Legislature(2023 - 2024)DAVIS 106
03/10/2023 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): Citizen's Guide to K-12 Funding in Alaska; Education Reports Required under Federal and State Laws and Regulations | |
| 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
March 10, 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
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Alyse Galvin
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): CITIZEN'S GUIDE TO K-12 FUNDING IN ALASKA;
EDUCATION REPORTS REQUIRED UNDER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS AND
REGULATIONS
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
CONOR BELL, Fiscal Analyst
Legislative Finance Division
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint presentation, titled
"Overview of K-12 Funding."
ELWIN BLACKWELL, School Finance Manager
Financial and Support Services
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on K-12 school funding
and co-presented the PowerPoint, titled "Reports and
Accountability."
SUSAN MCKENZIE, Director
Division of Innovation and Education Excellence
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented the PowerPoint, titled
"Reports and Accountability."
DEBORAH RIDDLE, Operations Manager
Division of Innovation and Education Excellence
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented the PowerPoint, titled
"Reports and Accountability" and answered questions.
LORI WEED, Finance Specialist
Financial and Support Services
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented the PowerPoint, titled
"Reports and Accountability" and answered questions.
LACY SANDERS, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the presentation.
JOE WILLHOITE, Manager
School Facilities
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the presentation.
AMY PHILLIPS-CHAN, PhD, Director
Division of Libraries, Archives, and Museums
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented the PowerPoint, titled
"Reports and Accountability."
ANDREA NOBLE, Executive Director
Alaska State Council on the Arts
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented the PowerPoint, titled
"Reports and Accountability."
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:01:36 AM
CO-CHAIR JUSTIN RUFFRIDGE called the House Education Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:01 a.m. Representatives Prax,
McCormick, McKay, Himschoot, Allard, and Ruffridge were present
at the call to order. Representative Story arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
^PRESENTATION(S): CITIZEN'S GUIDE TO K-12 FUNDING IN ALASKA;
EDUCATION REPORTS REQUIRED UNDER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS AND
REGULATIONS
PRESENTATION(S): CITIZEN'S GUIDE TO K-12 FUNDING IN ALASKA;
EDUCATION REPORTS REQUIRED UNDER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS AND
REGULATIONS
8:02:27 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE announced that the only order of business
would be presentations on K-12 funding in Alaska.
8:03:26 AM
CONOR BELL, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Finance Division,
Legislative Affairs Agency, presented a PowerPoint, titled
"Overview of K-12 Funding" [hard copy included in the committee
packet]. He stated that the presentation will outline funding
sources for K-12 education in Alaska. He began with an outline
of the presentation, as seen on slide 2. He pointed out the pie
charts on slide 3 and slide 4 which showed breakdowns of the
education funding for fiscal year 2023 [FY 23], with the state
being the largest payer at 63 percent and the Foundation Program
being the biggest source at 52 percent. He further discussed
the details of these charts. In response to a committee
question, he expressed the belief that other states break down
school funding at the county level. He stated that he would
follow up to the committee with the data on municipal support,
by district.
8:08:06 AM
MR. BELL addressed how the K-12 Foundation Funding Formula
works, as seen on slide 5 through slide 9. He noted that the
formula is subject to appropriations by the legislature, so if
the legislature funds less than the statutory Foundation Funding
Formula, the Public Education Fund (PEF) would be prorated to
districts proportionately. In response to a committee question
regarding the uncertainty of student counts at the beginning of
the school year, he stated that funding is gradual; therefore,
money would not be appropriated into PEF right away. He
reiterated that there would be a gradual appropriation into this
fund. He recommended that the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED) speak to this, and he suggested there could
be a comparison between the projected student counts from the
time the budget is made with the actual student counts.
8:11:08 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
8:11:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed the understanding that money would
flow into the fund by apportionment, gradually, and then it
would flow to the districts based on the October student count.
He pointed out that because of the COVID-19 pandemic, student
counts had changed dramatically, resulting in a dramatic change
in funding. He questioned whether there are statistics in
relation to the stability of the student count over the past 10
years.
ELWIN BLACKWELL, School Finance Manager, Alaska Department of
Education and Early Development, in further response to the
question concerning the stability of the student count as it
relates to the funding, stated that DEED does have average daily
membership (ADM) data provided on its website going back 30
years. In response to a follow-up question, he stated that DEED
has seen some change because of the pandemic, with the biggest
shift being students moving out of the brick-and-mortar
facilities in 2021 to correspondence programs. He added that
overall, the difference was only a few percentage points, and
currently these students are slowly moving back into the school
facilities.
MR. BLACKWELL, in response for clarification on the process,
explained that DEED would do a count through October for the new
number of students. After this, a couple months would be spent
working with the districts on the ADM data, so it could be set
by March. From this the remaining year would be determined. In
order for money to start being sent to the districts, he
explained that for the first nine months of the fiscal year the
Foundation Fund payment would be based on the prior year.
During the three final months, amounts would be trued up, and by
the end of the fiscal year districts would receive their current
year's entitlement.
8:16:49 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE questioned PEF, expressing the understanding
that it is a pass-through fund and would need to have a large
amount of money to smooth over any volatility. He questioned
the statutory average of money that is required to be in PEF.
MR. BELL responded that he would report back to the committee
with this answer.
8:17:32 AM
MR. BLACKWELL, in response to a committee question, stated that
during his tenure the formula has never been underfunded. In
response to a follow-up question, he replied that the local
funding would go directly from municipalities to the schools,
not passing through the state. He continued that the federal
funding would go directly to the districts, with DEED only
collecting information on the money that has been given to
districts. Adjustments are then made within the Foundation Fund
to determine the state aid, and this would depend on what the
districts received.
8:19:53 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD questioned whether some school districts receive
more money for correspondence schools than others.
MR. BLACKWELL answered that districts would decide on the
amounts that are given as an allotment to parents.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD suggested that if districts are offering parents
different allotments for each correspondence school, parents may
want to switch programs. She commented that this would create
"friendly" competition.
MR. BLACKWELL reiterated that it would be up to districts to
increase the student allotment, even with an increase in the
base student allotment (BSA). He stated that in the past this
has happened, and districts did increase allotments. In
response to a comment that BSA is not the only funding, he
explained that for general operating purposes, BSA would
represent a large portion of the Foundation Funding Formula. He
continued that some districts retain some [federal] impact aid
funds and additional amounts from the local municipalities are
received; therefore, districts may have a little more than what
the formula determines for operating purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD expressed the opinion that there are other
"buckets of money" coming to DEED.
8:24:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY questioned whether impact aid would go to
Regional Education Attendance Areas (REAAs). She questioned
whether all correspondence students' allotments would also be
increased when BSA increases.
MR. BLACKWELL replied that impact aid would be received by any
district with qualifying students; however, not all districts
have students who qualify. He replied that given the value of
correspondence students in the Foundation Funding Formula, if
this goes up with BSA, the student's resource would go up. In
response to a follow-up question concerning impact aid, he
replied that in Alaska this would go to students who live on
Native lands and students who live on military bases. He
explained that the impact aid would pass through DEED, but DEED
does not retain any of this aid. In response to a follow-up
question, he replied that DEED does utilize some of the impact
aid from REAAs in relation to funding basic needs. He further
explained that DEED cannot use any of the impact aid designated
for special education students or for students who live on
Native lands. Other than this, he said that 90 percent of any
leftover funds from impact aid would be used in REAAs for basic
needs. For impact aid to municipalities, DEED would consider
how much funding is provided over the required local effort;
therefore, the eligible amount would be reduced per the
percentage. After this, DEED would take 90 percent of this
toward basic needs. He concluded that DEED would use more of
the impact aid for REAAs than for municipal school districts.
8:28:45 AM
MR. BELL moved to slide 6 and explained how ADM would be
determined. He stated that the adjusted ADM would be determined
by using six factors, as seen on slide 7. He pointed out that
the six factors are school size, district cost, special needs,
career and technical education (CTE), special education
intensive students, and the correspondence multiplier. He
explained that the result would then be multiplied by BSA to get
the basic need. He gave further details on the six factors.
8:33:28 AM
MR. BLACKWELL, in response to a series of committee questions,
replied that the special needs factor would cover special needs
students, gifted and talented students, and bilingual and
bicultural students. He explained that this factor would
increase the funding the district would receive. He stated that
this factor is discretionary; however, if the students in these
categories are in the district, they would receive the services.
If these services do not require the full 20 percent, then the
funds could be used for other needs. He answered that if the
district needed additional funding and did not have a CTE
program, it could use the CTE multiplier for special needs [but
the CTE is not included in the special needs factor]. He added
that all the funds from the Foundation Program are discretionary
to meet the educational needs of the students.
MR. BLACKWELL, in response to a question concerning state funds
with a target, replied that one of the larger funds is the
transportation fund, as this covers students going to and from
school. He stated that this must be reported in a special
revenue fund for the state, so how the funding is used can be
seen. If there is excess in this fund, it could be transferred
for other purposes.
8:38:10 AM
MR. BLACKWELL, in response to a committee question, stated that
the special needs factor is not determined by the number of
students who need these services, rather every district has the
same multiplier of 1.2. He continued that the only special
needs students individually identified are the intensive needs
students, and they would be given additional funding. He stated
that any formula changes to this would be a policy decision made
by the legislature. In response to a question concerning the
CTE funding, he responded that no matter how many CTE students
there are, every district would receive a 1.5 increase for every
brick-and-mortar student. He added that this is a set factor in
the Foundation Funding Formula, and every district receives
this.
8:41:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT commented on the federal requirements
for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) block
grant funding. She explained that this block grant funding
would go toward the individualized education plans for specific
students, and these plans would be legal documents with
timelines and benchmarks. She added that there is also a
required plan for English language learners.
8:42:58 AM
MR. BLACKWELL responded to a committee question concerning the
state allotments given to districts and any shortfall a district
may have. He explained that state aid is a fixed number, and it
would be up to the district to operate within this; however, if
the district is under budget, the leftover funds could be
transferred to other needs in the district. In response to a
follow-up question, he stated that by state statute, districts
must have an audit every year. He stated that he would follow
up to the committee with these audit reports.
8:47:14 AM
MR. BELL addressed the Foundation Funding Formula's adjustment
factors listed on slide 8, as follows: ADM, Non-Correspondence
ADM, school size factor, district cost factor, special needs
factor, CTE factor 1.015, SPED (special education) intensive,
and correspondence. He further discussed this process. He
moved to slide 9 and stated that the hold harmless provision
would allow a time adjustment if a district's ADM decreased more
than 5 percent in a year. He pointed out that this had been
used when students moved to correspondence schools during the
COVID-19 pandemic. He explained the consolidation of these
provisions would help disincentive districts from closing
schools. He pointed out the graphs on slide 11 through slide
13, which addressed the effect of these factors over time. He
directed attention to the fact the ADM multiplier has grown
since FY 05 from 1.658 to the current 2.223. He stated that
while the student count has been reduced over the last 20 years,
the ADM has grown. He pointed out that over the last 20 years
BSA has grown from $4,576 to $5,960.
8:54:03 AM
MR. BELL, in response to a committee question concerning the
increase in multipliers in FY 21, explained that this was
because of the hold harmless factor, as students were switching
to correspondence schools during the pandemic and ADMs were
falling below 5 percent. In response to a request, he stated
that he would report the requirements for a student to be
considered intensive special needs to the committee.
8:58:15 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE, in response to the committee discussion,
expressed the understanding that ADM, or the number of actual
students attending school, has remained relatively flat for 20
years. However, after applying the listed factors, the adjusted
ADM would create an artificial number of students.
MR. BELL responded in agreement. Concerning the increase in
SPED and CTE multipliers in FY 21, he responded that he cannot
speak to the legislative intent at that time, but he allowed
that greater funding had been provided for intensive needs
students.
9:00:20 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD questioned the number of special needs students
receiving funding outside of the brick-and-mortar schools.
MR. BLACKWELL replied that correspondence students funding would
come after all the adjustments, so none of these multipliers
apply to correspondence. He explained that if a special needs
student is in correspondence school, the school would be
required to meet these needs, but the school would not receive a
multiplier and the formula would not increase; however, if the
special needs is defined as "intensive," the district would
receive the multiplier regardless of whether the student attends
a brick-and-mortar school or correspondence school. In response
to a series of follow-up questions, he stated that concerning
the difference between the special education category and the
intensive needs category, a list of conditions would need to be
met to qualify as an intensive needs student. He stated that he
would follow up to the committee with these criteria. He
expressed uncertainty whether students in school districts who
cannot read would receive more funding. He stated that if
students have reading difficulties, they may fall into a special
needs category. In response to a question concerning the amount
of additional funding for intensive needs students, he expressed
the understanding it would add around $77,000. Concerning the
amount parents would receive if the intensive needs student were
in a correspondence school, he expressed uncertainty. He stated
that the correspondence program would have the responsibility to
make sure the student's needs are met. He responded that he
would follow up with the exact numbers.
9:07:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed the belief that for intensive
needs students, a one-on-one special aid would be hired by the
district. She added that districts would possibly be required
to provide a speech therapist in these situations. She
recommended that the committee have a separate meeting on these
special education issues. She requested a follow-up response on
these questions.
9:08:27 AM
MR. BELL, continuing the presentation, addressed the other
funding sources, with slide 13 listing the required local
contributions. He explained that 34 of the 53 districts in the
state would be required to meet the local contributions. He
pointed out that because REAAs do not collect taxes, they would
not be required to pay. He discussed how the local
contributions would be determined. He added that this is a
substitute for money the state would have to contribute. He
continued to slide 14 and stated that local governments can
provide voluntary funding, but there is a cap on this amount.
Moving to slide 15 and slide 16, he stated that districts can
receive funding when there is non-taxable federal property in
the district, such as military bases. He discussed how this
federal impact aid effects the Foundation Funding Formula, as
the state could deduct 90 percent from its share of the formula;
however, Alaska would have to pass the federal disparity test to
do this. Regarding this, he explained that the state must have
an equalized formula.
9:14:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed the understanding that this would
provide an incentive for local districts to contribute more than
the limit, because they would still receive the federal impact
aid, while the state would lose the funding.
9:14:37 AM
MR. BELL explained that the cap on voluntary contributions would
enable the state to pass the disparity test; therefore, Alaska
is considered an equalized state. If the cap were removed and
the disparity were no longer passed, he expressed agreement that
districts with significant federal impact aid would receive more
funding.
MR. BELL, in response to a follow-up comment, related that
Alaska had failed the FY 22 disparity test, but it appealed and
passed the test because the federal inclusion of pupil
transportation was reversed. In response to a follow-up
question from the committee, he stated that he would report back
to the committee with the information on the disparity test and
the numbers involved. He expressed uncertainty about whether
the state has ever failed the disparity test, and he would
report back to the committee on this.
9:17:36 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE added that, for the record, this information
is available on DEED's website.
9:18:04 AM
MR. BELL moved to slide 17, which addressed the funding for
pupil transportation. He stated that this is provided to any
district with a pupil transportation system. He discussed the
fiscal history of this funding, with the FY 24 total being at
$72.6 million, and this would come from the unrestricted general
funds. He moved to slide 18, discussing indirect funding to the
districts, which includes the state's retirement system, school
debt reimbursement, and REAA funding. He moved to slide 21
which showed the funding levers for the legislature. He stated
that if the legislature were to change school district funding,
this could be done by changing the following: BSA, outside-the-
formula funding, formula factors, the retirement system,
required local contributions, and the local contribution cap.
9:25:13 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE, for the record, acknowledged that Mr. Bell
has been "great to work with."
9:26:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed the understanding that if a school
applies for the transportation funding, this would be awarded
per the total number of students in the district, regardless of
the number who would use the transportation system.
MR. BELL replied that is correct for non-correspondence
students.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed the understanding for why students
who are learning at home would not be considered in this
funding.
9:27:06 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:27 a.m. to 9:34 a.m.
9:34:54 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE announced that the last order of business
would be the presentation on reports and accountability.
9:36:05 AM
SUSAN MCKENZIE, Director, Division of Innovation and Education
Excellence, Alaska Department of Education and Early
Development, co-presented a PowerPoint, titled "Reports and
Accountability" [hard copy included in the committee packet].
She introduced the presentation and pointed out DEED's mission,
vision, and purpose, as seen on slide 2. She stated that the
presentation will focus on DEED's statutory and regulatory
reports and accountability. She moved to slide 3, titled
"Strategic Priorities: Alaska's Education Challenge." She
pointed to the five priorities listed on the slide, adding that
DEED's work is centered around these priorities. She moved to
slide 4 and stated that the presentation will cover the five
areas listed on the agenda. She summarized the divisions listed
that will be presenting.
9:38:27 AM
DEBORAH RIDDLE, Operations Manager, Division of Innovation and
Education Excellence (IEE), Department of Education and Early
Development, moved to slide 6, titled "Division of Innovation
and Education Excellence (IEE) Data Collections." She stated
that data is only collected from districts that are required to
report, per state regulation. She summarized DEED's use of the
data, which includes reporting, public information requests,
calculating school designations, and programming decision
making. She moved to slide 7, which listed the six primary data
collections IEE gathers from the districts. She stated that
these are the data elements that provide information for the
state and federal reports.
9:39:28 AM
MS. RIDDLE, in response to a committee question, replied that
the Fall OASIS collects the data under student demographics, per
the U.S. Department of Education (DoED). She explained that the
students' demographics, gender, age, race and ethnicity, and
more would be gathered. In response to a follow-up question,
she stated that this would regard the free and reduced lunch
program and English as a second language program.
MS. RIDDLE, in response to a committee question regarding the
Report Card to the Public, stated this report card is required
by DoED, and it is mandated by the state as well. She explained
this report provides an overview of the schools and a synopsis
of all the collected data. She provided some of the details
that would be included on the report. She noted that each
school would be given an index score. She said that the report
is posted in January of each year.
MS. RIDDLE, in response to a follow-up question concerning the
index score's equality and variability, stated that the
accountability system is just one part of the report card, as it
would also include data for the report for the Office of Civil
Rights and the report for Suspensions and Expulsions. She noted
that because of DoED requirements, the accountability system is
complicated, and she offered to report back with more
information. In continued response, she stated that the reason
some of the systems were put into place is to protect student
privacy. She offered that IEE is working on revising some of
these pieces in the accountability system. She noted that if
there is 5 percent of a certain student demographic, this cannot
be reported, and this information is suppressed.
9:46:34 AM
MS. RIDDLE, in response to a committee question, stated that the
reporting requirements for student achievement gaps are required
for the lowest designated schools that have an improvement
designation, as these are the schools that are targeted for
support. In response to a follow-up question, she discussed how
the lowest designated schools would be determined, adding that
currently some adjustments had been made to the formula and the
growth indicator, so determinations may be different in the
coming years. She stated that she would report back to the
committee with the formula.
MS. RIDDLE, in response to a committee question, displayed slide
8, titled "Division of Innovation and Education Excellence (IEE)
Required Reports." She explained that the Persistently
Dangerous report looks at factors of a school that deem it to be
dangerous, and this is a federal report. She noted that there
are not many of these schools in the state. She noted that the
Annual Report to the Legislature is IEE's thick report, and she
moved to the next slide to discuss this.
9:50:34 AM
MS. RIDDLE addressed slide 9, titled "Division of Innovation and
Education Excellence (IEE) Report Deadlines and Citations." She
pointed out that the Annual Report to the Legislature is annual
report, along with several others. She detailed several of the
other reports on the list.
MS. RIDDLE, in response to a committee question, stated that
data for the Suspension and Expulsions Report is collected by
incidents, so several people could be involved in one incident,
or one person could be involved in several incidents. She
acknowledged that reporting in this manner could skew the data.
MS. RIDDLE moved from slide 9 to slide 11, which further
addressed IEE report deadlines and citations, funding sources
reports, and report distribution. She concluded IEE section of
the presentation on slide 12, titled "Division of Innovation and
Education Excellence (IEE) Reports Available Online."
9:53:19 AM
MR. BLACKWELL, co-presenting the PowerPoint, began on slide 14,
titled "School Finance - School District Budget and Actual
Reporting." He reviewed the reports listed on the slide. In
response to a committee question, he expressed uncertainty
concerning whether districts are required to make budget reports
available to the public. He acknowledged that many do make
these available. In response to a follow-up question, he stated
that these financial statements are public information, and if
it is requested, districts would have the obligation to provide
these.
MR. BLACKWELL, in response to a series of committee questions,
explained that districts' reports may be presented slightly
different than how the state reports the data. He added that
all the data is there, just presented differently at times. He
gave details on the function levels. In response, he explained
that the state reports the budgets by district, and then by the
function level. He continued that the website does not have the
capability to evaluate one school against another, but this
could be done by district, as the funding is always given by
district. He stated that schools do not report their budgets to
the state, but to the districts.
10:00:33 AM
MR. BLACKWELL moved to slide 15, titled "School Finance
Forecasted Unreserved Operating Fund Balances." He stated that
reports are generated off the fund balances for districts, so
there is a fund balance requirement in statute, which stipulates
that no more than 10 percent of expenditures can be retained by
a district in any given fiscal year. He noted that each
district's audit would be reviewed, per statute; however, House
Bill 76 [passed during the Thirty-Second Alaska State
Legislature] waived this provision until 2025, so districts can
retain more unreserved funds in their operating budgets. He
stated that this legislation also has required DEED to prepare a
report forecasting what districts have as an ending fund
balance. In response to a committee question, he stated that
this year's report has already been sent to the legislature.
MR. BLACKWELL proceeded to slide 17, titled "School Finance
Forecasted Unreserved Operating Fund Balances," which detailed
how the report, per House Bill 76, would be compiled. He stated
that using this report, the legislature can monitor the
unreserved fund balance while the 10 percent requirement is
being waived.
10:03:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT commented that while performing school
reviews, she has noticed that some school districts retain the
full 10 percent in reserves because of the instability in the
funding cycle. She opined that the ability to hold money back
would be valuable to stabilize a district's overall budget;
however, the money should be going into the classroom, but it is
often held back.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE commented that last year the legislature
aided in this with forward funding. He questioned whether there
would be a way to allow districts to hold a year's worth of
budget in reserve.
MR. BLACKWELL replied that forward funding would not be the
mechanism for this. He stated that forward funding usually
happens when funds are appropriated a year in advance.
10:05:47 AM
MR. BLACKWELL moved to slide 18 and slide 19 and reviewed the
Per Pupil Expenditure Report by School. He stated that this is
a relatively new report required by the federal Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA). He stated that this report looks at the
per-pupil expenditures of federal, state, and local funds,
including actual personnel expenditures and actual non-personnel
expenditures. He explained that this is disaggregated by the
source of funds for each local education agency and school in
the state for the preceding fiscal year. The districts would
report the information to DEED, and DEED posts the data.
MR. BLACKWELL responded to a question on the report on per-pupil
expenditures. He expressed uncertainty concerning the report's
intent. He pointed out that this is a mandate from the federal
government, and he expressed confusion concerning its
usefulness. He suggested that there is no relationship between
per pupil expenditures and student achievement, or growth rate.
MR. BLACKWELL responded to a series of committee questions.
Concerning the definition of "disaggregated by source," he
stated that this means DEED is making some assumptions
concerning what dollars are going where, as all the funding from
different sources are deposited into the same account, and then
disaggregated by purpose. He stated that if federal money is
received through a title program, this program will dictate how
the money is spent; however, discretionary grants can be used as
needed. In regard to targeted funds, he stated that all the
students in the district would be considered, allocating this
fund across all, so specifics are not known.
10:13:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed the understanding that ESSA is
targeting down on these dollars because it wants more
accountability with school board members. Regarding the levels
of experience within different teaching positions held in
schools across the state, she discussed how the school funding
amounts differ. She suggested that ESSA is attempting to get
school board members to consider this.
10:14:23 AM
MR. BLACKWELL moved to slide 19 and slide 20, which were both
titled "School Finance Per Pupil Expenditure Report by School."
He stated that this lays out the location of reporting
requirements. In response to a committee question, he stated
that "LEA" stands for local education agency, "ESSA" stands for
Every Student Succeeds Act, and "ESEA" stands for Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. He stated ESSA and ESEA are both
federal.
MR. BLACKWELL expressed uncertainty on the question of what
would happen if the federal report on per-pupil expenditure was
not submitted to the federal government. He stated that he
would report this answer back to the committee. In response to
a follow-up question, he expressed uncertainty on the number of
positions in Alaska's education system that are federally
funded.
10:17:45 AM
LORI WEED, Finance Specialist, Division of Financial and Support
Services, Department of Education and Early Development, resumed
the presentation on slide 22, titled "School Facilities School
Capital Funding Report," which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
• Statutory Reporting Requirement: AS 14.11.035
• School Capital Project Funding Under SB 237 (Chapter
93, SLA 2010)
• Provided to Legislature annually by February 28 An
Excellent Education for Every Student Every Day
• Used to review impacts of funding on schools
• Operating budget: fund capitalization of
Regional educational attendance area and small
municipal school district school fund
• Capital budget: appropriations to School
Construction Grant Fund and Major Maintenance
Grant Funds
• Program funding available to all school districts
via capital improvement project application and
ranking process
• Priority lists and publications/reports:
• education.alaska.gov/facilities
MS. WEED, in response to a committee question, stated that the
available funding through the capital improvement projects (CIP)
list would vary every year, and this is based on legislative
appropriation. Concerning which programs are funded, she
replied that DEED funds down the list, and if there is a set
amount of appropriations and not sufficient funding for a
particular project, it would go down the list to the next
project. She stated that when an entire school has to be
replaced, it would be on this list.
MS. WEED, in response to a committee question, stated that she
does not have exact numbers for school maintenance. She
expressed the understanding that it is around $200 million. She
commented that funding has varied widely over the last ten years
for the school maintenance list and school construction list.
In response to a committee question, she stated that she would
report back to the committee with the number of schools in the
state that are at full capacity. She responded that the square
footage of school buildings and their capacity vary widely. She
deferred the question.
10:22:56 AM
LACY SANDERS, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Education and Early Development, stated that every
school district has a variation in size and capacity of its
facilities. In regard to reporting this information back to the
committee, she noted that the buildings are not owned by the
state, but they are owned by local school districts, and any
facility that is closed or disposed of would be up to the school
district. She stated that any information on this will be
pulled together for the committee. In follow up, she stated
that the districts could also be asked for the information. She
added that DEED is limited on the information it can request
from districts, and it may have to request additional authority
to obtain this information. She reiterated that she would
follow up with whatever statutory authority DEED has in relation
to this information.
MS. WEED, in response to a question on school bond debt
reimbursement, stated that the division manages the financial
side of this.
MR. BLACKWELL responded that the only requirement of the
municipality would be to notify DEED of the anticipated debt for
budgeting purposes. He added that the finance division would do
the reimbursement side, while the facilities division would do
the project side. He expressed uncertainty on how this would
show up in the budgets. He deferred the question on how bond
debt reimbursement would show up in the budgets.
MS. SANDERS responded that each year the value on the
appropriation is based off what is due for a bond reimbursement.
She stated that this number is a formula number prepared by
DEED, and this goes to the governor's office. This amount is
included in the appropriation bill. She stated that once the
legislature determines this amount, it would be given to the
municipalities.
10:30:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY clarified that some school buildings are
owned by the cities, and not the districts.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed the opinion that it would be easy
for these facilities to be mismanaged. He opined on this,
suggesting that districts are shifting costs to the state.
10:31:53 AM
JOE WILLHOITE, Manager, School Facilities, Department of
Education and Early Development, answered that systems are in
place that would respond to preventative maintenance. He stated
that to participate in the CIP process, a district must have a
robust preventative program. He explained the monitoring
process of the preventative maintenance program. In response to
the suggestion that school districts are shifting maintenance
costs to the state, he reiterated that it is a requirement that
districts maintain preventative maintenance.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX suggested that this requirement is not
working as well as it should, as there are a number of capital
requests coming from municipalities for repairs to school
buildings.
MR. WILLHOITE responded that all parts of a building, depending
on the value of the original facility, are perishable, and
eventually they will need major maintenance. He stated that a
roof can only be patched a number of times before it would need
replacing. He added that not all CIP projects would get funded
soon enough to prevent "them from starting to leak." He stated
that funding can be requested, but until a project becomes a
real problem, it does not get the funding.
10:35:19 AM
MS. SANDERS, in response to a committee question, stated that
major maintenance funding comes from a grant program. She
stated that the legislature would appropriate money into a fund
for specific projects that are on the list, so the money is
obligated. She stated that it is not often there is a balance
in the fund. In response to a follow-up question, she stated
that the funding is on an annual basis.
10:36:17 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD expressed concerns on accountability for the
deferred maintenance funding. She suggested there be an audit
on this process. She questioned whether there is an
investigation of the needed deferred maintenance in each school
district.
MR. WILLHOITE replied that a system exists which requires
districts to provide a preventative maintenance schedule, along
with the history of what has been done. If this is not
provided, or preventative maintenance is failing, he said that
the district would be put on a provisional list. He added that
being on this list could disqualify a district from the CIP
process, and why a district is on the list must be addressed
before it can apply for a CIP. In response to a follow-up
question, he stated that districts are put on the provisional
list "more frequently than I'd like." He stated that this would
be funded through a district's general fund, and he expressed
the opinion that this is unfortunate. He pointed out that some
districts put more emphasis on deferred maintenance than others.
In response to a request for a historical record of the
provisional lists, he stated that he would report this back to
the committee. He deferred to Ms. Weed.
MS. WEED responded that DEED currently has nine districts on the
provisional list and five districts that have not certified
their programs. She stated that the five districts cannot be on
the CIP list until their programs are certified.
MS. WEED, in response to a committee question, stated that
districts would use their foundation formulas for funding
facility maintenance. In response to whether this would
jeopardize the BSA, she replied that it has been noted that
maintenance funding "takes hits" because it is believed that
this funding should be kept in the classroom.
10:42:14 AM
AMY PHILLIPS-CHAN, PhD, Director, Libraries, Archives, and
Museums (LAM), Department of Education and Early Development,
joined the presentation on slide 25, titled "Division of
Libraries, Archives, and Museums (LAM) - School Broadband
Assistance Grant (BAG)." She stated that the BAG program was
created to increase download speeds for the internet in schools.
She stated that BAG was established in 2014, originally allowing
schools to reach download speeds of 10 Mbps. She stated that in
2020, the legislature revised the statute to help schools reach
download speeds of 25 Mbps. She stated that in FY 23 BAG
awarded $6.1 million to 151 schools in Alaska. She moved back
to slide 24, titled "Division of Libraries, Archives, and
Museums (LAM) School Broadband Assistance Grant (BAG) Program
Annual Timeline" and went through BAG's application and
reporting process.
10:47:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed the opinion that this program
should be managed by the individual districts and included as a
school operating expense, as opposed to a separate grant
program. He argued that the management of this program should
be reconsidered.
10:48:47 AM
ANDREA NOBLE, Executive Director of Alaska State Council on the
Arts, (ASCA), joined the presentation on slide 27, titled
"Alaska State Council on the Arts (ASCA)." She stated that the
slide shows only the grant programs in school districts where
ASCA reports are required by regulation. She stated that the
content and format of the reports are aligned with the federal
requirements for funds from the National Endowment for the Arts.
She noted that the reporting process is similar to that of LAM's
process.
10:50:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed the opinion that this should also
be managed by districts in their regular school budget process.
10:50:49 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE extended gratitude for DEED and offered
closing comments.
10:51:45 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:51 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| DEED Presentation Reports and Accountability 3.10.2023.pdf |
HEDC 3/10/2023 8:00:00 AM |
|
| H Ed Foundation Presentation 3-10-23.pdf |
HEDC 3/10/2023 8:00:00 AM |