if either the DEED or local school
districts would be in control of enrollment numbers.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP said that the local school district would be
in control of the enrollment numbers.
8:28:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHWANKE shared that she appreciates the proposed
legislation and the concept of open enrollment.
8:30:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELAM shared that his children attend a charter
school and asked how more parental engagement could be brought
about in communities with little to no school choice.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP said that neighborhood "brick & mortar"
schools are "choice schools too, they're choice by what you can
afford to buy. We all know that real estate around excellent
schools, people look for it". She said that parental engagement
is important with regard to school choice.
8:36:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE UNDERWOOD commented that proximity to parent's
work is often a driving factor in the campaign for school
choice.
8:37:45 AM
CO-CHAIR HIMSCHOOT noted that HB 76's Senate companion bill was
heard over a month ago from the date of the current meeting and
made clear that the fee to attend a school in a different
district is based off of the other school district's local
contribution that was made by local attendees of that district.
She emphasized the importance of school counselors in preventing
bullying in schools.
8:40:20 AM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP resumed the presentation on slide 8, which
explained how the proposed legislation would provide
compensation to school districts that have additional students
by their "spring count day".
8:41:15 AM
KAREN MORRISON, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education &
Early Development, on behalf of House Rules by request of the
governor, presented HB 76 to the committee. She picked up the
presentation on slide 8 and explained how HB 76 would establish
a school mobilization program.
8:42:21 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY said that the direct compensation for additional
students by a spring count date has been in the works with the
DEED for "many years" and asked if a district's spring count
could be used to calculate class size and teacher compensation
for the following year.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MORRISON explained that the DEED currently
receives its student population projections from school
districts at the same time that actual student counts are
received.
8:43:36 AM
HEATHER HEINEKEN, Director, Division of Finance & Support
Services, Department of Education & Early Development, answered
committee questions on HB 76. She explained that a rework of
statewide school transportation could be paid for by a "in lieu
of" program in which a local school board would establish a fee
for the utilization of a school transportation system that would
be reimbursed by the district at the end of the school year.
8:46:49 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY asked if the proposed policies of HB 76 were in
alignment with the recently passed HB 57.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP shared her belief that the two pieces of
legislation were in political alignment.
8:47:33 AM
CO-CHAIR HIMSCHOOT asked if an exception for a student to use
their cell phone as a translating device could be amended into
HB 76. She said that there is a perception that school district
devices are overused and asked if HB 76 might limit the time
students spend on district devices. She shared her objection to
the statewide regulation of cell phone use in schools and said
that she preferred the local management of a school's phone use.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP shared her understanding that there "would
be no issues" if a cell phone was utilized for a learning
purpose and said that HB 76 was mainly related to social media,
not school district devices.
8:53:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DIBERT shared an anecdote that children on field
trips would bring their phones with them, which created a
negative dynamic with other kids who didn't have them.
8:54:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHWANKE added that her local school board had
recently passed a policy that banned all cell phone use during
instructional time and remarked that social media is a "systemic
problem across our society" that has young people "absolutely"
addicted to cell phones.
8:57:43 AM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP picked up the presentation on slide 10,
which described the HB 76's reading proficiency and learning
growth incentive grants.
8:59:53 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY asked why HB 76 would withhold funding from
school districts that have lower reading scores.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP shared her understanding that the proposed
legislation would provide funds to school districts that focus
on learning growth and improvement.
9:05:29 AM
CO-CHAIR HIMSCHOOT asked if there are any models that support
the idea of underfunding students who are underperforming.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP shared her belief that some reward-based
funding systems have been utilized in places outside of Alaska
that have proven to be effective motivators in improving
education outcomes.
9:09:08 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY asked if the proposed legislation would increase
the number of Individual Reading Improvement Plan (IRIP)s and
shared her understanding that HB 76 would incentivize school
districts to complete less IRIPs.
COMMSIONER BISHOP answered that the DEEDs focus is student
learning and said that it was "an outreach by teachers" to ask
their school districts to not perform IRIPs for kindergarten
students. She said that she would not prefer the IRIP be
incentivized.
9:15:14 AM
COMMISIONER BISHOP resumed the presentation on slide 11, which
outlined the new method that a charter school might be
established through a new application to the State Board of
Education.
9:17:17 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY asked why a new charter school application
process is necessary.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP replied that the impetus for a charter
school application bill was the need for a streamlined process
of charter school application and establishment.
9:20:39 AM
CO-CHAIR HIMSCHOOT shared her concern that the creation of a
state-level charter school application might bring about a
conflict of interest between a local and statewide schoolboard.
CO-CHAIR STORY asked if the added layer of bureaucratic
processes could add to the already complex affair of a charter
school applicant. She asked how many complaints the DEED has
received with regard to school boards' lackadaisical attitudes
towards charter schools.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP, in response to questions from committee
members, explained that the laws surrounding charter schools are
"very deliberate" and said that there were "people not being
heard" in their desire for certain things within their school
district, like a possible want for a new charter school. She
said that there had been testimony that claimed local school
boards in Alaska to not be attentive to the needs of all schools
within their school district and said that "we just want there
to be good schools for kids and teachers and families". She
said that there have been conflicts with local school boards not
listening to their constituents, administrators, or teachers'
concerns on charter schools
9:28:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DIBERT asked Commissioner Bishop to list the
specific executive agencies that might review a charter school
application.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP explained that a local government agency
like a municipality or board could hear a charter school's
application and said that the goal of the proposed legislation
is to create innovative ideas for the success of charter schools
in Alaska.
9:30:54 AM
CO-CHAIR HIMSCHOOT asked if the Average Daily Membership (ADM)
was greater for charter schools and asked if there are any
school districts in Alaska that do not allow for its local
charter school to carry a balance.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP answered that there is one school district
that does not allow its local charter school to carry a balance
and said that charter school funding is not fully determined by
ADM, rather the startup was reliant on grants and school
district budgeting.
9:34:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELAM asked if there could be an opportunity
within the proposed legislation to apply both positive and
negative understandings to local neighborhood schools.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP said that there could provide an opportunity
to learn from the charter school application and establishment
process.
9:38:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EISCHEID shared his understanding of what charter
schools are and commented that "the local folks know the local
needs".
9:40:17 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY asked how the University of Alaska (UA) would
review charter school applications.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP said that universities across the country do
engage in setting up charter schools within their local
communities and explained that the UA would likely partner with
local school districts to help to educate teachers working in
the district.
9:42:50 AM
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MORRISON picked up the presentation on slide
12, which highlighted the proposed school debt reimbursement
projects and student transportation initiatives as mentioned in
HB 76.
9:44:03 AM
CO-CHAIR HIMSCHOOT asked how school bond debt reimbursement is
related to DEED maintenance applications and asked if a school
could build an entire new school as a "major maintenance"
project. She asked if the only method for funding new
construction in school districts was to go through the CIP
application process or bond locally and asked for further
clarification on the school bond debt reimbursement program.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MORRISON confirmed that the bonds are
completely separate and said that a school district could apply
for the funds to build a new school through the school
construction major maintenance Capitol Improvement Plan (CIP)
application. She confirmed that the CIP application process and
local bonding are currently the only way a school district might
be able to pay for new school construction.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP added that bond debt reimbursement was meant
to reimburse a school district for a portion of a locally bonded
school and explained that prospective a bond would be approved
by local voters, where an approved bond would eventually be paid
back in half by the DEED. She said that she would follow up with
more information later regarding the 50/50 repayment of school
bond debt.
9:48:56 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY announced that HB 76 would be held over.
9:49:40 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:49 a.m.