Legislature(2023 - 2024)DAVIS 106
02/17/2023 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 | |
| Presentation(s): Base Student Allocation | |
| 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 17, 2023
8:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jamie Allard, Co-Chair
Representative Justin Ruffridge, Co-Chair
Representative Mike Prax
Representative CJ McCormick
Representative Tom McKay
Representative Rebecca Himschoot
Representative Andi Story
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): BASE STUDENT ALLOCATION
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
JESSICA PARKER, Principal
Family Partnership Charter School
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a PowerPoint presentation relating to
the Foundation Funding Formula during the scheduled presentation
on the Base Student Allocation.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:01:06 AM
CO-CHAIR JAMIE ALLARD called the House Education Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:01 a.m. Representatives Prax,
McCormick, McKay, Himschoot, Story, and Allard were present at
the call to order. Representative Ruffridge (via
teleconference) joined as the meeting was in progress.
The committee took two brief at-eases between the call to order
and the presentation.
[Prior to commencing the scheduled presentation the House
Education Standing Committee heard from Lacey Sanders, Deputy
Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development, who
responded to questions asked during the committee's 2/15/23
"Alaska Assessment Report Innovation and Excellence"
presentation.]
^PRESENTATION(S): BASE STUDENT ALLOCATION
PRESENTATION(S): BASE STUDENT ALLOCATION
8:11:06 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that the only order of business would
be the Base Student Allocation presentation.
8:11:38 AM
JESSICA PARKER, Principal, Family Partnership Charter School,
provided a brief introduction, and explained the 3 main things
she would be discussing: a comprehensive overview of how
Alaska's Foundation Funding Formula works, how the base student
allocation (BSA) impacts correspondence schools, and an
opportunity to create legislation to further improve education
with a focus on special education (SPED).
8:13:01 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 8:13 a.m.
8:13:05 AM
MS. PARKER began a PowerPoint [hard copy included in the
committee packet], on a slide titled "Understanding the Alaska
State Education Funding Formula." She synopsized that there is
a base student allocation funding for each student and then
there are various multipliers that change the number at the end.
She summarized a slide, titled "State Foundation Formula and
Local Taxes," which shows a snapshot of six steps referencing
the preliminary budget projection. She reiterated her focus on
special needs [step three on the slide], with the supports going
to bilingual, special, gifted, and vocational education. She
explained there is an additional 20 percent to the average daily
membership (ADM) in the category.
8:16:49 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD referred to the 90 percent in the correspondence
factor [step six] and asked where the other 10 percent goes.
MS. PARKER replied, "We just don't get it." She continued the
discussion on a slide showing a spreadsheet that included the
department's Foundation Funding Formula calculations. She
explained that the total for brick and mortar schools is higher
because in addition to the 100 percent, "they also get the
multipliers."
8:18:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked if the correspondence program is
within the Anchorage School District (ASD). He also inquired if
the money distributed to ASD is dedicated to the correspondence
school, and if there are two separate checks.
MS. PARKER confirmed both to be correct.
8:19:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY inquired whether the brick-and-mortar
schools are responsible for "providing speech therapy for the
correspondence schools and the special needs teachers."
MS. PARKER replied yes, the schools are, but they don't receive
funding, and she stressed the burden that places on the
districts. She continued back to the slide, and explained there
are 33 correspondence program schools in the whole state of
Alaska, and some are attached to different districts, and some
are statewide. Each of the programs, she explained, all offer
different allotments, and they all follow different rules.
8:21:04 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD asked for clarification on whether a student
would have to live within the memorandum of agreement (MOA)
school district.
MS. PARKER confirmed that is correct. She continued on a slide
titled "How Correspondence School Funding/Allotments Works,"
that briefly summarized the recent discussion on the BSA and
correspondence schools.
8:23:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT inquired if allotment would be impacted
for a "correspondence family" whose child is taking a music
class at a brick-and-mortar school.
MS. PARKER responded that the family would be charged a fee,
which would be taken out of the allotment and given to the
Anchorage school district, and that the fee helps to provide the
music class.
8:24:36 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD asked for elaboration on a possible hybrid
school choice and whether correspondence courses deserve or need
any more allocation.
MS. PARKER responded that the hybrid education model has
"exploded," especially after the pandemic, as well as parents'
preference to be more in charge of their children's education.
She referred to this as "cafeteria style education." She
further explained that as a result, more partnerships have
evolved and there are numerous more vendors.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD commented on people liking the programs, but
questioned whether there are results academically. She asked
what a student's education looks like as far as accountability
and achievements.
MS. PARKER replied that accountability test scores are how
students are gauged through the correspondence model. She
explained the challenge being a statute that allows parents to
opt out of testing. The goal is to show the state that this is
a model that works, and the accountability piece relies on
participation.
8:28:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked what the participation rate is
for correspondence students and Measures of Academic Progress
(MAP) testing.
MS. PARKER responded the number is not high - around 22 percent.
She clarified that brick and mortar schools have an easier time
with testing due to having a more "captive audience."
8:31:01 AM
MS. PARKER continued the presentation while moving to a slide
that showed an example of a student's learning plan and how
students are kept accountable in the home school program. She
noted that the statistics are excellent as for college
participation; approximately 25 percent of high school students
take college courses. In the accountability pieces, the numbers
speak for themselves, she remarked.
8:34:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT acknowledged the impressive numbers and
asked how they compare to brick and mortar schools.
MS. PARKER replied she did not know, but the college class
participation rate is significantly higher.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked how dual enrollment is handled in
ASD.
MS. PARKER replied her district has a partnership with Alaska
Advantage, resulting in some course offerings being available at
very low cost. She moved on to focus on the third bullet point
on a slide, titled "How services work for correspondence
students with special needs." She pointed out a regulation that
says schools are required to provide services even to
correspondence students with identified disabilities; the
students cannot be denied. She provided brief examples of
students in her own district.
8:38:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked for clarity on whether correspondence
schools pay the district or provide the money to the parent to
pay the district.
MS. PARKER stated that she would argue that the districts that
support the correspondence programs should be allowed to figure
that out. She opined that it needs to be a partnership within
the districts, also that parents should have a say in how their
children are educated.
8:40:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX commented on the "routing of the check," and
stated he thought it should go to the correspondence program
rather than the general school district - for accountability
purposes.
MS. PARKER replied that the heavy lift of providing that
[accountability and service] is daunting. She stated it is up
to the legislature to figure out the "how."
8:42:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT relayed that she had talked to a couple
of superintendents on this issue, and they stated they believed
the funding should go to the correspondence school to provide
training to the family.
MS. PARKER restated her opinion that it should be a district
decision being that they are so different.
8:43:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked if there is documentation on what
services are provided to the 10 percent of students with
disabilities, and she asked about the cost.
MS. PARKER responded that each correspondence school is required
to have some kind system in place to track Individualized
Educational Plan (IEPs), but her school, for example, does not
track the funding of how much the services cost.
8:45:22 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 8:45 a.m.
8:45:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY stated she would prefer more documentation
on what these numbers are to help her understand "the whole
picture."
MS. PARKER confirmed she can provide documentation on the
services, but not the costs. She returned to the presentation
on a slide, titled "Current Guidance," which featured the
current statutory language for the formula used and pertaining
to [allocation from the public fund] "in an amount calculated by
multiplying the ADM of the correspondence program by 90
percent." Right now, funding equally for special needs students
in the correspondence programs is missing. She urged the
committee to consider the importance of funding the Foundation
Funding Formula and supporting legislation that addresses these
challenges. She moved on to the slide, titled "Proposed
Legislative Change," and pointed out to the committee the amount
of money that would be added if the special needs population at
the correspondence schools were funded [by 90 percent plus a
special needs funding factor of 1.20 applied as set out in AS
14.17.410(b)(1)].
8:49:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY asked Ms. Parker to clarify whether the
state is not in compliance with that statute.
MS. PARKER reassured Representative McKay that the state is in
compliance.
8:51:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked if other services beyond SPED
would be included in the 1.2, such as for gifted students.
MS. PARKER replied yes, the multiplier serves more than just
special education.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT brought up an example of English
language learners (ELL) having mandated testing and asked if
this testing would be required of a correspondence family.
MS. PARKER replied there is already an obligation to provide
those testings - and without any funding.
8:54:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY referred to the Foundation Funding Formula
and asked how it is applied and who decides the categories
students fall under.
MS. PARKER replied that students must qualify for special and
intensive needs through testing, as well as qualify at a top
percentage. In response to a follow-up question regarding CTE
Career Technical Education (CTE) she stated she does not know
but gathered it would be through enrollment in career courses.
8:58:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX explained that in Fairbanks, decisions end
up being made at the district level, and he questioned if it is
the same in Anchorage.
MS. PARKER confirmed yes, it is, and there is a shared
spreadsheet between the two cities.
8:59:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether, if the legislature made this
change, the district would need to sit down with the
correspondence school and figure out how the payment works. She
also inquired whether there have been any recommendations on how
it should be done equitably.
MS. PARKER replied there are no current recommendations because
of the diversity of the state, but her personal recommendation
is to encourage as much parent involvement in the decision-
making as possible.
9:00:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY inquired whether a school that gets a check
based on the number of students it has, after the six
adjustments, decides how the funds are to be spent. He further
inquired whether the legislature would have no further input or
control what happens afterwards.
MS. PARKER responded that yes, the legislature would approve the
budget, and then the district would decide and create the
spreadsheets to use the budget. She noted some possible
limitations such as grant money that must be spent on certain
things.
9:03:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT referred back to step three [Special
Needs Factor] and provided added commentary on how block grants
work and their being tightly bound to the law.
9:06:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY reminded everyone that statewide school
boards are making the decisions about the money they get from
the state, and that these decisions are very difficult. She
stressed the importance of meeting students' needs whether that
encompasses study through correspondence or brick and mortar
schools.
9:08:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY commented on what appeared to be a lack of
control from the legislature "once the money leaves Juneau," and
the lack of accountability being that the money is directed to
the local districts and school boards.
9:10:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK stated he would like to see more of a
perspective towards the bush school districts. He opined it is
important that individual districts make decisions that suit
them best.
9:11:13 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD acknowledged in input of both sides of the
legislature, as well as local government but commented that
"whatever is happening in the local school district, it's
failing our kids." She opined that we as a government need to
step up.
9:11:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX pointed out the situations in larger
districts as opposed to bush districts is considerably
different, as well as the logistics and problems they face, and
the legislature must take this into account - especially
regarding the funding model.
9:13:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT gave personal examples of visits to
schools in the communities she represents, highlighting examples
of local decision making.
9:15:18 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE thanked Ms. Parker for her knowledge and for
giving the committee much to think about and pursue going
forward.
9:16:48 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:17 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| BSA & Multiplier.pdf |
HEDC 2/17/2023 8:00:00 AM |
BSA & Multiplier |