HB 139-CORRESPONDENCE STUDY PROGRAM FUNDING  8:59:07 AM CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 139, "An Act relating to funding for correspondence study programs." CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE entertained amendments. 8:59:38 AM REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY indicated that Amendment 1, [included in the committee packet, would not be offered]. 8:59:48 AM The committee took an at-ease from 8:59 a.m. to 9:01 a.m. 9:01:40 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to adopt Amendment 2 to HB 139, labeled 33-LS0582\B.1/Marx 4/12/23, which read as follows: Page 1, lines 8 - 9: Delete "multiplying the ADM of the correspondence program by the special needs factor in  AS 14.17.420(a)(1) [90 PERCENT]" Insert "(1) multiplying the ADM of the correspondence program by 90 percent; and (2) except as provided in (b) of this  section, multiplying the number obtained under (1) of  this subsection by the special needs factor in  AS 14.17.420(a)(1)" Page 1, following line 9: Insert a new bill section to read:  "* Sec. 2. AS 14.17.430 is amended by adding new subsections to read: (b) A correspondence program described in (a) of this section must maintain a correspondence program student assessment participation rate of at least 96 percent or the average participation rate of all district student assessment participation rates in the state, whichever is less. If the correspondence program fails to meet the student assessment participation requirement for more than two consecutive fiscal years, funding for the correspondence program in a subsequent fiscal year may not include the special needs factor adjustment described in (a)(2) of this section. A correspondence program that meets the student assessment participation requirement after losing funding under this subsection is eligible to receive the special needs factor adjustment described in (a)(2) of this section in the following fiscal year. (c) In this section, (1) "correspondence program student assessment participation rate" means the percentage obtained by dividing the number of students enrolled in a correspondence program who took a statewide student assessment administered by the correspondence program by the number of students enrolled in a grade in which the correspondence program administers the assessment on the first day that the correspondence program begins administering the assessment; (2) "district student assessment participation rate" means the percentage obtained by dividing the number of students enrolled in a district who took a statewide student assessment administered by the district by the number of students enrolled in a grade in which the district administers the assessment on the first day that the district begins administering the assessment; (3) "statewide student assessment" means a standards-based test or assessment required by the department under AS 14.03.123(f)." CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE objected. REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said Amendment 2 did two things. Firstly, it would implement the superintendents request to multiply the correspondence program's average daily membership (ADM) by 90 percent and provide a multiplier of 1.2. She added that she took the legislature's role as the "middle man for the public dollar" very seriously, opining that the money should be spent wisely. The second part of the amendment would set accountability standards for correspondence programs to show performance measures for the investment of public dollars. 9:03:47 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY requested to hear from Superintendent Reitan on the letter submitted by the superintendents. She shared her belief that the 96 percentile would be too high of a dump as a growth measure and asked Representative Himschoot to speak to that. 9:04:40 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT highlighted lines 14-15 of Amendment 2. She explained that if the building-based programs are reaching 80 percent, the correspondence programs would also have to reach 80 percent. She added that the programs would have several years to reach and maintain that standard. 9:05:28 AM CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE reiterated that the question posed by Representative Story is in reference to the letter signed by Mr. Reitan, who is available for discussion. 9:05:55 AM CHRIS REITAN, Superintendent, Craig City School District, joined the discussion on Amendment 2. He offered his understanding that all the districts who operate homeschool programs would be pleased in regard to what the amendment is doing with 90 percent of the base student allocation (BSA) plus the special needs factor. He stressed the importance of having a "level playing field" with brick-and-mortar schools. The second piece of Amendment 2, he said, would make it difficult for all school districts, especially correspondence schools, to meet that standard. He related hearing from parents who said they know their children the best in reference to developing an individual plan, consultations with the school district, or contacting teacher about which plan most appropriately meets the student's needs. He opined that the second piece of Amendment 2 puts district in an awkward place in regard to providing all parents a right to direct education. He said no school district is trying to shy away from accountability; instead, districts are trying their best to fit into state statutes that have already been put in place. 9:10:02 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked Mr. Reitan what the federal assessment requirement was. MR. REITAN replied it is 95 percent. REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT referred to lines 12-15 in Amendment 2, and stated that she was hesitant to invest the public's money in a program that does not meet the same standards as other programs. MR. REITAN replied that he could only speak to the correspondence programs he works, explaining that there are other assessment items in place for families to utilize with their students in consultation with their contact teacher. Another item his organization tracks, he said, is the number of students accessing college university classes, which was not addressed in the bill. 9:13:45 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRAX observed there were two pieces to the amendment: the money, and the assessment. He stated that he was most concerned about the assessment piece being logistically difficult for the statewide correspondence programs to arrange for the tests, in addition to getting everyone together in the same place to take the tests when the results "don't mean anything." He said he questioned the value of the tests, and asked why districts would be asked to spend more money on tests that "we don't care about." 9:16:29 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked Mr. Reitan whether brick and mortar programs also produce similar measures of success with their students not related to testing. MR. REITAN responded absolutely. Statewide, he said, district assessments are a "snapshot," of a particular time in a student's life. He defined success as when a student graduates from their system with every option available to them regardless of what they want to do moving forward. 9:18:07 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY considered a scenario in which the correspondence school was not meeting the intent of the individual education plan (IEP) and asked whether liability would fall to the district or the correspondence school. MR. REITAN clarified that the individual education plan for students with disabilities was based on where the student is most enrolled. He provided an example of students partially enrolled in both brick-and-mortar and correspondence programs, and based on the percentage of where they are most enrolled, that school would be responsible for managing the IEP as well as working with the parents. REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether the responsibility for correspondence programs was the reason superintendents wanted to keep it at .9 instead of 1. MR. REITAN replied that increasing special education enrollment in correspondence programs has been going on a number of years. Without addressing the entire BSA formula, he reasoned that [.9] seemed equitable in regard to receiving the 1.0 special needs factor. 9:21:51 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRAX commented on the "secret sauce" that seems to make the correspondence programs work, and the ability to structure the curriculum to the individual. He stated that there is much less need for standardized testing and centralized accountability, and reiterated that he wished to vote down Amendment 2 and focus on Amendment 3. 9:24:35 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked Mr. Reitan whether it was possible to meet federal mandates surrounding special education. Additionally, she asked what the ratio was for special education teachers to IEP students. 9:25:38 AM MR. REITAN explained that when he was in Galena, Alaska, staff looked at a ratio of 1 to 60 max for IDEA students with special needs. Special education teachers didn't have the daily responsibility of also doing the instruction for the students since they work through the parents, he said. He stated that if HB 139 passed, there would be difficulties finding high quality special education teachers. 9:27:38 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY opined that 1 to 15 was an excellent ratio. She highlighted the difficulty of finding special education teachers, noting that many in the Juneau School District were hired by contract, which was more expensive. 9:28:15 AM CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE agreed with Representative Prax about taking up Amendment 3 to discuss the funding component. Regarding Amendment 2, he opined that the proposal would add a burden that contradicts current statute regarding the right of a parent to choose to participate in a test or not. He affirmed he would not support Amendment 2 and maintained his objection. 9:29:12 AM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McCormick and Himschoot voted in favor of the motion to adopt Amendment 2 to HB 139. Representatives McKay, Story, Prax, and Ruffridge voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 2-4. 9:29:50 AM CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE announced that HB 139 was held over.