Legislature(2023 - 2024)DAVIS 106
04/21/2023 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 | |
| Presentation(s): Future Broadband Projects in Alaska and Impacts to Education | |
| HB144 | |
| HB139 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 144 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 139 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 139-CORRESPONDENCE STUDY PROGRAM FUNDING
9:13:28 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 139, "An Act relating to funding for
correspondence study programs." [During the meeting on 4/19/23,
Amendment 2 was moved but did not pass.]
9:13:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to adopt Amendment 3 to HB 139,
labeled, 33-LS0582\B.5, Marx, 4/12/23, which reads as follows:
Page 1, line 8, following "multiplying":
Insert "(1)"
Page 1, line 9:
Delete "the special needs factor in
AS 14.17.420(a)(1) [90 PERCENT]"
Insert "90 percent; and
(2) the number obtained under (1) of this
subsection by the special needs factor in
AS 14.17.420(a)(1)"
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT referred to a letter the committee
received in January from seven superintendents who requested
more equity for the funding of special needs students in
correspondence schools. She stated that the provisions in the
amendment would affect about 10 percent of all special needs
students served, whether it is an extra learning opportunity
(ELO), a gifted student, or a student requiring an
individualized education program (IEP). She stated that the
request is for 90 percent plus the special needs funding factor
of 1.2 percent.
9:15:16 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE maintained his objection. He expressed
awareness of the referenced letter; however, he suggested that
the equity requested is already contained in the current
iteration of the proposed legislation.
9:16:11 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McCormick, McKay,
Himschoot, and Story voted in favor of the motion to adopt
Amendment 3 to HB 139. Representatives Prax and Ruffridge voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 was adopted by a vote of 4-
2.
9:17:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT [moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 7
to HB 139, as amended], labeled, 33-LS0582\B.11, Marx, 4/17/23,
which reads as follows 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 "determining [MULTIPLYING] the ADM of the
correspondence program reported under AS 14.17.500(a)
and 14.17.600(a) and, if the correspondence program
meets the requirements of (b) of this section,
multiplying the ADM of the correspondence program by
the special needs factor in AS 14.17.420(a)(1) [BY 90
PERCENT]"
Page 1, following line 9:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 14.17.430 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(b) To qualify for the special needs factor
multiplier under (a) of this section, a correspondence
program must
(1) offer gifted and talented education and
English learner services; and
(2) file with the department a plan that
indicates the gifted and talented education and
English learner services that gifted and talented
education and English learner students will receive."
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that correspondence schools
serve IEP students, English learners, and gifted students, and
they need additional support to meet their standards. She noted
that IEP students have federal requirements; however, these
other students with Tier II support should have accountability.
She continued that Conceptual Amendment 7 is an accountability
amendment, as it would provide assurance that the multiplier is
used for its intended purpose in correspondence schools. The
amendment would require a plan of service, similar to brick-and-
mortar schools, for English learners and gifted students.
9:19:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed the understanding that, per [the
Foundation Funding Formula], districts would receive a 20
percent funding [factor] for each special needs student, and
this would be multiplied by the number of special needs students
in the district. He questioned the accountability for any extra
funds from this.
9:23:39 AM
CHRIS REITAN, Superintendent, Craig School District, responded
that for students attending brick-and-mortar schools, there is a
1.2 special needs funding factor applied to every student. He
stated that brick-and-mortar schools and correspondence programs
are required to have IEPs for gifted students and service for
English language learners, regardless of funding. In response
to a follow-up question, he stated that any leftover funds go
into the general fund for the district, and its board will
allocate the funds. He advised that the special needs funding
factor is not a one-to-one correspondence with each student.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE added that the 1.2 funding factor does not go
to a specific student.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed the understanding that if a school
has 20 students with special needs, the school will receive the
same amount of funding.
MR. REITAN expressed the understanding that this would be
correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX made the point that currently there is no
accountability in districts for whether the funds are applied to
the intended purpose. He questioned why there should be any
additional requirements on correspondence schools. He argued
that currently the responsibility is on the parents of students
in correspondence schools, and this is a "better system."
9:27:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed the understanding that this is a
block grant; therefore, IEPs would have to be met, as this is a
federal requirement. She suggested that these block grants are
"eaten up" by special education students and nothing is left for
CTE, as it is not mandated. She questioned her understanding of
this.
MR. REITAN, in response, stated that all school districts have
access to Title 6B, which includes the federal grant for special
education, as well as the Carl Perkins Grant, which is CTE
funding. He stated these block grants do not come close to
covering costs for schools to run a CTE program or to meet the
needs of special needs students. He continued that all
districts must use general funds to offset these costs, and this
comes through the base student allocation.
9:30:10 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE clarified that the gifted and English learner
qualifiers are already met by correspondence schools.
MR. REITAN replied in the affirmative.
9:31:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT made the point that the delivery model
for correspondence schools is different. If additional funding
is to be given, she expressed the desire for more
accountability. She stated that this would add a plan
specifically made for correspondence schools, as the district's
plan would not sufficiently explain how the money is being used
and the students are being supported.
9:31:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed agreement that this is a different
model; however, there are already recording requirements for
special needs funds. He expressed the opinion that whoever is
delivering the services should be trusted, as there is no method
of accountability for any entity. He suggested that this would
add a "paperwork burden that nobody will look at."
9:33:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY clarified her understanding that now the
block grants and the factor funding is supposed to go to special
needs, CTE, and gifted students, and the amendment would make
this the same for correspondence programs.
MR. REITAN responded that his understanding of "block grants"
means title grants and federal dollars. He stated that specific
plans need to be made to receive these funds, and the plans must
be approved at the department level. Regarding the 1.2 factor
for gifted, English learners, and special needs students, he
said that all correspondence schools are required to develop a
student learning plan in collaboration with the parent and the
teacher, and if appropriate, a special education teacher. This
plan drives the program for the student and all the curriculum
purchases. For correspondence programs, many students have a
robust plan, so some of this is already built in.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY confirmed she was using the incorrect term,
"block grant," and she should have used the term "special needs
factor" instead. She questioned whether the amendment is
needed.
MR. REITAN replied that he concurs with Representative Prax's
interpretation, and no additional accountability measures are
needed.
9:37:44 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE maintained his objection.
9:37:52 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:37 a.m. to 9:38 a.m.
9:38:15 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McCormick,
Himschoot, and Story voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 7 to
HB 139, as amended. Representatives Prax, McKay, and Ruffridge
voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 7 failed by a
vote of 3-3.
9:38:54 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:38 a.m. to 9:44 a.m.
9:44:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY moved to adopt Amendment 8 to HB 139, as
amended, labeled, 33-LS0582\B.12, Marx, 4/14/23, which reads as
follows:
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "funding for"
Page 1, following line 2:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Section 1. AS 14.03.310(a) is amended to read:
(a) Except as provided in (e) of this section,
the department or a district that provides a
correspondence study program shall [MAY] provide an
annual student allotment to a parent or guardian of a
student enrolled in the correspondence study program
for the purpose of meeting instructional expenses for
the student enrolled in the program as provided in
this section."
Page 1, line 3:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 2"
Page 1, following line 9:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 14.17 is amended by adding a new
section to article 2 to read:
Sec. 14.17.530. Minimum expenditure for
instruction. (a) A district that provides a district
correspondence program, including a district that
offers a statewide correspondence study program, shall
budget for and spend on the correspondence program
component of the district budget in each fiscal year
an amount equal to at least 95 percent of the funding
allocated to the district for the correspondence
program under AS 14.17.430. The district shall spend
at least 60 percent of the amount calculated under
this subsection on annual student allotments required
under AS 14.03.310(a).
(b) The commissioner shall reject a district
budget that does not comply with (a) of this section
and, unless a waiver has been granted by the board
under (d) of this section, shall withhold payments of
state aid from that district, beginning with the
payment for the second full month after rejection and
continuing until the school board of the district
revises the district budget to comply with (a) of this
section.
(c) The commissioner shall review the annual
audit of each district for compliance with the
expenditure requirements of (a) of this section, and
calculate the amount of the deficiency, if any. If the
commissioner determines that a district does not meet
those requirements, the commissioner shall advise the
district of the determination and deduct that amount
from state aid paid to the district for the current
fiscal year. A deduction in state aid required under
this subsection begins with the payment for the second
full month after the determination, unless a waiver
has been granted by the board under (d) of this
section.
(d) A district that the commissioner determines
to be out of compliance with the requirements of this
section may, within 20 days after the commissioner's
determination, request from the board a waiver from
the imposition by the commissioner of a deduction in
state aid payments under (b) or (c) of this section.
The request must be in writing and must provide an
explanation of the reasons for which the district is
unable to comply with the requirements of this
section. The district shall also submit the request to
the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee. The
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee shall review
the district's request and forward its recommendations
on the request to the board. The board may grant the
waiver if the board determines that the district's
failure to meet the expenditure requirements of this
section is caused by circumstances beyond the control
of the district.
(e) The commissioner shall submit an annual
report on actions taken by the commissioner or the
board under this section to the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee by April 15 of each year.
(f) In this section, "correspondence program
component" means expenditures for a district
correspondence program."
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE objected.
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY stated that the amendment would put
spending requirements on correspondence school funds. He
deferred to his chief of staff for discussion.
9:44:48 AM
TREVOR JEPSEN, Staff, Representative Tom McKay, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative McKay, explained
Amendment 8. He stated that the first part of the amendment
would require 95 percent of correspondence funding to be spent
on the program. He continued that 60 percent of the remainder
of these funds must be used for student allotments. He stated
that the remainder of the amendment outlines the system for the
commissioner to affirm the policies. He stated that currently
in statute there is no spending requirement that the funds be
spent on correspondence students or allotments, so all the funds
are allocated to districts based on the number of correspondence
students. He suggested that there has been no evidence of the
misuse of funds; however, putting this into statute will make
sure this trend continues. He expressed the opinion that
student allotments should be increased, and this is the
underlying spirit of the bill.
MR. JEPSEN addressed the impact of the amendment and noted that,
with the passing of Amendment 3, the numbers in Conceptual
Amendment 8 are reduced by 10 percent. He added that under the
previous iteration of the bill, correspondence students' funding
would be increased to $7,142, and with this amendment, the
districts would have to spend 95 percent of this on the
correspondence program. He added that with the minimum student
allotments, this would be $4,071. He stated that the rest of
the funding would be used for overhead. He used the IDEA
correspondence program as an example to show how the amendment
would affect the current situation. He concluded that this
amendment would ensure the majority of the funds would go to the
students.
9:49:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX commented that the IDEA program is being
used as an example, and this program has a set of challenges;
however, other programs would have different challenges, such as
different administrative expenses. He argued that the amendment
would not account for this. He expressed the understanding that
the proposed amendment would prevent correspondence programs
from becoming bureaucratic; however, he suggested that this
would only work for urban programs. He expressed the fear that
there would be unintended consequences, and some programs may be
shut down.
9:51:47 AM
MR. JEPSEN responded that if a program cannot afford this, there
is a waiver system in place. He stated that he has reached out
to nine correspondence programs and discovered that this
allotment amount going to the student is common. In response to
a follow-up question, he stated that the waiver system is in
place, and this would help any new correspondence programs get
started. He suggested that there would be a process for
programs to expand or start anew.
9:54:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT requested that Mr. Reitan speak to the
amendment.
MR. REITAN expressed concern about elected school board members
maintaining local control of their budget. He suggested that
this would limit their ability. He expressed another concern
that the smaller correspondence programs would not be able to
survive the market, even with the waiver. He expressed the
opinion that with the proposed amendment, new programs would not
be able to start.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT questioned Mr. Jepsen whether any
district is currently giving more than 60 percent to the student
allotment.
MR. JEPSEN reiterated that of the schools he spoke with none
were giving more.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT expressed concern about local control
and sought to confirm that districts are currently spending the
funding they receive for correspondence programs on these
programs.
MR. JEPSEN replied that this is correct.
9:57:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX moved to table Amendment 8.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected. She expressed concern about
local control; therefore, tabling the amendment would not change
this.
9:58:25 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Prax, McCormack,
McKay, and Ruffridge voted in favor of the motion to table
Amendment 8 to HB 139, as amended. Representatives Story and
Himschoot voted against it. Therefore, by a vote of 4-2,
Amendment 8 was tabled.
9:59:02 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE announced that HB 139, as amended, was held
over.