Legislature(2023 - 2024)DAVIS 106
04/19/2023 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 | |
| HB148 | |
| HB139 | |
| HB144 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 144 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 139 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 148 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 139-CORRESPONDENCE STUDY PROGRAM FUNDING
8:59:07 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 139, "An Act relating to funding for
correspondence study programs."
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE entertained amendments.
8:59:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY indicated that Amendment 1, [included in
the committee packet, would not be offered].
8:59:48 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:59 a.m. to 9:01 a.m.
9:01:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to adopt Amendment 2 to HB 139,
labeled 33-LS0582\B.1/Marx 4/12/23, which read as follows:
Page 1, lines 8 - 9:
Delete "multiplying the ADM of the correspondence
program by the special needs factor in
AS 14.17.420(a)(1) [90 PERCENT]"
Insert "(1) multiplying the ADM of the
correspondence program by 90 percent; and
(2) except as provided in (b) of this
section, multiplying the number obtained under (1) of
this subsection by the special needs factor in
AS 14.17.420(a)(1)"
Page 1, following line 9:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 14.17.430 is amended by adding new
subsections to read:
(b) A correspondence program described in (a) of
this section must maintain a correspondence program
student assessment participation rate of at least 96
percent or the average participation rate of all
district student assessment participation rates in the
state, whichever is less. If the correspondence
program fails to meet the student assessment
participation requirement for more than two
consecutive fiscal years, funding for the
correspondence program in a subsequent fiscal year may
not include the special needs factor adjustment
described in (a)(2) of this section. A correspondence
program that meets the student assessment
participation requirement after losing funding under
this subsection is eligible to receive the special
needs factor adjustment described in (a)(2) of this
section in the following fiscal year.
(c) In this section,
(1) "correspondence program student
assessment participation rate" means the percentage
obtained by dividing the number of students enrolled in
a correspondence program who took a statewide student
assessment administered by the correspondence program
by the number of students enrolled in a grade in which
the correspondence program administers the assessment
on the first day that the correspondence program
begins administering the assessment;
(2) "district student assessment
participation rate" means the percentage obtained by
dividing the number of students enrolled in a district
who took a statewide student assessment administered
by the district by the number of students enrolled in
a grade in which the district administers the
assessment on the first day that the district begins
administering the assessment;
(3) "statewide student assessment" means a
standards-based test or assessment required by the
department under AS 14.03.123(f)."
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said Amendment 2 did two things.
Firstly, it would implement the superintendents request to
multiply the correspondence program's average daily membership
(ADM) by 90 percent and provide a multiplier of 1.2. She added
that she took the legislature's role as the "middle man for the
public dollar" very seriously, opining that the money should be
spent wisely. The second part of the amendment would set
accountability standards for correspondence programs to show
performance measures for the investment of public dollars.
9:03:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY requested to hear from Superintendent
Reitan on the letter submitted by the superintendents. She
shared her belief that the 96 percentile would be too high of a
dump as a growth measure and asked Representative Himschoot to
speak to that.
9:04:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT highlighted lines 14-15 of Amendment 2.
She explained that if the building-based programs are reaching
80 percent, the correspondence programs would also have to reach
80 percent. She added that the programs would have several
years to reach and maintain that standard.
9:05:28 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE reiterated that the question posed by
Representative Story is in reference to the letter signed by Mr.
Reitan, who is available for discussion.
9:05:55 AM
CHRIS REITAN, Superintendent, Craig City School District, joined
the discussion on Amendment 2. He offered his understanding
that all the districts who operate homeschool programs would be
pleased in regard to what the amendment is doing with 90 percent
of the base student allocation (BSA) plus the special needs
factor. He stressed the importance of having a "level playing
field" with brick-and-mortar schools. The second piece of
Amendment 2, he said, would make it difficult for all school
districts, especially correspondence schools, to meet that
standard. He related hearing from parents who said they know
their children the best in reference to developing an individual
plan, consultations with the school district, or contacting
teacher about which plan most appropriately meets the student's
needs. He opined that the second piece of Amendment 2 puts
district in an awkward place in regard to providing all parents
a right to direct education. He said no school district is
trying to shy away from accountability; instead, districts are
trying their best to fit into state statutes that have already
been put in place.
9:10:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked Mr. Reitan what the federal
assessment requirement was.
MR. REITAN replied it is 95 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT referred to lines 12-15 in Amendment 2,
and stated that she was hesitant to invest the public's money in
a program that does not meet the same standards as other
programs.
MR. REITAN replied that he could only speak to the
correspondence programs he works, explaining that there are
other assessment items in place for families to utilize with
their students in consultation with their contact teacher.
Another item his organization tracks, he said, is the number of
students accessing college university classes, which was not
addressed in the bill.
9:13:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX observed there were two pieces to the
amendment: the money, and the assessment. He stated that he was
most concerned about the assessment piece being logistically
difficult for the statewide correspondence programs to arrange
for the tests, in addition to getting everyone together in the
same place to take the tests when the results "don't mean
anything." He said he questioned the value of the tests, and
asked why districts would be asked to spend more money on tests
that "we don't care about."
9:16:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked Mr. Reitan whether brick and
mortar programs also produce similar measures of success with
their students not related to testing.
MR. REITAN responded absolutely. Statewide, he said, district
assessments are a "snapshot," of a particular time in a
student's life. He defined success as when a student graduates
from their system with every option available to them regardless
of what they want to do moving forward.
9:18:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY considered a scenario in which the
correspondence school was not meeting the intent of the
individual education plan (IEP) and asked whether liability
would fall to the district or the correspondence school.
MR. REITAN clarified that the individual education plan for
students with disabilities was based on where the student is
most enrolled. He provided an example of students partially
enrolled in both brick-and-mortar and correspondence programs,
and based on the percentage of where they are most enrolled,
that school would be responsible for managing the IEP as well as
working with the parents.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether the responsibility for
correspondence programs was the reason superintendents wanted to
keep it at .9 instead of 1.
MR. REITAN replied that increasing special education enrollment
in correspondence programs has been going on a number of years.
Without addressing the entire BSA formula, he reasoned that [.9]
seemed equitable in regard to receiving the 1.0 special needs
factor.
9:21:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX commented on the "secret sauce" that seems
to make the correspondence programs work, and the ability to
structure the curriculum to the individual. He stated that
there is much less need for standardized testing and centralized
accountability, and reiterated that he wished to vote down
Amendment 2 and focus on Amendment 3.
9:24:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked Mr. Reitan whether it was
possible to meet federal mandates surrounding special education.
Additionally, she asked what the ratio was for special education
teachers to IEP students.
9:25:38 AM
MR. REITAN explained that when he was in Galena, Alaska, staff
looked at a ratio of 1 to 60 max for IDEA students with special
needs. Special education teachers didn't have the daily
responsibility of also doing the instruction for the students
since they work through the parents, he said. He stated that if
HB 139 passed, there would be difficulties finding high quality
special education teachers.
9:27:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY opined that 1 to 15 was an excellent ratio.
She highlighted the difficulty of finding special education
teachers, noting that many in the Juneau School District were
hired by contract, which was more expensive.
9:28:15 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE agreed with Representative Prax about taking
up Amendment 3 to discuss the funding component. Regarding
Amendment 2, he opined that the proposal would add a burden that
contradicts current statute regarding the right of a parent to
choose to participate in a test or not. He affirmed he would
not support Amendment 2 and maintained his objection.
9:29:12 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McCormick and
Himschoot voted in favor of the motion to adopt Amendment 2 to
HB 139. Representatives McKay, Story, Prax, and Ruffridge voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 2-4.
9:29:50 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE announced that HB 139 was held over.