Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
04/26/2024 08:00 AM House FINANCE
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 | |
| SB52 | |
| HB139 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 52 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 139 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 139
"An Act relating to funding for correspondence study
programs."
8:49:01 AM
Co-Chair Foster explained that the bill had been introduced
well before the recent court decision on the topic. He
noted that he intended to have a hearing on each of the
education bills in the House Finance Committee's possession
in order for the committee to think about how it wanted to
move forward and to be informed on all of the available
tools. He had hoped to have Legislative Legal Services to
speak to the court decision; however, it had not been
possible to get someone in time for the current meeting. He
asked to hear from the bill sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE JUSTIN RUFFRIDGE, SPONSOR, confirmed that
the bill had been introduced long before any of the [court]
decisions were made. He was able to offer his opinion but
could not speak to the legality of different court cases.
He relayed that HB 139 sought to put correspondence funding
on par with other funding in Alaska. The initial bill
sought to add a special needs factor, which other students
in the state received at a 1.2 multiplier in the foundation
formula. Correspondence programs were currently funded at
90 percent of the average daily membership (ADM) and did
not move through the foundation formula.
Representative Ruffridge explained that the bill was
intended to start the conversation about whether the
special needs factor should apply to correspondence
students. He acknowledged that sometimes the title was
confusing, and it should not be mistaken for the intensive
needs factor, which was a special multiplier for students
with an individualized learning plan (ILP) for very
specific disabilities or learning disabilities that
required them to have additional funding. He clarified that
the special needs factor applied to all students for
certain things like technical or vocational education,
advanced placement courses, and a host of other things
including athletics. He characterized it as a catchall for
all things that students may need that were above and
beyond the standard educational platform. He relayed that
HB 139 sought to add a special needs factor to
correspondence school students to bring them on par with
other students in the state.
Co-Chair Edgmon asked the same question he asked previously
to Senator Tobin and Representative McKay. He noted that
correspondence schools were a significant part of SB 140,
which had been vetoed by the governor. The governor's veto
letter had talked about the need for educational reform and
that the money attached to the bill for education,
including a large chunk for correspondence schools, did not
come with reform. He referenced Senator Tobin's comments
earlier in the meeting on assessments and the low number of
testing in correspondence schools. He asked for
Representative Ruffridge's comments on the topic.
Representative Ruffridge responded that assessments were a
broad subject. He was currently missing a discussion on
assessments with the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED) and after he was finished in the current
meeting, he would join the discussion and would report back
to the committee. He found assessments to be a considerable
concern. He elaborated that the assessments offered in
Alaska over the past decade had been unusable. He explained
that regardless of the testing percentage, it was difficult
to trust what was coming out of the assessments given in
the state. For example, the cut scores for the assessment
given in the past school year were altered to allow the
numbers of students deemed proficient to be higher. He
stated that if it was possible to manipulate the scores or
change the test entirely, he wondered if the amount of
funding put towards supporting assessments were rightly
spent. He thought the state needed to offer stability and a
necessity of tracking successes or failures, which he did
not believe was currently occurring. He considered the
question of whether students should be able to opt out [of
assessments]. He believed it was an important aspect,
particularly for students in rural Alaska. He spoke to
correspondence schools in general and explained that many
students located in remote areas who were being
homeschooled or were in a correspondence program typically
had to travel to a centralized location to test. He noted
the same was true for homeschool students located on the
Railbelt or road system.
8:56:41 AM
Representative Ruffridge continued to answer Co-Chair
Edgmon's question. He detailed that a centralized testing
was offered over multiple days and all students were
encouraged to go to take the test; however, due to the cost
of travel, many parents chose not to participate. He noted
that there was equality amongst all students in the state
to be able to opt out, but students in brick and mortar
schools were more likely to take the test because the test
was offered onsite and all of the resources were built to
get the students to that spot, while correspondence
students, by the nature of being at home, did not have the
same opportunity. Potentially with special needs funding
there could be some additional resources allocated to
allowing students to travel for testing purposes.
Representative Ortiz appreciated the intent of the bill to
increase [funding for correspondence schools] from 90
percent to 100 percent. He asked if Representative
Ruffridge would agree that the number had been originally
set at 90 percent with the understanding that the cost for
students to attend brick and mortar schools were higher in
relationship to facilities and access to activities.
Representative Ruffridge replied that he wanted to ensure
they were talking about the same bill. He noted there had
been a number of correspondence program conversations
recently. He detailed that SB 140 had included the ADM, the
ADM only, and 100 percent of ADM, which was different than
HB 139. He explained that HB 139 was amended in the House
Education Committee to retain the 0.9 percent funding,
which was reflected in the current version of the bill. The
bill added the special needs factor funding.
Representative Ortiz asked if the bill would be an avenue
to fix the problem in relationship to what had transpired
with the court decision. He wondered if the problem would
be solved by adopting an amendment to revert back to the
way funds were administered to correspondence programs in
2014.
Representative Ruffridge answered there would be a bill
introduced later in the day sponsored by the House
Education Committee that would include statutory language
to address the court decision. He advocated for an omnibus
fix for education. He believed a wholesale discussion was
needed. He shared that he had been a supporter of SB 140.
He thought that having the pieces in place to have the
conversation prior to the end of session was important. He
advocated strongly for the correspondence component in SB
140. He stated that the shorter answer to Representative
Ortiz's question was, "Yes, hopefully."
9:01:03 AM
Representative Galvin stated that there were population
assessments related to how the state was doing and student
assessments used by teachers that could be shared among
districts and schools. She thought both seemed to be
important, especially when thinking about accountability
for public funds. She referenced Representative Ruffridge's
mention of how difficult it was to travel [to take
assessments] for charter and correspondence students. She
believed Representative Ruffridge was suggesting that the
fix would be to raise the base funding for those particular
students. She wondered if the he would entertain the idea
of a reimbursement of costs individuals incurred as a
result of taking the test. She thought that route may be
more acceptable to people currently concerned about the
funding spent within that segment of education. She noted
that apparently there had been some reports that people
were going to private school all day and taking the full
allotment and using it for extras. On top of that, the
students were not taking the testing; therefore, the state
did not know how the public dollars were doing within the
public education realm.
Representative Ruffridge asked for a distillation of the
question.
Representative Galvin complied. She asked about opting out
of the testing, getting correspondence and charter school
students to take the test, and how the legislature may fund
it.
Representative Ruffridge made a distinction between charter
schools and correspondence. He believed charter school
students tested at a similar rate to those in brick and
mortar neighborhood schools. For the most part, charter
schools were brick and mortar neighborhood schools, which
had a slightly different operational model including boards
run by parents and with that could be run separate of the
school district in some sense. He relayed that
correspondence schools had a much lower testing rate. He
stated there was a long history of ways to leverage
homeschool students to take state testing including holding
their allotment for the following year for refusing to take
the statewide test. He relayed that it was a program run in
Alaska for many years. He noted it was not a kind or
particularly stable way of getting at the issue. He thought
the existing method was a much better way of administering
the program. He relayed that correspondence he had worked
with during his time in Alaska went out of their way to
make testing available to students. Ultimately, it came
down to whether a parent chose to take advantage of the
option. The option was the same option afforded to every
parent in the state, which was equally given.
9:06:00 AM
Representative Galvin stated heard so much about
accountability and accountability of public dollars. She
highlighted that it was very hard to assess how the state
was doing with its public dollars if it did not have some
measure of how the state was doing population wise. She
thought it may be a component to consider when thinking
through how to reform education to help improve all
students. She believed an additional component would be
improved sharing among educators on how the growth of the
state's students was going. She understood that all of the
things required resources.
Representative Cronk remarked that the lawsuit had been
backed by the National Education Association in support of
the state's brick and mortar schools. He remarked that the
state could not use public funds for private school. He
shared that he had been a teacher for 25 years. He thought
public school districts had violated the constitution
because they had paid for private school classes. He
elaborated that his school district used to pay Bringham
Young University to teach classes. He thought it was ironic
a lawsuit was filed against correspondence kids, yet the
school districts had paid for private school classes for
students. He did not believe there was a quick fix to the
situation at hand. He asked who was to say that McGraw Hill
was not a private company that the state was buying
curriculum from. He thought it was a much bigger issue now
that a judge had ruled "this was" unconstitutional. He
asked who would determine which curriculum company was not
private. He reiterated his comments about a district paying
for classes at the private Bringham Young University. He
thought it was an obvious violation of the constitution.
Representative Ruffridge answered that he had received some
clarity when looking at some of the correspondence programs
aligned with private schools in Alaska offering payment for
their tuition for children to attend private school
essentially full-time. He believed it was not the intention
of the correspondence program allotment. He thought the
judge's decision required clarity in some cases in terms of
how far it reached. He had looked up some of the minutes of
the constitutional convention and believed the intention
was that students attending a private school full-time
should not have state funds going to pay their tuition. He
thought it was a little less clear for classes, tutoring
services, and curriculums. He thought there was a
possibility the legislature could work on a fix of some
sort going forward. He believed it would be challenging and
that there would be some uncertainty working through the
situation. He did not want to be afraid of having the hard
conversations. Part of the conversation was addressing how
to fund correspondence schools because they were part of
the public education system in Alaska. He believed allowing
parents to have the opportunity to educate students at home
was envied by other states. He was supremely grateful to
his homeschooling opportunity as a child and thanked his
mother for her sacrifice.
Representative Cronk estimated that his district had over
half the correspondence students. He stated the argument
had been that using funds for classes at private schools
was not appropriate. However, public school districts had
been doing so since he was a teacher. He found it ironic
that it was possible to pick and choose what to fight
against. He supported correspondence. He found it
frustrating to see one entity picking on another, when the
practice had been going on for years.
9:12:48 AM
Representative Hannan asked for verification that the
provisions pertaining to the special needs factor would
apply to every child enrolled in correspondence versus
students identified with special needs.
Representative Ruffridge clarified that the special needs
factor already applied to every student attending a brick
and mortar school. He detailed that it was a 20 percent
multiplier to the ADM. He relayed that there was a very
specific difference between intensive needs, which a
student needed to apply for, and special needs, which
applied to every student. He believed special needs should
apply to all students.
Representative Hannan stated that every school needed to be
prepared by law to comply with the federal law to have a
certified special education teacher for students with
individualized education plans (IEP). She reasoned that
sometimes it was not cost effective because there was the
[special needs] factor and a lot of kids. She stated that
generally in correspondence there was a smaller number of
kids in a unit. She explained that even though the Galena
School District would receive the funding, there may not be
any kids in Kenai that needed the special education
services. She asked for verification that Representative
Ruffridge wanted the factor to be applied to every
correspondent student whether any services needed to be
delivered or not.
Representative Ruffridge believed they were conflating two
separate issues. He clarified that the special needs factor
was a catchall for a large number of things including
advanced placement classes, technical vocational education,
and other things. He noted that statute clearly laid out
the large list of services that applied. He encouraged
legislators to visit a correspondence program because they
offered some of the things that Representative Hannan was
concerned about. He highlighted one program in Juneau. He
elaborated that some of the things were offered at a very
high level and provided some coverage for occupational,
physical, or other needs without any additional funds. He
stated they were doing an incredible job of using the
limited resources available to provide even the intensive
needs services in some cases. Most of the certified
teachers available to students within homeschool programs
had years of teaching and homeschooling experience. He
elaborated that they were helping parents learn how to be
good teachers at home. He remarked the legislature
supported the Parents as Teachers program through the
budget process, but the program actually had nothing to do
with homeschooling. He thought the homeschooling programs
provided a large amount of support to parents and offered
special needs and other intensive needs services at home or
through the program, currently without additional funding.
He disagreed with the idea that the services were not being
offered within correspondence programs.
Representative Hannan remarked that there were three home
school centers in Juneau: Idea, Raven, and Homebridge. She
noted that she had visited all three.
9:17:59 AM
Representative Stapp remarked on the conversation and
stated that there was an attempt at a narrative regarding
accountability around homeschool kids. He thought there was
a misconception by many members of the committee about how
correspondence programs worked. He asked how many kids in
Alaska were currently in correspondence schools. He asked
for the total number of students enrolled in public school
in Alaska.
Representative Ruffridge answered that about 22,000 to
23,000 students were enrolled in correspondence programs.
There were about 100,000 students enrolled in brick and
mortar schools. He stated there a total of 128,000
students.
Representative Stapp estimated that 22,000 was about 24
percent of the total. He if it was reasonable to conclude
that if 14 percent of the 22,000 were testing, there was
not accountability for the kids not testing. He noted that
the vast majority of the kids in the school system were
testing and there were reliable numbers for how kids tested
and scored. He considered comments that a fraction of a
fraction of a total population did not have accountability.
He found it to be ironic that individuals did not see that
the problem was that the majority of the kids in the school
system were testing poorly. He asked if it was a fair
assessment.
Representative Ruffridge answered that assessments in
general as a singular measure of accountability was
probably the wrong thing. He relayed that in the case of
some of the court decisions he thought in some cases there
was very blatant signaling about what was happening and
likely DEED or the state board should have taken some
action to make sure it was clear what was not allowed. He
thought that was accountability. He did not necessarily
know that accountability had a single answer. He remarked
that because Alaska could not pick a test or score that
mattered, he thought it was a very poor measure of
accountability.
Representative Stapp asked if correspondence schools were
operated by public schools.
Representative Ruffridge responded affirmatively.
Representative Stapp stated that numerous committee members
had talked about local control. He asked if local school
districts had the ability to change the structure of how
they want to administer their homeschool programs, even
changing if they wanted to give an allotment or not. He
asked for verification that nothing compelled them to do
so.
Representative Ruffridge answered affirmatively. He relayed
that each district decided the allotment amount. He noted
it was incredibly varied.
Representative Stapp thought it was fair to say that when
people talked about local and accountability, they were
looking for a statewide solution for correspondence school
testing; however, local school districts already had the
ability to impose accountability metrics themselves by
changing the structure of their individual homeschool
programs because they were public schools.
Representative Ruffridge replied affirmatively. He relayed
that in his experience, local districts were highly
supportive of their correspondence programs because parents
wanted the option. He elaborated that because there many
options for correspondence programs throughout the state,
there was a bit of a push-pull competition going on for who
could take the best care of a student. He noted there were
three [correspondence programs] in Juneau and each one had
a connection to a specific district. Parents could choose
which one fit the needs of a certain group of people; they
may find a home in one and not find the supports they need
in another.
9:23:09 AM
Representative Stapp agreed. He considered how changing the
spend multiplier for correspondence students worked in
conjunction with the court case. He asked if correspondence
school funding was basically discretionary spending for
districts.
Representative Ruffridge responded affirmatively.
Representative Stapp stated that the court case even struck
down the 1997 statute regarding ILPs and allotments. He
asked what would happen with the increased funding for
correspondence schools if it was determined that allotments
and ILPs were not legal.
Representative Ruffridge answered that the funding would go
to the school district.
Representative Stapp asked if the district could do
whatever it wanted with the funds because it was
discretionary spending.
Representative Ruffridge agreed.
Representative Josephson appreciated Representative
Ruffridge's nuanced answer to Representative Cronk on his
understanding of the NEA backed case. He agreed that the
state constitution did not intend for the state to fire up
number two pencil factories because it could not purchase
them from a vendor. He did not believe that was what the
constitution intended. He addressed the accountability
component of the meeting conversation. He recalled that
when he worked as a public school teacher in western
Alaska, he had taken the GRE with a proctor in rural Alaska
when preparing to go to law school. He asked if a similar
system could be designed.
Representative Ruffridge remarked that he thought a number
two pencil factory and factories in general in Alaska were
a good idea. He agreed that a proctored exam could be done.
He was not certain what the options were in terms of online
availability and connectivity issues could occur. The
legislature had worked to address connectivity issues with
broadband assistance grants and other solutions. He noted
that the tests offered in person were proctored. There was
significant staffing and building rental that currently
occurred in order to administer tests for correspondence
programs. He thought it was an opportunity to ask some
questions about the idea and he thought it was a good line
of thinking to do so going forward.
9:26:57 AM
Co-Chair Johnson remarked that accountability and testing
was not really a part of the bill. She appreciated the
bill. She remarked on the idea of separating out
correspondence programs and providing less funding because
they were not located in a brick and mortar building. She
highlighted that the students still had to be housed
somewhere. She would love to have the same conversation on
accountability related to the entire education funding
instead of doing things piecemeal. She noted they had a
problem in Alaska with getting kids up to national
standards. She stated it did not start and end with
correspondence students.
Representative Ruffridge thought the answer when asking
about accountability in neighborhood schools was to look at
all of the information districts were providing back to the
state in terms of where the money went, how it was spent,
who was testing, how they were testing, etcetera. He stated
that correspondence programs were run by districts and all
of the same things provided to neighborhood schools related
to accountability for funds were offered through
correspondence programs as well. He noted that
Representative Stapp had an interesting line of questioning
about whether correspondence programs were district run,
district allocated, and district accountable programs. The
answer was yes. He found separating the programs out as
"other" was odd to him. He supported an omnibus approach
for education. He thought education should be considered on
a wholesale level including asking how neighborhood schools
and neighborhood schools were doing and if they were
getting the needed resources. He stated that the concept in
the bill was one component of the "three headed question."
He thought it was important to remember that the programs
were all district run, district allocated, and district
accountable and were ultimately accountable to DEED.
9:30:25 AM
Co-Chair Edgmon appreciated the comment. He highlighted
there were 19 remaining days in session. He fully supported
a comprehensive discussion on a holistic level as outlined.
He hoped work could be done over the coming interim to prep
legislators for the following session. He hoped the
governor could be involved in the larger discussion as
well. He believed there was support to do so for
correspondence, charter school, and brick and mortar
programs. He appreciated the commentary and Representative
Ruffridge's ability to respond to questions from all angles
including the lawsuit with the correspondence programs.
HB 139 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the next meeting
to take place immediately.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 52 Public Testimony Rec'd by 051124.pdf |
HFIN 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM |
SB 52 |