Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tribal Compacting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate education committee hears bill to pilot tribally compacted public schools
Summary
State education officials, tribal leaders and legislators told the Senate Education Committee that SB 66 would allow voluntary government‑to‑government compacts enabling tribally governed public schools to operate using public funds, keep statewide accountability and aim to improve outcomes for Alaska Native and rural students; the committee held the bill for sectional analysis and fiscal notes.
The Alaska Senate Education Committee on April 24 received a detailed first hearing on SB 66, a bill to create pilot "state–tribal education compacts" that would allow tribes or tribally authorized organizations to operate public schools under government‑to‑government agreements while remaining subject to state and federal accountability.
Commissioner Dina Bishop of the Department of Education and Early Development and compacting consultant Dr. Joel Isaac presented the bill’s framework and the department’s legislative report to the committee. "Compacting is simply a government‑to‑government agreement," Isaac said, describing a model where tribes would operate tribally compacted public schools that are funded through the foundation formula and still comply with Title 14 and federal assessment requirements.
Representative Chuck Kopp, co‑chair of the Alaska Education Challenge work group, told the committee the pilot grows out of years of consultation and a desire for education that "derives from the culture." He cited persistent low proficiency rates in some rural districts—"in the Northwest Arctic Borough approximately 11% are proficient in English language arts and math; in the Lower Kuskokwim it's about 7%"—and argued compacts offer a path toward higher engagement and better outcomes.
Supporters and department staff described key features of the proposal: tribally compacted schools would operate as school districts for funding purposes (using the foundation formula and adjusted average daily membership), use the state's uniform chart of accounts and financial audits, and continue to administer required state and federal assessments. Dr. Isaac said students in compacted public schools must take the same federal and state tests that other public‑school students take to remain ESSA‑compliant. Commissioner Bishop added that DEED would verify tribal training and issue state licenses for teachers, and described existing certificate types (Type A general teachers; Type B administrators; Type C counselors; Type M for specialized skills; and Type I, developed for paraprofessionals and language‑program personnel).
Tribal partners selected for the demonstration were described as geographically and methodologically diverse. Sonya Scan, education and training director for the Ketchikan Indian Community, told the committee her tribal scholars program — operated in partnership with the local district — has produced strong gains and a "100% graduation rate" in the program’s scope, which she said motivates her support for compacting.
Former UAF Indigenous Programs director Sandra Kowalski, who testified in support of the pilot’s goals, asked the committee to reconsider a provision in SB 66 that would require a limited waiver of sovereign immunity. "If we align this bill more closely with the tribal‑health compacting model where sovereignty is preserved, you're going to get broader participation and strengthen trust with local communities and tribes," she said; that concern remained unresolved in the hearing.
Committee members asked a series of practical questions about testing logistics, opt‑out rates and teacher certification. Dr. Isaac and Commissioner Bishop acknowledged barriers in remote communities — device access, proctoring and COVID‑era testing disruptions — and said the department has sought funding and technical options (including proctoring models) to increase participation. Bishop noted the state already permits parental opt‑outs and that some correspondence programs have lower testing participation; the committee also discussed mechanisms for annual reporting and a pilot evaluation that would provide the legislature more detailed findings.
The committee did not vote on SB 66. Chair Senator Lukey Gale Tobin said the bill would be held until the committee’s Monday meeting for a sectional analysis and review of attached fiscal notes.
What’s next: The Senate Education Committee will reconvene on Monday, April 27 to continue the SB 66 hearing with an in‑depth sectional review and to consider fiscal notes and any amendments.
