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.
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: Co-presented the PowerPoint, titled
"Alaska's Education Landscape."
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 a presentation on Education and Alaska's Economy.
6:05:54 PM
BOB GRIFFIN, Senior Education Research Fellow, Alaska Policy
Forum (APF), co-presented the PowerPoint, titled "Alaska's
Education Landscape" [hard copy included in the committee
packet]. He provided an overview of the presentation which
covered education comparisons between Alaska, Florida, and
Mississippi. He stated that Florida and Mississippi were used
because both states had passed legislation similar to the Alaska
Reads Act. He continued that the presentation would also cover
a review of Alaska's K-12 funding; recommendations to the
state's funding formula; data on the state's educational
outcomes; educational choice and its fiscal benefit; 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 data from the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP). He reported that there were better results in
2022 than in 2019. He said that APF tracks results by economic
strata. He expressed that the forum believes 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 moved to slide 4 which shows a chart of NAEP fourth
grade reading test scores from low-income students from across
the country. The chart covers 2003 to 2022. He said that APF
focuses on low-income students with the goal of closing
achievement gaps. He further pointed to Mississippi's results
and noted it was ranked second. He stated that when Mississippi
had enacted legislation similar to the Alaska Reads Act, as well
as legislation around school choice, the state evolved rapidly.
He added that this is also the case for Florida. He shared that
Oregon, ranked fourth in the nation in 2022, has classified all
its students for free and reduced lunch. He pointed out that
the free and reduced lunch students in Mississippi and Florida
have outperformed all students in Oregon.
6:10:45 PM
MR. GRIFFIN moved to slide 5 and addressed the NAEP scores for
Florida and Mississippi. Both states have had significant gains
in eighth grade math NAEP scores since 2003. Furthermore, 2020
advanced placement (AP) course results in Florida showed that 34
percent of high school graduates passed at least one AP test
with a score of 3 or higher, while in Anchorage, 14 percent of
students passed one AP test with a score of 3 or higher.
6:11:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY questioned whether APF has tracked Florida
and Mississippi's investment into early literacy. She expressed
the understanding that these states invest significantly into
early learning for four-year-old students. She expressed the
opinion that this would be a big factor in educational growth.
MR. GRIFFIN answered that both Florida and Mississippi have
invested in and funded early literacy for a long time. He
stated that Florida had added a reading program prior to
implementing Pre-K, and it was the first in the nation in low-
income fourth grade reading. He added that it is difficult to
establish the impact of Pre-K; moreover, Pre-K was not the
solution which moved Florida to number one in low-income fourth-
grade reading.
6:13:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT, concerning the low-income fourth grade
reading data, pointed out that the data for both Mississippi and
Florida include a retention section for students who were held
back a grade. She questioned the two states retention rates and
noted 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 this data; however,
he relayed that the retention rate in Florida has been stable,
while it has jumped in Mississippi. He added the long-term
effects have been overall positive, acknowledging there are
varying schools of thought regarding student retention. He gave
the example that some students may be damaged from retention,
but conversely, low literacy may also damage the student's self
esteem at a later age. In response to a follow-up question, he
suggested that the difference in the AP success rate between
Alaska and Florida stems from Florida's financial incentives
provided for AP scores of 3 or higher. He expressed the opinion
that incentives matter, and if the funding is tied to better
outcomes, then students would 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. 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 in 2023 Alaska was
behind Florida.
6:17:09 PM
MR. GRIFFIN moved to slide 7 to lay out the programs Mississippi
and Florida have created related to school choice. He said
these states serve 193,000 students with 7 programs. He
highlighted Florida's Family Empowerment Scholarship program and
explained that 90 percent of funding to this 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 students who had the largest gains. This includes
low-income students, minority students, students with
disabilities, and students with limited English proficiency. He
pointed out the Miami Dade Public Schools (MDPS) in Florida has
59 percent of students living in homes where English is not the
only language. He expressed the understanding that, because of
the outcome incentives provided in Florida, MDPS had 51,910 of
juniors and seniors pass AP tests with a score of 3 or higher.
He further explained that fourth grade NAEP reading scores from
MDPS were 6 points higher than upper middle-income fourth
graders in Alaska.
6:19:24 PM
MR. GRIFFIN, in response to a committee question, answered that
Florida and Mississippi were chosen because of the good ranking
in low-income fourth grade reading scores. He said that early
literacy for low-income students is one of the fundamentals
needed to close achievement gaps between different groups. He
said that, because of these programs' success rates, they are
important programs to emulate.
6:20:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed 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 of all the NAEP data presented. He
suggested that the two states were picked 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
MR. GRIFFIN, responding to a committee question, said that these
states were chosen because they had also passed legislation like
the Alaska Reads Act. He said the states also have various
other factors, like strong school choice programs.
6:22:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT questioned whether a correlation or
causation was drawn regarding the 32,602 students who passed AP
tests with a score of 3 or higher.
MR. GRIFFIN answered that neither correlation nor causation is
being assumed. He added that the figure may be an interesting
correlation, but he would not assign causation to it. In
response to a follow-up question, he stated there has not been a
study conducted on this figure; it is just data without a causal
link.
6:23:17 PM
MR. GRIFFIN stated that slide 10 shows a bar chart of 2022 NAEP
fourth grade reading scores ranked by state and broken down
between low-income and upper middle-income students. He moved
to slide 11, which shows the 2021 K-12 spending per student,
adjusted for price parity. He pointed out that the middle bar
chart shows 2021 regional price parities between states, and the
red arrow on the chart shows Alaska was at 104 percent of the
national average. He noted that Florida is at 101 percent and
Mississippi is at 86 percent. He said the chart on the right
corrects for the regional price parities, which shows 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
MR. GRIFFIN, in response to a committee question, 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 University of Alaska Anchorage has
done a study on these factors, and it shows that Alaska is 7
percent under the national average.
MR. GRIFFIN stated that the center chart does not account for
geographic cost factors, and it does not account for the
personal tax burden for residents in Alaska.
6:27:53 PM
MR. GRIFFIN, in response to Representative Allard, confirmed
that the average cost per student in Alaska is $20,484, and this
is published by the National Education Association (NEA), whose
statisticians make apples-to-apples comparisons for its members.
He added 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 based on the average daily attendance (ADA). He
said it is a higher number than other states and stressed its
importance, as it accounts for chronic absenteeism, as well as
other variables which affect the number of students being
educated. He expressed the opinion that cost would be driven
higher by chronic absenteeism.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD commented on the amount the state spends
on school funding. She noted that the funding for the base
student allocation (BSA) is not the only source of funds schools
receive. She questioned the factors which account for the
$20,484 figure.
MR. GRIFFIN responded that NEA tracks total costs and provides a
satisfactory apples-to-apples comparison. He added that NEA
publishes this data.
6:30:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY pointed out on slide 10 that Delaware is
ranked higher than Alaska in low-income fourth grade reading
scores, while 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, as Delaware
spends $18,503 per student compared to Alaska's $20,484 per
student. He observed that Delaware has a small rural population
and not many factors to 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 expressed the understanding that when
districts are understaffed and not able to provide paperwork on
free and reduced lunch programs, the school would not stop
feeding the students; it just does not have the paperwork on the
low-income students. She questioned whether data shows that
students on slide 10 are considered upper-middle income.
MR. GRIFFIN expressed the assumption that all states are equally
motivated to ensure students who qualify for free or reduced
cost lunches can apply for the program. He said that while it
may not be a valid assumption, the differences are not
dramatically different from state to state.
6:33:00 PM
MR. GRIFFIN moved to slide 12 and addressed K-12 spending
increases. The chart spans from 2004 to 2022 and uses ADA data
originating from NEA's report on ranking and estimates. He
pointed out that Alaska is ranked around the national average,
and it has moved down in ranking because of flat funding. He
presented a chart of free and reduced lunch rates by state on
slide 13, with Florida and Mississippi at the higher end of the
chart. He moved to slide 14 and addressed rural Alaska's effect
on school performance. He said the assumption has been that
Alaska's poor performance is because of rural Alaska; however,
he said that some rural schools in the state achieve
exceptionally. Conversely, he pointed out that the five largest
schools in the state are all ranked lower in performance in
English language arts proficiency, and this is according to the
most recent Alaska System of Economic Readiness (AK STAR)
results. Answering a question from a previous committee
meeting, he said that 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. He added that Alaska has the overall worst English
language arts proficiency in the nation.
6:35:12 PM
MR. GRIFFIN moved to slide 15 which shows the annual estimates
of people of color, by state, based on resident population.
This data originated from the U.S. Census Bureau, and Alaska is
ranked fifteenth with 38.1 percent people of color. He
presented a graph on slide 16 which shows Alaska has a majority
of minority students in its population. He said a similar shift
has been happening across the country, and future generations
will no longer identify 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 year range is 2014 to
2022. He expressed the 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 which APF uses year after year. The figures are
cross referenced to NAEP test scores, and he explained that 2003
was the first year Alaska fully participated in NAEP testing.
6:37:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD referred to Alaska's students having high
absenteeism and asked whether the length of the school day in
the state had been investigated. She expressed the
understanding that Alaska has the shortest school day in the
country.
MR. GRIFFIN concurred that Alaska schools have one of the
shortest total hours in a school year. In response to a follow-
up question, he expressed the opinion that if students are in
school longer, they would have more opportunity to achieve.
6:39:02 PM
MR. GRIFFIN, in response to a question from Representative
Story, pointed out that poverty rates are different than free
and reduced lunch rates. He asked if she is referring to free
and reduced lunch rates in Juneau.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed the understanding that free and
reduced lunch is a significant factor towards determining
poverty rates.
MR. GRIFFIN explained that free and reduced lunch rates would
reflect the poverty rate, and for Alaska an additional 25
percent would be factored in. For example, in Anchorage, the
free and reduced lunch rate is 50 percent, while the poverty
rate is 9.1 percent.
6:40:52 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER expressed the understanding that the poverty
rates presented are not the free and reduced rates based on
community census.
MR. GRIFFIN answered that the presentation does not contain the
chart which shows free and reduced lunch rates.
6:41:09 PM
MR. GRIFFIN, in response to Representative Groh, stated that the
figures on slide 12 are presented in nominal dollars; however,
the rankings would not change even if they were adjusted for
inflation.
6:42:02 PM
MR. GRIFFIN returned to the presentation on slide 17 and
addressed student diversity and poverty in Anchorage. He stated
that the city is ranked the seventy-first of large U.S. cities,
but one hundred and forty-seventh in overall diversity and one
hundred and eighty-second in language diversity. Of the largest
cities, Anchorage is ranked ninth on the list of lowest poverty
ratings, while Miami is ranked sixteenth. The data is sourced
from the U.S. Census Bureau and a Wallethub 2022 survey. He
pointed out a pie chart on slide 18 showing a 2010 comparison of
the entropy index in Anchorage with the rest of the U.S. He
said a study published in 2014 found that Anchorage had the most
diverse school districts in the country, and this was determined
by using the entropy index data. He explained that the chart on
the left of the slide is sourced from the study, titled "The
Anchorage Mosaic: Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Urban
North." He compared the small Native populations in the entire
U.S. with Alaska's larger Native population.
6:44:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD questioned whether the presentation is
conveying that Alaska is not the most diverse in the country.
MR. GRIFFIN clarified that this would be a matter of perspective
and technique for defining poverty. He said the technique the
author had 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
MR. GRIFFIN, in response to Representative Ruffridge, stated
that "the take home" of the presentation is that there are
examples of programs worthy of emulating, which is why APF
compared Alaska with Florida and Mississippi, and why the
challenges of K-12 expenditures are addressed, along with the
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 that while Alaska has unique challenges,
in the categories outlined in the presentation, the state's
challenges are similar, equal, or "quite a bit less" than those
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 spending per student and
free and reduced lunch rates are both linked to student
outcomes. He concluded that, as for Alaska's diversity, this is
a topic which has been used to rationalize "dismal student
outcomes."
6:50:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD expressed the opinion that the comparison
between Alaska, Florida, and Mississippi is relevant. She
offered the understanding that "there's no excuse," and Alaska
should be higher in the education ranking. She asked Mr.
Griffin to share his involvement with the Alaska Reads Act.
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 which saw success with
the same legislation.
6:51:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY reverted to slide 12. He shared his
understanding that over the last 15 years Alaska has had less of
an increase in spending than the national average. 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 in Alaska.
MR. GRIFFIN responded that he can only speak to the available
statistics.
6:53:06 PM
MR. GRIFFIN, in response to committee questions, answered that
Mississippi and Florida funded their versions of the legislation
through a process of determining which elements of spending were
the most important. He answered that funding had been allocated
to implement the enacted laws. He offered to research the
investments in Florida and the rates of teacher retention there.
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 and addressed the spending
on education 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, with the
highest being the Aleutian Region School District, which spent
$104,556 per pupil in the 2018 to 2019 school year. The lowest
was the Galena City School District, which spent $7,302 per
pupil in the 2018 to 2019 school year. For urban reference, the
Anchorage School District spent $16,525 per pupil in the 2018 to
2019 school year. 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 data for the cost
of living in the state. 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 variations, funded
more than $2,000 per pupil, or $17,544, which is above the
national average of $15,446 in the 2019 to 2020 school year.
She pointed to the chart from the study on the right of the
slide showing that Alaska is one of the few states in the
ranking which receives A and B grades exclusively in the
different categories. She said that Alaska received an A for
the distribution of funding going to high poverty districts.
She explained that the red line on the chart depicts the
increases in funding. She pointed out that many of the
districts fall above the red line, while the districts below the
line have a large correspondence school presence, such as the
Galena School District and the Nenana School District. She
reported that there were 57 percent more education expenditures
in high poverty districts in 2020 than in low poverty districts;
furthermore, low poverty districts were funded slightly less
than the national average. She explained that Alaska is putting
proportionally more of its gross domestic product (GDP) into
education than the national average by 4.42 percent, as the
national average is 3.5 percent. She said GDP declined 8
percent between 2008 and 2020, but K-12 funding increased 18
percent.
6:59:15 PM
MS. MONTALBANO moved to slide 21 to show a scatter plot on
spending in school districts. With the lowest per-pupil
spending at $5,000 and the highest at $40,000, she noted that
some schools fall outside of the presented plot. The vertical
axis of the graph represents the percentage of students'
proficiency from the AK STAR exam, ranging from 10 to 90 percent
in math and reading scores, with the average statewide score at
39 percent. She explained that the circles represent public
schools, and the plus signs represent charter schools, and the
size of the circle denotes enrollment size in the districts.
Furthermore, green denotes the district has a lower poverty
level, and orange and red denotes a higher poverty level. She
pointed out that the Skagway School District has done the best
on state standardized tests, with high spending 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 which represents correspondence
schools, with these having a higher student proficiency by 10 to
20 percent. She deduced that higher spending does not
necessarily mean better outcomes.
7:03:05 PM
MS. MONTALBANO, in response to Representative Himschoot,
explained that the source of the data is Georgetown Edunonmics
Lab, and the lab was using data from the AK STAR assessment. In
response to a follow-up question, she 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 greener of the symbols denotes the lowest poverty of 0
percent, while the redder of the symbols denotes a 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. She commented that the state should not use
this as a metric because the price of oil sets the state's GDP
based on a specific year. As an example, using 2016 to 2021,
the high cost of oil in 2021 grew the GDP by 27 percent. She
said that while the education investment from 2008 to 2020 may
have increased 4.42 percent, the percentage would be much
different if a different year range had been 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
to 2020 school year, and she said she will seek to verify this.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY cautioned using this metric.
7:09:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD questioned whether APF considered
analyzing the practices of Alaska's charter schools. In
example, some charter schools have uniform dress codes, a longer
school day, different academics, and lottery enrollment.
MS. MONTALBANO answered that it is hard to disaggregate specific
charter school practices and define a causality with the high
outcomes. She said that the main benefit of charter schools is
they have different practices than public schools.
7:10:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE referred to Representative Himshoot's
comment regarding a 15 percent testing participation rate for
correspondence schools. He asked whether it has been assumed
that the 15 percent of students who did not take the state test
were the lowest performing students. He suggested that the
cross section would be negligible.
MS. MONTALBANO explained that correspondence school students
tend to optout of AK STAR testing at a higher rate than public
school students. She suggested that the data could indicate the
state has an unrepresentative sample size, because the data
presents that the best students are the ones taking the test.
She said that it is also possible the data is a sampling of
students whose parents do not mind the test; therefore, it would
not be linked to the brightest of the correspondence school
students. She noted that there is a low sample size of the
correspondence school student population.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said, "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 optout of it as
well." He suggested that the results would be statistically
higher if the data separates the population via cross section.
MS. MONTALBANO deferred to the Alaska Department of Education
and Early Development (DEED) on the issue. She expressed the
understanding that the data is a middle sampling of all
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 expressed the understanding that, if
the districts on the left are correspondence schools, a key
component would be class size. He shared that his class size
was two when he was homeschooled. He expressed the opinion that
data on the size of the class would help, as there is an
economic association because the districts circled on the graph
have a higher economic portfolio and possibly a smaller class
size.
MS. MONTALBANO encouraged Representative Ruffridge to use the
Georgetown Edunonmics Lab tool and adjust the district
enrollment size settings. She said that while it is not exactly
data on school size, it would give perspective. Regarding class
sizes, she expressed uncertainty whether this data is available
in the tool. She offered to follow up with the committee.
7:15:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY questioned the chart on slide 21, pointing
out that most of the districts shaded red are below the average
line, while the majority of the districts shaded green are above
the average line. He said this implies that the major change
the state needs to make would be to get the students out of
poverty. He further pointed out that the correspondence schools
on the chart are all green, which implies families with more
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 students in a charter school
would need to have the flexibility to provide transportation to
and from school. He questioned whether all the charter schools
on the chart are green.
MS. MONTALBANO called attention to several correspondence
schools shaded orange in the lower left of the chart. She
explained this means these schools would have lower outcomes
along with lower spending. She noted that there are other
districts shaded a lighter green elsewhere on the chart.
7:18:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the idea that charter schools
are doing well because families must be able to afford these
schools. He continued that this makes a great argument for
school vouchers and suggested that if there were school vouchers
and school choice, all students could be sent to charter schools
and have a better outcome.
MS. MONTALBANO responded that the topic of school choice will be
addressed 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. If more seats were open
to the lottery, she expressed the opinion that expanding charter
school opportunities would be a good idea.
7:19:36 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER expressed concern that his statements were
misconstrued. He stated that he does not agree with spending
more money on schools where economically disadvantaged people
live, with the expectation of better results. He expressed the
opinion that this is a good example of why joint meetings are
held. He expressed the goal for the legislative session of
ending the "squabbles" over funding and getting the economy
going. He expressed the opinion that, in the case of an
economically disadvantaged school, it would be the families who
do not receive enough money, not the schools. He argued that
economic growth policy decisions would have more impact on these
families. He said there are many reasons why economically
disadvantaged individuals may not be participating enough with
their children, one of which is the parents are working all the
time at a low-wage job. He suggested that instead of discussing
the amount of money the state should parse out, members should
discuss how the economy can grow for everyone.
7:21:30 PM
MS. MONTALBANO returned to the presentation on slide 22. She
explained that the data for the estimate on K-12 spending is
from NEA, and 2002 was used as the baseline because this is when
NEA first began its estimates. She explained that the data
looks at expenditures per-pupil by 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 ADA. The
gold bars represent current expenditures ADA would have been
with adjustments upward for the annual urban Alaska consumer
price index, non-seasonally adjusted. She added that the data
for the annual rate originates from the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
MS. MONTALBANO pointed out the chart illustrates that from 2002
to 2008 Alaska saw inflation outpace school funding. She said
that due to formula changes in 2008 to 2009, Alaska jumped to
$5,000, with the state's actual ADA staying well above 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. The state received an average score of 212 in 2003
and 204 in 2020. She added 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
period of 2003 to 2020, school administration overtook teacher
growth. She expressed the opinion that, while administration is
important for school leadership, investing directly in high-
quality teachers matters most for student performance. She
pointed out that in 2021 there were four teachers for every five
staff members performing other functions, which is the lowest
ratio over this period. She stated that school district
administrators grew 17.7 percent between 2008 and 2019, while
the number of teachers declined by 5.8 percent. She noted that
the funding formula adjustments were made in 2008. She related
that a conventional explanation would be compliance costs,
especially at the federal level, have increased; however, Alaska
is not unique in administration growth, as the staff-per-student
level doubled in the country in the 30 years from 1970 to 1999.
7:25:57 PM
MS. MONTALBANO discussed the state education funding formula on
slide 24, explaining that the base student allocation (BSA) is
the amount allocated to each student before adjustments to
average daily membership (ADM), which is the 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 adjusted average daily membership
(AADM) equals the basic need, and the basic need is paid in part
by required local contributions [for an organized borough or
municipality] and deductible federal impact aid, with the
remaining paid by the state. She referred to the Citizen's
Guide to K-12 Funding in Alaska, which relates that 63 percent
of school district budgeted revenue is from the state. She
added that this is unusually high when compared to the rest of
the country, where typically around 47 percent is contributed by
the state.
7:27:27 PM
MS. MONTALBANO, moving to slide 25, explained that BSA is not
the only factor in education funding. She related that the
aforementioned guide points out that without changes in the BSA
since fiscal year 2008 (FY 08), changes in the adjustment
factors would have increased K-12 funding by 34 percent. She
explained that since 2008 inflation was 39 percent, and BSA rose
10.22 percent; thus, increases in adjustment factors plus
increases in BSA would meet or exceed inflation. She outlined
what is funded on top of the formula, as follows: one-time
grants from the legislature, federal grants, state funded
student transportation, voluntary local contributions from
districts, state contributions to the Alaska Public Employees'
Retirement System and the Teachers' Retirement System, school
debt reimbursement, and the Regional Education Attendance Area
Fund
7:29:07 PM
MS. MONTALBANO, moving to slide 26, expressed the opinion that
Alaska's school choice options are not treated equally under the
current funding formula. She related that students in a
correspondence school allotment program are counted as 90
percent of BSA for the district under the foundation formula;
however, these students are 16.5 percent of all Alaskan
students; therefore, these schools account for less than 5.3
percent of total funding. She explained that the correspondence
school student total is subtracted from ADM and multiplied by
0.9; therefore, families get about a $2,500 allotment, which
varies by school, but it is still less than half of the [public
school] BSA of $5,960. She pointed out that correspondence
students with identified special needs are not given additional
funding. She said Alaska's charter schools are given an amount
proportionate to enrollment, but up to 4 percent of these costs
are retained by the school district for administration. She
expressed the opinion that charter capital and facilities are
not funded fairly, but she said that charter schools do have
right of first refusal in purchasing retired school district
buildings. 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 of "administration" in this context. She said DEED
has reported that [funding] school district administrations is
at 2 percent in Alaska.
MS. MONTALBANO explained that the data being used is from
national statistics, and the links on the slide define school
officials, administrators, and administrative support staff.
7:32:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY, in response to Chair Carpenter, answered
that the 2 percent amount was presented to the House Education
Standing Committee. She stated that she would follow up to the
committee with this information.
7:33:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE questioned the quote on slide 25
attributed to Citizen's Guide to K-12 Funding in Alaska. He
stated that he does not recall this statement.
MS. MONTALBANO answered that the quote came from the Legislative
Finance Division in the 2023 version at the bottom of page 6.
7:34:36 PM
MS. MONTALBANO, in response to a query from Representative
Himschoot, answered that Alaska is unique, especially with 19
school districts not in an organized borough or municipality and
not making local contributions.
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 BSA by 20 percent per district. He said he
does not recall any changes since FY 08.
MR GRIFFIN answered that the intensive-needs factor in FY 08 was
5; however, now it is 13.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed the understanding that intensive
needs would go by the student, while special needs and career
technical education applies to the whole school. He asked for
more information regarding this side of the formula.
MS. MONTALBANO explained that more information about intensive-
needs funding and changes to ADM will be offered later in the
presentation.
7:37:45 PM
MS MONTALBANO, in response to a question from Representative
McCabe regarding additional federal funding for unorganized
boroughs, expressed uncertainty 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 shared his advocacy attempt to organize
the unorganized boroughs. The argument against organization is
it will cost the state more money if the boroughs are organized
because the impact aid will be lost. He expressed the opinion
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 the 90 percent correspondence student
allotment, she said this is because the schools 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 and asked if the only 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 that the other
change has been 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.
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. This is attributed 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 become 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 the threshold for the hold harmless
provision; incentivize improvement in outcomes; stop incentives
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 that a loophole 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 and addressed recommended changes
to the hold harmless provision. He said that the impacts were
observed when districts "doubled-dipped" into COVID-19 relief
funding, in that, the state is "essentially incentivizing
schools to not work hard to keep parents in their programs." He
continued that if the parents leave, the state is essentially
paying the parents for not educating their children.
7:46:04 PM
MS. MONTALBANO moved to slide 32 to discuss the recommendation
to incentivize outcomes. She shared that Tennessee overhauled
its school funding formula in 2022, which provided for per-
student bonuses based on the following: third grade English
Language Arts (ELA) scores, fourth grade ELA growth, eighth
grade math scores, American College Testing scores plus
improvements from previous tests, and high schoolers graduating
with industry credentials. Florida provides a 0.16 percent
bonus to ADM for districts and a teacher-direct bonus for each
high school student passing an AP exam with a score of 3 or
higher. She expressed the opinion that Alaska should reward the
schools getting results and incentivize behaviors for the
desired results.
7:47:36 PM
MS. MONTALBANO moved to slide 33 and provided a recommendation
on intensive-needs weighting. She compared that in FY 08 there
were 1,877 intensive-needs students, and after AADM was
implemented, this totaled 9,385. In FY 23 there were 3,282
intensive-needs students, and after AADM was implemented, this
was 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 expressed the opinion that
correspondence students should also receive funding weights for
special education and career and technical education (CTE). She
argued 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, and while using the allotment the state would realize
cost savings of three BSAs per intensive-needs student. She
noted that Florida's Family Empowerment Scholarship Program lets
parents choose private sector options or a public school outside
of their zoned area, 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 which have under 20 students receive a
flat multiplier of 39.6 for all 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 at the "tipping
point," because the district receives less in ADM per additional
student, rather than the actual number of students. She
elaborated on the intent of the funding formula, which is to
help rural districts with their costs. She stated that she does
not doubt these costs, but pointed out that large school
districts have incentives to exploit the formula in order to
keep large inefficient facilities open. She said the median
school size in Alaska is 177 students, which would have a weight
of 1.08. She explained that the lowest tier multiplier with an
enrollment of 1 to 20 students applies to 63 of Alaska's 513
schools, and there are only 26 schools 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 and addressed the state's ADM. He
relayed that Alaska has a rate of 29 percent of chronic
absenteeism, which is the highest in the U.S. This is defined
as when a student misses 15 days of school. He compared the
funding formula to California, in that, California has a 12
percent chronic absenteeism rate. Furthermore, Los Angeles has
a 13 percent rate while Kenai is at 33 percent. He suggested
that there be a change in the ADM calculation to create
attendance accountability. He explained that data suggests a
budget based upon actual daily membership has lower rates of
chronic absenteeism.
7:52:49 PM
MS. MONTALBANO moved to slides 37 and 38 and discussed 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
schools. She noted that 32 states have programs which would
allow funding to follow the student in 2023.
7:53:26 PM
MS. MONTALBANO moved to slide 39 and suggested that Alaska
students benefit from choice. She said that according to
Performance Evaluation for Alaska's Schools (PEAKS) data
collected from 2017 to 2019, students in Alaska's charter
schools performed better than students enrolled in Alaska's
public schools, regardless of ethnicity, gender, or subgroup.
She noted that Alaska scored the highest nationally for value-
added learning gains in the Education Freedom Index (EFI)
Charter School Ecosystem Rankings.
7:54:04 PM
MS. MONTALBANO moved to slide 39 and expressed the opinion that
states benefit academically from school choice. She explained
that, using the EFI, there is a positive and significant
association between education freedom and outcomes in the form
of higher NAEP achievement and gains in scores. She said that
Alaska ranked forty-second on the 2000 EFI and dropped to forty-
ninth in 2019. She moved to slide 41 and addressed the meta-
analysis of school choice. She noted that most of the studies
in the presentation attribute school choice as having a positive
effect on academic performance and parental satisfaction. She
moved to slide 42 and addressed the fiscal benefit from school
choice. She shared that EdChoice estimated a 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 education savings account.
Furthermore, 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 slide 44 and said Alaska's
CSAP, with 20,927 students in FY 23 with 90 percent of the BSA,
is the most popular choice program in the state. He showed
slide 45, which displayed the overall expenditures of CSAP. He
explained that statewide K-12 expenditures in FY 23 were $2.103
billion, accounting for 126,553 children. He pointed out that
non-correspondence students drive available per-student funds,
providing $18,852 per student. He said that there are 105,626
students in this category. Adjusted for 2022, districts
received, per non-correspondence student, $4,000 more in funding
in FY 23 than in FY 05.
7:56:45 PM
MR. GRIFFIN stated that slide 46 presents hypothetical
scenarios. He pointed out the scenarios on slide 47, which
showed if the state were to restrict correspondence allotment,
encourage correspondence allotment, or add an intensive-needs
option. Returning to slide 45, he posed that if the state were
to restrict correspondence schools entirely and put all 20,927
CSAP students back to the brick-and-mortar schools, the move
would generate $162 million in additional funding formula costs
and a decrease of $257 per year in overall student funding.
Slide 48 shows the scenario that the state encourages
correspondence schools, changing the CSAP allotment to a 1.215
BSA, 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 to $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
10 times BSA for intensive needs for CSAP, and if 20 percent of
intensive-needs families chose a CSAP provider, there would be
$13.7 million in annual savings to the funding formula. He
suggested that this would also incentivize districts to be
attentive to students and parents.
7:58:37 PM
MR. GRIFFIN concluded on slide 50 and outlined the takeaways
from the presentation, which include: incentives matter;
outcomes are on the rise but far from acceptable; improvement is
within reach; if not focused, more money does not equate to
better results; 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 suggested that healthy competition improves outcomes and
fiscal efficiency.
7:59:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE referred to slide 21 and recalled the
discussion on class size. He offered the understanding that in
the early 2000s Florida had passed a constitutional amendment on
school class size and funded the mandated size with over $50
billion in the span of 20 years. He asked why class size had
not been discussed during the presentation.
MR. GRIFFIN answered that APF is open to returning to a future
meeting to discuss class size. He pointed out that despite
Florida's spending increase, in order to reduce class size in
schools, the state was able to keep its budget in a "pretty
tight range" compared to Alaska.
8:00:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT commented that in the 1980s Finland's
education system had "doubled down" on public education, and
while it does not have school choice, the public education
system has high outcomes.
MR. GRIFFIN said that, though Finland does not have school
choice, a previous APF presentation had pointed out many of the
other top ten performing districts in Western Europe are school
choice countries. In response to a follow-up question, he
explained that APF is a nonpartisan thinktank and is part of the
State Policy Network, which includes about 70 other thinktanks
across the U.S. He shared that he is a volunteer and is not
familiar with the funding part of APF.
MS. MONTALBANO commented that APF does not accept any sources of
government funding. She said that APF is a nonprofit,
nonpartisan thinktank based in Anchorage.
8:02:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT questioned Mr. Griffin's idea for a
solution to the problem which is not solved by buttressing
Alaska's public schools.
MR. GRFFIN answered that the presentation has pointed out
statistics which show Alaska is doing poorly on issues the state
would like to do better on. Furthermore, he pointed out
examples of places which do educationally well with fewer
resources. He referred to slide 50 and reiterated that
incentives matter, healthy competition improves outcomes, and
fiscal efficiency has a strong correlation.
8:03:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD commented that, as a person with children
enrolled in a school district, she appreciated the presentation.
She said that Mississippi and Florida are shown to be
successful, especially with implementing their own versions of
the Alaska Reads Act. She expressed that now she understands
that economic growth is directly tied to the education system.
8:05:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY expressed appreciation that slide 12 showed
that from 2004 to 2022 the state's spending increase for
education was less than the national average. Also, looking on
slide 22, he expressed the understanding that the national
average score for the nation was higher than the score in
Alaska. He offered the overall understanding of the
presentation that education is not doing well in Alaska, and
other states are doing well with less; therefore, instead of
spending more money, Alaska should do as Florida. He continued
that Alaska has not met the national average in NAEP scores;
however, he questioned whether the money should be cut like when
outcomes are going badly in other industries. He gave the
example: if crime goes up in a city, the state should not give
the police more money until crime goes down. He argued that
this is the presentation's message. He said that in the face of
lowering test scores, the state should give to the issue to
improve education outcomes. He expressed the opinion that the
presentation is suggesting charter schools or options from other
states. He stressed that hiring and attracting teachers in
Alaska, as well as getting better outcomes, will require money.
He questioned whether it has been suggested that Alaska would
not need more money to raise the average test scores.
MR. GRIFFIN stated that Alaska has poorly allocated K-12
resources, and by retargeting the money and incentivizing better
outcomes, it is possible [to improve outcomes] without much of
an increase in spending.
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 the comment that APF is a
nonpartisan entity and listed associated networks: The Goldwater
Institute, Americans for Prosperity, the American Conservative
Union Foundation, Americans for Tax Reform, the Cato Institute,
and the Charles-Koch Institute. He expressed the opinion that
these entities are not nonpartisan. He questioned whether the
presentation should be considered nonpartisan.
8:09:41 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER commented that there are plenty of organizations
which fall into the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS's)
definition of "partisan," and each member will have an opinion
on this. Furthermore, each member is going to have an opinion
whether one's activities fall into another's political beliefs;
however, APF fits the IRS's definition of nonpartisan. He
argued that APF has expressed it is nonpartisan and has met the
requirements of the IRS in this status. He said that APF is not
a political party and is not advocating for a solution for which
a political party is advocating. He continued that APF's
partisanship status has nothing to do with the presentation.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY thanked Chair Carpenter for the definition
of nonpartisan and apologized for the comment.
8:10:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE, concerning slide 12, expressed the
understanding that an increase in spending would not be an
increase in total spending, rather the amount of the increase.
He expressed uncertainty that class size would be relevant;
however, he welcomed the discussion. He spoke about a fraction
of BSA being spent on educating students and opined that a
better way to increase student outcomes may be by increasing
teacher pay. Furthermore, he argued for a recall of a repealed
2016 law, which had mandated that 70 percent of school funding
go to funding teachers.
8:13:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed her concern for intensive-needs
funding and requested that DEED should speak on this.
CHAIR CARPENTER concurred.
8:14:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH offered the understanding that
Representative McCabe is suggesting that teacher compensation
should be increased, and he added that defined benefits for
teachers should also be investigated.
8:15:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX spoke about the Fairbanks North Star Borough
School district, and its increase 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 in his district but has not received an answer.
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, according to DEED, a statistic shows 83 percent of
students are in brick-and-mortar schools, with 17 percent are in
correspondence schools.
8:17:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX commented that another matter APF should
investigate is the Molly Hootch Case [Tobeluk v. Lind, 589 P.2d
873 (1979)]. He expressed the understanding that this case
drives Alaska school system spending.
8:17:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated that discussions with school
administrators have related that 74 percent of school funding
goes to instruction. He said that the current definition of
"instruction" includes all the buildings in Kodiak and Mt.
Edgecumbe, for example, as well as the administrative costs. He
stated that he has sent a request to have the costs broken down
to understand the funds schools receive but 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, expressed the opinion that
it is easy to put a child on a bus and later pick the child 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 as "what parents desire is not always what they are
able to do." She explained that when there are more choice
options, parents are able to utilize those options better, and
behaviors would align with 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 funding formulas to reward the desired results.
She clarified that this does not mean the state needs to spend
less overall, but rather to target funding to improve outcomes.
She voiced that it is a "travesty" many of Alaska's students are
not at a basic level in reading proficiency, and APF supports
100 percent of students reaching 100 percent potential.
8:21:02 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committees, the House
Special Committee on Ways and Means and House Education Standing
Committee 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 |