Legislature(2025 - 2026)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/24/2025 03:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SB82 | |
| SB41 | |
| SB22 | |
| SB23 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 82 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 41 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 22 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 82-EDUCATION:SCHOOLS; GRANTS; FUNDING; DEBT
3:33:16 PM
CHAIR TOBIN announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 82
"An Act relating to education; relating to public school
attendance; relating to mobile communication devices in schools;
relating to reading proficiency incentive grants; relating to
authorization of charter schools; relating to transportation of
students; relating to school bond debt reimbursement; relating
to funding and reporting by Alaska technical and vocational
education programs; authorizing lump sum payments for certain
teachers as retention and recruitment incentives; and providing
for an effective date."
3:34:11 PM
DEENA BISHOP, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development, Juneau, Alaska, provided the following introducing
of SB 82 on behalf of the administration:
We thank you for the opportunity to present Senate
Bill 82. It's an honor to introduce this
transformative legislation, which reaffirms our
unwavering commitment to education, student success,
and the future of our great state. This bill is not
merely a step forward; it is a bold leap towards
ensuring that every Alaska student, regardless of
their background, community, or education setting, has
access to the best possible learning opportunities.
Investing in our children's education is our highest
priority, with over $180 million in funding for school
districts annually. With a change to the formula, this
bill strategically allocates resources towards
targeted initiatives that enhance student learning and
success, addressing the full scope of the educational
equation. Education inputs must be matched with
student learning outputs.
The Governor and I share a strong commitment to a
focused approach to education fundingone that
prioritizes strategic investments over simply
increasing the base student allocation. Public
education funding must be coupled with strong policies
to drive meaningful change and improve student
outcomes. SB 82 reflects this philosophy, making
deliberate investments in areas that directly impact
student achievement, teacher support, and long-term
educational success. This bill expands school options,
establishing equal access for students in Alaska's
public schools through open enrollment, and provides
support to educators and parents who wish to innovate
education through the development of charter schools,
empowering families to make the best educational
decisions for their children.
3:36:18 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP continued her introduction of SB 82:
It incentivizes early literacy success, invests in
student transportation, enhances vocational and
technical education, supports teacher recruitment and
retention through direct payments, provides districts
with access to special education services, English
Language Learning services, and gifted education to
those districts who have correspondent students, and
ensures the financial sustainability of our schools.
I want to express my gratitude to Governor Dunleavy
for his leadership and dedication to Alaska students,
educators, and communities. As a former educator, he
understands firsthand both the challenges and
opportunities within our education system. His
commitment to fostering excellence in education has
been instrumental in shaping this vision. This is our
moment to make a strategic investment in Alaska's
future.
3:37:22 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP moved to slide 2 and provided the mission,
vision, and purpose of the Department of Education and Early
Child Development (DEED):
[Original punctuation provided.]
Mission - An excellent education for every student
every day.
Vision - All students will succeed in their education
and work, shape worthwhile and satisfying lives for
themselves, exemplify the best values of society, and
be effective in improving the character and quality of
the world about them. - Alaska Statute 14.03.015
Purpose - DEED exists to provide information,
resources, and leadership to support an excellent
education for every student every day.
3:37:41 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP moved to slide 3 and said DEED has a duty to
review statute; it is how the department supports schools:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Statutory Duty of the Department
AS 14.03.010. Establishment of the school system.
There is established in the state a system of public
schools to be administered and maintained as provided
in this title.
Chapter 07. Administration of Public Schools. AS
14.07.010. Department of Education and Early
Development. The Department of Education and Early
Development includes the commissioner of education and
early development, the state Board of Education and
Early Development, and the staff necessary to carry
out the functions of the department.
AS 14.07.020. Duties of the department. (a) The
department shall (1) exercise general supervision over
the public schools of the state except the University
of Alaska;
3:37:54 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP moved to slide 4 and said the work of DEED
is grounded in the five shared strategic priorities of Alaska's
Education Challenge:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Five Shared Strategic Priorities:
1. Support all students to read at grade level by the
end of third grade.
2. Increase career, technical, and culturally relevant
education to meet student and workforce needs.
3. Close the achievement gap by ensuring equitable
educational rigor and resources.
4. Prepare, attract, and retain effective education
professionals.
5. Improve the safety and well-being of students
through school partnerships with families,
communities, and tribes.
3:38:04 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP moved to slide 5 and said the sectional
analysis would provide talking points on the following primary
items found in SB 82, an omnibus bill:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Primary Sectional Components
• Open Enrollment
• District Compensation
• Cell Phone Free Schools
• Reading Proficiency and Learning Growth Incentive
Grants
• Application for Charter School to the State Board of
Education • Transportation of Students
• School Debt Reimbursement
• Formula Funding for Districts Operating Residential
Schools
• Formula Funding for Career and Technical/Special
Needs for Districts Operating Correspondence Schools
• Teacher Lump-Sum Payments • Report to the
Legislature
3:38:18 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP moved to slide 6 and said SB 82 is focused
on targeted and sustained investment in education and read the
following statement:
[Original punctuation provided.]
With over $180 million in recurring education funding
through the foundation formula, grants, and direct
teacher payments, this legislation provides sustained
financial resources with strategic policies to enhance
student achievement, strengthen teacher retention, and
improve long-term student outcomes while empowering
local communities and families.
3:38:45 PM
CHAIR TOBIN announced Senator Gray-Jackson joined the meeting.
3:38:54 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP moved to slide 7 and spoke to the first
provision of SB 82, open enrollment:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Open Enrollment
Families will be permitted to enroll their children in
a public school outside their assigned district or
zoned school, generally during an application period.
This gives parents more choice in selecting a school
that best fits their child's needs.
School districts set policies for student acceptance,
including:
• School capacity
• Placement preferences
• Enrollment data
• School capacities by grade
3:39:31 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked if there was a problem the administration
was trying to solve with this section of SB 82.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP stated the intent was to offer families
choices regardless of their location or current school. She
explained the bill supports families who wish to attend a
different school by creating a wide open and transparent
education system. She added that mobilization grants are
included to help families needing assistance with access. She
emphasized this process allows families to apply and transfer
through an open and transparent system.
3:40:18 PM
SENATOR KIEHL remarked that the use of the term "statewide" was
interesting, noting that in his region districts are far apart,
so a student wanting to attend another district would need to
move, which is already allowed. He stated he was unclear how SB
82 applies statewide. He said he did not see a definition of
"capacity" and asked what kinds of limitations a district could
consider when determining capacity.
3:40:47 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP explained that capacity refers to the number
of students that can be accommodated in a classroom. She noted
many districts already have capacity limits based on the
programs they offer, and under SB 82, those limits would be set
and communicated transparently by each district. She added that
in areas without nearby districts, open enrollment could still
apply within a single districtfor example, within Juneau
allowing families to apply to schools outside their zoned area.
She emphasized the goal is to ensure all families have the
option to choose the school they believe will best support their
child's success.
3:41:32 PM
SENATOR KIEHL stated his belief that the option already exists.
He asked whether the definition of capacity involves a
department-approved square footage per student, or if it relates
to the school board setting a student-teacher ratio for a
program, classroom, or age group.
3:41:56 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP stated that those items may be included and
clarified that capacity would be defined through local district
policy. She explained that districts determine how many students
can be in a classroom, often setting lower pupil-to-teacher
ratios (PTR) for primary gradessuch as 18 to 21 students per
class. If a classroom had 15 students and the district's limit
was 20, the school could accept five more. She added that
capacity limits vary by course type; for example, high school,
band, or AP (Advanced Placement) courses often accommodate more
students. She noted that both teacher capacity and space
availability factor into local determinations, similar to
current practice.
3:42:52 PM
CHAIR TOBIN referred to slide 7 and stated that the information
presented appears to describe a general application period, but
SB 82 on page two specifies that a school must accept any
student at any time during the year. She observed this language
suggests a rolling admissions process based on available
capacity, rather than a defined application window. She asked
for clarification, noting that the slide content seems
inconsistent with the actual language in the legislation.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP explained that open enrollment would involve
an application process, with applications considered based on
established capacity limits. She stated districts would set
timelines for receiving applications through their board. She
acknowledged that transferring into a school often requires
preparation, so applications could be accepted throughout the
school year, either in writing or online. She emphasized that if
capacity is available, the goal is to allow students to transfer
when feasible.
3:44:13 PM
CHAIR TOBIN noted that the legislation requires "a school
district to accept students upon application throughout the
school year," which indicates applications are to be accepted at
any time during the year. She questioned whether this means
students are accepted continuously throughout the year or only
at specific periods. She asked for clarification on whether she
was misunderstanding the intent of the language.
3:44:38 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP replied that districts would have an open
application period and accept applications on an ongoing basis.
She stated that as space became available, and if capacity
allowed, districts could admit students throughout the year.
CHAIR TOBIN stated that no one wants to disrupt students in
classrooms, acknowledging that the arrival of a new student can
cause challenges. She noted that in the Alaska's five largest
districts, transferring into a school at any point often raises
issues related to school sports participation. She shared that
some organizations currently allow mid-year transfers for sports
only under specific conditions, such as bullying, to prevent
displacing existing varsity athletes or students transferring
solely to join a team. She asked for clarification on how SB 82
addresses transfers motivated by sports participation.
3:45:40 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP confirmed that was correct and explained
that athletic eligibility is governed by the Alaska School
Activities Association (ASA), which regulates competitive high
school sports. She stated that even in cases involving bullying
or other reasons, transfer requests must go before the ASA
board. She clarified that ASA rules apply only to high school-
level competitive sports and not to other grade levels. She
emphasized that open enrollment does not guarantee a student can
play sports at a new school or continue playing at their
previous school.
3:46:25 PM
CHAIR TOBIN asked about the potential impact on charter schools,
noting that somesuch as in Fairbanksrequire attendance at an
orientation meeting before applying. She said her reading of SB
82, Section 1, suggests the policy would override that type of
local control by the charter school. She asked for further
explanation on how SB 82 would affect such requirements.
3:46:46 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP stated that was correct and affirmed that
all schools would be required to participate in the same manner
to ensure the success of open enrollment.
3:46:57 PM
CHAIR TOBIN said that SB 82 also includes other language
concerning Alaska's charter school system. She asked whether the
proposal could negatively impact charter schools, which are
governed by parent boards that often set specific criteria. She
expressed concern that a state policy might override the
authority of those boards to establish expectations for the
educational communities they are trying to create.
3:47:19 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP stated that the policy would likely affect
all schools, especially considering that some districts
currently do not allow mid-year transitions. She emphasized that
SB 82 applies to all public schools, including charter schools,
correspondence schools, brick-and-mortar schools, neighborhood
schools, and special mission schools. She described it as a
strong policy aimed at ensuring open enrollment across all
public-school types, giving parents the opportunity to enroll
their children in schools of their choice. She added that
enrollment would still be subject to capacity limits, which are
set by the schools and districts.
3:47:57 PM
CHAIR TOBIN stated that SB 82 includes a first-come, first-
served provision, and stated her belief that it would eliminate
current lottery systems intended to promote fairness for
families. She expressed concern that this change could
disadvantage local students. As an example, she described a
scenario where a family unable to access a Japanese immersion
program in one areasuch as Sand Lakemight apply early to a
similar program in Palmer. She asked whether, under this policy,
that early applicant could displace a local Palmer student from
attending their neighborhood charter school.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP responded that she would need to further
consider the scenario to fully understand the issues and factors
involved in such a transfer. She said the outcome would depend
on how regulations are established. MS. B emphasized support for
all schools across Alaska and noted that some families already
navigate the system informally by withholding address
information to access schools in other districts. She stated
that SB 82 aims to level the playing field for families who may
not have the same cultural knowledge of how to navigate the
education system, ensuring equal access to schools that best
meet their children's needs.
3:49:29 PM
CHAIR TOBIN asked for clarification on the statement that first-
come, first-served levels the playing field.
3:49:33 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP clarified that the goal is to allow open
enrollment across Alaska, enabling students to attend any school
they choose. She explained that the first-come, first-served
approach refers to when an application is submitted and that
systems can be designed to account for factors like keeping
families together. She emphasized that creating additional
barriers to entry is inappropriate and that initial interest
should be seen as positive. She added that some existing lottery
systems already function similarly, where late applications are
not prioritized, noting that this approach aligns with practices
currently used in Anchorage.
CHAIR TOBIN stated that SB 82, Section 1, represents a radical
new policy for the state. She acknowledged that some school
districts already participate in open enrollment and referenced
testimony from the Mayor of Anderson, who noted that students in
her area can attend schools outside their district to access
social opportunities like dating and prom. She remarked that it
is interesting to compare the proposed approach in SB 82 with
current practices.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP commented that Section 1 would guarantee
open enrollment for all students in the state.
3:51:04 PM
KAREN MORRISON, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education and
Early Development, Juneau, Alaska, moved to slide 8 and
discussed district compensation:
District Compensation
District Compensation for additional students by a
"Spring Count Day"
Any district that has a larger end of year brick and
mortar average daily membership (ADM) than established
in the fall count will receive a funding increase for
the additional students.
Mobilization Fund
The department will establish a limited mobilization
plan to support transportation for students attending
a school that their local bus does not serve.
MS. MORRISON stated that SB 82 provides approximately a $438,100
investment for districts with a higher end-of-year brick-and-
mortar average daily membership than reported in the fall count.
She explained that the bill addresses concerns from districts
about the lack of funding for students enrolled after the 20-day
count period by adding a spring count day. MS. M noted that this
change allows districts to receive additional funding for
increased enrollment later in the school year. She stated that
SB 82 does not include funding for increases in correspondence
student enrollment.
MS. MORRISON explained that SB 82 supports a Department
mobilization plan to establish transportation options for
students attending schools outside their local district or
boundary area. While the exact scope and demand of the
mobilization plan are still being determined, initial
projections estimate an annual investment of $3.37 million. She
emphasized that the goal is to ensure equitable access to
educational opportunities regardless of a student's location,
marking a significant step toward expanding access and
supporting student mobility across Alaska.
3:52:20 PM
SENATOR KIEHL stated that while the discussion emphasizes
equity, statewide access, and support for all students, it
remains unclear whether SB 82 would cover the daily
transportation costs for a student living in Willow to attend a
school in Anchorage.
MS. MORRISON explained that the fiscal note for the mobilization
plan is estimated at $3.37 million, based on a daily
transportation rate of $15 per student over 180 school days. She
noted that future costs would depend on actual participation in
the program.
3:53:03 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP stated the transportation solutions could
vary, including buses between towns, gas cards, or contracting
with smaller transportation providers, as some districts
currently do. She clarified that daily transportation from
Willow to Anchorage is unlikely to be fully funded, though small
offsets might be available if transportation is a barrier. She
added that the mobilization grant was included in response to
families identifying lack of transportation as a key obstacle to
school access.
3:54:16 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked what districts would be required to fund in
terms of transporting students from one school to another,
including situations where travel involves long distances or
even air travel, as may be the case in some districts. He asked
to know more about the transportation funding stream in SB 82.
3:54:54 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP stated that the specific transportation
requirements and options would be addressed through regulation,
depending on interest and feasibility across the state. She
clarified that transporting students by airplane would not be a
solution considered under SB 82. She explained that large-scale
ground transportation could be used, such as buses traveling
between common pickup pointsfor example, from Kenai to
Soldotna. Families would bring students to a central location,
and a district could use additional funds to operate a bus for
longer-distance travel. If that solution does not work for a
family, alternatives like gas cards or small-scale
transportation options coordinated by parents could be
considered. She emphasized that SB 82 does not guarantee
transportation but expresses the belief that students should
have the opportunity to attend the school of their choice, and
that, when possible, mobilization funds could help address
transportation barriers.
3:56:41 PM
SENATOR KIEHL stated that having the assumptions behind the
fiscal note would be helpful for establishing clear sideboards.
He noted that, based on his experience, embedding broad visions
and aspirations into legislation without limits can result in an
open checkbook. He emphasized the importance of setting
boundaries and said it would be useful to understand what DEED
envisions for implementation.
3:57:09 PM
CHAIR TOBIN asked for clarification on the funding outlined in
SB 82, Section 1, specifically regarding mid-year student
transfers. She inquired whether the funding is based on a full
adjusted Average Daily Membership (ADM) or calculated using a
different formula. She requested additional detail on the
assumptions informing this section of the bill.
3:57:23 PM
MS. MORRISON explained that the estimate is based on 50
additional students, using prior year trends to account for mid-
year transfers between districts. She stated the calculation
used the average of district cost factors combined with the base
student allocation of $5,960. She said this methodology resulted
in the projected total cost of $438,100.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP stated that an estimate was necessary, so
existing data was used, though it is known that more than 50
students move between districts each year. She explained the
focus was on identifying districtsexcluding correspondence
programsthat had an increase in Average Daily Membership (ADM)
by the end of the year. MS. B clarified that the intent was to
make those districts whole if their year-end ADM exceeded the
fall count.
3:58:40 PM
CHAIR TOBIN sought confirmation on whether the funding provides
a full allocation for a student who transfers mid-year or later.
She asked if the district would receive the full amount for that
student as if the student had been enrolled for the entire year.
3:58:58 PM
HEATHER HEINEKEN, Director of Finance and Support Services,
Department of Education and Early Development, Fairbanks,
Alaska, Answered a question on SB 82. She replied that yes, the
district would receive the full amount, but only if its Average
Daily Membership (ADM) at the end of the year is greater than
the ADM recorded in the fall count. She explained that this
approach accounts for both students who leave and those who join
the district during the school year.
CHAIR TOBIN commented that it if a district receives full
funding for students that have only attended part of a year
equity could be an issue.
3:59:55 PM
SENATOR KIEHL stated that one of the biggest concerns for some
of the districts he represents is the mid-year movement of
students with intensive special needs. He noted that these
students often transfer from local districts to hub districts,
creating a significant cost burden. He observed that SB 82
appears to address only overall student count changes, not
specific adjustments for high-cost special education needs, and
asked whether the bill accounts for that cost driver.
4:00:36 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP stated that SB 82 would account for
intensive needs students as well as all other students. She
acknowledged the need for more detailed discussion but noted
that currently, no additional funding is provided when students
move mid-year. She explained that SB 82 aims to support
districts that are educating students. Sometimes contracts
cannot be canceled. She added that this is why the funding is
based on a full count above the fall ADM.
4:01:11 PM
CHAIR TOBIN asked whether the envisioned approach would involve
a supplemental appropriation in the following year, considering
current statues and school funding practices. She inquired how
the legislature would ensure that funds are directed to
districts to compensate for this portion of SB 82.
4:01:33 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP stated that funding is already allocated in
SB 82 but if participation grows beyond expectations, a
supplemental would be needed. She noted that evidence shows open
enrollment programs do not expand rapidly. She explained that
families typically seek alternative schools for reasons such as
bullying, specific programmatic needs, or the desire to be
closer to their children during the school day.
4:02:27 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP moved to slide 9 and said SB 82 also
includes a provision for cell phone-free schools, which aligns
with a separate bill currently under consideration:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Cellphone-Free Schools
School districts are required to adopt a policy that
prohibits the use of personal mobile communication
devices by students during the school day except in
the event of:
• An emergency or perceived threat of danger
• When a teacher or administrator grants permission
for educational purposes
• When the device is necessary for health or well-
being of the student
• If the device is required as part of a student's
individualized educational plan.
4:02:59 PM
MS. MORRISON moved to slide 10, Reading Proficiency and Learning
Growth Incentive Grants and provided the following information:
[Original punctuation provided.]
School districts are eligible to receive a reading
proficiency incentive grant in the amount of $450 per
student
• Each student in grades kindergarten through three
who performs at or above grade level on the statewide
screening tool or demonstrates learning improvement
growth on the statewide screening tool
• Each student in grades four through six who performs
at grade-level or demonstrates improvement on
Alaska's standards-based assessment in language arts
4:03:27 PM
SENATOR TOBIN referred to SB 82, page 3, line 19, regarding the
statewide screening tool. She stated her understanding that one
tool had been adopted by the State Board but noted that
legislation allows alternative screeners and a reading
portfolio. She observed that SB 82 does not include those
additional mechanisms and asked whether the intent is to include
all options to demonstrate proficiency under the Alaska Reads
Act or to limit the bill to the statewide screening tool,
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS).
COMMISSIONER BISHOP said the screening tool refers to the state-
approved tool or one used under a waiver and confirmed that all
approved screening tools are included.
4:04:20 PM
CHAIR TOBIN noted that some students opt out of testing and
referred to the section[s] addressing proficiency for grades
four through six. She asked how the section[s] applies to
students who opt out but still require interventions, and
whether the intent is to ensure all students participate in the
screening tools.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP stated that the provision does not require
all students to be assessed, as that requirement already exists
in law. She explained that the intent is to incentivize
participation among students who perform well. She added that
school districts could use this as a tool to encourage families
to have students complete assessments and screeners. She
emphasized that the measure serves as an incentive rather than a
mandate.
4:05:44 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP moved to slide 11, Application for Charter
School to the State Board of Education:
[Original punctuation provided.]
The State Board of Education may approve the
establishment of a charter school in any school
district by an application to the state board or may
delegate authority to another government or local
agency to support innovative experimental school.
• Local Government Agency
• University of Alaska
COMMISSER BISHOP stated that SB 82, an omnibus bill, allows
applications for charter schools to be submitted to the State
Board of Education. She explained that the State Board may
approve the establishment of a charter school in any district or
delegate that authority to another governmental or local agency.
She said this provision was added in response to prior feedback
about creating an additional charter authorizer and the desire
to maintain local control. She noted that the bill allows
flexibility for local government agencies or the University of
Alaska to participate if interested.
4:06:31 PM
CHAIR TOBIN referred to SB 82, page 4, line 20, noting the
phrase "in any school district in the state." She said her
interpretation suggests that Anchorage could establish a charter
school in the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Borough if it chose to
do so.
4:06:46 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP replied that was not her interpretation and
asked for the reference location.
4:07:00 PM
CHAIR TOBIN said SB 82, page 4, line 20, reads, "authorize the
establishment of a charter school to operate as provided [in AS
14.03.255 14.03.290] in any school district in the state."
COMMISSIONER BISHOP stated that she interpreted the language as
applying to local agencies as well. She explained that any local
agency within an area could exercise that provision, meaning
that if a district is not the authorizer, another local agency
could authorize a charter school in any location.
4:07:29 PM
CHAIR TOBIN asked for clarification regarding SB 82, page 4,
lines 20-24, "the board may delegate the authority to authorize
establishment of a charter school to a board committee,
political subdivision of the state, or state agency, including
the University of Alaska; delegation under this paragraph is
limited to approving or denying an application for a charter
school She said it seems like the intent is that any
subdivision or political entity or state agency could establish
a charter school in any community. She suggested future
legislative changes could clarify intent.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP stated her understanding is that is correct
so long as it is a government agency within that community.
4:08:17 PM
SENATOR KIEHL stated that the language of SB 82 aligns more
closely with the chair's interpretation. He expressed
willingness to wildly revision the language to reflect the
described intent. He questioned why state agencies or the
University of Alaska are listed as authorizers if the goal is to
maintain local control.
4:08:49 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP compared the concept to open school
enrollment, stating that increased opportunities encourage
schools to improve. She said some innovative charter school
ideas have been dismissed in the past and that having additional
authorizers fosters collaboration and more choices for families.
She explained that charter schools differ from traditional
programs because they originate from grassroots efforts by
educators and parents, rather than top-down administrative
decisions. She emphasized that expanding local options helps
ensure innovative ideas are fully considered within existing
laws and not lost in bureaucracy, allowing strong proposals to
advance and weak ones to be declined.
4:11:15 PM
SENATOR KIEHL raised concerns about fiscal responsibility,
noting that an unrestricted authorizing process could create
financial risks. He asked which political subdivisions are
envisioned as potential authorizers and how they would be held
accountable for meeting the spending and budget requirements of
the district operating the charter school.
4:11:51 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP stated that accountability laws for both
student learning and fiscal transparency are established in
state law. She explained that any authorizing entity, in
cooperation with the school district, must follow the same
accountability and reporting requirements as other schools. She
emphasized that all charter schools operate under identical
provisions for financial oversight and educational outcomes.
4:12:19 PM
SENATOR KIEHL expressed concern that this arrangement allows the
authorizer to grant approval while leaving another entity
financially responsible.
4:12:29 PM
SENATOR TOBIN stated she shares Senator Kiehl's concerns about
state agencies and political subdivisions understand education
statutes, particularly those related to accountability and
student protections. She expressed doubt that the Department of
Environmental Conservation would be familiar with AS 14. She
noted that local school boards do have that knowledge. She said
the committee would continue reviewing the section and its
potential impact on locally controlled schools.
4:13:13 PM
MS. MORRISON moved to slide 12 and discussed student
transportation and debt reimbursement:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Transportation of Students
State transportation funding increases by 20 percent
over the current statutory rate.
School Debt Reimbursement
The school bond debt reimbursement program's
moratorium will be extended until 2030.
MS. stated that the bill includes a $14.5 million annual
increase in pupil transportation funding, representing
approximately a 20 percent increase over current statutory
rates. She said the investment demonstrates the state's
commitment to safe and reliable student transportation,
assisting districts with rising costs and maintaining access to
education across Alaska. She added that SB 82 extends the school
bond debt reimbursement moratorium to July 1, 2030. This
extension supports previously approved projects while promoting
responsible fiscal management.
4:14:11 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked for the total unmet major maintenance needs
of school facility buildings in Alaska, linking the question to
the issue of responsible fiscal management.
4:14:41 PM
MS. HEINEKEN replied the department would get back to the
committee with the amount.
SENATOR KIEHL requested data on the state's investment in major
maintenance of school facilities, asking for either a four-year
or five-year average.
CHAIR TOBIN requested the department to provide the information
for distribution.
SENATOR KIEL stated that, based on available information, the
state spends less than 1 percent annually on major maintenance
of school facilities, despite the general recommendation to
spend 2 to 3 percent of total facility value to prevent deferred
maintenance. He said this underinvestment contributes to a
growing backlog. He noted that this year's approved major
maintenance request list from districts totals approximately
$250 million, which he described as only a fraction of the full
need. He questioned how allowing school buildings to continue
deteriorating aligns with responsible fiscal management and
asked the department for clarification.
4:15:57 PM
MS. MORRISON stated that the school bond debt reimbursement will
not provide new state funding for the program but will continue
to fulfill existing school debt commitments. She explained that
as current bonds are paid off, the overall financial obligation
will decline. This reduction, she said, will contribute to long-
term stability in education funding.
4:16:39 PM
SENATOR KIEHL acknowledged that the description provided
reflects the contents of SB 82. He asked how allowing a
significant and growing major maintenance backlog to worsen
aligns with the principles of good fiscal management, rather
than beginning to address the problem.
4:16:56 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP stated that the issue of addressing major
maintenance is a statewide concern, as the legislature controls
appropriations for building and maintaining of Regional
Educational Attendance Area schools, K12 facilities, other
public buildings, and the University of Alaska. She agreed there
is a backlog of major maintenance and capital improvement needs
across the state. She explained that the department prioritizes
funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) list. She
acknowledged that the State of Alaska owns a significant amount
of real estate that requires ongoing investment.
4:17:53 PM
CHAIR TOBIN requested a list showing how much money the
legislature has appropriated to the Capital Improvement Project
(CIP) list for major maintenance, along with the number of times
those funds have been vetoed. She said this information would
help clarify the fiscal management discussion. She also asked
for a list of communities that do not receive transportation
funding, noting that several school districts are excluded from
that allocation.
4:18:19 PM
CHAIR TOBIN [held SB 82 in committee.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 82 Presentation 02.24.2025.pdf |
SEDC 2/24/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 82 |
| Legal Memo - Bonus Payments to Teachers 01.16.2024.pdf |
SEDC 2/24/2025 3:30:00 PM |
|
| Legislative Research - Correspondence School Students 02.24.2025.pdf |
SEDC 2/24/2025 3:30:00 PM |