Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legislative finance briefs task force on Alaska K–12 funding, flags federal disparity risk
Summary
Nonpartisan finance staff told the education‑funding task force that Alaska’s foundation formula and enrollment shifts (more correspondence students, growing intensive special‑education counts) complicate funding and that a recent federal disparity‑test failure could cost the state about $80 million.
Alexi Painter, director of the Legislative Finance Division, and fiscal analyst Connor Bell told the Joint Legislative Task Force on Education Funding on Aug. 25 that Alaska’s K–12 system remains dominated by the state share, but changes in how students are counted and how formula factors are applied have created fiscal and policy tradeoffs.
"Sixty‑two percent of funding comes from state sources, 25% from local sources, 11% from federal sources," Bell said as he walked members through the division’s budget‑breakdown slides. He described the foundation formula as the largest single funding source and reviewed other significant buckets, including transportation and retirement payments the state makes on districts’ behalf.
The presentation broke down how the foundation formula converts an October student count into 'basic need' through a sequence of multipliers: school‑size and district‑cost factors, a 1.2 special‑needs block grant multiplier, a small CTE multiplier (1.015, proposed to 1.023 if SB 113 is enacted), and a 13× multiplier for students who qualify for intensive special‑education funding. Correspondence students are funded at 90% of a full ADM, officials said.
Task force members pressed staff for detail on those multipliers. Representative Ruffridge urged revisiting district‑cost and school‑size factors and questioned the block‑grant design that allows districts flexibility in spending funds that are nominally targeted. Representative Story asked for a deeper look at special‑education tiers and the history of why correspondence students moved from a 0.8 to a 0.9 factor.
Painter warned that enrollment shifts make longitudinal comparisons difficult. "Since FY17 the total student count has dropped while correspondence programs have grown sharply," he said, and noted intensive special‑education students have risen (Painter reported an increase of about 730 students, roughly 27.7% since FY17). Those changes affect adjusted ADM calculations and the distribution of formula dollars.
Staff also discussed a recent federal discrepancy: Painter said the state was informed it had failed a federal 'disparity test' on an approach to counting and adjusting students, which could prevent the state from deducting certain federal impact aid and would increase state costs. Painter said failing that test could cost the state on the order of $80 million based on the submission under review.
The brief also outlined statutory and administrative levers lawmakers can use: changing the base student allocation, altering formula multipliers, modifying employer‑payment caps for retirement contributions, adjusting required local contributions, and using outside‑the‑formula one‑time funding.
The task force requested follow‑up analyses, including: a detailed reconciliation of how enrollment shifts since FY21 affected brick‑and‑mortar resources; cross‑tabs of intensive special‑education counts and workforce vacancies in positions that serve that population; projections of how tribal compacting proposals might affect disparity‑test compliance; and corrected slide decks for distribution.
Painter and Bell said they will provide updated slides and targeted analyses to inform the committee’s November review when outside experts (ISER, Pikus Soden, APA Consulting) will present.
