Legislature(2023 - 2024)DAVIS 106
03/15/2023 06:00 PM House WAYS & MEANS
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): Education and Alaska's Economy | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT MEETING
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 15, 2023
6:03 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
Representative Ben Carpenter, Chair
Representative Jamie Allard
Representative Tom McKay
Representative Kevin McCabe
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Andrew Gray
Representative Cliff Groh
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
Representative Jamie Allard, Co-Chair
Representative Justin Ruffridge, Co-Chair
Representative Mike Prax
Representative Tom McKay
Representative Rebecca Himschoot
Representative Andi Story
MEMBERS ABSENT
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
All members present
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
Representative CJ McCormick
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): EDUCATION AND ALASKA'S ECONOMY
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
BOB GRIFFIN, Senior Education Research Fellow
Alaska Policy Forum
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the PowerPoint on Education and
Alaska's Economy.
SARAH MONTALBANO, Education Policy Analyst
Alaska Policy Forum
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented the PowerPoint, titled
"Alaska's Education Landscape."
ACTION NARRATIVE
6:03:22 PM
CHAIR BEN CARPENTER called the joint meeting of the House
Special Committee on Ways and Means and the House Education
Standing Committee to order at 6:03 p.m. Present at the call to
order were: from the House Special Committee on Ways and Means,
Representative Carpenter, McCabe, Tilton, Gray, and Groh; from
the House Education Standing Committee, Representatives Prax,
Himshoot, and Story; and representing both committees,
Representatives Allard and McKay. Representative Ruffridge,
from the house Education Standing Committee, arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
^presentation(s): Education and Alaska's Economy
PRESENTATION(S): Education and Alaska's Economy
6:05:14 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER announced that the only order of business would
be the Education and Alaska's Economy presentation.
6:05:54 PM
BOB GRIFFIN, Senior Education Research Fellow, Alaska Policy
Forum (APF), presented the PowerPoint slideshow on Education and
Alaska's Economy [hard copy included in the committee packet].
He explained on slide 1 that he would present the beginning and
concluding parts of the presentation. He to slide 2 to provide
an overview of the presentation. He said he would speak on
emulating success by reviewing comparisons between Alaska,
Florida and Mississippi. He said that Florida and Mississippi
were selected since both states had passed legislation similar
to the Reads Act [signed into law July 2022]. He inficated that
the presentation would include a review of Alaska's K-12
funding, recommended improvements to the state's funding
formula, data on the state's educational outcomes, discussion
about choice in education and its fiscal benefits, and scenarios
related to the Alaska Correspondence School Allotment (CSAP).
6:07:38 PM
MR. GRIFFIN moved to slide 3 to share trends in education
results using National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
data. He reported that there were better results in 2022 than
there were in 2019. He said that APF tracks results by economic
strata because the forum determined that the brightness of a
child's mind is not determined by skin color. He expressed
concern that Alaska's eighth-grade reading scores were ranked
fifty-first in the nation.
6:08:42 PM
MR. GRIFFIN presented a chart on slide 4 showing a longitudinal
view of NAEP fourth grade reading test scores from low-income
students ranging from 2003 to 2022. He said low income is the
demographic that APF focuses on the most to close achievement
gaps. He pointed to the bottom of the chart, which shows the
longitudinal data of Alaska's ranking in fourth grade reading.
He further pointed to Mississippi's results that are highlighted
in yellow and noted that Mississippi was ranked second. He
stated that when Mississippi had enacted legislation like the
Alaska Reads Act, as well as legislation around school choice,
the state evolved rapidly. He said this is also the case for
Florida, which is highlighted in green. He shared that Oregon,
ranked fourth in the nation in 2022, had classified all their
students for free and reduced lunch, and that free and reduced
lunch students in Mississippi and Florida outperformed all kids
in the state of Oregon.
6:10:45 PM
MR. GRIFFIN moved to slide 5 to talk about NAEP scores for
Florida and Mississippi. He said that both states had
significant gains in 8th grade and math NAEP scores since 2003.
Further, 2020 advanced placement (AP) course results in Florida
showed that 34 percent of high school graduates passed at least
one AP test with three or higher, while in Anchorage, 14 percent
of students passed one AP test with three or higher.
6:11:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked if APF tracked Florida and
Mississippi's investment into early literacy. She relayed her
understanding that the states had invested significantly into
early learning for four-year-olds, which she said she thought
would be a big factor to educational growth.
MR. GIFFIN answered that APF did review early literacy
investments in Florida and Mississippi. He said that both
states have had such programs for a long time, and fully funded
them. He stated that Florida added a reading program prior to
implementing Pre-K and was first in the nation in low-income
fourth-grade reading before the Pre-K students were tested in
NAEP. He said it is difficult to say what impact the Pre-K is
having, but it was not the solution that got Florida to number
one in low-income fourth-grade reading.
6:13:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT inquired about the low-income fourth-
grade reading NAEP data. She highlighted that both Mississippi
and Florida included a retention section, which is for students
that are held back a grade. She asked if Mr. Griffin knows what
the student retention rates in the two states are and noted that
retention is not a part of the Alaska Reads Act. She stated,
"When we compare outcomes apples to their apples, some of their
apples are a year older and have a year more experience when
they took the fourth grade NAEP."
MR. GRIFFIN responded that he does not have the figures that
Representative Himshoot is seeking but relayed that the
retention rate in Florida has been stable but jumped in
Mississippi. He said the long-term effects have been overall
positive. He acknowledged that there are varying schools of
thought regarding student retention. An example is the damage
retention might have on a retained student, but conversely, low
literacy might also damage the student's self esteem at a later
age.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT pointed out that 20 percent of Alaska's
schools offer AP over Florida's 46 percent. She queried if it
would stand to reason that Florida would have a higher
completion rate on AP courses.
MR. GRIFFIN suggested that the difference stems from financial
incentives that are provided to schools in Florida for AP scores
three or higher. He said that incentives matter, in that if the
funding is tied to better outcomes, then students achieve better
outcomes.
6:16:02 PM
MR. GRIFFIN moved to slide 6 to present Alaska's overall 2022
NAEP test results compared to Florida's. In the graph, green
denotes scores that are within the top 10 and red denotes scores
that are in the bottom 10. He pointed out that Florida is doing
well in literacy but struggles with eighth grade math students
who are not enrolled in the free and reduced lunch program. He
said in 2003, Alaska was six points ahead of Florida in eighth
grade math students who were not enrolled in the free and
reduced lunch program, but now - in 2023 - Alaska is behind
Florida.
6:17:09 PM
MR. GRIFFIN moved to slide 7 to lay out school choice-related
programs that Mississippi and Florida created, which serve
193,000 students with seven programs. He highlighted Florida's
Family Empowerment Scholarship program and explained that 90
percent of funding to that program is used to help special needs
children attend private schools.
6:18:04 PM
MR. GRIFFIN moved to slide 8. He outlined Florida and
Mississippi kids with Greatest Gains: low-income students,
minority students, students with disabilities, and students with
limited English proficiency. Slide 9 provides data on Miami
Dade Public Schools (MDPS), 59 percent of the students are in
homes where English is not the only language. He explained
that, because of the outcome incentives that are provided in
Florida, 32,602 AP tests passed 3 or higher from MDPS's 51,910
juniors and seniors. He further explained that fourth Grade
NAEP reading scores from MDPS were six Points higher than
upper/middle income fourth Graders in Alaska.
6:19:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked Mr. Griffin for the reasons why he
chose Florida and Mississippi to use as comparisons.
MR. GRIFFIN answered that it is because Florida and Mississippi
are ranked one and two in low-income fourth grade reading
scores. He said early literacy for low-income students is one
of the fundamentals that are needed in order to close
achievement gaps between different groups. He said that,
because of the programs' success, they are important programs to
emulate.
6:20:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed his doubt that the committee is
meeting today to "poke holes" in Florida and Mississippi's
education programs. He observed that Alaska's students are in
the bottom 5 percent in all the NAEP data presented. He
suggested that Mr. Griffin picked the two states because they
have moved up in NAEP rankings. He said that even if one were
to pick states within the top 30, Alaska would still be failing
by comparison despite the amount of state spending.
6:21:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY asked if Mr. Griffin chose the states in
question because they had passed legislation like the Reads Act.
MR. GRIFFIN answered that's correct. He said the states also
have various other factors, like strong school choice programs.
6:22:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT highlighted slide 9. She asked if Mr.
Griffin is drawing a correlation or causation effect regarding
the 32,602 AP tests that passed three or higher.
MR. GRIFFIN answered that he is drawing neither correlation nor
causation. He added that the figure may be an interesting
correlation, but he would not assign causation to it.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked if there was a study conducted
around this figure.
MR. GRIFFIN responded no, and that it is just data. He said he
is unaware of a study that provides a causal link.
6:23:17 PM
MR. GRIFFIN returned to the presentation on slide 10. The slide
shows a bar chart of 2022 NAEP fourth grade reading scores
ranked by state and broken between low-income and upper/middle-
income students. Florida and Mississippi are highlighted in
yellow, the national average in green, MDPS in tan, and Alaska
in red.
6:24:05 PM
MR. GRIFFIN moved to slide 11. The slide shows 2021 K-12
spending per student in average daily attendance and adjusted
for price parity. He pointed to the middle bar chart, which
show 2021 regional price parities between states, and said the
red arrow on the chart shows that Alaska was at 104 percent of
the national average. He noted that Florida is at 101 percent,
and Mississippi, 86 percent. He said the chart on the right is
data from the chart on the left but corrected for the regional
price parities, which shows that Alaska is in the upper one-
third of the rankings. He noted despite all the education
expenditures, Florida and Mississippi are ranked near the bottom
in spending.
6:25:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked about the middle chart on slide 11.
He commented that, while there was no study done, he himself
could look at the data and determine that Mississippi spends the
least amount per student while being the highest ranked in
reading results. He said that Alaska, however, spends 104
percent of the average and yet is ranked among the lowest in
reading. He stated that this appears weird to him.
MR. GRIFFIN clarified that the middle bar chart reflects the
adjustment for price parity based on a chart from the U.S.
Bureau Economic Analysis, which determined that Alaska spent on
average 4.5 percent, and is ranked eighth in cost of living. He
said the data within the chart on the right of the slide derives
data from the chart in the center.
6:27:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY, drawing attention to the chart in the
center of the slide, asked whether the data has been adjusted
for geographic cost factors. She said that the Institute of
Social and Economic Research (ISER) had done a study on such
factors, which showed that Alaska is 7 percent under the
national average.
MR. GRIFFIN answered that the center chart does not account for
geographic cost factors, but nor does it account for the
personal tax burden for residents in Alaska.
6:27:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked if Mr. Griffin said the average cost
per student in Alaska is $20,484, which is shown on the left
side of the slide.
MR. GRIFFIN answered that the data is published by the National
Education Association (NEA), whose statisticians make apples to
apples comparisons for NEA members. He stated that NEA has no
vested interest in making one state look better or worse. He
explained that the $20,484 figure is for 2021 and is based upon
average daily attendance. He said it is a higher number than
other states. He stressed the importance of the figure; in that
it accounts for chronic absenteeism as well as other variables
that affect the number of kids being educated, and he said that
the cost is driven higher by chronic absenteeism.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD relayed that there are people in Alaska
that doubt the state funds education that high, but her
understanding is that the state does spend that much. She noted
that base student allocation (BSA) funding is not the only
source that schools receive funding from. She asked what
factors accounted for the $20,484 figure.
MR. GRIFFIN responded that NEA tracks total costs and provides a
satisfactory apple to apples comparison. He said NEA publishes
the data in the document "Rankings and Estimates."
6:30:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY pointed out, on slide 10, that Delaware
ranked higher than Alaska in low-income fourth grade reading
scores, and that Delaware ranked lower than Alaska in
upper/middle income fourth grade reading results. He commented
that Delaware underwent teaching methodology reform in reading
and had announced in 2019 greater efforts to address early
childhood education. Using the spending data on slide 11, he
pointed out that Delaware spends slightly less than Alaska, with
Delaware reported to have spent $18,503 per student compared to
Alaska's $20,484. He observed that Delaware is not as far apart
as Alaska, and does not have much of a rural population or many
factors that might drive up costs. He suggested that Delaware
would be a good state to review.
MR. GRIFFIN answered that he will investigate making a
comparison using Delaware.
6:31:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that when districts are
understaffed and unable to contact a family to inform them of
free and reduced lunch paperwork, the school does not stop
feeding the students; it just does not have the paperwork to
show the family is low income. She asked where Mr. Griffin got
the data that purports that the students on slide 10 are
considered upper/middle income.
MR. GRIFFIN responded that he assumed that all states are
equally motivated to ensure that students qualify for free or
reduced cost lunches apply for the program. He said that while
it may not be a valid assumption, he said the differences are
not dramatically different from state to state.
6:33:00 PM
MR. GRIFFIN moved to slide 12 to talk about K-12 spending
increases. The chart spans 2004-2022 and uses student in
average daily attendance data originating from the NEA ranking
and estimates report. He pointed out that Alaska is ranked at
about where the national average is. He commented that a few
years ago Alaska used to be further on the left side of the
chart but moved down in ranking due to flat funding. As for
Florida and Mississippi, the spending increases the states show
were not driven by increases in per-student spending. He
presented a chart of free and reduced lunch rates by state on
slide 13. He pointed out that Florida and Mississippi are at
the higher end of the chart. He moved to slide 14 to talk about
rural Alaska leading performance. He said this slide addresses
the thought that Alaska's poor performance is blamed on rural
Alaska, and whether there is truth to that idea. He said that
some rural schools in the state achieve exceptionally, but
conversely, the five largest schools in the state are all ranked
under fifteen in performance based on English language arts
proficiency - according to the most recent Alaska Star results.
He answered a question from a previous meeting regarding the
correlation to poverty rates and per-capita income and said
there is a correlation between a lower poverty rate city, and
higher performance. He commented that the state's five largest
schools are slightly above the state average - in a state that
is overall worst in the nation in English language arts
proficiency.
6:35:12 PM
MR. GRIFFIN moved to slide 15 and stated that the brightness of
a child's mind is not determined by their skin color. The slide
shows the annual estimates of people of color by state based on
resident population; the data originates from the U.S. Census
Bureau, and Alaska is ranked 15 with 38.1 percent. He presented
a graph on slide 16 that shows Alaska having a majority minority
student population. He said this similar shift has been
happening across the country and is an effect of future
generations no longer identifying as a single race. He said
that the largest growing ethnicity in the U.S. are people who
identify as two or more races.
6:36:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE referred to slide 12 regarding K-12
spending increases, he asked why the date range is 2014 to 2022.
He provided his understanding that the current foundation
formula was created several years before the dates selected.
MR. GRIFFIN explained that the dates were selected because they
are a baseline APF uses year over year. The figures are cross
referenced to NAEP test scores and explained that 2003 was the
first year Alaska fully participated in NAEP testing.
6:37:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD referred to Mr. Griffin's comments
regarding Alaska having high absenteeism and asked if he had
investigated the length of the school day in the state. She
provided her understanding that Alaska had the shortest school
day in the country.
MR. GRIFFIN answered that Alaska does indeed have one of the
shorter total hours of instruction in a school year in the U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked if it would be possible to add
additional days to the school year and offered 10 days as an
example. She further asked if he thought that would improve the
education of the state's children.
MR. GRIFFIN responded that he has not looked into that matter
specifically but said generally it seems that if students are in
school longer then they would have more opportunity to achieve.
6:39:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY highlighted the data slide 14 regarding AK
STAR performance. She shared that there is a school within the
Juneau School District that has a poverty rate of 66 percent,
but the graph reports a poverty rate of 7.2 percent. She asked
if Mr. Griffin has investigated the student growth in individual
schools that have a higher poverty rate within the larger
districts.
MR. GRIFFIN pointed out that poverty rates and free and reduced
lunch rates are different. He asked if she is referring to free
and reduced lunch rates in Juneau.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY relayed that free and reduced lunch is a
significant factor towards determining poverty rate.
MR. GRIFFIN explained that free and reduced lunch rate depends
on 185 percent poverty rate, as well as for Alaska, an
additional 25 percent is factored in. In Anchorage, the free
and reduced lunch rate is 50 percent, but the poverty rate is
9.1 percent.
6:40:52 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER provided his summation that the poverty rate
figures that are being presented are not free and reduced rates
based on community census.
MR. GRIFFIN answered that he does not have the chart that shows
free and reduced lunch rates for schools in the state in today's
presentation.
6:41:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH pointed to slide 12 and asked if the
spending increases are inflation adjusted or are being presented
in nominal dollars.
MR. GRIFFIN answered that the figures are in nominal dollars but
said that the rankings wouldn't change even if they were
adjusted for inflation.
6:42:02 PM
MR. GRIFFIN returned to the presentation on slide 17. He talked
about diversity and poverty within Anchorage, in that the city
is ranked the 71st largest city, 147th in overall diversity, and
182nd in language diversity; and of the 100 largest cities
Anchorage has the ninth lowest poverty rate while Miami is
ranked 16th. The data is sourced from U.S. Census data and the
Wallet Hub 2022 Survey. He showed a pie chart on slide 18
showing a comparison of Anchorage's entropy index to the U.S. in
2010. He said a study published in 2014 found that Anchorage
had the most diverse school districts in the country, which was
determined by using the entropy index data. He explained that
the chart on the left of the slide is sourced from page 377 of
the study titled "The Anchorage Mosaic." He pointed out that
the pie chart on the bottom, which represents the entire U.S.,
shows a small Native population represented as compared to
Alaska's pie chart.
6:44:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD referred to slide 18. She relayed her
understanding that there has been a great deal of talk around
Alaska being the most diverse state and asked Mr. Griffin if he
was conveying in the presentation that Alaska actually is not
the most diverse.
MR. GRIFFIN clarified that it is a matter of perspective and
technique for defining what poverty is. He said the technique
the author used established that, out of 131,000 schools across
the country, 27 of the 30 most diverse schools were in his
hometown.
6:45:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE noted that this was the second time he
had seen this presentation, and he asked for clarity as what
"the take home" is.
MR. GRIFFIN responded that the basic answer is that there are
examples of programs worthy of emulating in Alaska, which is why
APF compared Alaska with Florida and Mississippi, brought up the
challenges of K-12 expenditures, and discussed relative poverty
of other states compared with Alaska. He remarked that while
Alaska's challenges are "less" than other places, the state's
educational outcomes are "not where we want them to be." In
response to a follow-up request for clarification, he said while
Alaska has unique challenges, but in the categories outlines in
the presentation, the state's challenges are similar, equal, or
"quite a bit less" than in Florida and Mississippi. He further
clarified that Alaska students are less diverse, "slightly less
poor," and there is price parity in K-12 spending. He said per
student spending and challenges related to free and reduced
lunch rates are linked to student outcomes. He concluded that
as for Alaska's diversity, while he does not consider that a
challenge, it is a topic that is used as a rationalization for
"dismal student outcomes."
6:50:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD commented that the comparison between
Alaska, Florida, and Mississippi is relevant. She offered her
understanding that Mr. Griffin is trying to say, "There's no
excuse," and that Alaska should be higher in the education
ranking. She asked Mr. Griffin to share his involvement with
the Alaska Reads Act, and why the presentation is significant.
MR. GRIFFIN answered that he advocated and introduced the
legislation in 2015 and again in 2022, the year it passed. He
said the Act was based on other states that saw success with the
same legislation.
6:51:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY reverted to slide 12. He shared his
understanding from the slide that; Alaska has increased its
spending less than the national average over the last 15 years.
In addressing poverty comparisons, he stated, "I just would
think there are more people using honey buckets and outhouses in
Alaska than in Florida and Mississippi." He suggested that the
ways of measuring poverty may be different because Alaska is
different.
MR. GRIFFIN said he can't speak to that, only to the statistics
that are available.
6:53:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked how Mississippi and Florida
funded their versions of the Reads Act.
MR. GRIFFIN answered that they went through a process of
determining what elements of spending were the most important.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT inquired whether, after those states
passed their legislation, there was funding allocated to
implement the laws enacted.
MR. GRIFFIN answered that there was funding allocated.
6:53:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked Mr. Griffin if he had investigated
what the investments were in Florida, and what the rates of
teacher retention are.
MR. GRIFFIN said he can do research into those matters.
6:54:41 PM
SARAH MONTALBANO, Education Policy Analyst, Alaska Policy Forum,
co-presented the PowerPoint, titled "Alaska's Education
Landscape." She pointed to slide 19 to talk about overall
education spending in Alaska. She said that per-pupil spending
in Alaska was nominally $18,313 in 2020, but estimates range up
to $21,000 when considering averages across districts. Alaska
spent almost 50 percent more than the national average of
$13,494. She said that some figures may be misleading because
per pupil spending varies wildly between districts. The highest
being the Aleutian Region School District, which spent $104,556
per pupil as of the 2018 2019 school year, while the lowest was
Galena City School District, which spent $7,302 per pupil in
2018 2019. For urban reference, the Anchorage School District
spent $16,525 per pupil in 2018 and 2019. She reported that,
between 2002 and 2020, Alaska's total education expenditures
rose 32 percent per pupil after adjusting for inflation.
6:56:45 PM
MS. MONTALBANO moved to slide 19 and discussed cost of living
data. She said that a study by the Education Law Center found
Alaska's combined state and local revenues, after adjusting for
regional cost of living (COL) variations, funded more than
$2,000 per pupil or $17,544, above the national average of
$15,446 in the 2019 2020 school year. She pointed to the chart
on the right of the slide, which is a screenshot from the study,
and shows that Alaska is one of the few states in the ranking
that receives As and Bs exclusively in the different categories.
She said that Alaska received an A for the distribution of
funding that goes to high poverty districts. She explained that
the red line on the chart in the slide are the increases in
funding that the Education Law Center expects to see as poverty
rates increase. She said that many fall above the red line,
while districts below the line - the Galena School District and
the Nenana School District as examples - have a large
correspondence school presence. She reported that education
expenditures were 57 percent more in high poverty districts in
Alaska in 2020 than in low poverty districts, and further, that
low poverty districts were funded slightly less than the
national average by $14,715. She explained that Alaska is
putting proportionally more of GDP into education than the
national average by 4.42 percent while the national average is
3.5 percent. She said gross domestic product (GDP) declined 8
percent between 2008 and 2020, but PK-12 revenue increased 18
percent.
6:59:15 PM
MS. MONTALBANO moved to slide 21 to show a scatter plot on
spending of school districts. With the lowest per-pupil
spending at $5,000 and the highest at $40,000 and noted that
some school's spending falls outside of the presented plot. The
vertical axis of the graph represents percentage of students
proficient, ranging from 10 to 90 percent, with averages of math
and reading scores from the Alaska STAR exam; the average
statewide score is 39 percent proficient. She explained that
the circles represent public schools, and the plus signs
represent charter schools, and that the size of the circle
denotes enrollment size in the districts. Further, green means
the district is lower poverty while orange and red mean higher
poverty. She pointed to the Skagway School District as doing
the best on state standardized tests, with high spending when
compared to the other schools. In another example, she pointed
to five charter schools in the upper left section of the plot
that show they have low spending and high outcomes. She pointed
to the circle drawn on the left of the plot; the schools within
the circle are correspondence schools, and most are shown to
have higher student proficiency by 10-20 percent. She said the
trend that the plot illustrates is that higher spending doesn't
necessarily mean better outcomes.
7:03:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked, regarding the educational
outcomes data, what the source is.
MS. MONTALBANO explained that Georgetown Edunonmics Lab is using
data from the state's AK STAR assessment. In response to a
follow-up question, he confirmed that correspondence schools
have a 15 percent participation rate in statewide testing.
7:04:53 PM
MS. MONTALBANO, in response to Chair Carpenter, explained the
color gradients of green, yellow, and red on the scatter plot.
The greenest symbol means that district has the lowest poverty
of 0 percent, while the reddest is at 100 percent poverty rate.
In response to a follow-up remark regarding economically
disadvantaged families, she noted the chart also shows high
spending and low outcomes; therefore, the chart shows a trend
but does not prove a rule.
7:07:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked about the previous slide regarding
cost of living. She referred to the comment that Alaska is
putting proportionally more of GDP into education than the
national average, and said that the state shouldn't use that as
a metric because the price of oil sets the state's GDP based on
what years a person picks. An example, picking 2016-2021, 2021
was a high cost of oil input that grew the GDP by 27 percent.
She said that while the 2008-2020 education investment may have
totaled 4.42 percent; the percentage would be much different if
a different year range is used. She asked if the Education Law
Center chose the years on the slide.
MS. MONTALBANO answered that the 4.42 percent is from the
2019/2020 school year, and she said she will seek to verify
that.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY cautioned using that metric.
7:09:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD returned to slide 21 and thanked Ms.
Montalbano for including the Eagle Academy Charter School in the
data. She asked if APF considered analyzing the practices of
Alaska's charter schools. In example, Eagle Academy has uniform
dress codes, an hour longer school day, different academics, and
uses lottery enrollment.
MS. MONTALBANO answered that it is hard to disaggregate specific
charter school practices and define causality with the high
outcomes. She said that the main benefits of charter schools is
that their practices differ from public schools, but said
there's no way to attribute specific pieces of Eagle Academy's
high performance on the chart.
7:10:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE referred to Representative Himshoot's
comment regarding a 15 percent testing participation rate for
correspondence schooling. He asked if it could be assumed that
the 15 percent that did not take the state test were the lowest
performing students, or rather, if it is a negligible cross
section.
MS. MONTALBANO explained that the 15 percent participation rate
in AK STAR applies to correspondence school students. She said
that such students tend to opt-out of AK STAR testing at a
higher rate than public school students. She suggested that the
data could indicate that the state has an unrepresentative
sample size, in that, the data presents the best students who
are taking the test. She said that it is also possible that the
data is a sampling of students whose parents don't mind them
taking the test, so may not be linked to the brightest of the
correspondence school students; she noted that there is a low
sample size of the total correspondence school student
population.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated, "Conversely then, of course, it
could be that they're the top 15 percent that just figure it's
not worth their while to take the test and opt out of it as
well." He suggested that the results could be statistically
higher if the data is separating the population via cross
section.
MS. MONTALBANO deferred to the Alaska Department of Education
and Early Development (DEED) and its statisticians on the issue.
She commented that she does not personally see it as more or
less likely that the data represents the top 15 percent of
correspondence school students or that it represents the lowest
15 percent of such students. She suggested that the data is a
middle sampling of all the students.
7:13:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE inquired about the left side of the
graph on slide 21. He asked if the vertical axis of the graph
is supposed to be a proficiency percentage in math or reading.
MS. MONTALBANO explained that the performance percentage is an
average of the two subjects in all grades across the state.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE offered his understanding that, if the
districts circled on the left are correspondence schools, a key
component is class size. He shared that his class size was two
when he was homeschooled. He said it would help if there were
data in the graph that denotes class size, because he shares the
same understanding as Representative Carpenter, in that there is
an economic association; the districts circled on the graph have
a higher economic portfolio and possibly a small class size.
MS. MONTALBANO encouraged Representative Ruffridge to use the
Georgetown Edunomics Lab tool and adjust the district enrollment
size settings. She said that while it is not exactly data on
school size, it gives a perspective on how large the schools
are. Regarding class sizes, she said it is obvious that there
is larger enrollment, but she has not researched the class size,
and is unsure data is available in the tool. She said she will
follow up on the matter.
7:15:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked about the chart on slide 21; he
pointed out that most districts colored red are below the
average line, while the majority of the green colored districts
are above the average line. He said this implies that the major
change the state needs to make is to get the students out of
poverty. He further pointed out that the correspondence schools
on the chart are all green, which implies that the families who
have money send their children to charter schools. He said this
matter comes up in Anchorage frequently because, although anyone
is eligible in the lottery system, there is no bus service;
thus, the parents who can enroll their child in a charter school
need the flexibility to transport them to and from school. He
asked if it is correct that all the charter schools on the chart
are colored green.
MS. MONTALBANO called attention to several orange-colored
correspondence schools in the lower left of the chart, meaning
they have lower outcomes but with low spending. She noted there
are other lighter green colored districts elsewhere on the
chart.
7:17:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD stated, "I see what everybody is looking
in about the green, but I'm wondering if we had a slide that had
a flip, because I also see a lot of yellow and orange underneath
the green." She said that green is a prominent color.
7:18:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE responded to Representative Gray's
comments regarding charter school family flexibility; the
thought charter schools are doing well because the family can
afford to send the child to the school makes a great argument
for school vouchers. He suggested that if there were school
vouchers and school choice, all students could be sent to
charter schools and have a better outcome. He asked if his
statement is correct.
MS. MONTALBANO responded that the topic of school choice is
later in the presentation. As for charter school education
outcomes, she said APF has done studies showing that even when
comparing apples to apples in income levels, low-income students
in charter schools are performing better than low income
students in public schools. She stated that it would be a good
idea to expand charter school opportunities and have more seats
open because the seats are typically filled by lottery, meaning
that some students do not end up getting picked to enroll in the
school.
7:19:36 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER said he does not want his statements to be
misconstrued that he is agreeing to the move of spending more
money on schools where economically disadvantaged people live
and expecting better results. He said this moment is a good
example of why the joint meeting is being held today, and what
he is seeking to accomplish during this legislative session,
which is to end the "squabbles" over funding and to get the
economy going. In the case of an economically disadvantaged
school, in the lower right of the chart, it isn't the school
that does not receive enough money, it is the families. If the
members want to look at policy decisions that move the families
from the lower right of the graph, to the upper left, or from
red to green colored, then that is how economic growth impacts
families. He said there are many reasons why economically
disadvantaged individuals may not be participating enough with
their kids in school or taking ownership in the schooling, one
of which is because the parents are working all the time at a
low-wage job. He suggested that instead of squabbling over how
much money the state should parse out, members talk about how
the economy can grow so that everyone has an advantage. He said
the chart on slide 21 shows that one of the problems Alaska has
faced has been economic disadvantage.
7:21:30 PM
MS. MONTALBANO returned to the presentation on slide 22. She
explained that she put the slide's chart together with data from
the NEA, who have K-12 spending estimate reports. She said she
used 2002 as the baseline because that is as far back as NEA's
estimates go. She explained that the data looks at expenditures
per-pupil by average daily attendance (ADA). All expenses are
considered current expenditures, excluding capital outlay and
interest on school debt, which she said are highly variable from
year to year. She said the blue bars represent current
expenditures for its respective year per student and average
daily attendance. The gold bars represent current expenditures
ADA would have been with adjustments upward for the annual urban
Alaska consumer price index non-seasonally adjusted; the annual
rate data originates from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
She said that the chart illustrates that from 2002 to 2008
Alaska saw inflation outpacing what schools were receiving in
funding. She said that due to formula changes in 2008 to 2009,
Alaska jumped $5,000 dollars, and the state's actual ADA stayed
well above what it would have been if keeping pace with 2002
inflation. This was until 2021 when Alaska was 22 percent
higher than the inflation rate due to formula changes. She said
that the black line on the chart represents fourth grade reading
NAEP scores; she explained that the line shows that the state
got an average score of 212 in 2003 to 204 in 2020, and that 10
score points equates to a year of educational attainment. She
said that while education spending was increased during 2003 to
2020, eight points were still lost.
7:24:25 PM
MS. MONTALBANO moved to slide 23 to explain that over the same
time period, 2003 to 2020, school administration overtook
teacher growth. She said that, while administration is
important for school leadership, investing directly in high
quality teachers is what matters most for student performance,
and that in 2021 there were four teachers for every five staff
members performing other functions, the lowest ratio over the
time period. She stated that school district administrators
grew 17.7 percent between 2008 and 2019 while the number of
teachers declined 5.8 percent, and that 2008 was when the
funding formula adjustments were made. She relayed that a
conventional explanation is that compliance costs, especially at
the federal level, have increased. She said however that Alaska
is not unique in administration growth, in that staff per
student doubled in 30 years, 1970 to 1999.
7:25:57 PM
MS. MONTALBANO discussed the state education funding formula
while on slide 24. Base Student Allocation, or BSA, is the
amount allocated to each student before adjustments to average
daily membership (ADM) She explained that ADM is an enrollment
average counted through 20 days in October of each year. She
further explained that ADM adjustment factors include
multipliers for school size, district cost, special needs,
career and technical education, intensive needs, and
correspondence school students; the formula is BSA times AADM
equals basic need. Basic need is paid in part by required local
contributions [for an organized borough or municipality] and
deductible federal impact aid, while the rest is paid by the
state. She referred to the Citizen's Guide to K-12 Funding in
Alaska, which states that "63% of school district budgeted
revenue is from the State." She said 63 percent is unusually
high compared to the rest of the country, where it is typically
around 47 percent contributed by the state.
7:27:27 PM
MS. MONTALBANO moved to slide 25. She stated that the BSA isn't
the whole picture of education funding. From the aforementioned
guide, she read, "Even with no change in the BSA [since Fiscal
Year (FY) 08], changes in the adjustment factors would have
increased K 12 funding by 34 percent." She explained that
inflation since 2008 was 39 percent, and the BSA rose 10.22
percent since 2008; thus, increases in adjustment factors plus
increases in BSA would meet or exceed inflation. She outlined
what is funded on top of the formula: one-time grants from the
legislature, federal grants, pupil transportation funds from
state, voluntary local contributions from district [19 districts
do not contribute any required or voluntary local
contributions], state contributions to the Alaska Public
Employees' Retirement System (PERS) and Teachers' Retirement
System (TRS), school debt reimbursement, and the Regional
Education Attendance Area (REAA) Fund
7:29:07 PM
MS. MONTALBANO moved to slide 26 to address Alaska's school
choice options; she said they are not treated equally under the
current funding formula. She relayed that students in a
correspondence school allotment program are counted as 90
percent of the BSA for the district under the foundation
formula, and while such students are 16.5 percent of all Alaskan
students, the schools account for less than 5.3 percent of total
funding. She explained that the correspondence school student
total is subtracted from ADM at the beginning and multiplied by
0.9. She said that families get about a $2,500 allotment, which
varies by school, but still less than half of the $5,960 BSA.
She pointed out that correspondence students with identified
special needs aren't given additional funding. She said
Alaska's charter schools are given an amount proportionate to
enrollment, but up to 4 percent of those costs are retained by
the school district for administration. She said that charter
capital and facilities aren't funded fairly, but said that
charter schools do have right of first refusal in purchasing
retired school district buildings that are deemed safe. She
explained that charter school construction, leasing, and
maintenance grant programs are not currently being funded.
7:31:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY pointed to slide 23 and asked for the
definition Ms. Montalbano is using for the word
"administration." She said DEED reported that school district
administration is at 2 percent in Alaska.
MS. MONTALBANO explained that the data being used is national
statistics.
She said the data is hyperlinked on the slide, and within the
links are the definitions of people who are counted as
officials, administrators, or administrative support staff.
7:32:47 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER asked Representative Story where the information
is that states that administration is 2 percent of the costs in
Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY answered that it was presented to the House
Education Standing Committee. She said she is willing to
provide the materials to the committee.
7:33:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked about a quote on slide 25, "Even
with no change in the BSA, since FY 08, changes in the
adjustment factors would have increased K 12 funding by 34%."
He said he has read the Citizen's Guide to K12 Funding in Alaska
and does not recall this statement. He asked where the quote
originated.
MS. MONTALBANO answered that this came from the legislative
finance 2023 version and is at the bottom of page 6.
7:34:36 PM
MS. MONTALBANO, in response to a query from Representative
Himschoot about Alaska not having counties and what the total
state spending is in schools in other states, answered that
Alaska is unique, especially with 19 school districts that are
not in an organized borough or municipality and do not have
local contribution.
7:35:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX referred to slide 25 and provided his
understanding that it would have taken a specific statutory
change to adjust the formula. The special needs factor, as an
example, increases the BSA by 20 percent per district. HFY said
he does not recall any changes since FY 08.
7:36:43 PM
MR GRIFFIN answered that the intensive needs factor in FY 08 was
5, but is now 13.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX commented that intensive needs go by "per
student," while special needs and career technical education
applies to the whole school. He asked for more information
regarding that side of the formula.
7:37:24 PM
MS. MONTALBANO explained that said that more information about
intensive needs funding and changes to ADM will be later in the
presentation.
7:37:45 PM
MS MONTALBANO, in response to a question from Representative
McCabe regarding whether unorganized boroughs receive additional
funding from the federal government compared to organized
boroughs, said she is unsure whether there is a net funding gain
in rural districts. She said that the rural schools get more
federal impact aid to offset the absence of property tax revenue
on federal lands.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE relayed his advocacy attempt to organize
the unorganized boroughs; he said the argument against has been
that it will cost the state more money if the boroughs are
organized because the impact aid will be lost. He stated that
the county versus borough argument does not make sense.
7:40:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY shared that the state gets $77 million in
impact aid. Regarding 90 percent correspondence student
allotment, she said that is because they have access to brick-
and-mortar school activities, classes, and special education
services. She shared that in Juneau, the local school district
is required to service special education and share services.
7:40:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE pointed to slide 25 and spoke to the
adjustment factors since 2008, he asked if the one adjusted
factor was intensive needs.
MS. MONTALBANO explained that there was a gradual increase in
the intensive needs factor, going to a multiple of 5 in 2008 to
a multiple of 13 several years later. She said the other change
was that there was reinstatement of the hold harmless provision,
which insulates school districts from changes in membership
after adjusting for school size, which previously had a
threshold of 10 percent enrollment loss in order to receive it.
7:42:40 PM
MS. MONTALBANO returned to the presentation on slide 27. She
explained that Alaska's charter school laws are the third most
restrictive nationwide due to inequitable funding,
administrative costs, as well as facilities and transportation
funding. She explained that Alaska lacks multiple authorizers,
making the local school district board the only place for a
charter school to get authorized; whereas other states use
statewide charter authorizing boards instead.
7:43:29 PM
MS. MONTALBANO moved to slides 28 and 29 to provide the
following recommendations to improve the education funding
formula: End incentives to keep inefficient facilities in large
communities; end or increase threshold for hold harmless
provision; incentivize improvement in outcomes; stop incentive
to over identify intensive needs students; count ADM across the
year rather than a non-representative 20-day period in October;
count correspondence students equally and allow eligibility for
certain weights; and give correspondence students with intensive
special needs a similar weighting.
7:44:14 PM
MR. GRIFFIN discussed a recommendation on slide 30 regarding
bond debt reimbursement. He said there is a loophole that
incentivizes large districts to maintain small and inefficient
facilities. For example, the Anchorage School District has
built out capacity to serve 53,000 students while projections
and calculations show that the district will be at 37,000
students or less if charter schools do not grow by 2027, and yet
the small facilities are kept open because of the loophole. He
said that bond debt reimbursement should be allowed to continue
but only for rapidly growing districts near capacity.
7:45:28 PM
MR. GRIFFIN moved to slide 31 to talk about recommended changes
to the hold harmless provision. He said that there were impacts
observed when districts "doubled-dipped" into their COVID-19
Relief funding, in that, the state is, "essentially
incentivizing schools to not work hard to keep parents in their
programs, if the parents leave, then we are essentially paying
them for not educating a kid."
7:46:04 PM
MS. MONTALBANO moved to slide 32 to discuss the recommendation
to incentivize outcomes in formula. She shared that Tennessee
overhauled its school funding formula in 2022, which provided
for per student bonuses based on: third grade English language
arts (ELA) scores, fourth grade ELA growth, eighth grade math
scores, ACT scores plus improvements from previous tests, and
high schoolers graduating with industry credentials. Florida
provides a 0.16 bonus to ADM for districts and a direct to
teacher bonus for each high school student passing an AP exam
with a three or higher. She offered a summary of the slide, in
that the state should be rewarding schools that are getting
results, and incentivizing behaviors the state wants.
7:47:36 PM
MS. MONTALBANO moved to slide 33 to provide a recommendation on
intensive needs weighting. She compared that: in FY 08 there
were 1,877 intensive needs students, which after AADM totaled
9,385; while in FY 23 there were 3,282 intensive needs students,
which after AADM calculated to 41,666. She said the 13 times
multiplier is not representative of the actual costs of these
students because Alaska lumps together students with
disabilities, English language learners, and gifted and talented
students.
7:48:45 PM
MS. MONTALBANO moved to slide 34 to provide recommendations on
correspondence students. She shared that correspondence
students should also receive funding weights for special
education and career and technical education (CTE) because the
students in the programs either have special needs or are in a
CTE program. She said that correspondence students with
intensive needs should receive weights to their allotment like
intensive needs students in traditional district schools. In
example, an allotment multiplier of 10 would allow parents to
choose between providers while the state would realize cost
savings of three BSAs per intensive needs student using the
allotment instead of traditional public school. She noted that
Florida's Family Empowerment Scholarship Program lets parents
choose private sector options, or a public school outside of
their zoned area, that better suits their child's needs with up
to 90 percent of state special education funding.
7:49:42 PM
MS. MONTALBANO moved to slide 35 to provide a recommendation
regarding the state's school size funding multiplier. She
explained that schools that have under 20 students receive a
flat multiplier of 39.6 for all the students. She further
explained that schools with more than 750 students are penalized
with a 0.4 multiplier for every student above 750. She said
that schools with students above 250 students are around where
one could see the "tipping point," in that the district receives
less, in ADM, per additional student than the actual number of
students. She elaborated the intent of the funding formula,
which is to help rural districts with its costs; she said she
does not doubt those costs, but pointed out that large school
districts have incentives to exploit the formula to keep large
inefficient facilities open. She said the median school size in
Alaska is 177 students, which have a weight of 1.08. She
explained that the lowest tier multiplier, enrollment of 1-20
students, applies to 63 of Alaska's 513 schools, and there are
only 26 schools being down weighted for having over 750
students. She suggested that one way to address this matter is
to create a simple whole number weight for schools below 50
students and eliminate higher tiers, or, alternatively,
districts above a certain number of students should not be
eligible for the school size multiplier.
7:51:46 PM
MR. GRIFFIN moved to slide 36 to talk about the state's ADM. He
relayed that Alaska has a 29 percent rate of chronic
absenteeism, which is when a student misses 15 days of school,
which he said is highest in the U.S. He compared the funding
formula to California, in that California has a 12 percent
chronic absenteeism rate. Further, the City of Los Angeles has
a 13 percent rate while the City of Kenai is at 33 percent. He
suggested that there be a change in the ADM calculation to
create attendance accountability and said there is data that
suggests a budget based upon actual daily membership had lower
rates of chronic absenteeism.
7:52:49 PM
MS. MONTALBANO moved to slides 37 and 38 to discuss the types of
school choice. She explained that Alaska has: traditional
neighborhood public schools; public homeschooling/correspondence
schools; independent homeschooling; private schools; public
charter schools; and technical education/magnet schools. She
noted that 32 states have programs that allow funding to follow
the student in 2023.
7:53:26 PM
MS. MONTALBANO moved to slide 39 and said that Alaska students
benefit from choice. She said that, through public record
requests, they collected 2017 to 2019 Performance Evaluation for
Alaska's Schools (PEAKS) data; she said that Students in
Alaska's charter schools performed better than students enrolled
in Alaska's traditional public schools regardless of ethnicity,
gender, or subgroup. She noted that Alaska scored the highest
nationally for value added learning gains in Education Freedom
Index (EFI) Charter School Ecosystem Rankings.
7:54:04 PM
MS. MONTALBANO moved to slide 39 and said that states benefit
academically from school choice. She explained that, using the
EFI, there is a positive and significant association between
education freedom, measured by EFI, and outcomes in the form of
higher NAEP achievement and gains in scores. She said Alaska
ranked 42 on the 2000 EFI and dropped to 49 in 2019. She
relayed a quote, "Both the geography and the public policies of
Alaska leave its families nearly void of educational options
beyond their assigned public school." She moved to slide 41 to
talk about the meta-analysis of school choice. She noted that
most of the studies that are in the presentation had attributed
school choice having a positive effect on academic performance
and parental satisfaction.
7:55:16 PM
MS. MONTALBANO moved to slide 42 to talk about how states
fiscally benefit from school choice. She shared that EdChoice
estimates per student savings of $3,300 to $7,500, or $12.4
billion to $28.3 billion in savings generated through FY 18 for
the State of Arizona and local taxpayers from the state's ESA
program. Further, she said for each dollar spent on private
choice programs, on average, EdChoice estimated fiscal savings
of $1.80 to $2.85.
7:55:47 PM
MR. GRIFFIN moved to slide 43 and 44 to speak on Alaska's most
popular choice program, which is Alaska's Correspondence School
Allotment (CSAP) with 20,927 Students in FY 23 that received 90%
of the BSA.
7:56:03 PM
MR. GRIFFIN showed slide 45, which showed the overall
expenditures of CSAP. He explained that statewide FY 23 K-12
expenditures were $2.103 billion, accounting for 126,553
children. He pointed out that non-correspondence students drive
per-student funds available, providing $18,852 per student; he
said there are 105,626 students in this category. He said that,
adjusted for 2022 dollars, districts received $4,000 more in
funding per non-correspondence student in FY 23 than in FY 05.
7:56:45 PM
MR. GRIFFIN presented hypothetical scenarios on slide 46. He
said, while on slide 47, the scenarios cover; if the state were
to restrict correspondence allotment, encourage correspondence
allotment, or add an intensive needs option. He returned to
slide 45 and posed a hypothetical: if the state were to restrict
correspondence schools entirely and put all 20,927 CSAP children
back to brick-and-mortar schools, the move would generate $162
million in additional funding formula costs and a decrease of
$257/year in overall per student funding. On slide 48 is a
scenario where the state encouraged correspondence schools; the
state would need to change CSAP allotment to 1.215 BSA instead
of 0.9, which would raise the CSAP allotment to $7,241. If CSAP
enrollment increases to pandemic levels of 21.8 percent, the
state would save $87.6 million in the funding formula, and with
the $52.6 million increase in correspondence funding, the net
savings would be $35 million, and non-correspondence per student
funding would go up $387.
7:58:07 PM
MR. GRIFFIN moved to slide 49 to discuss the state adding an
intensive needs option. Modeled after the family empowerment
scholarship program from Florida, if the state were to provide
10x BSA for intensive needs for CSAP, and if 20 percent of
intensive needs families choose a CSAP provider, there would be
$13.7 million in annual savings to the funding formula. He said
it would also incentivize districts to be attentive to students
and parents.
7:58:37 PM
MR. GRIFFIN concluded on slide 50 to outline takeaways from
today's presentation: Incentives matter; outcomes are on the
rise but far from acceptable; improvement is within reach; more
money doesn't equate to better results if it's not focused; the
state poorly allocates resources, spending money on buildings
and bureaucracies; funding formula flaws divert resources from
teachers and students; and Alaska's charter schools could be
even better with fewer restrictions. He said that healthy
competition improves outcomes and fiscal efficiency.
7:59:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE referred to slide 21 and recalled the
talk around class sizes. He said the committee has discussed a
great deal about Florida at today's meeting. He offered his
understanding that in the early 2000s, Florida passed a
constitutional amendment on school class sizes, and funded the
mandated size with over $50 billion in the span of 20 years. He
asked why class sizes were not discussed at today's
presentation, and if Mr. Griffin could speak on the topic.
MR. GRIFFIN answered that APF is open to returning to a future
meeting to discuss class sizes. He pointed out that despite
Florida's spending increase in order to reduce class sizes, the
state was able to keep its budget in a "pretty tight range"
compared to Alaska.
8:00:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT commented about Finland's education
system. She shared that in the 1980s the country had doubled
down in public education, and while it does not have school
choice, it is a top education outcome performer. She asked Mr.
Griffin about Finland's example.
MR. GRIFFIN said that in a previous presentation that APF gave
in March, it was pointed out that though Finland does not have
school choice, many of the other top ten highest Programme for
International Student Assessment [PISA] test scoring performing
districts are school choice countries in Western Europe.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked Mr. Griffin to talk about APF's
background.
MR. GRIFFIN explained that APF is a non-partisan think tank as
part of the State Policy Network (SPN), which include about 70
other think tanks across the U.S. He shared that he is a
volunteer and is not familiar with the funding part of APF.
8:02:28 PM
MS. MONTALBANO commented that APF does not accept any sources of
government funding. She said that APF is a non-profit non-
partisan think tank based in Anchorage.
8:02:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked Mr. Griffin what he is offering
from today's presentation that solves a problem that isn't
solved by buttressing Alaska's public schools.
MR. GRFFIN answered that he is pointing to statistics that
Alaska does poorly on things that the state wants to do better
on. Further, he sought to point to examples of places that do
educationally well with fewer resources. He referred to slide
50 that incentives matter, and that healthy competition improves
outcomes and fiscal efficiency is a strong correlation that can
be drawn from today's presentation.
8:03:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD commented that, as a person that has kids
enrolled in a school district, she appreciates today's
presentation. She said she learned that though the state may be
funding a lot toward education, Mississippi and Florida are
shown to be successful, especially with both states implementing
their own versions of the Reads Act. She said that she has
figured out that economic growth is directly tied to the
education system.
8:05:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY referred to slides 22, regarding spending
outpacing inflation, and 12 on K-12 spending increases. He said
he likes slide 12 because it shows that, from 2004 to 2022, the
state's increase was less than the national average. In looking
at the black line on slide 22, it was 212 in 2003. He pointed
out that the average score for the nation was 217, and so Alaska
was less than the national average then. He offered his overall
message of the presentation: spend more money on education, but
education is not doing well in Alaska and other states have done
well with less; and so instead of spending more money, Alaska
should do what Florida did, so the state doesn't need to spend
more money. He said while Alaska has not met the national
average in NAEP scores, like when outcomes are going badly in
other industries, the money is not cut. He gave an example, if
crime goes up in a city, the state wouldn't tell the police that
it will give them less money until crime goes down. He shared
that that is what the message is in the presentation. He said
that in the face of lowering test scores, the state should throw
something at the issue to improve education outcomes. He said
the presentation offers the solution of just trying charter
school or options from other states. He stressed that hiring
and attracting teachers in Alaska, as well as getting better
outcomes, will require money. He asked Mr. Griffin if he is
saying that Alaska does not need more money to raise the average
test score.
MR. GRIFFIN stated that Alaska has poorly allocated K-12
resources, and that by retargeting the money and incentivizing
better outcomes, it is possible [to improve outcomes] without a
lot of increase in spending.
8:08:25 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER pointed out on slide 50 that none of the
takeaways call for a decrease in funding.
MR. GRIFFIN responded that he has not advocated or endorsed
reducing spending in K-12 education.
8:08:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY referred to Ms. Montalbano's comments that
APF is a non-partisan entity and said that he has the list of
associated networks. He named: The Goldwater Institute,
Americans for Prosperity, the American Conservative Union
Foundation, Americans for Tax Reform, the Cato Institute, and
the Charles-Koch Institute. He said the entities do not appear
non-partisan to him. With the presentation stated to be non-
partisan, and him believing it is partisan, he asked Ms.
Montalbano whether it is; and if it isn't, to explain why.
8:09:41 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER commented that there are plenty of organizations
that fall into the Internal Revenue Service's definition of
"partisan." He said each member is going to have an opinion on
what is partisan or not. Further, each member is going to have
an opinion whether one's activities fall into another's
political beliefs or not and may draw conclusions on what is
partisan; but APF fits the IRS's definition of non-partisan. He
said it is not fair to criticize the APF, in that, when they say
they are non-partisan, they are meeting the requirements of the
IRS to maintain status as a non-partisan organization. He said
that APF is not a political party and is neither advocating for
a particular party nor advocating nor advocating for a a
solution for which a political party is advocating. He said he
fails to see what APF's partisanship status has to do with
today's presentation.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY thanked Chair Carpenter for the definition
of non-partisan. He apologized for the comment.
8:10:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE spoke on slide 12 and said that an
increase in spending is not total spending, it is rather how
much the state increases. He said he is not sure that class
size is relevant to the discussion but would welcome a
discussion on the topic regarding outcomes to the class. He
spoke about a fraction of the BSA actually being spent on
educating students. He opined that a better way needs to be
found in how to increase student outcomes by increasing teacher
pay. Further, he called for a return to a repealed 2016 law,
which mandated that 70 percent of school funding go to funding
teachers.
8:13:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed her concern on the understanding
around intensive needs funding, and that DEED should speak on
that.
CHAIR CARPENTER concurred with Representative Story's comment in
that more information would be helpful.
8:14:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH offered his understanding of Representative
McCabe's comments, in that it sounds like he wants to increase
teacher compensation. He said he himself could introduce him to
people that could talk to him about defined benefits for
teachers.
8:15:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX spoke about the Fairbanks North Star Borough
School district, increasing numbers in correspondence school
attendance,, and the importance of having a discussion about
allowing parental choice.
CHAIR CARPENTER said he has had similar discussions with
administrators and hasn't yet received an answer that the school
district within his district understands why parents are
choosing to leave.
8:16:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY shared that the Juneau School District has
the Tlingit Culture Language Literacy program, Montessori,
Charter School, HomeBRIDGE, and the neighborhood schools. She
said that a statistic, according to DEED, is that 83 percent of
students are in brick-and-mortar schools, and 17 percent are in
correspondence.
8:17:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX commented that another matter APF should
investigate is the "Molly Hootch settlement" [Tobeluk v. Lind],
which he said drives Alaska school system spending.
8:17:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE relayed that he has had discussions with
school administrators, who said that 74 percent of the money
spent goes to instruction. He said that the current definition
of "instruction" includes all the buildings in Kodiak and Mt.
Edgecumbe as well as the administrative costs. He sent a
request to have such costs taken out to find out how much money
is actually going to schools and said he has yet to receive a
reply. He also brought up the subject of false report cards.
8:19:04 PM
MR. GRIFFIN, regarding 17 percent of parents enrolling their
children in correspondence programs, said the easiest thing to
do as a parent is to stick the kid out at a bus stop and six and
a half hours later come back and pick them up. He said the fact
Alaska has a large percentage of parents "doing the hard thing"
sends a strong message.
8:19:31 PM
MS. MONTALBANO referred to a study by EdChoice, which she
summarized states that "what parents desire is not always what
they are able to do," in that when there are more choice
options, parents are able to utilize those options better, and
their behavior aligns with their preferences. She said the
biggest takeaway from today's presentation is that incentives
matter. She said the presentation has shown examples of how
other states have changed their state funding formulas to reward
what the state wants to see. She clarified that that does not
mean the state needs to spend less overall, but rather to target
funding to improve outcomes. She stated that it is a travesty
that many of Alaska's students are not at a basic level in
reading proficiency, and that APF wants 100 percent of students
to reach 100 percent of their potential.
8:21:02 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Ways and Means meeting was adjourned at
8:21 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Joint House Ways and Means, Education Presentation.pdf |
HW&M 3/15/2023 6:00:00 PM |
Education Funding |
| Follow-Up From Alaska Policy Forum 3-15-23 Presentation.pdf |
HW&M 3/15/2023 6:00:00 PM |