Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hb 69 Achievement Incentive Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Amendment to HB 69 aimed at rewarding school performance fails on tie vote; bill held
Summary
An amendment to House Bill 69 that would have added an achievement-incentive funding factor and removed targeted improvement grants failed on a 3–3 roll call. Lawmakers said the proposal is substantial policy change better suited as its own bill; HB 69 was held for later consideration.
Juneau — Lawmakers in the House Education Committee debated and rejected Amendment 1 to House Bill 69 on Feb. 12, after a lengthy policy discussion about whether to tie funding to growth and post‑graduation outcomes.
Representative Roseanne Schwanke, who offered the amendment, said the amendment was motivated by concern over the bill’s fiscal note—she cited a potential outlay “over a $300,000,000” as a reason to rework the proposal. Schwanke described Amendment 1 as removing the existing “improvement school performance” grants and instead adding an “achievement incentive funding” factor to the funding formula that could add up to 20 percent (a 1.2 multiplier in the sponsor’s model) to district allocations.
The amendment laid out four components for the incentive factor: math proficiency and growth (weighting growth more heavily than raw proficiency), reading proficiency and growth (again prioritizing growth), graduation rates, and a post‑graduation metric intended to track students into employment, military service or post‑secondary education. Schwanke said the amendment also would base assessments on nationally norm‑referenced tests and would extend an incentive to the homeschool component.
Committee discussion and voting: Members debated the policy merits and the need for additional vetting. Representative Elam and others praised the effort to redefine success and focus on growth and post‑graduation outcomes. Representative Stewart and Co‑chair Story urged the sponsor to develop the proposal as a standalone policy bill and to consult legislative finance and the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) for a formal fiscal analysis.
When the roll call was taken after an objection was maintained, the committee recorded three yes votes and three no votes, with one member absent; the amendment therefore failed. Committee co‑chair Rebecca Hemshutt and co‑chair Story voted no; Representatives Underwood, Elam and Schwanke voted yes; Representative Eisheide voted no; Representative Deibert was recorded as not present.
After the tie vote, the committee took a brief recess and then opted to hold HB 69 for future consideration rather than pass the amendment as part of the current bill.
Ending: Multiple committee members said they supported the policy goals behind the amendment but that the proposed changes were substantial enough to require their own bill and a full fiscal and policy vetting before being attached as an amendment.
