Alaska lawmakers hear wide-ranging HB 69 proposal to raise base student allocation, add reading incentives and change accountability

Representative Rebecca Himshid told the Alaska Senate Education Committee on Monday that House Bill 69 seeks to restore purchasing power to the state’s Base Student Allocation and add several accountability and policy changes intended to support classroom learning statewide.

“Flat funding in the BSA” has eroded purchasing power, Himshid said. She told the committee the bill’s original design aimed to restore BSA levels to their 2011 purchasing power over multiple years and to add inflation proofing, but the version before the Senate includes numerous policy additions made in subsequent committee and floor amendments.

Himshid summarized the bill’s major provisions: an increase to the BSA phased over multiple years (details depend on amendments), an intra-district open-enrollment option on a lottery basis with a three-year sunset, expanded reporting and an emphasis on student academic growth rather than single-day proficiency, expanded charter-school authorization and appeal pathways, reading-proficiency incentive grants for K–6, a requirement that the governor present a separate education appropriation and that the legislature act on education funding by March 15, and a task force to review school funding and accountability.

On reading incentives, Himshid said the bill adds a REEDS Act–style incentive: $450 per student in grades K–6 who reach grade-level reading or show measurable improvement; the grants would be awarded at the district level. On accountability, she said the bill would shift statutory emphasis from a single proficiency snapshot to growth measures and require norm-referenced assessments to document growth.

Himshid described several charter-related changes in the bill: reduced timelines for state-board action on denied charter applications (from 90 to 45 days for that step), a requirement that a local board offer an opportunity to remedy deficiencies before terminating a charter, a clearer statutory path for successive renewals, authority for a charter to carry over up to 10% of its unreserved budget, a requirement that the commissioner issue written appeal decisions within 90 days, and movement of local administrative indirect caps from 4% to 8% in the charter funding flow.

Committee members raised multiple concerns and asked for clarifications. Senators asked whether the bill’s growth emphasis could jeopardize federal reporting tied to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and whether limiting annual assessment time to three instructional hours (language in the bill) was practical. Himshid said she had expressed concerns on the floor and did not have a definitive answer about federal requirements.

Several members asked for detail on open enrollment: the bill allows intra-district transfers on a lottery basis, requires parents to provide transportation for transfers, provides sibling priority within lotteries, and sunsets the intra-district open-enrollment option after three years for evaluation. Himshid repeatedly said that many policy details in the substitute language came from amendments adopted in rules and on the House floor and that some sections would be best reviewed in a sectional analysis.

The committee also heard invited testimony from Michael Robbins, superintendent of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District, who spoke in support of HB 69’s funding increase. Robbins said his district has cut dozens of positions and lost grant-writing capacity and that a $1,000 per-student increase to the BSA would help close projected deficits and restore programs. “A strong education system attracts families and businesses,” Robbins said, arguing the bill is an economic as well as an educational investment.

Himshid told senators the bill attracted substantial public interest in the House: the House Education Committee held five hearings, public testimony lasted about five and a half hours, and staff received more than 800 emails reported to be largely in support. She also noted the bill moved through House Finance and Rules with numerous amendments and that the language in front of the Senate reflected that amendment history.

Pending questions and concerns recorded during the hearing included: potential administrative reporting burdens for districts, how the bill’s proposed growth measures will be operationalized (which norm-referenced assessments would be used), how the proposed three-hour cap on assessments would interact with multi-part screeners and federal testing requirements, and whether changes to charter appeals and renewal timelines implicate local-control or constitutional issues. Several senators asked for legal review and fiscal-note details in follow-up sessions.

The committee recessed to invited testimony and public testimony sessions later in the week; no formal action or vote on HB 69 was recorded during Monday’s hearing.