Legislature(2019 - 2020)CAPITOL 106
02/27/2019 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 | |
| Overview: How Are K-12 Schools Funded in Ak? | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 27, 2019
8:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Harriet Drummond, Co-Chair
Representative Andi Story, Co-Chair
Representative Grier Hopkins
Representative Chris Tuck
Representative Tiffany Zulkosky
Representative Josh Revak
Representative DeLena Johnson
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Ben Carpenter
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: HOW ARE K-12 SCHOOLS FUNDED IN AK?
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
HEIDI TESHNER, Director
Administrative Services
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and answered questions
during the EED overview entitled, the Alaska Public School
Funding Formula.
ELWIN BLACKWELL, School Finance Manager
School Finance and Facilities Section
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an EED overview of, the Alaska
Public School Funding Formula, with the use of a PowerPoint
presentation.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:02:11 AM
CO-CHAIR HARRIET DRUMMOND called the House Education Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:02 a.m. Representative Johnson,
Revak, Zulkosky, Tuck, Hopkins, Story, and Drummond were present
at the call to order.
^OVERVIEW: How are K-12 Schools Funded in AK?
OVERVIEW: How are K-12 Schools Funded in AK?
8:03:56 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND announced that the only order of business
would be a Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
overview of the Alaska Public School Funding Formula by Elwin
Blackwell and Heidi Teshner.
8:04:51 AM
HEIDI TESHNER, Director, Administrative Services, Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED), directed attention to
slide 39 of a PowerPoint presentation [that would be given by
Elwin Blackwell], titled "AS 14.17.410 Foundation Funding
Formula FY2020 Projection,and noted that this slide shows a
"snapshot" view of the overall formula.
8:05:42 AM
ELWIN BLACKWELL, School Finance Manager, School Finance and
Facilities Section, Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED), presented a department overview, titled
"Alaska Public School Funding Formula Overview," with the use of
a PowerPoint presentation. As shown on slide 2, he explained
that the current funding formula was developed in Senate Bill 36
in 1998 and fully implemented in 1999. All of the statutes
regarding the Alaska Foundation Formula are found in AS. 14.17.
Mr. Blackwell continued to slide 3, "Providing an Overview" of
what the state pays, which includes: an October count that
provides the average daily membership (ADM); calculations of
adjusted average daily membership (AADM); calculations of basic
need; funding components of basic need - who pays; and
additional funds above basic need. As shown on slide 4,
"Average Daily Membership," he said the ADM is the number of
enrolled students during the twenty school-day count period
ending on the fourth Friday of October.
8:08:11 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY asked why the period in October was chosen.
MR. BLACKWELL replied he wasn't sure why October was chosen but
the calculation is based on enrollment, not attendance.
8:09:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REVAK questioned whether students' names were
cross checked to avoid double counting.
MR. BLACKWELL answered yes, then explained how districts work
together to ensure students are not counted twice.
MR. BLACKWELL continued his presentation by directing attention
to slide 5, titled "Who Qualifies as a Student?" He said that
per statute a child who is six years of age on or before
September first, under the age of twenty, and has not completed
the twelfth grade is considered a student for funding purposes.
A child who is under five years of age on or before September
first may enter kindergarten and would be considered a student.
Finally, a child with disabilities and an active Individualized
Education Program (IEP) may attend school if at the age of at
least three or if under the age of twenty-two by July first, and
he/she would be considered a student.
8:11:37 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY asked if a child who turns three after the count
date would be considered a student for the purpose of the
formula.
MR. BLACKWELL replied yes.
8:12:41 AM
MR. BLACKWELL started his explanation of the slide, titled "6
Steps to District Adjusted ADM," by explaining that the ADM
formula is adjusted based on school size. He said a community
with under 10 ADM would be added to the nearest small school
with greater than 10 ADM. Schools with between 10 and 100 ADM
would be adjusted as one school. Communities with between 101
and 425 ADM would be adjusted as two schools. For communities
with over 425 ADM, each facility is administered as a separate
school unless it is a single facility; then it is adjusted as
two schools.
8:15:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY inquired how many schools fell into the
under 10 ADM category.
MR. BLACKWELL answered that he did not have an exact number of
schools that were close to being under 10 students. He
explained that in the past most towns have chosen to shut a
school down, however a few districts elected to keep those
schools open based on the belief student populations would
rebound.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked for clarification about whether
schools with less than 10 ADM would be added to the smallest
school with over 10 ADM.
MR. BLACKWELL answered yes, the ADM would be added to the next
smallest school with over 10 ADM.
8:19:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired about rounding errors in the
foundation formula.
MR. BLACKWELL explained that the formula's assumption is that as
a school gets bigger it becomes more efficient, so the formula
builds on previous adjustments as the number of students
increase.
MR. BLACKWELL continued his presentation on slide 8 by sharing
information on how the formula is adjusted for alternative and
charter schools. He said there are different adjustments and
rules associated with those type of schools. He related that an
alternative school with an ADM of 175 or greater has to be
administered as a separate facility, and the ADM will be
adjusted separately. The exception to this is that an
alternative school in its first year of service, with an ADM
between 120 and 175, will receive an adjustment of 1.33; if it
has an ADM of 175 or greater in the prior year but drops below
the 175 in the current year, then it will continue to receive
the 1.33 adjustment; if it has an ADM of less than 175, then it
will be counted as a part of the school in the district with the
highest ADM.
MR. BLACKWELL advised that charter schools have different
adjustments. A charter school with an ADM of 150 or greater
will be adjusted as a separate facility unless it is in the
first year of service and the ADM is between 75 and 150, in
which case it will receive an adjustment of 1.45; if it has an
ADM of 75 or greater in the prior year but drops below this in
the current year, then it will receive the 1.45 adjustment; if
it continues to stay below 75 ADM, then it will receive an
adjustment of 1.18.
8:23:29 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY explained through this mechanism, school
districts can offer more options for families and students.
MR. BLACKWELL offered that so far in his presentation he had
gone through the school funding process. He said as he
continued through the presentation, he would be using the Nome
Public Schools as an example to work through the funding formula
with the committee. He directed attention to slide 9, titled
Step 1. Example: Nome Public Schools Projected FY2019 ADM by
School." Mr. Blackwell referenced the part of the slide that
showed Nome Elementary School had 380 ADM. He then explained
each school's ADM was referenced on the slide, and the total ADM
for the Nome Public School District was 689.00.
8:25:10 AM
MR. BLACKWELL shared slide 10, which shows how schools "run
through the school size adjustment." Using Nome Public School
District as an example, he related that the kindergarten through
sixth grade ("K-6") is at 380.00 ADM. Using the reference table
on slide 10, he pointed out that this K-6 ranked number six in
schools ranging in size from 250-399.99. He continued as
follows:
And in this case what we do is we take 380, subtract
out 250, and take ... the difference there and
multiply it by the .97 and then add the previous
maximum calculation of 326.10 to it and come up with
our school size adjustment of 452.20.
MR. BLACKWELL said this calculation is done for each of the
schools and demonstrated the full calculation on slide 10.
8:26:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked what was being referenced on slide
10 by the number 326.10.
MR. BLACKWELL explained that 326.10 represents the maximum
number of school size adjustments that could have been achieved
on slide 10, reference 5.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked for clarification.
MR. BLACKWELL stated that taking a look at reference 1 and 2 on
slide 10 might facilitate understanding how the table works. He
continued as follows:
Because we have a flat...factor of 39.60 for step one,
we carry that over into step two, and then anything
that is between 20 and 29.99 gets adjusted at 1.62 and
added to the 39.6, which was the maximum adjustment in
number 1...So, if I run through that, and I had 29.99
for step 2, I would come up with a school size
adjustment of 55.80. And so, when I start my...number
3, that my basis for starting, and so those students
that are from 30 to 74.55 then will be adjusted at
1.49 and added to the 55.80, which was the maximum
adjustment from the previous reference.
8:29:30 AM
MR. BLACKWELL turned to slide 11, titled, "Hold Harmless
Provision,and explained there is potential for school size
adjustments to decrease for reasons ranging from natural
fluctuation to school closures. If that decrease is 5 percent
or greater from one year to the next, that would trigger a hold
harmless provision. He used a formula on page 11 to explain how
the hold harmless provision would be allocated over a three-year
period. Mr. Blackwell continued his explanation and on slide 12
he demonstrated how the hold harmless provision would be
calculated for the Nome Public School District. In his example,
Nome Public School District did not decrease by 5 percent or
greater, so he explained that the hold harmless provision would
not be triggered.
8:31:51 AM
MR. BLACKWELL demonstrated District Cost Factors on slide 13.
He explained that district cost factors are laid out in statute
and range from a factor of 1 to 2.116. He shared that the Nome
Public School District cost factor is 1.450, and he showed that
the Nome ADM of 856.30, multiplied by the District Cost Factor
for Nome of 1.450, would be 1,241.64.
8:32:58 AM
MR. BLACKWELL shared slide 14, Special Needs Funding Factor.
Mr. Blackwell explained this factor is to cover some vocational
education and some gifted/talented, as well bilingual/bicultural
needs. He said this factor was "block funded" at a factor of
1.20.
8:33:21 AM
MR. BLACKWELL, on slide 15. continued his use of Nome Public
School District for his examples and demonstrated how to adjust
for the special needs factor. His analysis used the district
cost factor of 1,241.64 and multiplied it by the special needs
factor of 1.20, which equated to 1,489.97.
8:33:38 AM
MR. BLACKWELL explained that several years ago a vocational &
technical funding factor added to the funding formula. He
shared slide 16, which showed that the career & technical
education (CTE) funding was set at a factor of 1.015 and is
intended to assist districts in providing technical education
services in grades 7 through 12. The formula took 1,489.97 and
multiplied that factor by 1.015 for a new factor of 1,512.32.
8:34:40 AM
MR. BLACKWELL explained that at this stage of the formula
districts would consider [slide 18 titled] Intensive Services
Funding. Mr. Blackwell said students receiving intensive
service, who are enrolled on the last day of the count period
and meet intensive qualification for each intensive service are
identified and multiplied by a factor of 13. He said an
intensive needs student, "at 13," generates just over $77,000.
8:35:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked what would qualify a student to be
considered for the funding.
MR. BLACKWELL answered there are multiple criteria that would
have to be met in order for a student to qualify as an
intensive-needs student. He stated that these are students who
need a lot of special help and aid throughout the day.
8:36:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REVAK asked whether some students fell under both
special and intensive needs.
MR. BLACKWELL replied that intensive needs students are special
needs students with additional factors. He added that the
formula provides additional funding for intensive needs
students.
8:37:14 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY asked Mr. Blackwell to provide a definition that
explains the difference between special and intensive needs
students to the committee.
8:37:57 AM
MR. BLACKWELL proceeded to slide 19, titled "Step 5. Example:
Nome Public Schools." He explained that the Nome Public School
District has 12 students who qualify for the Intensive Student
adjustment. He showed a calculation of 12 Intensive Students
multiplied by the Intensive Needs Student factor of 13 then
added to the school factor of 1,512.32 would become the Nome
Public School District new factor of 1,668.32.
8:38:33 AM
MR. BLACKWELL explained that the Nome Public School District
adjusted ADM needed to include an adjustment for correspondence
programs. As he presented slide 20, he said the formula
provides a factor of 0.9 for each correspondence student. Mr.
Blackwell shared his example on slide 21 which showed Nome
Public School District had 15 correspondence students. He
worked through the formula of 15 correspondence ADM, multiplied
by a factor of 0.9, then added to the previous ADM of 1,668.32,
and said that would give the Nome Public School District a new
ADM of 1,681.82.
8:39:50 AM
MR. BLACKWELL directed attention to slide 22, titled "Basic Need
Entitlement." He said at this point the adjusted ADM is
multiplied by the base student allocation (BSA); therefore, the
1,681.82 adjusted ADM is multiplied times $5,930, which shows
that basic need for the Nome Public School District is
$9,973,193 per the formula. He said this represents "the number
that the formula expects the school district would need to be
able to operate their schools for that particular fiscal year."
8:40:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred back to Step 4, on slide 16,
regarding technical funding, and asked how the costs associated
with "administrative expenses and instruction in general
literacy, mathematics, and job readiness skills" are excluded
from the funding factor of 1.015.
8:41:16 AM
MS. TESHNER explained that the intent is for the funding to go
toward the provision of career and technical services to grades
7 through 12; it is not meant to cover those excluded costs.
8:41:40 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY noted that part or all of the legislative body
had requested a 2015 study by Augenblick, Palish, and Associates
(APA) to compare Alaska's formula to that of other states to
determine whether Alaska is "providing for adjustments and
increased expenses to districts based on these certain needs."
She said she found it interesting that the study found Alaska
did not provide "a factor for ... low-income students." She
said, for example, one school in Juneau has 11 percent of its
students living in poverty; another serves 66 percent of its
students in poverty. She said some states give more to the
schools with higher numbers of students who live in poverty.
Another factor, she said, was limited English proficiency. She
said she knows there are some schools in Alaska with 80 percent
of students with limited English proficiency; therefore, "they
need to provide ... extra service, which costs money, but it's
not in our factor." Other districts, she said, have very little
limited English proficiency. She indicated that that was one
area that [APA suggested] could be made more equitable.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND said she could provide a copy of the report
based on the APA study to committee.
8:43:32 AM
MR. BLACKWELL continued with his PowerPoint presentation, to
slide 23, titled "Nome: Summarized District Adjusted ADM &
Basic Need." He indicated that this slide is a summarization of
all the other slides and an illustration of "how everything
builds on itself to get to basic need." He continued:
We started off with ... 856.30 ADM; we ended up with a
school size ... adjusted ADM of 1,681.82 .... So, ...
the formula does inflate those numbers throughout to
help provide for those additional services.
MR. BLACKWELL, referring to slide 24, said "basic need is our
magic number" and the next step is to figure out "who is going
to pay what portion of that ... basic need." A city,
municipality, or local borough will have a required local
contribution. He said regional attendance contribution areas do
not have a local contribution, but a lot of those district
receive federal impact aid; some cities and boroughs receive
federal impact aid, as well. The final source that will help
pay for basic need is state aid, he said.
MR. BLACKWELL turned next to slide 25, titled "Full & True
Value/Local Effort Calculation." He continued:
We'll take the full and true value, which is provided
by the State Assessor's Office, and we'll multiply it
for the required local effort at 2.65 mils, ...
[which] is established in statute.
MR. BLACKWELL referred to slide 26, titled "Calculating Required
Local Contribution." He said, "There's really a test that we're
looking at to see which calculation is the lesser. He indicated
that the calculation would show the lesser of the equivalent of
2.65 mils of the full value for the 2018 calendar year but would
not exceed 45 percent of the school district's prior year basic
need. He continued:
So, what we'll do is we'll run both the 2.65 mils on
the assessed value, and we'll also run the 45 percent
of the district's prior year basic need, and we'll see
which one of those is the less - the smallest number.
That, then, becomes the required local effort.
MR. BLACKWELL reported that almost all the municipal school
districts fall in the category of the 2.65, while three or four
of them fall under the 45 percent. The latter include North
Slope, Valdez, Skagway, and Bristol Bay.
8:46:51 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked if the 2.65 mils of [those four listed
districts] is above 45 percent of [the prior year] basic need;
therefore, "the lower number is the one to go with."
MR. BLACKWELL answered that is correct.
8:47:59 AM
MR. BLACKWELL presented slide 27, Title VII Federal Impact Aid
Payments. He told the committee, federal impact aid payments
received between March first and the last day of February are
used as payment for basic needs. He shared there are elements
of impact aid that the state cannot use for funding basic need,
those are special education funding, one-fifth Native land
funding, and any construction funds. Mr. Blackwell continued
onto slide 28, an example of the Nome Public School Districts
impact aid funding. He explained to the committee:
After all of the removal of these items we can't look
at, we come up with a number $133,113. That
represents the impact aid we can look at for funding
basic need.
8:50:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether the formula deducts 20 percent
of the native lands funding a district would receive from the
state.
MR. BLACKWELL answered no, the deduction for native lands would
be from federal impact aid programs.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK commented that there are three federal
impact aid categories.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked if the federal funding for special
education was the total amount for special education required by
the [Disability Education Act] (DEA) of 1975.
MR. BLACKWELL replied it was part of the special education money
received as part of impact aid payments.
8:53:34 AM
MR. BLACKWELL presented slide 29, titled "Impact Aid
Percentage." He explained that at this point in the
presentation the calculation for the Nome Public School District
showed what was eligible for deduction, not necessarily the
amount that will be deducted. He continued and said since Nome
is a first-class city and has a required local contribution, he
would take the committee through how much of the eligible impact
aid would actually be deducted. He explained that for Nome, the
calculation would be the required local contribution divided by
the budgeted local contribution. Cities contributing more at
the local level for their schools benefit because they are
paying a little more towards education. He explained: The
budgeted local, for the purposes of calculating this percentage,
would comprise of any city appropriations, investments on
earnings, any in-kind services or ... any other local money that
shows up in that budget.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS questioned whether that would include
assistance with maintenance, risk management, or legal services
for the district.
MR. BLACKWELL explained that if the city is providing those
services for the school district and the district is not paying
for them then it could be considered an in-kind service.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked if the in-kind services are
included in the cap that local municipalities can give to school
districts.
MR. BLACKWELL replied that it would be within the required local
contribution, so in that case would be considered part of the
cap.
8:56:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked what was "other" local.
MR. BLACKWELL explained "other" local as items such as monies
received for rental facilities, prior recovery of funds,
donations, sales of supplies/equipment, or a variety of things
that may not fit into certain categories but show up as income
to the community.
8:57:51 AM
MR. BLACKWELL resumed his explanation of slide 30 by explaining
the Nome Public School District Title VII Percentage. The
formula for Nome is required local effort divided by budgeted
local effort, which was $1,114,206 divided by $3,408,762, or
32.69 percent. The calculated percentage is what will be used
to apply to the eligible impact aid.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND referenced slide 30 and asked Mr. Blackwell to
explain the difference between required local [contribution] and
budgeted local [contribution].
MR. BLACKWELL explained that the required local contribution was
what is statutorily required to be provided for education while
the budgeted local contribution represented the required local
contribution plus any additional funding provided.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked if the budgeted local contribution was
also a formula.
MR. BLACKWELL answered that the budgeted local contribution
would be addressed later in the presentation.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if the budgeted local contribution was
that for which the district had budgeted for.
MR. BLACKWELL replied it would be what the district had budgeted
for local contributions plus the additional amount provided by
the City of Nome.
9:02:22 AM
MR. BLACKWELL said he was going to use slide 32 titled, "State
Aid." His explanation referenced basic need of $9,973,193 less
the required local contribution and impact aid which would leave
state aid of $8,819,824. The state aid is the amount the State
of Alaska would pay the Nome Public School District to run its
schools for that school year.
CO-CHAIR STORY asked if the [Nome] municipality could give "up
to the $3.4 Million".
MR. BLACKWELL replied that the municipality could give even
more, but that was the amount that was given. Mr. Blackwell
continued onto slide 34, titled "Additional Funds Above Basic
Need." The slide showed that two additional funds were,
additional local contributions and quality schools grants. As
shown on slide 34, Mr. Blackwell explained the additional local
contribution by saying:
Before, we were talking about the lesser of two
numbers for the required local. In this example
[slide 34] or in this case wre going to be talking
[about] the greater of two numbers. And so, in this
case...we're going to...run a calculation on two mils
of the true value, assessed value, of property and
we're going to take a look at what 23 percent of the
current year basic need is going to be. And whichever
one of those two is greater will then be considered
their additional local contribution. So, in Nome's
case, if we take a look at...two mils of their...full
and true value, that comes up at $840,910. Twenty-
three percent of the current year basic need
calculates out at $2,300,023. And what we do when we
take a look at that, ... we have the $9,973,193, which
was the Basic Need, and then there is a $26,909 that
is quality schools. That... uses the formula numbers
but its not part of the formula, its...in addition to
it, and we'll cover how that's calculated...That
$26,000 is added to their basic need and then we apply
the 23 percent to that number...with what, to come up
with that product. And at this point we'll see that
the $2,300,000 is the greater of the two numbers so,
we're going to utilize 23 percent of the current year
basic need as representing what their additional local
funding would be.
MR. BLACKWELL shared slide 35 with the committee. He explained
that at this point in the calculation the required local
contribution and additional local contribution were added
together for a maximum local contribution of $3,414,229. He
said that number falls below what was budgeted for local
contribution to the school and that why they've stayed just
below the cap, in this case."
9:06:37 AM
MR. BLACKWELL shared slide 36, titled Quality Schools Grant,
and explained how the adjusted ADM is multiplied by a factor of
$16 to come up with the quality schools grant amount. For the
Nome Public School District, the quality schools grant amount
was $26,909.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if there were criteria to qualify for
the grant.
9:07:54 AM
MS. TESHNER answered that there is a report that school
districts are required to provide to receive the funding.
9:08:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REVAK asked that information regarding the
Quality School Grant funding requirements be distributed to the
committee.
9:08:41 AM
MR. BLACKWELL presented slide 37, titled "A permanent Funding
Component of State Aid." He started his explanation of the
slide by saying we now have the components of state aid. The
calculated state aid for the Nome Public School District was
$8,819,824, and by adding the $26,909 amount of the Quality
Schools Grant, the district would receive a total state
entitlement of $8,846,733. He explained that would be the
amount that would be requested to fund Nome Public Schools in
the upcoming fiscal year.
9:09:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether that included the local
contribution.
MR. BLACKWELL replied that it was just what the state would pay
and did not include the local contribution.
9:09:57 AM
MR. BLACKWELL shared slide 38, "Prorating the Public-School
Funding Formula." The slide read, "If the amount appropriated
by the legislature is insufficient to meet the total amount
authorized, then all districts' Basic Need will be reduced pro
rata." Mr. Blackwell explained that if state funding was
insufficient, the state would do its best to fund schools with
as much money as available.
9:10:38 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked if the local contribution would also be
affected by lowering of state aid because of the way the cap
worked.
9:10:54 AM
MR. BLACKWELL agreed with Co-Chair Drummond and added the
contribution would be affected because the 23 percent basic need
factor would be calculated on a smaller number.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked if a city or borough wanted to provide
additional funding above the cap would be allowed to do so.
MR. BLACKWELL explained that if a city or borough funded schools
above the cap, the school district would be notified and would
have to return the money above the cap amount. He said the
cap's purpose is to ensure all school district funding is
equalized.
9:12:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked for an explanation of what
equalized was in the described situation.
MR. BLACKWELL said equalized means that school districts fall
within a range to help ensure there isn't disparity between
affluent and non-affluent districts.
9:14:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON commented that the various funding
formulas have constants that are used within the formula for
part of the calculation. She then asked whether they change
annually or how often those constants get adjusted.
9:15:32 AM
MS. TESHNER answered that each of the constants are set in
statute; the formula was established in 1999 and has had changes
to it since its inception.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if once the basic need was
calculated there were other numbers from the federal government
that were part of the calculation for the total disbursement.
MS. TESHNER replied that the impact aid number was the only part
of the calculation from the federal government.
9:16:49 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY asked how many municipalities are funded at the
cap.
MS. TESHNER replied she could provide that information to the
committee at a later time.
9:17:24 AM
MS. TESHNER presented, "Department of Education & Early
Development History of One-Time funding outside the Foundation
Formula." She explained it showed the history of one-time
funding from 2002 to 2020 which is additional funding outside
the formula provided to school districts based on adjusted ADM.
9:18:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said there had been discussions
concerning when the one-time monies have been given out. He then
asked for the calendar dates of disbursement.
MS. TESHNER explained that once the foundation formula for all
districts had been calculated, then the one-time payment would
be provided, which typically occurred in late January or early
February.
9:19:49 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY asked Ms. Teschner to confirm that the one-time
money [2019] was already with the department.
MS. TESHNER replied that the department had the money and was
holding onto it until the legislature acted on the supplemental
budget.
9:20:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked what would happen if the legislature
did not act on the supplemental budget.
MS. TESHNER explained that the funds would have to be
distributed by June 30; otherwise they would lapse back to the
general fund.
9:21:08 AM
MR. BLACKWELL Presented "Federal Impact Aid Disparity Test." He
said the presentation was a brief overview of what the disparity
test is. Mr. Blackwell summed up the disparity test by
explaining it was a way of ensuring school districts within the
state have equalized funding. The slide explained that the
highest revenue districts in the state and the lowest revenue
districts in the state cannot have more than a 25 percent
disparity in funding based on the adjusted ADM.
9:23:41 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY asked if the department had determined whether
the governor's proposed budget would pass or fail the disparity
test.
MS. TESHNER answered that the department had not done the
calculation yet but would follow-up with the committee.
9:24:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked how the district cost factor
"played into the disparity test.
MR. BLACKWELL explained he hadn't considered how the factor
would affect the test but said that the district cost factor was
a small component of the total.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked for clarification on what the 25
percent represented.
MR. BLACKWELL explained that all the factors and formulas from
the earlier presentation go into the calculation for each
district, and by looking at the district cost factor and how it
plays into the disparity test, the district cost factor was just
one small factor in a large calculation. He continued by
sharing the disparity test information is on the department
website and all districts disparity test results are available
to the public.
9:29:15 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND offered the House Education Committee members
an opportunity to speak about why they wanted to be on the
committee.
9:29:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REVAK explained he has two daughters in public
school and wants to make a positive impact on school systems in
Alaska.
9:30:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK talked about his children who had gone
through public schools and how he wants the best for all
children so [Alaska] can be the example for other states to
follow.
9:32:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY shared she comes from a region that is
spread out and rural. She said she believes the relationships
young people have with their teachers can inspire young people
toward greatness. She commented she is interested in making
sure the resources are available to ensure that young Alaskans
are stepping into the workforce or continuing their education to
advance their communities.
9:33:17 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY agreed that children are one of the best
resources Alaska has. She explained that the House Education
Committee should have a good relationship with the entities that
effect students lives and make sure they're all working
together for the sake of children. She also said funding
education at a level that resources the mission is important.
9:36:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered that she was interested in the
committee because the Matanuska Susitna Borough School District
has the second largest attendance and is continuing to expand.
9:37:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said he wanted students in school to have
the same opportunities he did growing up in the Alaska
educational system.
9:38:17 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND said when she started out, her interest in
education stemmed from a situation with her son's school in the
early 90s. Through her initial interest she got elected to the
Anchorage School Board. She said she was concerned that the
governor wants to step away from the responsibility of the state
in funding school construction.
9:41:19 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:41 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| FY2020 Projected Formula Programs_as of 12-20-18.pdf |
HEDC 2/27/2019 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 1page slide Federal Disparity Test2-25-19.pdf |
HEDC 2/27/2019 8:00:00 AM |
|
| FY2020GovAmdK-12FundingReductions_2-15-2019 (002).pdf |
HEDC 2/27/2019 8:00:00 AM |
|
| HEDC Committee Packet 2.2719.pdf |
HEDC 2/27/2019 8:00:00 AM |
|
| History of One-Time Funding.pdf |
HEDC 2/27/2019 8:00:00 AM |
|
| DEED_PresentationFY2020_FoundationFeb2018.pdf |
HEDC 2/27/2019 8:00:00 AM |