Legislature(2023 - 2024)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/08/2024 03:30 PM Senate EDUCATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Alaska's 2015 School Finance Study and Recent Changes in Other States | |
| Presentation: What is Adequacy? How Do We Measure It? Why Do We Care? | |
| Presentation: Legislators Must Perform Their Constitutional Duty for Education | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
April 8, 2024
3:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Löki Tobin, Chair
Senator Gary Stevens, Vice Chair
Senator Jesse Kiehl
Senator Elvi Gray-Jackson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Jesse Bjorkman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: ALASKA'S 2015 SCHOOL FINANCE STUDY AND RECENT
CHANGES IN OTHER STATES
- HEARD
PRESENTATION: WHAT IS ADEQUACY? HOW DO WE MEASURE IT? WHY DO WE
CARE?
- HEARD
PRESENTATION: LEGISLATORS MUST PERFORM THEIR CONSTITUTITONAL
DUTY FOR EDUCATION
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
JUSTIN SILVERSTEIN, CO-CEO
Augenblick, Palaich and Associates
Denver, Colorado
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered the presentation Alaska's 2015
School Finance Study and Recent Changes in Other States.
LAWRENCE PICUS, Principal Partner
Picus, Odden, and Associates
Los Angeles, California
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered the presentation What is Adequacy?
How Do We Measure It? Why Do We Care?
HOWARD TRICKEY, Attorney
Schwabe, Williamson and Wyatt
Denver, Colorado
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered the presentation Legislators Must
Perform Their Constitutional Duty for Education
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:34:04 PM
CHAIR LÖKI TOBIN called the Senate Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 3:34 p.m. Present at the call to order were
Senators Gray-Jackson, Stevens, Kiehl and Chair Tobin
^PRESENTATION: ALASKA'S 2015 SCHOOL FINANCE STUDY and RECENT
CHANGES IN OTHER STATES
PRESENTATION: ALASKA'S 2015 SCHOOL FINANCE STUDY and RECENT
CHANGES IN OTHER STATES
3:35:34 PM
CHAIR TOBIN announced the presentation Alaska's 2015 School
Finance Study and Recent Changes in Other States by Justin
Silverstein. She stated he helped support and wrote the 2015
report Review of Alaska's School Funding Program. He is
considered a national expert in school finance.
3:36:21 PM
JUSTIN SILVERSTEIN, Co-CEO, Augenblick, Palaich and Associates,
Denver, Colorado, offered the presentation Alaska's 2015 School
Finance Study and Recent Changes in Other States. He stated that
in addition to discussing the 2015 study he would also dive into
changes other states have made and the processes used to change
their formulas.
3:36:45 PM
MR. SILVERSTEIN moved to slide 2 and gave a brief introduction
to APA:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Who is APA?
• APA is a Denver-based education policy consulting firm
founded in 1983
• The firm has extensive experience working in all 50
states
• APA has examined the structure of many state school
funding systems and helped design the systems in
states, including recent changes in Nevada and
Maryland
3:37:20 PM
MR. SILVERSTEIN moved to slide 3 and mentioned what he would
discuss in his presentation:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Today's Presentation
• Review of Types of School Finance Studies
• Overview of the 2015 Study
• States that have recently changed their formulas
3:37:47 PM
MR. SILVERSTEIN moved to slide 4, and discussed the three
components of finance studies:
Finance Studies
• Structural Review focuses on how the state's
system works and if it is meeting state needs
• Equity Study examines the horizontal, vertical,
and fiscal neutrality of a system
• Adequacy Study measure the resources needed to
meet state standards
3:42:37 PM
MR. SILVERSTEIN moved to slide 5 and began discussion of the
2015:
2015 Study
Study was mainly a structural review with an equity
study included:
1. Reviewed the structure of Alaska's current funding
structure;
2. Conducted interviews with district stakeholders to
understand how the current school finance structure
affects individual districts;
3. Examined other states' approaches to school
funding;
4. Examined the equity of the current system, looking
at both district and taxpayer equity;
5. Analyzed student performance across Alaska,
including the relationship between need, funding,
and performance;
6. Examined the state's sources of revenues; and
7. Developed recommendations for the state to consider
moving forward.
3:44:37 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked for an analysis of the Alaska school
funding program, noting that it seems overly complex. He shared
that, despite having been involved for 24 years, he regularly
needs experts to re-explain the system. He wondered whether
Alaska's system is similar to those in other states or if it is
unnecessarily complex.
MR. SILVERSTEIN responded that he does not believe Alaska's
school funding system is overly complex compared to other
states. He explained that there is a baseline complexity in many
state funding formulas. However, he emphasized the importance of
transparency and predictability in a system and acknowledged
that certain elements of Alaska's formula could benefit from
improvements in these areas. While Alaska's system has common
components found in other states, the way they are combined may
differ slightly, and there may be opportunities for
simplification. He concluded that complexity is common in state
systems and some complexity is expected.
3:46:42 PM
SENATOR STEVENS commented that he would have to "man up" and
accept living with the complexities of the current system.
3:46:49 PM
CHAIR TOBIN mentioned that the 2015 study is available on BASIS
and was the result of a Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee. She noted that APA
Consulting successfully bid on the RFP, which is why they were
awarded the project.
3:47:05 PM
MR. SILVERSTEIN moved to slide 6:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Alaska's School Funding Program
Under Alaska's foundation formula, a district's
funding (Basic Need) is determined by multiplying the
Base Student Allocation (BSA), as defined by the
legislature, by the District Adjusted Average Daily
Membership (DAADM). A district's DAADM is determined
using the following calculation:
Average Daily x District Cost x Special Needs x Vocational
Membership, Factor Factor and
Adjusted by Technical
School Size Funding
Intensive + Correspondence = District Adjusted
Services Student Student Count Average Daily
Membership
Outside of this funding formula, the state also
provides funding for transportation and capital.
MR. SILVERSTEIN provided a high-level overview of Alaska's school
funding system. He explained that the state generates a district-
adjusted average daily membership (ADM) number, which attempts to
account for both student and district characteristic differences
by creating a weighted count. While this adds complexity, it's
not unusual compared to other states. The main challenge lies in
how this is condensed into one number, which can reduce
transparency, though the Department of Education does a good job
of breaking down the steps in Excel spreadsheets each year.
3:48:27 PM
MR. SILVERSTEIN walked through the key components, starting with
the average daily membership adjusted by school size, where
smaller schools receive additional funding. Next, the district
cost factor adjusts for the cost of doing business in different
districts, with Anchorage as the baseline (1.0) and some
districts facing costs that are twice as high due to unique
challenges, such as remote access and described an example.
MR. SILVERSTEIN continued with the special needs adjustment,
noting that every district receives a 20 percent multiplier for
high-cost students, though the same rate is applied universally,
regardless of a district's specific needs. He also mentioned an
adjustment for vocational/technical education (CTE) and a high
weight for students requiring intensive services. Alaska uniquely
provides funding for correspondence students as well. Lastly, he
clarified that funding for transportation and capital is separate
from this formula.
3:50:50 PM
MR. SILVERSTEIN moved to slide 7 which narrowed down 18 slides
of recommendation from the study to three overall
recommendations, which he discussed:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Recommendations: General Impressions
• Formula has the right elements
• The funding system does little to differentiate
funding based on actual student characteristics
• Equity concerns arise around the difficulty in
comparing wealth across districts and a lack of
correlation between a district's student needs
and spending
3:52:31 PM
MR. SILVERSTEIN moved to slide 8 and said the remainder of his
presentation will focus on formula changes:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Recent State Formula Changes
• A number of states have changed their formulas in
recent years including Maryland, Nevada, and Tennessee
• Will look at what type of studies were done and the
types of changes to the formulas
3:53:15 PM
MR. SILVERSTEIN moved to slide 9 and discussed Maryland's
changes:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Maryland
• State implemented a large-scale education reform
that included a new finance formula
• The formula is built on aspects of adequacy,
equity, and structural reviews Weights are
based on adequacy study
• Bulk of changes are related to the new
initiatives implemented as part of the Blueprint
including career ladders, expanded pre-K, college
and career readiness, CTE, and services for
concentrated poverty
3:55:27 PM
MR. SILVERSTEIN moved to slide 10 and spoke to changes in
Tennessee:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Tennessee
• Tennessee's Investment in Student Achievement Act
(TISA) came about very quickly
• Though equity was talked about as a key focus,
there does not appear to be a specific equity
study published on the impacts of the new formula
• Parameters are not based on an adequacy study
3:56:55 PM
MR. SILVERSTEIN moved to slide 11 and provided the funding
formula changes made by Nevada, which in terms of the degree of
change in between Maryland and Tennessee:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Nevada
• Nevada replaced a formula from 1969 known as the
Nevada Plan
• The new Pupil Centered Funding Plan (PCFP) is in
part based on a 2018 finance study that included
an adequacy study and structural review
• Have continued implementation work being done by
NV's Commission on School Finance
3:59:13 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked about Tennessee's student-centered or
student-focused formula, which accounts for different types of
student needs. He wanted more details on how this approach works
and noted that Alaska currently uses a block grant for special
education, which includes gifted and talented programs, with a
20 percent adjustment. He said Alaska counts the intensive needs
and can think of potentially six additional categories to count.
He wondered what it would look like to categorize students into
more specific groups.
3:59:53 PM
MR. SILVERSTEIN responded that Alaska uses a census-based
approach for special education, assuming similar needs across
all districts. He emphasized the importance of determining
whether other student characteristics are strong predictors of a
district needing more resources to achieve similar outcomes.
Historically, factors like poverty, often indicated by
eligibility for reduced-price lunch, have been seen as
predictors of students needing additional resources, such as
after-school tutoring or summer school. He also mentioned
English learners (EL) as another group that most states fund
differently. He noted that determining funding for these groups
is often a matter of philosophy. He added that many states are
changing how they count at-risk students due to the federal
Community Eligibility Provision for free/reduced-price lunch,
which complicates using these counts in school funding formulas.
As a result, states are shifting to direct certification or more
complex models to calculate need differences between districts.
4:01:35 PM
CHAIR TOBIN said she found the different types of reviews of a
foundation formula interesting. She noted that the committee
would soon hear a presentation on an adequacy study and that the
state has had recent structural and equity reviews. She asked
whether the next step for the Alaska State Legislature is to
conduct an adequacy study before making any revisions to the
foundation formula. Alternatively, she wondered if the
Legislature should redo the previous structural and equity
studies using the structure that is in place today.
MR. SILVERSTEIN expressed that conducting an adequacy study
could be valuable as it helps close the loop for all
stakeholders in the education system. He explained that such a
study allows policymakers to ask what resources are required to
meet the expectations for students, teachers, schools, and
districts. This, in turn, could help guide decisions about the
structure of the system. He referenced Senator Kiel's
conversation, noting that if an adequacy study reveals that the
cost for serving English learners is not significant, there may
be no need to adjust the formula for that. However, if
substantial differences in costs are found, it could inform
potential changes. He added that while the structure of Alaska's
system has not changed dramatically, the question remains
whether the Base Student Allocation (BSA) provides districts
with sufficient resources to meet state standards when all other
factors are considered.
4:03:47 PM
CHAIR TOBIN followed up by referencing a recent national model
adequacy study from Florida, conducted by researchers at Rutgers
and the University of Miami, which indicated that Alaska has an
adequate funding formula. She asked about the differences
between reviews conducted by firms like APA Consulting or Picus
Odden and that national model study.
4:04:15 PM
MR. SILVERSTEIN explained that the national model adequacy
study, led by Dr. Bruce Bakerformerly at Rutgers and now at the
University of Miamiuses a statistical approach with national
data to measure adequacy in education systems. He noted that
this model tends to show underfunding in urban districts, but
its analysis for rural areas can be less precise. He emphasized
that the best practice is to use multiple approaches, suggesting
that combining Dr. Baker's statistical model with methods like
professional judgment or evidence-based models would provide
more comprehensive insights. He elaborated that the professional
judgment or evidence-based models build up resource requirements
from the ground up, working directly with educators in the state
to account for contextual differences. While Dr. Baker's model
offers an external perspective and additional data points, he
pointed out that the input-based approaches tend to better
differentiate the needs of various student groups and district
characteristics, offering more tailored insights for
policymakers.
4:05:52 PM
CHAIR TOBIN thanked him for his presentation.
^PRESENTATION: WHAT IS ADEQUACY? HOW DO WE MEASURE IT? WHY DO WE
CARE?
PRESENTATION: WHAT IS ADEQUACY? HOW DO WE MEASURE IT? WHY DO WE
CARE?
4:06:25 PM
CHAIR TOBIN announced the presentation What is Adequacy? How Do
We Measure It? Why Do We Care? She introduced Mr. Picus as a
well-known author on education policy and that completed
education studies for many states in the U.S.
4:07:23 PM
LAWRENCE PICUS, Principal Partner, Picus, Odden and Associates,
Los Angeles, California, stated that his association often works
closely with APA. The work of both associations is very similar.
4:08:09 PM
MR. PICUS moved to slide 2 and provided the associations mission
statement:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Mission Statement
Picus Odden & Associates is an independent school
finance consulting group whose mission is to work
collaboratively with states and school districts to
improve the way public resources for education are
translated into improved student learning.
4:08:31 PM
MR. PICUS moved to slide 3 and said he would primarily focus on
Adequacy during his presentation:
[Original punctuation provided.]
What is Adequacy?
• School Finance Adequacy estimates the resources
needed to provide sufficient funding to provide
all students an equal opportunity to learn to
high performance standards.
• This includes appropriate adjustments for
individual characteristics of:
• Students
• School districts and Schools
4:09:02 PM
CHAIR TOBIN said she anticipated that her question might be
addressed in the upcoming presentation, but she asked it anyway
to prompt discussion. She referenced the national model study
from the University of Miami, which focused on "adequate
spending for adequate results," and noted that the current
presentation mentions "high performance standards." She asked
for an explanation of the difference between aiming for adequate
versus high expectations and how that distinction might impact
funding.
4:09:35 PM
MR. PICUS explained that the terms "adequacy" and "adequate
levels of funding" might be misunderstood. He clarified that
adequacy refers to providing enough funding for all children to
perform at high levels, rather than just aiming for "adequate
standards." He referenced Bill Clune, who introduced the concept
of adequacy in school finance in 1975 and acknowledged that
while "adequacy" may not be the perfect word, it has been the
framework for funding discussions for the past 30 years.
4:10:26 PM
MR. PICUS moved to slide 3 and discussed each of the four models
for measuring school finance adequacy:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Four Models to Measure Adequacy
• Successful district/school
• Cost function
• Professional judgment
• Evidence Based
4:14:09 PM
MR. PICUS moved to slide 4 and said there are a lot of reasons
that might trigger an adequacy, including concern by
policymakers that schools need more money:
What Triggers Adequacy Studies?
• Court cases and rulings
• Positive state revenue projections
• Political actions
• All of the above
4:15:30 PM
MR. PICUS moved to slide 5 and addressed how to go about doing a
comprehensive evidence based (EB) study. Noting that every study
does not follow the same steps:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Elements of a Comprehensive EB Study
• Review past studies
• Regular meetings with policymakers and
stakeholders
• Build initial EB Model including district-by-
district estimates
• Review the geographic cost index
• Conduct Professional Judgment Panels
• Case studies of high performing schools
• Develop options for the State's school funding
formula
• Revenue options for the state and school
districts
4:19:15 PM
MR. PICUS moved to slide 6 and provided a brief description on
the adequacy done for Anchorage 2023:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Anchorage 2023 Adequacy Study
• Used Anchorage School District to estimate a new
BSA
• Developed an alternative approach to computing
district WADM and allocating funds to school
districts
• High level of confidence that our model would
require an increase in the BSA.
MR. PICUS explained that Anchorage, being the 1.0 district in
the funding formula, asked his team to estimate an adequacy
number. To do this, they began with student counts and focused
on additional costs related to three key groups: English
language (EL) learners, low-income students (typically measured
by free and reduced-price lunch eligibility), and special
education students which gives an unduplicated count of the EL
and low-income children. They calculated the additional services
these students require, turning that into a weightsimilar to
Alaska's 1.2 block grant, but with different weights for each
group.
4:20:55 PM
MR. PICUS noted that while Alaska's Base Student Allocation
(BSA) is around $6,000 per student, the weighted average daily
membership of school districts often significantly exceeds the
raw student enrollment, especially in districts with additional
needs. In Anchorage, for example, the weighted average is nearly
double the actual enrollment. He explained that their model
estimates the cost per pupil for Anchorage, and their report
suggests changes to how the formula distributes resources.
Specifically, they would move the cost adjustment to the end of
the model and apply it based on weighted average daily
attendance. Instead of the 1.2 block grant, they would use
specific weights from their model applied to the count of
students with meet the specific needs.
4:22:19 PM
MR. PICUS shared that in Anchorage, they conducted professional
judgment studies in 2022 and 2023, and a similar study in 2015,
focused on Anchorage's unique needs. One specific issue that
emerged during these studies was snow removal, which hadn't been
considered in previous models but is significant in Alaska. He
concluded by stating that their model would result in a higher
BSAaround $13,000 versus the current $5,900though the weighted
average daily membership would likely decrease under the new
system.
4:23:46 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked about the value of moving the district cost
factor to the end of the formula instead of the beginning. He
questioned whether it would make a difference, referencing the
associative property of multiplication, where the order of
multiplying numbers does not change the outcome. He asked for
clarification on the reasoning behind this adjustment.
MR. PICUS responded that moving the district cost factor to the
end of the formula likely wouldn't change the overall outcome
much, noting that it's typically placed at the end in most other
states. He explained that doing so provides a clearer
understanding of the effects of various adjustments after
establishing the base cost for students, making more conceptual
sense.
SENATOR KIEHL acknowledged his reasoning.
4:24:50 PM
CHAIR TOBIN reflected on the calculation and noted the addition
of correspondence students at the end of the formula. She
wondered whether parentheses are used to apply the district cost
factor only to brick-and-mortar students or if correspondence
students are included in the district cost factor multiplier.
She suggested she would follow up to learn more about how the
formula would look if the district cost factor were moved to the
end.
4:25:20 PM
MR. PICUS suggested that the district cost factor could be
applied before considering correspondent students. He raised the
question of whether correspondent students also face higher
costs due to the conditions in different communities across
Alaska, such as the cost of repairing computers they use to
participate in remote learning. This would help determine
whether the district cost factor should account for those
expenses as well.
4:25:48 PM
MR. PICUS moved to slide 7 and described the varied work of his
association for states and districts:
[Original punctuation provided.]
States and Districts Where Odden, Picus & Associates
Have Conducted Studies
• Arkansas (3)
• Wyoming (4+)
• Vermont (4)
• Kentucky (4)
• Arizona (1)
• Maine (1)
• Maryland (1 with APA)
• Michigan (1 with APA)
• North Dakota (2)
• Nebraska (1)
• Kansas (1)
• Ohio (2 + state developed Model)
• Pennsylvania (1)
• Texas (1)
• Wisconsin (1)
• Districts
• Little Rock (1)
• Anchorage (2)
• Beaverton (1)
• Picus worked with APA in Washington DC
4:28:27 PM
MR. PICUS responded to Senator Stevens' earlier question about
complexity. He recalled that he had once been asked the same
question by a reporter. He explained that, in his view, the
arithmetic of school finance is simple, but the complexity
arises from the politics, history, and the process of
determining how to implement the numbers. The challenge lies in
integrating those numbers into 50 different taxation systems
across states, each with its own history and regulations. He
offered an example from Vermont, where each town votes on its
own budget annually, and then must find a way to get whatever
tax rate is levied. Everyone gets the same amount of money per
dollar of tax rate levy, which is a very complicated process.
4:29:39 PM
CHAIR TOBIN mentioned that Wyoming uses a hedonic wage index to
adjust student funding for inflation. She asked whether an
adequacy study typically provides insights or recommendations on
how to adjust for inflation to ensure base student allocations
retain their purchasing power.
4:30:04 PM
MR. PICUS explained that the hedonic wage index is one of three
components Wyoming uses to estimate cost adjustments, which is
equivalent to Alaska's cost adjustment. In addition, Wyoming
includes an external cost adjustment to account for inflation,
recalculated every five years. He noted that if the adequacy
number is, for example, $15,000 per pupil today, it could
increase due to inflation within a year. This way one way
Wyoming looked at how to adjust costs across the state.
4:31:08 PM
MR. PICUS mentioned that another method used to adjust costs is
the competitive wage index, which compares wages for similar
jobs across different regions. For instance, if hiring an
administrative assistant cost more in Fairbanks than in
Anchorage, Fairbanks would receive a higher cost adjustment. He
recalled that in Wyoming, there was controversy over which
modelhedonic or competitive wage indexto use, as some
districts would benefit while other would receive a negative
adjustment depending on the choice. The final compromise allowed
districts to receive the highest adjustment among three options:
hedonic, comparable wage index, or no value 1.0. He advised
against adopting such a process in Alaska. He suggested that
Alaska might leverage expertise from the University of Alaska
Anchorage to calculate and adapt these adjustments to the unique
aspects of the state.
4:32:52 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked for a definition of "hedonic" in the context
of the discussion.
4:33:10 PM
MR. PICUS explained the hedonic index by using an example from
Wyoming, where living in remote areas incurs higher costs, such
as traveling long distances for groceries. The index measures
the advantages and disadvantages of living in different
locations, factoring in proximity to amenities and major cities.
He noted that while the hedonic index once adjusted for these
regional costs, it has fallen out of favor in the past 20 years.
He is not aware of any states still using the index method and
most states now use a comparative wage index, which focuses on
differences in wages across regions, to account for cost
variations in school finance systems.
4:35:49 PM
CHAIR TOBIN asked how long it takes to conduct an adequacy
study, noting that the Anchorage report from January 2023 is 116
pages and quite comprehensive. She inquired about the time
required to produce such a report from a statewide perspective,
especially considering its length and depth.
4:36:18 PM
MR. PICUS explained that the time to complete an adequacy study
varies. For Anchorage, they updated previous research rather
than starting from scratch, with the evidence-based model
evolving as new research emerges. Estimating adequacy for the
entire state would take longer than for a single district,
especially if data collection is needed. If the Department of
Education has the data, the process is quicker. He mentioned a
recent Vermont study completed in a month, but a statewide study
for Alaska with case studies or professional panels would take
longer depending on the study's scope and available data.
^PRESENTATION: LEGISLATORS MUST PERFORM THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL
DUTY FOR EDUCATION
PRESENTATION:
LEGISLATORS MUST PERFORM THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY FOR EDUCATION
4:39:21 PM
CHAIR TOBIN announced the presentation Legislators Must Perform
Their Constitutional Duty for Education.
4:39:57 PM
HOWARD TRICKEY, Attorney, Schwabe, Williamson and Wyatt, Denver,
Colorado, gave a brief history of his career and work for
Alaska. He said he was a trial attorney in the Moore and
Kasayulie cases and discussed the key findings of the Moore case
and their relevance to education funding.
4:41:43 PM
MR. TRICKEY outlined four key obligations the state of Alaska
must follow under the education clause in art. VII, sec. 6,
Constitution of the State of Alaska, as defined by Judge Sharon
Gleason, which should govern how decisions are made by the
legislature when it comes to education funding and the
sufficiency of education funding.:
1. The state must adopt standards defining what children
should learn.
2. The state must establish methods to assess children's
progress.
3. The state must provide adequate funding to enable schools
to meet those standards.
4. The state must maintain oversight to ensure local districts
comply with these standards.
4:42:56 PM
MR. TRICKEY emphasized that Judge Gleason's ruling set a high
standard for proficiency in reading, writing, and math, as well
as meaningful access to content standards, such as geography,
government and the arts. All of which requires more than just
meeting minimum benchmarks. He noted that the legislature has a
duty to ensure adequate funding is appropriated to meet these
constitutional obligations.
4:46:19 PM
MR. TRICKEY highlighted the importance of an adequacy study in
evaluating whether the state's education funding meets
constitutional requirements, pointing out that Alaska has never
conducted such a study. He also noted that Judge Gleason, in her
ruling, considered all sources of funding, not just state
funding, including federal funds during the No Child Left Behind
era.
4:47:06 PM
MR. TRICKEY raised concerns about current issues, such as
inflation not being accounted for in funding adjustments,
teacher turnover, and unfunded mandates like the Reads Act,
which requires significant resources. He stressed that these
factors, along with low student test scores and disruptions
caused by COVID-19, must be considered when determining funding
adequacy.
4:51:03 PM
MR. TRICKEY urged the legislature to fulfill its constitutional
duty by supporting a comprehensive adequacy study and reviewing
evidence to adjust the Base Student Allocation (BSA)
appropriately. He warned that the state risks being found non-
compliant with its constitutional obligations without such
actions.
4:51:54 PM
SENATOR STEVENS expressed appreciation for Mr. Trickey's
perspective and then asked, based on his extensive experience
with Alaska's education issues, if he believed the state has
ever adequately funded education.
MR. TRICKEY responded by stating that there have been brief
periods where education funding in Alaska may have been
adequate, but this was not due to intentional design or
purposeful planning based on a thorough study of school district
and student needs. Instead, these periods occurred more by
accident when the state had a healthy revenue balance. He noted
that while there may have been times of sufficient funding, it
was often more a result of luck than a structured approach. He
referred to the Moore case, in which Judge Gleason found that
there was adequate funding, though this ruling occurred before
evidence-based studies were fully developed. At that time, the
state also benefited from federal funding through the No Child
Left Behind Act. He concluded that Alaska has never consistently
or intentionally funded education adequately, aside from brief,
fortuitous periods.
4:54:15 PM
SENATOR STEVENS remarked that it is "very embarrassing" that
education funding in Alaska was never intentionally adequate.
4:54:24 PM
SENATOR KIEHL noted that some colleagues question Judge
Gleason's Moore ruling, arguing that the Alaska Supreme Court
might have ruled differently to avoid setting constitutional
standards on legislative policy matters, such as what
constitutes "adequate" education. He pointed out that the
Supreme Court typically leaves decisions like resource
management to policymakers. He asked Mr. Trickey to address the
argument that since "adequate" isn't in the Constitution, the
Supreme Court would likely leave this issue to voters through
their elected legislators.
4:55:33 PM
MR. TRICKEY said he has two responses to that argument. First,
it is the courts' duty to interpret the Constitution based on
the intent of the Constitutional Convention. He noted that the
Alaska Supreme Court does not follow the "textualist" approach
embraced by some U.S. Supreme Court justices and views it as
their role to interpret the Constitution. Second, he referenced
a case involving the Matanuska-Susitna Borough regarding state
funding for capital projects. Two Alaska Supreme Court justices
commented that while the issue of adequately funding education
was not before the court, they would likely follow other states
that have embraced adequate funding as a constitutional
requirement.
4:58:09 PM
MR. TRICKEY emphasized that Judge Gleason, a highly respected
and independent judge, provided a thorough and comprehensive
analysis in her ruling and stated his belief that the Alaska
Supreme Court would likely uphold it. He also noted that Judge
Gleason's decision has been cited favorably by legal scholars.
and concluded that it would be illogical to interpret the
Constitution as requiring a system of education without ensuring
adequate funding for that system.
5:00:25 PM
SENATOR STEVENS noted a significant difference between the
legislature, particularly the Senate, and the governor regarding
charter schools. He pointed out that charter schools are
currently under the control of local school districts, with
local control being a strong principle in Alaska. However, the
governor has pushed for charter schools to come under the
control of the State Board of Education. He asked Mr. Trickey
for his reflections on this issue.
5:00:59 PM
MR. TRICKEY responded that he had not yet considered the issue
from a constitutional perspective but would be happy to explore
it further and potentially submit a supplemental letter. He
acknowledged that shifting charter school control from local
school districts to the State Board of Education would represent
a significant departure from the current structure, which
delegates authority to local districts. He emphasized that local
districts are closest to the community, have the most knowledge
of local needs, and understand their students best.
5:01:49 PM
SENATOR STEVENS expressed his appreciation and said it would be
fascinating to hear his thoughts if he finds the time to explore
the issue further.
5:01:56 PM
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON expressed her appreciation for Mr.
Trickey's comments and opinions regarding charter schools,
stating her belief that she did not need to repeat them as
committee members had also seen them.
5:02:13 PM
CHAIR TOBIN said she often thinks about Judge Gleason's
requirement that the state set standards and assess students.
She noted the challenge of determining whether those standards
are being met, especially given the number of students who opt
out of statewide assessments. She highlighted the difficulty in
assessing whether the state is fulfilling the stipulations
outlined in the Moore legal settlement.
5:03:35 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Tobin adjourned the Senate Education Standing Committee
meeting at 5:03 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Education Research - Justin Silverstein Presentation 04.08.2024.pdf |
SEDC 4/8/2024 3:30:00 PM |
Education |
| Education Research - Review of Alaska's School Funding Program 07.23.2015.pdf |
SEDC 4/8/2024 3:30:00 PM |
Education |
| Education Research - Lawrence Picus Presentation 04.08.2024.pdf |
SEDC 4/8/2024 3:30:00 PM |
Education |
| Education Research - Anchorage School District BSA Report 01.25.2023.pdf |
SEDC 4/8/2024 3:30:00 PM |
Education |
| Education Research - Howard Trickey commentary 03.16.2024.pdf |
SEDC 4/8/2024 3:30:00 PM |
Education |