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