HOUSE BILL NO. 139 "An Act relating to funding for correspondence study programs." 8:49:01 AM Co-Chair Foster explained that the bill had been introduced well before the recent court decision on the topic. He noted that he intended to have a hearing on each of the education bills in the House Finance Committee's possession in order for the committee to think about how it wanted to move forward and to be informed on all of the available tools. He had hoped to have Legislative Legal Services to speak to the court decision; however, it had not been possible to get someone in time for the current meeting. He asked to hear from the bill sponsor. REPRESENTATIVE JUSTIN RUFFRIDGE, SPONSOR, confirmed that the bill had been introduced long before any of the [court] decisions were made. He was able to offer his opinion but could not speak to the legality of different court cases. He relayed that HB 139 sought to put correspondence funding on par with other funding in Alaska. The initial bill sought to add a special needs factor, which other students in the state received at a 1.2 multiplier in the foundation formula. Correspondence programs were currently funded at 90 percent of the average daily membership (ADM) and did not move through the foundation formula. Representative Ruffridge explained that the bill was intended to start the conversation about whether the special needs factor should apply to correspondence students. He acknowledged that sometimes the title was confusing, and it should not be mistaken for the intensive needs factor, which was a special multiplier for students with an individualized learning plan (ILP) for very specific disabilities or learning disabilities that required them to have additional funding. He clarified that the special needs factor applied to all students for certain things like technical or vocational education, advanced placement courses, and a host of other things including athletics. He characterized it as a catchall for all things that students may need that were above and beyond the standard educational platform. He relayed that HB 139 sought to add a special needs factor to correspondence school students to bring them on par with other students in the state. Co-Chair Edgmon asked the same question he asked previously to Senator Tobin and Representative McKay. He noted that correspondence schools were a significant part of SB 140, which had been vetoed by the governor. The governor's veto letter had talked about the need for educational reform and that the money attached to the bill for education, including a large chunk for correspondence schools, did not come with reform. He referenced Senator Tobin's comments earlier in the meeting on assessments and the low number of testing in correspondence schools. He asked for Representative Ruffridge's comments on the topic. Representative Ruffridge responded that assessments were a broad subject. He was currently missing a discussion on assessments with the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) and after he was finished in the current meeting, he would join the discussion and would report back to the committee. He found assessments to be a considerable concern. He elaborated that the assessments offered in Alaska over the past decade had been unusable. He explained that regardless of the testing percentage, it was difficult to trust what was coming out of the assessments given in the state. For example, the cut scores for the assessment given in the past school year were altered to allow the numbers of students deemed proficient to be higher. He stated that if it was possible to manipulate the scores or change the test entirely, he wondered if the amount of funding put towards supporting assessments were rightly spent. He thought the state needed to offer stability and a necessity of tracking successes or failures, which he did not believe was currently occurring. He considered the question of whether students should be able to opt out [of assessments]. He believed it was an important aspect, particularly for students in rural Alaska. He spoke to correspondence schools in general and explained that many students located in remote areas who were being homeschooled or were in a correspondence program typically had to travel to a centralized location to test. He noted the same was true for homeschool students located on the Railbelt or road system. 8:56:41 AM Representative Ruffridge continued to answer Co-Chair Edgmon's question. He detailed that a centralized testing was offered over multiple days and all students were encouraged to go to take the test; however, due to the cost of travel, many parents chose not to participate. He noted that there was equality amongst all students in the state to be able to opt out, but students in brick and mortar schools were more likely to take the test because the test was offered onsite and all of the resources were built to get the students to that spot, while correspondence students, by the nature of being at home, did not have the same opportunity. Potentially with special needs funding there could be some additional resources allocated to allowing students to travel for testing purposes. Representative Ortiz appreciated the intent of the bill to increase [funding for correspondence schools] from 90 percent to 100 percent. He asked if Representative Ruffridge would agree that the number had been originally set at 90 percent with the understanding that the cost for students to attend brick and mortar schools were higher in relationship to facilities and access to activities. Representative Ruffridge replied that he wanted to ensure they were talking about the same bill. He noted there had been a number of correspondence program conversations recently. He detailed that SB 140 had included the ADM, the ADM only, and 100 percent of ADM, which was different than HB 139. He explained that HB 139 was amended in the House Education Committee to retain the 0.9 percent funding, which was reflected in the current version of the bill. The bill added the special needs factor funding. Representative Ortiz asked if the bill would be an avenue to fix the problem in relationship to what had transpired with the court decision. He wondered if the problem would be solved by adopting an amendment to revert back to the way funds were administered to correspondence programs in 2014. Representative Ruffridge answered there would be a bill introduced later in the day sponsored by the House Education Committee that would include statutory language to address the court decision. He advocated for an omnibus fix for education. He believed a wholesale discussion was needed. He shared that he had been a supporter of SB 140. He thought that having the pieces in place to have the conversation prior to the end of session was important. He advocated strongly for the correspondence component in SB 140. He stated that the shorter answer to Representative Ortiz's question was, "Yes, hopefully." 9:01:03 AM Representative Galvin stated that there were population assessments related to how the state was doing and student assessments used by teachers that could be shared among districts and schools. She thought both seemed to be important, especially when thinking about accountability for public funds. She referenced Representative Ruffridge's mention of how difficult it was to travel [to take assessments] for charter and correspondence students. She believed Representative Ruffridge was suggesting that the fix would be to raise the base funding for those particular students. She wondered if the he would entertain the idea of a reimbursement of costs individuals incurred as a result of taking the test. She thought that route may be more acceptable to people currently concerned about the funding spent within that segment of education. She noted that apparently there had been some reports that people were going to private school all day and taking the full allotment and using it for extras. On top of that, the students were not taking the testing; therefore, the state did not know how the public dollars were doing within the public education realm. Representative Ruffridge asked for a distillation of the question. Representative Galvin complied. She asked about opting out of the testing, getting correspondence and charter school students to take the test, and how the legislature may fund it. Representative Ruffridge made a distinction between charter schools and correspondence. He believed charter school students tested at a similar rate to those in brick and mortar neighborhood schools. For the most part, charter schools were brick and mortar neighborhood schools, which had a slightly different operational model including boards run by parents and with that could be run separate of the school district in some sense. He relayed that correspondence schools had a much lower testing rate. He stated there was a long history of ways to leverage homeschool students to take state testing including holding their allotment for the following year for refusing to take the statewide test. He relayed that it was a program run in Alaska for many years. He noted it was not a kind or particularly stable way of getting at the issue. He thought the existing method was a much better way of administering the program. He relayed that correspondence he had worked with during his time in Alaska went out of their way to make testing available to students. Ultimately, it came down to whether a parent chose to take advantage of the option. The option was the same option afforded to every parent in the state, which was equally given. 9:06:00 AM Representative Galvin stated heard so much about accountability and accountability of public dollars. She highlighted that it was very hard to assess how the state was doing with its public dollars if it did not have some measure of how the state was doing population wise. She thought it may be a component to consider when thinking through how to reform education to help improve all students. She believed an additional component would be improved sharing among educators on how the growth of the state's students was going. She understood that all of the things required resources. Representative Cronk remarked that the lawsuit had been backed by the National Education Association in support of the state's brick and mortar schools. He remarked that the state could not use public funds for private school. He shared that he had been a teacher for 25 years. He thought public school districts had violated the constitution because they had paid for private school classes. He elaborated that his school district used to pay Bringham Young University to teach classes. He thought it was ironic a lawsuit was filed against correspondence kids, yet the school districts had paid for private school classes for students. He did not believe there was a quick fix to the situation at hand. He asked who was to say that McGraw Hill was not a private company that the state was buying curriculum from. He thought it was a much bigger issue now that a judge had ruled "this was" unconstitutional. He asked who would determine which curriculum company was not private. He reiterated his comments about a district paying for classes at the private Bringham Young University. He thought it was an obvious violation of the constitution. Representative Ruffridge answered that he had received some clarity when looking at some of the correspondence programs aligned with private schools in Alaska offering payment for their tuition for children to attend private school essentially full-time. He believed it was not the intention of the correspondence program allotment. He thought the judge's decision required clarity in some cases in terms of how far it reached. He had looked up some of the minutes of the constitutional convention and believed the intention was that students attending a private school full-time should not have state funds going to pay their tuition. He thought it was a little less clear for classes, tutoring services, and curriculums. He thought there was a possibility the legislature could work on a fix of some sort going forward. He believed it would be challenging and that there would be some uncertainty working through the situation. He did not want to be afraid of having the hard conversations. Part of the conversation was addressing how to fund correspondence schools because they were part of the public education system in Alaska. He believed allowing parents to have the opportunity to educate students at home was envied by other states. He was supremely grateful to his homeschooling opportunity as a child and thanked his mother for her sacrifice. Representative Cronk estimated that his district had over half the correspondence students. He stated the argument had been that using funds for classes at private schools was not appropriate. However, public school districts had been doing so since he was a teacher. He found it ironic that it was possible to pick and choose what to fight against. He supported correspondence. He found it frustrating to see one entity picking on another, when the practice had been going on for years. 9:12:48 AM Representative Hannan asked for verification that the provisions pertaining to the special needs factor would apply to every child enrolled in correspondence versus students identified with special needs. Representative Ruffridge clarified that the special needs factor already applied to every student attending a brick and mortar school. He detailed that it was a 20 percent multiplier to the ADM. He relayed that there was a very specific difference between intensive needs, which a student needed to apply for, and special needs, which applied to every student. He believed special needs should apply to all students. Representative Hannan stated that every school needed to be prepared by law to comply with the federal law to have a certified special education teacher for students with individualized education plans (IEP). She reasoned that sometimes it was not cost effective because there was the [special needs] factor and a lot of kids. She stated that generally in correspondence there was a smaller number of kids in a unit. She explained that even though the Galena School District would receive the funding, there may not be any kids in Kenai that needed the special education services. She asked for verification that Representative Ruffridge wanted the factor to be applied to every correspondent student whether any services needed to be delivered or not. Representative Ruffridge believed they were conflating two separate issues. He clarified that the special needs factor was a catchall for a large number of things including advanced placement classes, technical vocational education, and other things. He noted that statute clearly laid out the large list of services that applied. He encouraged legislators to visit a correspondence program because they offered some of the things that Representative Hannan was concerned about. He highlighted one program in Juneau. He elaborated that some of the things were offered at a very high level and provided some coverage for occupational, physical, or other needs without any additional funds. He stated they were doing an incredible job of using the limited resources available to provide even the intensive needs services in some cases. Most of the certified teachers available to students within homeschool programs had years of teaching and homeschooling experience. He elaborated that they were helping parents learn how to be good teachers at home. He remarked the legislature supported the Parents as Teachers program through the budget process, but the program actually had nothing to do with homeschooling. He thought the homeschooling programs provided a large amount of support to parents and offered special needs and other intensive needs services at home or through the program, currently without additional funding. He disagreed with the idea that the services were not being offered within correspondence programs. Representative Hannan remarked that there were three home school centers in Juneau: Idea, Raven, and Homebridge. She noted that she had visited all three. 9:17:59 AM Representative Stapp remarked on the conversation and stated that there was an attempt at a narrative regarding accountability around homeschool kids. He thought there was a misconception by many members of the committee about how correspondence programs worked. He asked how many kids in Alaska were currently in correspondence schools. He asked for the total number of students enrolled in public school in Alaska. Representative Ruffridge answered that about 22,000 to 23,000 students were enrolled in correspondence programs. There were about 100,000 students enrolled in brick and mortar schools. He stated there a total of 128,000 students. Representative Stapp estimated that 22,000 was about 24 percent of the total. He if it was reasonable to conclude that if 14 percent of the 22,000 were testing, there was not accountability for the kids not testing. He noted that the vast majority of the kids in the school system were testing and there were reliable numbers for how kids tested and scored. He considered comments that a fraction of a fraction of a total population did not have accountability. He found it to be ironic that individuals did not see that the problem was that the majority of the kids in the school system were testing poorly. He asked if it was a fair assessment. Representative Ruffridge answered that assessments in general as a singular measure of accountability was probably the wrong thing. He relayed that in the case of some of the court decisions he thought in some cases there was very blatant signaling about what was happening and likely DEED or the state board should have taken some action to make sure it was clear what was not allowed. He thought that was accountability. He did not necessarily know that accountability had a single answer. He remarked that because Alaska could not pick a test or score that mattered, he thought it was a very poor measure of accountability. Representative Stapp asked if correspondence schools were operated by public schools. Representative Ruffridge responded affirmatively. Representative Stapp stated that numerous committee members had talked about local control. He asked if local school districts had the ability to change the structure of how they want to administer their homeschool programs, even changing if they wanted to give an allotment or not. He asked for verification that nothing compelled them to do so. Representative Ruffridge answered affirmatively. He relayed that each district decided the allotment amount. He noted it was incredibly varied. Representative Stapp thought it was fair to say that when people talked about local and accountability, they were looking for a statewide solution for correspondence school testing; however, local school districts already had the ability to impose accountability metrics themselves by changing the structure of their individual homeschool programs because they were public schools. Representative Ruffridge replied affirmatively. He relayed that in his experience, local districts were highly supportive of their correspondence programs because parents wanted the option. He elaborated that because there many options for correspondence programs throughout the state, there was a bit of a push-pull competition going on for who could take the best care of a student. He noted there were three [correspondence programs] in Juneau and each one had a connection to a specific district. Parents could choose which one fit the needs of a certain group of people; they may find a home in one and not find the supports they need in another. 9:23:09 AM Representative Stapp agreed. He considered how changing the spend multiplier for correspondence students worked in conjunction with the court case. He asked if correspondence school funding was basically discretionary spending for districts. Representative Ruffridge responded affirmatively. Representative Stapp stated that the court case even struck down the 1997 statute regarding ILPs and allotments. He asked what would happen with the increased funding for correspondence schools if it was determined that allotments and ILPs were not legal. Representative Ruffridge answered that the funding would go to the school district. Representative Stapp asked if the district could do whatever it wanted with the funds because it was discretionary spending. Representative Ruffridge agreed. Representative Josephson appreciated Representative Ruffridge's nuanced answer to Representative Cronk on his understanding of the NEA backed case. He agreed that the state constitution did not intend for the state to fire up number two pencil factories because it could not purchase them from a vendor. He did not believe that was what the constitution intended. He addressed the accountability component of the meeting conversation. He recalled that when he worked as a public school teacher in western Alaska, he had taken the GRE with a proctor in rural Alaska when preparing to go to law school. He asked if a similar system could be designed. Representative Ruffridge remarked that he thought a number two pencil factory and factories in general in Alaska were a good idea. He agreed that a proctored exam could be done. He was not certain what the options were in terms of online availability and connectivity issues could occur. The legislature had worked to address connectivity issues with broadband assistance grants and other solutions. He noted that the tests offered in person were proctored. There was significant staffing and building rental that currently occurred in order to administer tests for correspondence programs. He thought it was an opportunity to ask some questions about the idea and he thought it was a good line of thinking to do so going forward. 9:26:57 AM Co-Chair Johnson remarked that accountability and testing was not really a part of the bill. She appreciated the bill. She remarked on the idea of separating out correspondence programs and providing less funding because they were not located in a brick and mortar building. She highlighted that the students still had to be housed somewhere. She would love to have the same conversation on accountability related to the entire education funding instead of doing things piecemeal. She noted they had a problem in Alaska with getting kids up to national standards. She stated it did not start and end with correspondence students. Representative Ruffridge thought the answer when asking about accountability in neighborhood schools was to look at all of the information districts were providing back to the state in terms of where the money went, how it was spent, who was testing, how they were testing, etcetera. He stated that correspondence programs were run by districts and all of the same things provided to neighborhood schools related to accountability for funds were offered through correspondence programs as well. He noted that Representative Stapp had an interesting line of questioning about whether correspondence programs were district run, district allocated, and district accountable programs. The answer was yes. He found separating the programs out as "other" was odd to him. He supported an omnibus approach for education. He thought education should be considered on a wholesale level including asking how neighborhood schools and neighborhood schools were doing and if they were getting the needed resources. He stated that the concept in the bill was one component of the "three headed question." He thought it was important to remember that the programs were all district run, district allocated, and district accountable and were ultimately accountable to DEED. 9:30:25 AM Co-Chair Edgmon appreciated the comment. He highlighted there were 19 remaining days in session. He fully supported a comprehensive discussion on a holistic level as outlined. He hoped work could be done over the coming interim to prep legislators for the following session. He hoped the governor could be involved in the larger discussion as well. He believed there was support to do so for correspondence, charter school, and brick and mortar programs. He appreciated the commentary and Representative Ruffridge's ability to respond to questions from all angles including the lawsuit with the correspondence programs. HB 139 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration. Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the next meeting to take place immediately.