By: Corinne Smith, Alaska Beacon
Officials with the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development have walked back a proposal to limit local governments’ funding for public schools, instead asking the State Board of Education to take no action on the item this week.
The State Board of Education was set to vote this week on a controversial measure that many school officials and education advocates say would bar local municipalities from providing much-needed funding and support services to local schools.
Instead the board voted unanimously on Thursday, at a DEED official’s request, to take no action and return the proposal to the department for further development.
“As a result of the feedback we received, the department will be recommending that the state board take no action on this item, return the proposed regulation to the board or to the department for further collaboration and input with key stakeholders,” said Heather Heineken, the division director for finance and support services for the department, to the board Wednesday, the first day of a two-day meeting.
The proposal came under sharp criticism and public alarm beginning in June, when DEED introduced the measure as an emergency regulation change. Officials said the move was intended to redefine the amount local municipalities provide for schools — called the local contribution — to include “services provided at no charge to a district by the city or borough.”
At the time, DEED officials said it was a way to address the balance of funding for schools ↣— in Alaska’s complex school funding formula which includes local, state and federal funding — and avoid failing a federal disparity test.
The disparity test is required by the U.S. Department of Education to regulate the spread between the highest and lowest funded districts, because of the way the state uses some federal funding, called impact aid. The state failed the test earlier this year, but is in the process of appealing the ruling.
Education Commissioner Deena Bishop, however, reversed that argument and told board members further discussion was needed with districts and financial offices to clarify what “in-kind” contributions are being made and how they were accounted for. She said that was needed to align with state law and standards for equity between districts.
“We’re not reacting to the federal government. What we are (doing) is trying to meet the state statute that calls for that equitable funding,” Bishop told the board on Wednesday.
Public raises alarm at unclear change to local contributions
State board members received more than 600 public comments, mostly opposing the measure, in June and July when the regulation was introduced, calling the proposed change vague and potentially limiting vital municipal funding for schools.
During public comment on Thursday, several district officials expressed opposition and concern.
Valdez School District Superintendent Jason Weber said the change could jeopardize essential city funding, including for transportation and school meals.
“Our Food Service Program is also at a breaking point. Even after raising lunch prices by $1 per meal last year, we’re still operating at a deficit. Every dollar cut from food service funding is $1 taken away from the plates of kids, these regulations would directly reduce the food we can provide for our students, something no community should have to accept,” he said.
“Each Alaskan community has unique needs and challenges the decisions about how to support and operate schools should be made by those who live and work closest to them, not through a one size fits all mandate from the state level, undermining local authority threatens the very foundation of community supported education in Alaska,” Weber said.
Juneau School District Superintendent Frank Hauser pointed to the state’s own appeal of the federal disparity test as evidence the change is unnecessary.
“According to DEED’s July 14 letter, the state would meet the disparity standard, not with a regulation change, which isn’t even mentioned, but by a different accounting method,” Hauser said.
Hauser asked board members to vote the regulation down.
“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, even to REAAS, home school and correspondence students, instead of enacting the oft quoted definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, I ask you today to take a different direction and ask the department to stop with this effort altogether,” he said.
During public comment, district officials also raised concerns at a recent DEED Facebook post, which shared a statement over an image of a burning dumpster fire, calling several Anchorage officials’ out by name, saying that their information was “inaccurate” and saying DEED no longer was pushing the proposal. Commenters called the social media post “unprofessional” and not “positive or proactive communication.”
Anchorage officials had penned an op-ed in the Anchorage Daily News, opposing the regulation change, saying it could “gut” the district and strip $15 million in municipal funding, including for school buses and school resource officers.
State board members vote to return proposal to DEED
Before the vote, several state board members questioned whether the proposal should come back to the board.
“I guess I’m questioning now, is it really an issue, or is that needs to be addressed, or does it just need to go away?” asked board member Pamela Dupras on Thursday.
Bishop responded that DEED will gather more feedback, and work with districts to adhere to state law and requirements for equitability. She also pointed to the new Legislative Task Force on Education Funding that may take up the issue and recommend new legislation to define local contributions.
Bishop said DEED would work with district officials and finance departments to further clarify the requirements. “I’m glad that you’re pulling this back,” she said.
She also acknowledged the frustration of districts. “Every two weeks from August until now, I’ve been sharing the same message that, yes, we do not want to put this forward. So I understand the frustration with what was in writing, certainly superintendents that attended all those meetings knew the intent,” she said.
“I think just the stress about school funding, a lot of trust isn’t there,” Bishop added. “The Department wants to earn that trust back and continue with the work.”
