Legislature(2023 - 2024)DAVIS 106
03/27/2024 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 | |
| HB392 | |
| SB29 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 392 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 29 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 392-EDUCATION FUNDING
8:01:19 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 392, "An Act relating to education; relating
to funding for Internet services for school districts; relating
to charter schools; relating to transportation of public school
students; relating to correspondence study funding; relating to
the base student allocation; relating to funding for reading
improvement plans; relating to teacher retention and recruitment
incentives; and providing for an effective date."
8:02:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TOM MCKAY, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, introduced HB 392 and read the sponsor statement
[included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
In the ever-evolving educational landscape of Alaska,
the importance of supporting our students, educators,
and schools has never been more critical. House Bill
392, introduced by the House Resources Committee, is a
comprehensive piece of legislation designed to address
several key areas in our educational system. Alaska
currently ranks near the bottom of educational
outcomes in the US, and we owe it to our kids and
parents to come up with solutions and educational
options. This bill addresses multiple facets of our
states education system, including public school
funding, charter schools, and correspondence programs.
House Bill 392 is a testament to Alaska's commitment
to its future generations. By addressing the pressing
needs of our educational system through comprehensive
funding and support measures, we are not only
investing in the educational success of our students
but also in the economic and social well-being of our
state. As the chair of the House Resources Committee
and de-facto sponsor of HB 392, I urge my colleagues
in the legislature to support this bill, understanding
that the benefits it brings will resonate throughout
our communities, laying a stronger foundation for the
future of education in Alaska.
8:04:56 AM
TREVOR JEPSEN, Staff, Representative Tom McKay, Alaska State
Legislature, presented a PowerPoint, titled "HB 392 - Alaska
Education Funding" [hard copy included in the committee packet],
during the hearing on HB 392 on behalf of Representative McKay,
prime sponsor. He began on slide 2, titled "Alaska Education
System," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
trianglert Alaska currently & historically has lagged behind in
education outcomes
trianglert Education more important now than ever as low-skilled
jobs are increasingly being eliminated, a trend that
will be exacerbated in coming years
trianglert Solution can't be just based on BSA increase;
Alaskan's deserve more inventive and pragmatic
solutions
trianglert The legislature has time for another shot at an
education funding bill in the current session and our
students need it
MR. JEPSEN proceeded to slide 3, titled "Base Student
Allocation," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
trianglert Rampant inflation in recent years justifies a
significant BSA increase to allow districts security
when crafting budgets
trianglert Continued reliance on one-time spending outside of the
formula works but isn't the best solution
trianglert HB 392 proposes a $680 increase to BSA from $5,960 to
$6,640
8:07:49 AM
MR. JEPSEN continued on slide 4, titled "Public Charter
Schools," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
trianglert Public charter schools represent "public-school
choice"
st
trianglert Alaska charter schools recently ranked 1 in the
nation in by the Program on Education Policy and
Governance (PEPG) at Harvard
trianglert Alaska charter school performance: 32.1% of a standard
deviation higher than the national average in reading
and math
trianglert HB 392 introduces a new pathway for charter school
termination appeals & introduces a state charter
school coordinator position
MR. JEPSEN stressed that charter schools represent a "bright
spot" on Alaska's education system. He moved to slide 5, titled
"Correspondence Programs" and stated that Alaska has over 30
correspondence programs and over 20,000 correspondence students.
The slide read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
trianglert Correspondence students currently only funded at 0.9
of average daily membership (ADM) for calculation of
adjusted ADM
trianglert HB 392 version A funds them at 1.0
trianglert Example: if a district has 10 correspondence students,
(10 x 0.9 = 9), only 9 students would be added to the
adjusted ADM before being multiplied by the BSA
MR. JEPSEN advanced to slide 6, titled "Alaska Reads Act
Funding," and he described the Act as a landmark piece of
legislation. Slide 6 read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
trianglert Alaska Reads Act signed by Governor Dunleavy in June
2022
trianglert Focused on advancing reading levels for students in
rd
kindergarten through 3 grade
trianglert Labeled "unfunded mandate" by many due to lack of
specified funds in statute
trianglert HB 392 provides an additional $500 in funds for
students in K-3 who are determined to have a reading
deficiency under new section 14.30.773
8:10:41 AM
MR. JEPSEN proceeded to slide 7, titled "Transportation of
Students Funding," which he related was the final funding aspect
of the bill. Slide 7 read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
trianglert Transportation funds (AS 14.09.010(a)) only applied to
public school students
trianglert Last increase to transportation funding was FY2013
trianglert HB 392 represents a roughly 18% increase for
transportation funding
8:11:16 AM
MR. JEPSEN gave the sectional analysis to HB 392, shown on
slides 8 and 9, titled "HB 392 Version A Sectional Analysis,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
trianglert Section 1: Amends AS 14.03.127(a) to allow schools
districts qualifying for discounted internet services
to receive funding to bring speeds up to 100 megabits
per second (previously 25 megabits per second)
trianglert Section 2: Adds a new section allowing charter schools
to appeal to the commissioner of DEED if their
contract is terminated by a local school board
trianglert Section 3: Adds a new section under 14.03.277
establishing a charter school coordinator position
with the department
trianglert Section 4: Repeals previous 14.09.010(a)
(Transportation of students) and replaces with updated
14.09.010(a) that reflects increased transportation
funding
trianglert Section 5: Amends AS 14.17.430 to increase adjusted
ADM factor for correspondence students from 0.9 to 1.0
trianglert Section 6: Increase BSA by $680 to a total of $6,640
trianglert Section 7: Adds new section which mandates state
provide $500 for each K-3 student determine to have a
reading deficiency
trianglert Section 8: Establishes teacher recruitment and
retention incentives for certificate full-time
teachers
trianglert Section 9: Provides for an immediate effective date
for section 1 (internet funding for schools)
trianglert Section 10: Provides for an effective date of July 1,
2024 (FY25) for sections 2 through 8
MR. JEPSEN concluded on slide 10, titled "Sponsor
Recommendations for (H)EDU Committee Substitute," and went over
the proposed committee substitute (CS). Slide 10 read as
follows [original punctuation provided):
trianglert Section 1 Remove entirely. Funding for internet
rd
schools has already passed both bodies of the 33
legislature in a different vehicle (HB193)
trianglert Section 2 - Replace "commissioner" with "state board"
regarding the charter school termination appeal
process
trianglert Section 5 Use special needs factor of 1.2 for ADM-
based correspondence funding instead of a factor of 1
(current statutory factor is 0.9)
trianglert Section 7 provide $180 for every student K-3 instead
of $500 for those determined to have a reading
deficiency; Provide an additional $100 for K-3
students in a title 1 school
trianglert Section 8 Lump sum payments for teachers; Remove
entirely.
trianglert New section Include state board-authorized charter
school language under a new section 14.03.254
8:15:13 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced the committee would hear invited
testimony.
8:15:59 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:15 a.m. to 8:16 a.m.
8:16:53 AM
DEENA BISHOP, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED), answered questions during the hearing on HB
392 and noted for the committee that Karen Morrison and Deborah
Riddle from DEED were also available to answer questions.
8:17:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked whether there would be an
opportunity to ask questions referencing the CS that was
currently not in front of the body.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD confirmed there would be time for questions and
suggested waiting until the CS was ready.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT expressed that her lack of clarity came
from the changes that might be in the CS. She offered her
understanding that the "old SB 140," with teacher bonuses added,
was in front of the body.
8:18:37 AM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP said that the CS as described in bullet 3 is
1.2 for average daily membership (ADM) funding, and .2 speaks to
services for students. She briefly explained the steps in the
algorithms in the formulas that speak to cost differentials and
school size in Alaska. Insomuch as correspondence students are
students, she said, the change supports the learning of students
in various services in which they can partake.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT sought clarity on the special needs
factor.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP confirmed it would be included in the 1.2.
She said every child is treated as a whole child and Mr. Jepsen
had shared how that was calculated.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT observed that the special needs
category multiplier is a block grant, and districts must have a
plan of service. She inquired how a plan of service would be
rendered with individual families being the educators.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP responded that when a student is in public
school correspondence it is articulated in regulations to
include meetings with teachers to set up an individual learning
plan (ILP) that speaks to the type of services a student needs,
which is gathered through assessment. She added that special
services are served through the district and funds go to parents
through the ILP.
8:22:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked whether the CS would contain any
guardrails on the additional funding being used for the
allotment that families receive. She offered an observation
that if the expense for special programs is falling to
districts, the 1.2 would not be allowed to be used to increase
the allotment.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP explained that the home school district
would determine the allotment number, and she further clarified
that the charter schools are located within the districts that
determine those costs.
8:23:38 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD interjected that she would "reign this in" being
the CS is not ready and keep the conversation to what is
actually in before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said her questions pertain to what she
considered a "familiar bill."
8:24:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY noted that when special education plans are
made for correspondence students there is a legal obligation,
and she asked whether the local district is responsible if there
is a legal suit.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP confirmed that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked where the money would come from to
pay for the 20 percent increase.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD commented that the question could wait for Mr.
Jepsen to rejoin the conversation.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY explained that her question had to do with
charter schools and local school board authorization or state
board authorization and, if it were state board, who would
assess the local impacts to the neighborhood schools since
finances are based on enrollment.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP responded she was not sure the local impact
to schools was understood and alluded to educational or economic
impacts of what children are learning.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY referred to loss of electives and losing
kids.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP replied that the type of program students
receive is based at the local school level. She emphasized that
it would be difficult to track, as all schools do not offer the
same education and are designed to serve their particular area.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY pointed out that when there are fewer
students, there is less money; therefore, there would be fewer
offerings.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP explained that when the number of students
decreases students, DEED must make different choices such as
closing schools or combining programs. It is about organizing
and prioritizing, she said.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked how the state board would know the
impact on the choices the neighborhood schools would be making
if there is projected enrollment in a charter school resulting
in less enrollment in the neighborhood school.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP answered that the state board would work
directly with the district and support all schools in the state.
8:30:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT shared that she was still digesting the
suggestions in the current bill for correspondence study and
looking at a greater investment of the public dollar. She asked
about accountability measures and proof that the investment was
paying off.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP confirmed that all schools in Alaska are
already financially accountable.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked about accountability measures
surrounding the ILP.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP offered her experience that the ILP is taken
seriously, and parents believe in the partnership in the
education for their children. She added that there are four
meetings per year required in regulation and it is essentially a
contract.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT recognized the rights of parents to
withhold testing and that there is a 14 percent rate of testing
in correspondence programs. She asked whether that was
considered adequate for accountability purposes.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP confirmed that she was not sure and would
need to see the numbers. She praised measures of academic
progress (MAP) growth, which demonstrates a student's ability
according to their grade level - not only within the district
but within the nation.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT added that MAP also allows seeing
discreet skills.
8:35:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX gave an example of enrolling his children
and getting the assessments to make sure they were on track, so
there was accountability. He asked whether there was a way to
transmit it up to the state level so that the public knows the
Interior Distance Education of Alaska (IDEA) program is working.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP responded that DEED receives permission from
districts to show MAP Growth data aggregates that demonstrates
that success.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether the correspondence programs
follow a standard for the ILPs.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP explained that correspondence schools are
public schools that also participate in regular assessments
given in Alaska schools. She added that the ILP is based off a
template based off regulation, but the information would be the
same.
8:38:52 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD referenced Representative McCormick's button on
his suit being possible propaganda that she stated legislators
are not allowed to display; therefore, she said, she would
contact Legislative Legal Services.
8:39:08 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:39 a.m. to 8:45 a.m.
8:45:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK asked whether DEED supported a raise to
the base student allocation (BSA).
COMMISSIONER BISHOP confirmed yes.
8:46:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT referred to Mr. Jepsen's presentation
referencing wait lists for charter schools and explained she was
unsuccessful in finding further information online on the number
of waitlisted families for charter schools.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP replied that the Matanuska-Susitna Borough
School District ["Mat-Su"] and the Anchorage School District
(ASD) have the largest amount of charter schools and the data is
held locally. She said she did not have the exact numbers but
offered an appropriate approximation from her experience that
about 2,000 children per year are waiting to get into charter
schools.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked whether families are allowed to
apply to multiple charter schools.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP replied that they may have a first and
second choice, but for the overall numbers, she could dig deeper
into the data.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT inquired on how many charter schools
have been declined by their local boards.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP said DEED does not collect those data
currently.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked about a number representing how
many families currently cannot get into a charter school as
would like.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP reiterated that she did not have that piece
of information and that the aforementioned 2,000 may be single
families, children, or multiples.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked whether the wait list included
optional programs and magnet schools in addition to charter
schools.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP confirmed the numbers were specifically for
charter schools.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT requested substantiation of the
numbers.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP replied that she could contact districts.
8:53:08 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE referenced the CS recommendations discussed
earlier during the final slide on Section 7 and asked for a
description of what $180 could do for a child with a reading
deficiency.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP stated that she would not speak directly to
the funds in the CS recommendations but that, in general, DEED
supported overall K-3 reading. In addition to core reading, she
said the amount could include tutors and an individual reading
improvement plan (IRIP).
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE asked how much tutoring $180 could provide
and expressed curiosity towards additional funding for Title 1
schools.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP provided a brief history of Title 1 schools
and stated that the premise to Title 1 grew out of a study of
assets kids could get depending on socioeconomic status. She
said there is evidence that students that have reading
deficiencies attend Title 1 schools and additional funds are
provided.
8:58:08 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE revisited his first question and asked how
many additional services $180 provides if one attends a Title 1
school and has a reading deficiency.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP said the programs are determined through a
multitiered system of success, and inputs and charges are at the
local level because of the local price. She offered her belief
that the additional funds are for the additional students that
may need to be served, and there is evidence that the need is
greater in "title schools" where there are more kids. As for
what is received with the amount, it depends on the IRIP itself
at the school level, she explained.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE asked Commissioner Bishop to speak more
generally instead of so specifically on how if she were in
charge of a school district - she would utilize funds for a
child with a reading deficiency.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP replied that she would put the money back
and invest directly into teachers and additional aid and have
opportunities for families to engage the teachers. She added
that local funding to schools is empowering, and it works.
9:04:15 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE expressed that he is attempting to understand
the process behind what Section 7 would do, and if passed into
law, whether it would look like a block grant put into a
district.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP affirmed that she did not think DEED should
pay for deficiencies and would not want to incentivize something
"we don't want to see to begin with." She further stated that
she would incentivize good teaching and reading instruction.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE asked Commissioner Bishop if she supported
Section 7 or whether there could be a better way to do it.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP said she supported setting aside funding
specifically for reading. She observed that the debates here
are about money and accountability.
9:10:00 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE inquired what Commissioner Bishop's opinion
was of Section 7, relating that "certain people get this or
that."
COMMISSIONER BISHOP reiterated that she would like all kids to
be supported, but within the formula, it would allow smaller
schools to have additional funds which depends on the body. She
added that directing funds to the Alaska Reads Act is
advantageous to the success of children.
9:11:52 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD asked Commissioner Bishop whether she believed
that opening up more charter schools would alleviate or minimize
a waiting list.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP responded that she believed if there were
additional charter schools to offer additional parent choice
that wait lists in districts would go down.
9:12:19 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD opened public testimony on HB 392.
9:12:54 AM
LON GARRISON, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards, testified in support of HB 392 on behalf of the
Association of Alaska School Boards (AASB). He stated that AASB
expressed a deep appreciation for the legislature's continued
efforts to address public education issues, mainly school
funding. He stated that AASB was thankful for the proposed $680
increase to the BSA; however, it is far less than the amount
needed to account for inflation. The additional funding for
implementing the Alaska Reads Act is critical to its success and
the impact it will have on students, he opined. He noted that
AASB believed the proposed appeal process for charter school
terminations and the dedicated position at DEED supporting
charter schools were needed improvements. He added that AASB
advocates for efforts that enhance and support charter school
applications through local and state school boards.
9:15:15 AM
RACHAEL POSEY, representing self, testified in support of HB 392
and stressed that she supported raising the BSA to $680. She
said schools need funding to budget and plan for the year. She
expressed concern with the new language about a state board
authorizing charter schools and opined that having that remain
with local school boards should not be changed. Education
funding as a priority should be important to everyone for many
reasons, one being it could help the future workforce in the
state, she said.
9:16:30 AM
CHRIS REITAN, Superintendent, Craig City School District,
testified in support of HB 392 and offered his belief that the
proposed legislation would support the Alaska public school
system by providing increases to Internet speeds, the BSA, and
school transportation, as well as supporting correspondence
students and the Alaska Reads Act. He added that his testimony
included "cautious support" for the bill due to language related
to the operation of charter schools, and that he is an advocate
for locally developed school choice options in which charter
schools are one critical component. He further explained his
concern that the proposed legislation would allow DEED to
override a school district if the school district disbanded a
charter school, because the language oversteps the authority of
elected school board members in governing their locally provided
programs. He expressed his appreciation to the committee for
continuing to have important conversations.
9:18:33 AM
LAURA STEELE, representing self, testified in support of HB 392.
She stated that an increase in the BSA is needed, and she opined
that while the amount of $680 is not enough to keep up with
inflation, it is better than nothing. She recognized the public
support for an increase and stressed her belief that investing
in the state's children is an investment in the future and
economic prosperity for the state. Another year of budget cuts
cannot be afforded, she said, and she urged support for HB 392.
9:19:55 AM
CHRISTINA TURMAN, representing self, testified in support of HB
392 and of the funding schools so desperately need, and she
acknowledged the "hard job" the committee has to do. She said
she is a parent who has watched four schools close in three
years, schools losing programs, and class sizes increasing, and
she stressed that accountability is needed.
9:21:53 AM
CODY MCCANNA, Principal, Aurora Borealis Charter School,
testified during the hearing on HB 392 and opined that the
charter school approval process should stay as it is. He
described the increase in the BSA in Section 6 as being a
minimum increase, and if it does not happen this year, cuts will
have to be made, he said. He opined that an increase to fund
the Alaska Reads Act is also needed.
9:24:04 AM
CHANDRA CAFFROY, representing self, testified during the hearing
on HB 392 and shared her experience in wanting to get a charter
school started due to a public school "failing the community."
She stated she would like to see responsible funding and
accountability to budget inflation. She added that she would
like to see teachers' personal and political agendas left out of
the classroom and offered her belief many of parents' concerns
are the evidence of mass exodus from public schools.
9:26:33 AM
GABE KERRONE, representing self, testified during the hearing on
HB 392. He offered his belief that there should be charter
schools to offer a different curriculum and students could learn
things closer to "their culture." He spoke to being involved in
sports and the drive to participate is too far for his parents.
He stated charter schools could bring much more potential.
9:28:53 AM
ELI KERRONE, representing self, testified during the hearing on
HB 392 and offered his support for obtaining a charter school.
He said he did not think teachers were getting paid for the
hours spent teaching but if there were a charter school that may
change. He further offered his support for having sports
through the charter school.
9:30:30 AM
ANNELIEN KUZMIN, representing self, testified during the hearing
on HB 392. She said she is thankful for the charter school
close to her house and having the opportunity to choose from
curriculum.
9:32:18 AM
ALISTER KUZMIN, representing self, testified during the hearing
on HB 392. He said those who create charter schools believe
they increase the learning opportunity to provide greater access
to quality education. Charter schools are smaller than public
schools and parents are more involved in their kids' educations,
he opined.
9:33:28 AM
NATALEE PERVOST, representing self, testified during the hearing
on HB 392. She opined charter schools are needed because of the
focus on the subjects that matter and the small amount of
students so the teacher can focus more on the students who need
help. Charter schools bring extra activities that may not be
offered in a public school, and there is more hands-on activity,
she said.
9:34:46 AM
LEO ELLSWORTH, representing self, testified during the hearing
on HB 392. He said charter schools give more opportunities to
kids, especially to do the sports they love.
9:36:02 AM
JESSICA VAUDREUIL, representing self, testified during the
hearing on HB 392. She observed that there was a focus on
condemning or scrutinizing programs that are actually working,
and she expressed that "it seems like you want to" micromanage
correspondence programs. The reason the programs are working is
that parents are involved, and they need to be left alone to do
what they are doing. Teachers cannot just teach, and now kids
are in correspondence schools and children are learning. She
said there must be school choice and she did not understand why
there must be such a monopoly.
9:38:13 AM
JACQUELINE MUEHLBAUER, representing self, testified in support
of HB 392 and stated that she supported a BSA increase of $680
or more to local schools.
9:38:45 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD, after ascertaining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 392.
9:39:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked for public testimony to be open on
the CS once it is completed.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD replied that she could take that up with Co-
Chair Ruffridge who may be chairing during that time.
[HB 392 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 392 Version A.pdf |
HEDC 3/27/2024 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 392 |
| HB 392 Sponsor Statement Version A.pdf |
HEDC 3/27/2024 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 392 |
| HB 392 Sectional Analysis Version A.pdf |
HEDC 3/27/2024 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 392 |
| HB 392 Fiscal Note #1 DEED-FP.pdf |
HEDC 3/27/2024 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 392 |
| HB 392 Fiscal Note #2 DEED-BAG.pdf |
HEDC 3/27/2024 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 392 |
| HB 392 Fiscal Note #3 DEED-SSA.pdf |
HEDC 3/27/2024 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 392 |
| HB 392 Fiscal Note #4 DEED-MEHS.pdf |
HEDC 3/27/2024 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 392 |
| HB 392 Fiscal Note #5 DEED-PEF.pdf |
HEDC 3/27/2024 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 392 |
| SB 29 Sectional version R.pdf |
HEDC 3/27/2024 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM |
SB 29 |
| HB 392 – Alaska Education Funding Presentation (HEDU).pptx |
HEDC 3/27/2024 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 392 |
| CSHB 392 Work Draft.pdf |
HEDC 3/27/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 392 |