Public testimony urges inflation-proofing of Alaska school funding during House hearing on HB 69

Juneau — The Alaska House Education Committee heard more than three hours of public testimony on Wednesday urging lawmakers to pass House Bill 69, a bill that would raise the state’s base student allocation (BSA) and tie future increases to inflation.

Supporters including parents, superintendents, school board members and business owners said flat funding since about 2011 has forced districts to cut staff and programs and has left many communities facing deficits and possible school closures. Opponents and some parents said increased funding should be coupled with stronger accountability and management reforms.

The bill’s backers told the committee that predictable, inflation‑adjusted funding would allow districts to plan, retain teachers and maintain programs. Lon Garrison, executive director of the Association of Alaska School Boards, told the committee the association’s priorities include “sufficient, sustained, and predictable education funding,” and said inconsistent state funding causes districts to respond to crises rather than invest long term. Roslyn Grady Wyche, education chair for the NAACP Tri‑State Area Conference, said the Alaska Constitution “mandates that we establish and maintain a public school system open to all children,” and that HB 69 would help schools keep pace with rising costs.

Superintendents and district leaders described concrete local impacts. Robin Taylor, superintendent of the Petersburg School District, said Petersburg cut eight full‑time positions last year — “nearly 8.5 percent of our staff” — and said flat funding has increased class sizes and reduced activities. Cody McKenna, principal of Aurora Borealis Charter School, told the committee his district faces a projected $16 million to $17 million deficit and that a BSA increase “is an investment in our future.” Kim Hanish, superintendent of the Unalaska City School District, said her district declined to fill two positions this year and faces an ending fiscal‑year balance around $100,000 if funding does not change.

Speakers cited numbers and research. Christina Turman said the Legislative Finance Office recommended a $1,808 increase in the BSA to reflect inflation; Alex Wertheimer and others described HB 69 as a proposal that would raise the BSA by roughly that amount over multiple years and index it to inflation thereafter. Several rural district representatives highlighted the loss of Secure Rural Schools (SRS) payments and other federal support that has amplified local shortfalls; Brian Templin, city administrator for Craig, urged the committee to consider SRS impacts when weighing school funding.

Charter schools and their families provided mixed testimony. Amanda Thompson, a teacher and charter‑school parent, urged amendments that would include accountability and special consideration for charter schools, and said charters are highly accountable in how they spend funds. Other charter parents and administrators said increases to the BSA would help charter schools retain teachers because BSA increases flow through the funding formula that supports local districts.

Several speakers opposed the bill as written or said more oversight is required. Melody McCollum, a grandparent raising a grandchild in the Mat‑Su Borough, said raising the BSA without “real policy changes to hold districts accountable” would not fix outcomes. Alvin (Alden) Larrabee and others urged the committee to tie funding increases to performance metrics or to require management reforms, arguing that some districts have not translated past funding into improved achievement.

Committee chairs and staff opened the hearing and reminded callers that members of the public would have two minutes each for testimony. The committee published an amendment deadline for HB 69 of Friday, Jan. 31, 2025, at 3 p.m., and announced that the finance subcommittee on education will meet Friday morning at 8 a.m. to continue work on the bill. The committee held HB 69 over for further consideration and said public testimony would resume at 5 p.m. the same day for those who registered by 7 p.m.

Why it matters: Proponents framed HB 69 as a constitutional and operational necessity — a way to stop year‑to‑year funding uncertainty that, they say, directly contributes to teacher shortages, larger class sizes and program cuts across urban and rural districts. Opponents said added spending without management and accountability changes risks repeating past failures. Lawmakers will consider amendments before further committee action.

The committee did not take any formal votes during the public testimony session; the bill was held over for additional debate and potential amendment.