Legislature(2023 - 2024)DAVIS 106
05/03/2024 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 | |
| HB400 | |
| SB24 | |
| HB400 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 400 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 400-CORRESPONDENCE STUDY PROGRAMS; ALLOTMENTS
8:07:58 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 400, "An Act relating to correspondence
study programs; relating to allotments for correspondence study
programs; and providing for an effective date." [Before the
committee, adopted as a working document by a vote of 4-3, on
5/1/24, was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 400,
Version 33-LS1571\U, Bergerud, 4/30/24, ("Version U").]
8:08:31 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:08 a.m. to 8:09 a.m.
8:09:28 AM
JAMES "BUD" SEXTON, Staff, Representative Justin Ruffridge,
Alaska State Legislature, provided an overview of HB 400,
Version U, and explained that it speaks to the correspondence
programs and deals with some of the recent changes to do with
court rulings. He offered to recite the sectional analysis at
the will of the committee.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE added that he wanted to make sure there was
an understanding of what the bill intended to address, which
were learning plans and the allotment program. He welcomed
invited testifiers.
8:11:45 AM
DEAN O'DELL, Director, IDEA Homeschool, gave invited testimony
in support of HB 400 and provided information about Interior
Distance Education of Alaska's (IDEA) allotment systems. He
began a PowerPoint [hard copy included in the committee packet],
titled "IDEA Homeschool Interior Distance Education of Alaska
Galena City School District," beginning on slide 7, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Regulations and policies...
• Allotment purchases (simplified):
• Purchases must be tied to the established learning
plan, must not conflict with regulation, and must
abide by policies that IDEA has established as 'not
excessive' and 'appropriate'.
• Allotments are monitored through our Family
Allotment System Tracker (FAST) electronic system.
• Regulation requires that materials be returned to
IDEA if they are not consumable or otherwise
depreciated.
MR. O'DELL continued on slide 8, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Allotment Purchases and Reimbursements
• FAST Process and Review:
• Plan Review: Certified staff verify that the
purchase aligns with the ILP and student needs.
• Regulatory Review: Ordering staff verify that the
purchase is 'fundable', and that it meets regulatory
guidelines. This includes comparing a class/curriculum
to vetted/approved lists.
• Policy Review: Ordering staff also verify compliance
with district and program guidelines.
MR. O'DELL added that the administrative review is for anything
that might have been rejected that families want to appeal.
During the statewide discussion, the question had arisen whether
IDEA could continue without an allotment, and it was hard to
comprehend how that would work, he said. The allotment ensures
that students have equal access to funding.
8:16:54 AM
MR. O'DELL said he appreciated the latest version of the bill
and gave examples of the vast majority of students in all
districts and what makes homeschooling such a powerful
opportunity.
8:20:23 AM
MR. O'DELL continued his testimony and spoke to post-secondary
support being a big part of IDEA's strategic plans and all
correspondence programs, and that the allotment is the key to
that support and those opportunities. He touched on the Alaska
Performance Scholarship (APS), as well as IDEA's growing number
of partnerships with organizations and apprenticeships in dozens
of fields of interest. He pointed out that the feedback he gets
from universities is that IDEA's students are respectful and
prepared.
8:23:27 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE requested that Mr. O'Dell remain online for
questions from committee members.
8:23:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked whether materials get returned
when families are done with the program.
MR. O'DELL confirmed that is correct; it is state regulation to
return non-consumable materials.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked whether IDEA participated in the
program that allowed students to use their allotment as tuition,
and whether IDEA will have to change practices. She further
inquired about a number of approximately 200 students.
MR. O'DELL replied that 2.9 percent of students were availing
themselves of the opportunity to pay for non-sectarian classes
at local private schools and those families could be affected by
regulation or the law. In response to a follow-up question, he
confirmed the number was 210 students.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT expressed appreciation for the slide
showing how kids are doing well, and she requested that IDEA
families measure building-based programs not on test scores.
8:27:55 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE commented that he had not heard Mr. O'Dell
characterize testing in neighborhood schools as being the only
thing necessary, but he allowed Mr. O'Dell a chance to respond.
8:28:20 AM
MR. O'DELL responded that recent conversations addressed the
desire to change the whole narrative not only for Alaska, but
the whole nation. Test scores have a place and have value but
are not the best way to evaluate how a student is doing.
8:29:14 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD asked how much IDEA received per child for a
portion of the base student allocation (BSA).
MR. O'DELL confirmed it was 90 percent, which was just under
$5,400, and that IDEA does not receive the multipliers that
other schools receive. He added that the amount is the bulk of
the financial support IDEA receives from the state.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD referred to scholarship funds and testing not
being mandatory to get into universities and asked Mr. O'Dell
how he felt about it.
MR. O'DELL restated his previous comments about assessments and
that there are other ways to evaluate how students are doing.
Whether it should be the "end all," IDEA does not think that is
the case, he stated.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD circled back to the student allotment and asked
Mr. O'Dell to clarify the numbers and whether the remaining
amount goes back into the school district.
MR. O'DELL confirmed IDEA receives approximately $5,400 from the
state and provides an allotment of $2,700 per student K-12. In
response to a follow-up question, he affirmed that the remaining
monies go back into the district to help pay for various
expenses.
8:32:53 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD offered her understanding that families turn in
receipts for reimbursement upon the allotment, and she asked Mr.
O'Dell whether there were checks and balances to verify whether
something was a reimbursable expense or not.
MR. O'DELL confirmed that there are multiple levels of review to
make sure expenses are justifiable.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD asked whether there was ever any conflict
surrounding a family member who decided to pay another family
member in order to try to get their child an education through
the allotment.
MR. O'DELL responded that that is not allowed, and IDEA asks for
W9s from vendors. If a conflict is identified, he explained, it
is often a misunderstanding on the part of the family, and he
further noted that he had not experienced anyone "trying to work
the system."
8:36:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY questioned the practices of some families
not using all their allotment and the opportunity to save it or
carry it into the future.
MR. O'DELL explained that was referred to as the "allotment
carry-over" in current law. All unspent funds carry over to the
next year as long as the family stays within the program. Over
time, he said, there can be an accumulation in [the allotment
carry-over] account which is helpful and is popular for
stakeholders. Upon leaving the program, the money must be
returned to the program, he confirmed.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked for an example in reference to travel
and whether a student would be accommodated financially.
MR. O'DELL asked for clarification on the specific travel.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY gave an example of a family who used
allotment funds to study in Hawaii.
MR. O'DELL responded that out-of-state travel is prohibited
unless it is approved by the Galena City School District School
Board, which has approved only very specific travel, such as for
competitive groups that may go to nationals. In state, there
are extreme limitations, and it must be a unique educational
opportunity that is justifiable, he said.
8:41:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether the Galena parameters and
regulations are still intact.
MR. O'DELL offered his understanding that is correct. He said
he could "dig" for precise regulations.
8:42:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX stated that he believed Sylvan Learning is
eligible for allotments, and he asked for clarification that it
provides tutoring.
MR. O'DELL replied that is correct. He added that Sylvan
Learning utilizes "interventions" to help a student achieve a
certain set of goals.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX inquired whether Sylvan Learning was
certified by the state or accredited by "some institution."
MR. O'DELL said that he would be speaking out of turn to say
that he knew for certain about the accreditation or
certification of Sylvan Learning. He further noted that Sylvan
Learning had a level of expertise accepted by all districts in
the state.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether a service such as music
lessons are provided through the allotment.
MR. O'DELL replied that music lessons are currently acceptable
and paid for by allotment, and there are no particular
regulations that require a music teacher to be certified or
accredited.
8:46:34 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE referred to HB 400 and the importance of
having an individualized learning plan (ILP), and that that plan
would have to include music as a part of the plan for the
allotment to be provided.
MR. O'DELL clarified it must be an expenditure related to the
class and is justified by the plan. If it is not in the plan,
it is a miscommunication and it can be addressed, he said.
8:48:32 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE announced that Representative Prax had to
leave the hearing and attend another committee briefly. He
thanked Mr. O'Dell for his testimony and welcomed the next
invited testifier.
8:49:14 AM
BRIAN ROZELL, Principal, CyberLynx Homeschool & Correspondence
Program, gave invited testimony in support of HB 400. He
expressed his gratitude for the committee's focus and effort
given to this issue. He said many families and staff have
related their concerns about the fate of programs and home
school partnerships. With the current CS for HB 400, he shared
that his optimism was warranted and on behalf of CyberLynx he
offered full support for HB 400 as it is today. He noted that
he felt confident that all expenditures under the allotment
process were appropriate and serve an educational purpose. He
concluded by thanking the committee for talking directly to
program directors and he offered to remain online to answer
questions.
8:52:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked for understanding on what the
reporting requirements and guardrails are. She further inquired
about demographic data and its collection.
MR. ROZELL replied that as a public school [CyberLynx] is
required by regulation to report demographic data to the
Department of Education on every student every year. It is
collected in the OASIS student data report in the fall and
summer, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked whether there was a way to
separate out the CyberLynx kids from the other kids in the OASIS
report.
MR. ROZELL replied that is correct due to CyberLynx being a
school within the district that provides the report; therefore,
the student would be identified in OASIS as being enrolled in
CyberLynx.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT referenced the state-level scrutiny of
allotments and whether there was a way to find out in the
reporting how they are used.
MR. ROZELL said there are regulations provided as to what
eligible expenditures are. As for individual purchases,
elements of correspondence programs are reviewed as well.
8:57:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked how many families use allotments
for private school tuition.
MR. ROZELL replied that there are approximately 100 new
students that are enrolled in brick-and-mortar private schools
for the allotment benefit; however, they do not pay for tuition,
because that is not something the allotment can go towards.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT sought confirmation that families are
not just taking the allotment and giving it to a private school
but really just "doing it course by course."
MR. ROZELL replied that the nature of the course must be aligned
with the ILP that was crafted in order to be considered for
reimbursement.
9:00:17 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE referred to a line in a previous memo that
alluded to families enrolled in private schools and tuition
being reimbursed for the amount up to their student allotment.
He gave Mr. Rozell an opportunity to clarify.
MR. ROZELL clarified that the memo was written in the very early
days of understanding what is allowable under that process.
Regulation had been changed in 2014, and he stated if he could
write the memo again he would not use that wording and would
present the information differently.
9:02:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY questioned why a child enrolled in a
private school would have to pay for individual classes if they
were attending that school. She sought clarification as to why
a student could be both a private and correspondence student.
MR. ROZELL explained that a student can be enrolled full time in
a private school and also be enrolled in a correspondence
program; it can be done simultaneously since the private school
is not receiving any funding from the state.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY questioned why a student enrolled in a
private school would pay for an individual algebra class, since
she said she believed that would be part of the school
offerings.
MR. ROZELL said it would be part of the private school offerings
but the individual class would be paid for.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed her confusion as to why a class
included in private school tuition would have to be approved.
MR. ROZELL said the institution honors parent choice on how the
parents wished to educate their child with what resources and
curriculum.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY reiterated that it was hard for her to
understand.
9:05:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked whether it is possible for a
student to enroll in multiple individual classes at a private
school, thus cumulatively using their allotment effectively as
tuition.
MR. ROZELL confirmed that they could.
9:07:03 AM
DOUG HAYMAN, Principal, Connections Homeschool, gave invited
testimony in support of HB 400. He noted that Connections'
focus is on the Kenai Peninsula but is a statewide program and
can reach out to the rest of the state. He gave examples of
students on the Kenai Peninsula in reference to numbers of
students and geographic population. He began a PowerPoint [hard
copy included in the committee packet], titled "Connections
Homeschool Program." He highlighted slide 3, which read as
follows:
Breakdown of the money trail
multiply Initial current BSA- $5960
multiply BSA times the multiplier of homeschool programs- 90%
- $5364
multiply $5364 - $2700= $2664 to meet the following needs:
multiply Staffing
multiply Professional development
multiply Facilities
multiply Supplies
multiply Events
multiply Advertising
multiply "Non-Count" students
multiply ½ allotment students enroll between October count and
first week of January
multiply Second semester enrollment
MR. HAYMAN added that all students need services and to not
waste the opportunity for advancing their studies, and
Connections provides this on a case-by-case basis. He noted
required meetings and check-ins in which Connections must
participate.
9:12:35 AM
MR. HAYMAN referenced slide 5, titled "Assessment plan," which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
multiply Offer all district and state assessments on schedule
multiply Design and support formative assessments teach
parents to use formative assessment to improve
instructional outcomes
multiply Use formative assessments to specifically improve
Reading instruction (AK Reads) with intense focus on
students achieving grade level standards by 3rd grade
multiply Design support system to influence graduation rate
multiply Identify at-risk students early in high school
multiply Identify support materials and course
corrections
multiply Design tutoring support for targeted students with
the goal that all student will EARN a high school
diploma.
multiply Continuous professional development
multiply Working with parents to design and/or use formative
assessments
multiply Working with parents to improve Reading
instruction
multiply Working with at-risk students to provide support
needed for graduation
MR. HAYMAN added that he was encouraged by the committee and HB
400 in that he opined it is the right direction and that he
would support working with the State Board of Education, since
it would be a "heavy lift" to get the work done correctly. He
further commented that he would support the allotment being tied
to assessments if they were formative and reliable.
9:17:49 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD referred to Mr. Hayman's comment about
allotments versus assessments, and she offered her belief it is
a violation of one's First Amendment rights and in doing that,
every student's parent in the state would be forced to make
their child take an assessment test.
MR. HAYMAN replied that besides that, for the assessment to be
useful it needs to be better, and regardless of how it got tied
to the money, he said he understood Co-Chair Allard's comments.
He stated that he felt the assessment needed a lot of work and
hoped the State Board of Education would address it.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD reiterated that tying an assessment test to a
child's education and then withholding their allotment is
something she would not support.
MR. HAYMAN said that he agreed with Co-Chair Allard's statement
and clarified he was trying to express that better assessments
in general are needed so students can learn better. He restated
that he spoke to formative assessments.
9:21:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT inquired how student athletics are
funded for students being homeschooled and whether it is covered
by part of the allotment.
MR. HAYMAN confirmed that none of the allotment is used in
sports and that the district has funds, and in addition, teams
organize fundraising for tournament travel and so forth. There
is a fee associated with each sport, he explained, so it is per
student per sport and the amount is regulated by local athletic
associations.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT commented that in Sitka, the school
district is cutting 16 teaching positions based mostly on the
funding situation. She asked whether any of Kenai's 11
positions would be impacted.
MR. HAYMAN replied that he was understaffed by one person and
none of his current staff would be affected.
9:24:48 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE thanked invited testifiers and opened public
testimony on HB 400.
9:25:35 AM
LON GARRISON, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards, stated that he supported the committee substitute (CS)
for HB 400. He said correspondence schools and programs have a
long presence in Alaska spanning back to 1936 and are an
integral part of the public education system. He confirmed his
organization's support for CSHB 400 is that they felt it was a
simple and elegant solution to the current situation that they
find themselves in. He said a concern was to make sure a
significant number of students and their families have some
certainty about what will happen in the near future with their
correspondence programs, and how the organization can best serve
and meet the needs of those students.
9:28:06 AM
CHRIS REITAN, Superintendent, Craig City School District, stated
that he supported HB 400, Version U, because it provided support
for the state's families who choose to partner with school
districts and educate their students through a correspondence
school option. He summarized the benefits involved and the
importance of them. He thanked the committee for bringing HB
400 forth.
9:29:26 AM
LEIGH SLOAN, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
400 and opined that the bill was premature as she awaited the
final decision in the court system. She offered her belief that
HB 400 sought to further curb the choices of the parent who has
the most at stake in a child's education, and a group that would
be hurt the most was low-income families. She further noted a
hasty misuse of funds, and she asked the committee to do right
by the kids and not withdraw the freedom to educate children
well.
9:31:45 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE reminded everyone that there was a CS
adopted, Version U, and he speculated that some may be
testifying on a previous version.
9:32:38 AM
ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL, representing self, testified in opposition
to HB 400 and shared that he is a homeschooling father and also
a vendor for correspondence and charter schools for the past 15
years. He opined that the legislative action was premature, and
adding more scrutiny actually stands a chance of losing some
liberty as parents. He stated that he felt further information
needed to come from the recent court action. He said the bill's
current form should be rejected by the committee, and he thanked
the committee for supporting parent choice.
9:35:09 AM
MELISSA GORDAOFF, representing self, testified in opposition to
HB 400 and related that she had two children she homeschooled.
She gave examples of testing not being accurate, and she opined
that the bill should go to a higher court and that the bill was
being rushed through. She commended Co-Chair Allard's recent
comments, and she urged the committee to "keep working on this."
9:38:46 AM
CHERIE TAYLOR, representing self, stated that she testified in
support of the committee substitute to HB 400, Version U. She
offered her belief that the bill provided the best avenue of
continuity for all school correspondence programs, and she
noted that it does not change the current system. She voiced
concern over SB 266 and opined that the bill would have
catastrophic consequences for currently enrolled students in
homeschool programs. It should be a parent's choice whether or
not their child takes assessment tests, she said, and she
thanked the committee for its time.
9:40:22 AM
CHRISTY MONTERO, representing self, testified in opposition to
HB 400 [via unidentified interpreter]. She said we need not
impact parent choice and it should be left alone. She offered
her belief that state testing needed to change and people need
options. She restated to leave parent choice alone and she
thanked the committee.
9:42:56 AM
NICHOLE CONNOLLY, representing self, noted that she would change
some of her testimony due to just recently having read Version U
of HB 400 while being on hold. She shared her background and
thanked the committee for its work. She requested that the
committee look at Matanuska-Susitna ("Mat-Su") because they have
been "incredible pioneers" in correspondence schools and they
handle reimbursement so well, she opined. She provided further
examples and praise for Mat-Su's practices. She thanked the
committee for the chance to speak and urged committee members to
do the best for the state's students.
9:45:16 AM
PENNY VADKA, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
400 and shared that she was a former school board member but
would testify on her own account. She confirmed that she is not
in favor of HB 400 as presented and that public money must not
be allowed or used for private or religious education purposes.
She added that she was in favor of formative and summative
assessments as written. She urged the committee to make changes
before the bill should pass, and that education is an equal
opportunity for all students.
9:47:18 AM
BETSY CAMPBELL, representing self, testified during the hearing
on HB 400 and offered her background as it related to education.
She gave examples of her personal experience with her local
district, and she urged the committee to consider more changes
to HB 400. She further related that she had trouble finding the
latest version of the bill.
9:50:20 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE clarified the location where work draft
Version U of HB 400 could be found online. After ascertaining
no one else wished to testify, he closed public testimony on HB
400.
[HB 400 was held over and brought back before the committee
following a recess.]
HB 400-CORRESPONDENCE STUDY PROGRAMS; ALLOTMENTS
4:05:59 PM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE announced that that the next order of
business would be a return to HOUSE BILL NO. 400, "An Act
relating to correspondence study programs; relating to
allotments for correspondence study programs; and providing for
an effective date." [Before the committee, adopted as a working
document by a vote of 4-3, on 5/1/24, was the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 400, Version 33-LS1571\U, Bergerud,
4/30/24, ("Version U").]
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE announced the committee had another committee
substitute for consideration.
4:06:42 PM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute
(CS) for HB 400, Version 33-LS1571\R, Bergerud, 5/3/24, as the
working document.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected for the purpose of discussion.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE explained that Version R was almost identical
to Version U. He explained that the changes, which he
summarized, move it to uncodified law. He further noted that a
sunset date of July 1, 2025, would be added, and it would still
grant for the opportunity to draft regulations during the
interim to ensure ILPs and allotments would continue for the
next year.
4:09:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT offered her understanding that if the
bill were to pass, then the State Board of Education would make
regulations for ILPs and allotments, but if something were to
change, she asked whether statute would become permanent next
year and inquired when the regulations would expire.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE stated that he could defer the inquiry to
Commissioner Bishop [Department of Education and Early
Development], and she could also add some clarity around the
current work draft, Version R.
4:11:02 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:11 p.m. to 4:16 p.m.
4:16:52 PM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE said that there were technical difficulties
with the phone system. He announced that SB 24 would be
presented next, but there was a motion to adopt Version R to
CSHB 400.
4:17:33 PM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD [moved to withdraw] her motion to adopt Version
R to HB 400. [There being no objection, the motion was
withdrawn.]
4:17:24 PM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE announced that HB 400 was held over and would
be revisited after the presentation on SB 24.
HB 400-CORRESPONDENCE STUDY PROGRAMS; ALLOTMENTS
4:24:02 PM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE announced that the final order of business
would be a return to HOUSE BILL NO. 400, "An Act relating to
correspondence study programs; relating to allotments for
correspondence study programs; and providing for an effective
date." [Before the committee, adopted as a working document by
a vote of 4-3, on 5/1/24, was the proposed committee substitute
(CS) for HB 400, Version 33-LS1571\U, Bergerud, 4/30/24,
("Version U").]
4:24:19 PM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute
(CS) for HB 400, Version 33-LS1571\R, Bergerud, 5/3/24, as the
working document.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected for purposes of discussion.
4:24:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT restated her previous question and
asked if something changed in the next year before the sunset of
the bill and there is a new statute, whether the regulations the
state board adopted would expire.
4:25:21 PM
DEENA BISHOP, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED), confirmed to Representative Himschoot that
she was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT inquired whether the regulations become
permanent if nothing changes.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP explained that with the sunset, unless this
body or another took action, and being on uncodified law, there
would have to be action to keep regulations moving forward.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked for a description of a timeline.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP indicated a need for emergency regulations,
but in the bigger sense of regulations, the department would
draft the language and after being approved internally, it would
move to the Department of Law (DOL). Once that happened it
would move to the State Board of Education to review and approve
for public comment, be reviewed again by DOL, and eventually
have a final vote. She added that it would occur in a shortened
amount of time.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked what the timeline would be to
accomplish the many steps, being that the state board meets only
four times a year.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP responded that the board can call meetings
and meet once per month; after that, within a week's notice, the
board can call itself back to meet either in person or
electronically.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT expressed concerns that homeschool
families have certainty and districts operating the programs
know what will happen. She asked Commissioner Bishop how long
regulations could take.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP offered her belief that it would be by the
beginning of the school year not the fiscal year - with an
August or September timeframe.
4:29:23 PM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE asked Commissioner Bishop if she had any
input about the underlying HB 400, or Versions U or R.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP stated that she supported CSHB 400 Version
R. She said the recent decision in the Alaska Superior Court
negatively impacted education in Alaska, and the removal of
correspondence statutes would be remedied by Version R. She
opined that it is the needed stability for the state to continue
its successful homeschooling choice while allowing the state to
appeal to the Alaska Superior Court on the matter. She thanked
the committee for its quick action to provide a successful and
lawful education choice for Alaska's homeschool and
correspondence students.
4:31:29 PM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE welcomed final comments on Version R.
4:31:39 PM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD thanked Co-Chair Ruffridge for accepting advice
for drafting [Version R] She shared that she was confident the
version would be the best for homeschool and correspondence
students.
4:32:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT added context to Commissioner Bishop's
comments and noted that the legislature took an oath to uphold
the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and there has been harm
to families due to an unconstitutional practice; however, the
legislature can fix that, she stated. She said she supported
the bill.
4:32:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY challenged Representative Himschoot's
remarks and commented that it had not been determined whether
the practices had been unconstitutional, and he said that he
would not accept the comment that the legislature did anything
unconstitutional.
4:33:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY removed her objection to the motion to
adopt the proposed CS to HB 400, Version 33-LS1571\R, Bergerud,
5/3/24, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK objected. He stated that he had pause
with the process in which the version was introduced and that he
would not support it. Decisions were made off record, he said,
and he offered his belief that that was unprecedented.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE, in response to the comment about decisions
made off record, stated he found that "quite an accusation," and
for the record, he wished to relate that there was a half hour
meeting before committee began for committee members to be given
work draft Version R with a brief explanation of what the bill
would do, giving the committee the capacity to discuss it on
record.
4:35:07 PM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD expressed appreciation for the document that was
brought forward and acknowledged that it had to be done quickly.
4:35:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX brought up the court ruling that was "sprung
up" on the committee, and he offered his belief that [the
proposed Version R] looked like the most flexible way to do
things, and that the details would be worked out as more
information came in.
4:36:43 PM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE commented that he would like more time to
work on "this project," but time has alluded the committee as it
nears the end of session. He acknowledged Representative
McCormick's concerns but also agreed with Representative Prax in
that the [the proposed Version R] might be the solution that
best fits the moment.
4:37:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked what the next step for the bill
version would be if it were approved.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE replied that should the bill move today, it
would move forward to the House Finance Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY offered her belief that committee members
wished to be able to provide as much certainty as possible to
homeschooling families, and due to the tight timeline, she
stressed the importance of moving the bill from committee.
4:38:25 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Prax, Himschoot,
Allard, Ruffridge, McKay, and Story voted in favor of the motion
to adopt the proposed CS for HB 400, Version 33-LS1571\R,
Bergerud, 5/3/24, as the working document. Representative
McCormick voted against it. Therefore, Version R was before the
committee by a vote of 6-1.
4:39:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY addressed Commissioner Bishop and offered
her assumption that the board, moving forward with regulations,
would let families know that public funds cannot be spent with
religious education and private educational institutions.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP replied that as regulations would be
developed, they would be addressed in line with the expectations
in Alaska's Constitution. The recent [court] decision in regard
to private educational institutions is of high concern to get
sorted out, she said, and the goal is to support and move
homeschooling families forward.
4:41:51 PM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD moved to report CSHB 400, Version 33-LS1571\R,
Bergerud, 5/3/2, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 400(EDC) was reported out of the House
Education Standing Committee.