The Alaska Board of Education and Early Development voted unanimously Thursday to not take action on proposed changes to school district funding streams.
The measure would have altered financial definitions for services provided by local governments to districts, in an effort to meet federal requirements and preserve tens of millions of dollars in federal funding.
But the changes proposed by the state have drawn staunch criticism from school officials across Alaska since they were originally presented this summer.
Alaska Education Commissioner Deena Bishop recently reversed course, asking the board not to approve any changes and to return the policy to the department for further adjustment, after previously supporting regulation changes on an emergency basis this summer.
Board member Pamela Dupras was one of several to question if the measure would, or should, come back before the state board.
“I’m questioning now, is it really an issue?” Dupras said. “Does that need to be addressed or does it just need to go away?”
The state’s definition of what’s called the local contribution matters for the federal government’s equity test of education funding. Alaska has failed the test twice, including this year, although it successfully appealed its first failure. The state’s appeal of the most recent disparity test failure is still unresolved.
Alaska is the only state that still uses the disparity test. Because Alaska has so much federal land that is untaxable, some school districts receive payments from the federal government in lieu of their local government’s ability to collect tax revenue from that land. If Alaska can prove that there is only a 25% disparity between the highest- and lowest- funded districts, the state can count that federal funding toward their contribution to local schools.
If the latest appeal is not granted, the state would owe school districts more than $80 million.
School district officials argue that services provided by local governments to districts would cost districts millions of dollars to provide on their own. Those “in-kind” services can include snowplowing, building maintenance and pre-kindergarten programs. District officials argued that such services would become illegal under the definitions that had been included in the state’s proposed regulation change, and said the state’s language was too vague.
Anchorage School District finance officials said the state’s proposed regulation could have cost them $15 million.
Bishop told board members that the regulation change sought to ensure that school districts were following state law when accounting for assistance from their local governments.
“We want to support those, certainly those innovative ways in which they’re receiving revenue, while at the same time following (the) law for equitability,” Bishop said.
Bishop also referenced the Legislature’s Task Force on Education Funding and questioned what role state lawmakers may play in determining whether the state continues to use the disparity test in the future.
Many public school officials opposed the measure in public comments at Thursday’s meeting, criticizing the department’s communication on the matter as much as the proposed regulation change itself. More than 600 public comments were submitted in writing to the board prior to the meeting.
Juneau School District Superintendent Frank Hauser quoted a July letter from the state, asserting that Alaska could pass the test with different accounting methods, not a regulation change.
“The ruse is up. This attempted regulation change is not a federal requirement to pass the disparity test,” Hauser said. “You are being asked to return this effort to the department to develop version 3.0 of this regulation. I am terrified of version 3.0 of this regulation. Each subsequent attempt at this regulation change has had exponentially more negative impacts — impacts beyond what the department realizes. I ask you today to take a different direction and ask the department to stop with this effort all together.”
Several public testifiers referenced a heated public back-and-forth between Anchorage leaders and the state Department of Education during their comments to the board.
An opinion piece published last week by leaders of the Anchorage School Board and Anchorage Assembly criticized the proposed changes. The state education department responded Monday with a Facebook post that included a graphic of a dumpster fire, saying the opinion piece was inaccurate because the department was going to ask to pause the proposal.
“When the agency responsible for leading and supporting Alaska’s schools uses public mockery and personal targeting, that is not communication — it is the breakdown of an essential partnership," Valdez City Schools Director of Technology Megan Gunderson said to the board Tuesday. “This was not just unprofessional — it was harmful. Our districts are not dumpster fires. Moreover, districts should not hesitate to communicate with their communities for fear of targeted retribution or mockery. I urge the State Board of Education to recommend more professional, measured communication from Department leadership on official channels.”
Bishop in an interview Tuesday said the post was intended to garner attention and counter the narrative posed by Anchorage leaders in the opinion piece.