Legislature(2021 - 2022)DAVIS 106
04/13/2022 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 | |
| HB413 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 413 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 413-FACILITIES CONSTITUTING A SCHOOL
9:04:55 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 413, "An Act relating to facilities
constituting a school; and providing for an effective date."
CO-CHAIR STORY noted that since the last hearing on HB 413 [on
4/6/2022], the committee received the [Hooper Bay School average
daily membership and funding chart, included in the committee
packet], in response to questions sent by the committee, and she
said representatives of the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED) would provide clarification regarding the
chart.
9:08:11 AM
ELWIN BLACKWELL, School Finance Manager, Department of Education
and Early Development, concerning HB 413, reviewed the chart on
the funding for the Hooper Bay School. He provided that, before
the charter school opened, in fiscal year 2019 (FY 19) and (FY
20), the Hooper Bay School was receiving two adjustments: an
adjustment for grades K-6 and an adjustment for grades 7-12. He
stated that in those two years the basic need generated over
$8.3 million and $9 million, respectively. He continued that
when the charter school opened in FY 21, the Hooper Bay School
went back to receiving only one adjustment for grades K-12 in
the regular school. After this change the funding dropped to
$7.2 million in FY 21 and $7.5 million in FY 22. He pointed out
that the charter school generated just under $900,000 in revenue
in FY 21 and again in FY 22. In FY 21 the two schools
collectively generated a total funding of $8.1 million. Using
the same calculation, funding for FY 22 resulted in $8.4
million. Comparing these numbers with funds generated in FY 19
and FY 20, the total basic need amount fell just less than
$800,000 [per year]. He stated that the chart represents actual
years, and no projected numbers are listed for FY 23.
9:11:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed the opinion that, at some point in
the distant past, the school funding formula made sense to the
legislature, and "now it does not make sense for Hooper Bay."
He questioned whether this would be a permanent solution, or the
basic formula would need to be reconsidered because of this
unique situation. He stated that a change had been made within
the formula, but [the situation with Hooper Bay] is "not the
fault of the legislature." He said that creating the charter
school may have seemed like a good idea, but perspective changes
when the legislature is obligated to provide the funding. He
questioned whether the proposed legislation would create
consequences for school funding in the entire state.
MR. BLACKWELL responded that the situation is fairly unique and
most likely not an overlook by the legislature. He explained
that an unforeseen situation occurred when a remote community
with a single school opened a charter school. While the charter
school statute has been in existence for some time, no new
charter schools opened in remote areas of the state [until in
Hooper Bay]. He stated that the situation is unique because
Hooper Bay School is one of the largest schools in a rural area
with a single facility for grades K-12. He asserted that the
proposed legislation would correct [Hooper Bay School's funding
situation] and not likely affect another school for many years.
MR. BLACKWELL noted that a community with an average daily
membership (ADM) from [at least] 101 but under 425 were to open
a charter school, in accordance with the statute, then the
community's K-12 school would still get the two adjustments. He
stated the issue is that Hooper Bay School is over 425 ADM. He
stated that the K-12 school already existed when the charter
school opened; thus, under the statute, Hooper Bay School is
seen as administering two schools, like a facility within a
facility. He stated that two schools are being administered at
one facility, and "that is where the rub has come in within this
part of the statute." He stated that because the regular K-12
school no longer gets two adjustments, there is a funding
shortfall for that facility.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX said, "It appears that there is an
assumption that the state is required to fund whatever programs
a school district wants to develop." He argued that, at some
point, there will be a limit to the amount of available funds.
He continued that opening another school in Hooper Bay increased
the funding per student in that district and took away money
that would be available in other districts. He expressed the
belief that the problem is "the legislature apparently is
expected to fund what somebody else is requesting, and we really
don't have control over the funding." He expressed concern over
the basic problem of expectation. He continued that the
expectation is unrealistic because [oil revenues] are supplying
less funding than it did 10 or 15 years ago.
9:17:49 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY stated that the Lower Yukon School District
(LYSD) and community members put forth the request to start the
charter school. She said it is provided in statute that a local
school board could refuse to grant a charter school. If the
local school board refuses, then community members could request
the charter school through DEED. She stated that there are a
couple ways charter schools can be authorized, but she was not
certain where this request originated. She stated that DEED
sponsored the proposed legislation, but there are also letters
of support from LYSD.
MR. BLACKWELL expressed the understanding that the community
would go to its school board, and if the school board rejected
the idea, the community could then go to the State Board of
Education for approval, and the charter school could be created
through that mechanism. He offered that he is not an expert on
charter schools.
CO-CHAIR STORY explained that she reviewed the statute that
outlines what constitutes a school. She said the statute
provides that, when the ADM is greater than 425, only one school
can be administered in one facility; thus, the Hooper Bay
facility does not qualify as having separate schools. She
offered her understanding that the situation is unique because
areas with a larger population usually have more than one
facility. She stated that the proposed legislation would change
the statute to exclude charter schools, so Hooper Bay [would not
be penalized for] having two different schools in one facility.
MR BLACKWELL responded in the affirmative.
9:21:42 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY related that online research shows the economic
makeup of the community of Hooper Bay is within the ninety-ninth
percental of low economic social indicators, but then the
community was also considered to be at a medium poverty level.
She posed the question how a low economic rating equated with a
medium poverty level.
MR. BLACKWELL stated that he is unfamiliar with that
information. He deferred to the school district representative.
9:22:54 AM
GENE STONE, Superintendent, Lower Kuskokwim School District,
responded that he does not know how these ratings were derived.
He stated that there is a number of factors that would
differentiate poverty levels, such as housing and unemployment.
He deferred to Andrew Leavitt.
9:23:35 AM
ANDREW LEAVITT, Chief Business Officer, Lower Kuskokwim School
District, stated that the entire district is under the community
eligibility provision (CEP) and above 100 percent for the school
lunch program. In other words, he stated that 100 percent of
the district would be considered low income.
9:24:28 AM
MR. STONE, in regard to Representative Prax's previous comment,
clarified that choosing to have a charter school would not
require additional funds. He stated that for charter schools,
funding follows the students, so the funding would be there. He
continued that the school district was penalized. He argued
that the district would not be seeking any more than what was
previously supplied. He stated that the multiplier for grades
7-12 was lost, and the school would like that restored to its
regular funding formula. He indicated that, in actuality, the
charter school has not cost the state anything, but rather it
has cost the district $2 million. He deduced that, over the
past two years, the state has had a surplus of $2 million.
9:25:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND questioned the impact on the [K-12
regular school] when the funding was reduced. She conjectured
that the school lost staff, and its bills were unpaid. She also
questioned whether the charter school contributes to the cost of
the facility in which both schools are housed.
MR. STONE responded that three teachers in the traditional
school were lost because of the program shift and students
moving to the charter school. He stated that the remainder of
cost was distributed throughout the district. He stated that
the result across the district was a reduction in staff, which
was a combination of a classified reduction and a certified
reduction. He stated that 83 percent of the school district's
budget is human resource driven, so personnel was primarily
where the funding was lost.
9:28:05 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY set an amendment deadline.
[HB 413 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 413 and SB 236 Analysis by David Means, Legislative Data Analyst, ALASBO.pdf |
HEDC 4/13/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 413 SB 236 |
| HB 413 DEED funding chart.pdf |
HEDC 4/13/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 413 |