As one of the eight who was on the education package negotiation team earlier in the session (2 from each majority and minority caucuses in the Senate and the same from the House), I am extremely disappointed in the bill the Democrat-controlled majorities have put forward, HB 69.
Knowing what we discussed in those negotiations and where we had agreement, understanding with the other seven that for the bill to pass and be upheld, it would need certain reforms focused on student learning, and seeing the absence of those items, I believe something strange and disconcerting could be afoot.
Something strange afoot with HB 69
I am beginning to think some of the key players in the majorities actually don’t want to work together to craft a bill that will pass and be upheld – that this is more about the left blaming the right for failing to support K-12 education for political purposes and for the left’s efforts to rally support for new taxes. If the majorities truly want to get more funding to the districts, they will work with the minorities and the governor to include some commonsense policy reforms aimed to improve student learning and remove the discriminatory provisions against the public charter and correspondence students, against these two wonderful public school choice options.
Right now, HB 69 incentivizes low proficiency, pulls dollars from public charter schools, puts testing and reporting requirements on public correspondence students beyond those required by students at neighborhood schools, avoids prohibiting the distraction of smart phone use by students, and does not include teacher retention bonuses. The bill is in bad shape.
A game-changer for K-12 education
I’ve been studying and considering something for several years and working on it for the past year. I wasn’t sure when I would bring it forward but based on the bad condition HB 69 is in and the lack of progress the legislature has made in addressing student outcomes since the Alaska Reads Act passed in 2022, I decided it’s time to start talking about this proposal that would be a game-changer for our K-12 education system in Alaska. The STEP Act. The Student and Teacher Excel Package is a bill I have drafted but not yet filed. Along with proficiency incentives and teacher retention bonus, the bill sets up ESAs.
Education Scholarship Accounts
Obviously, you’d like to know what an “ESA” is. An Education Scholarship Account. Seventeen other states have ESAs or a similar mechanism that I like to call “backpack funding” – the funds follow the child. Parents could choose whether or not they’d like to set up an ESA for their child rather than send their child to the local neighborhood or charter school. My bill draft sets the amount at $7000 which is a similar amount to what other states have established.
Using the ESA funds, parents would craft a customized education package to fit their child’s learning needs and style. For example, the funds could be used for a band class at the neighborhood school, a couple courses at the correspondence school, a half day at a non-profit private school, and participation in a community sport league.
The first year, the ESAs would be available only to special needs children, followed by low-income children the next year. In year three, ESAs would be available to the children of members of the military and those who are first responders. All children could access ESAs in the fourth year.
Is it constitutional?
The allowance of ESA fund use for a non-profit private school given in the above example is based on the delegate discussion at the Alaska State Constitutional Convention. The delegates made clear that public funds could be used at private schools for three items that would benefit a child (not the assets of the private entity): bus transportation, nutrition/lunches, and tuition. My bill draft references the minutes of the Constitutional Convention.
Let’s STEP right up, Alaska!
Note: I should not neglect to mention that there is a lawsuit underway regarding the constitutionality of using public correspondence allotments for purchases of services at a private school. To accomplish a thorough review of this issue, the court should consider the delegates’ intent and debate when they adopted Article VII, Section 1 of the Alaska State Constitution.
