1.2 OPPOSING MANDATED SCHOOL CONSOLIDATION
AASB is opposed to mandated school consolidation because it will greatly reduce local control for a significant
number of school districts in Alaska.

Rationale. In 2004 the Alaska Local Boundary Commission (LBC) and Department of Education & Early Development
(EED) completed a report, which suggests only marginal savings by consolidation of school districts. AASB continues
to seek and engage in cooperative and shared service opportunities, thereby creating a significant savings of state tax
dollars for all involved.

The concept of cooperation and shared services, as an alternative to mandated consolidation, ensures local
autonomy and decision-making is preserved. AS.14.14.115 provides a grant program that encourages the sharing of
services to recognize cost economies. Some communities and school districts have considered it viable to
consolidate, and have done so through their own volition as a local decision. Others currently participate in shared
administrative services, including purchasing and other business functions, and should be applauded and encouraged
in their efforts to achieve efficiencies.

No evidence has been provided to support the proposition that significant savings or improved student learning would
result from the indiscriminate combining of school districts. Studies on school consolidation imply an imperceptible
savings. Public perception may be different. School boards are encouraged to involve the public more thoroughly in
efforts to explain their budget and to seek input throughout the budgeting process. Amended 1999 & 2003 (Sunset
Nov. 2008)

1.3 OPPOSITION TO MANDATED BOROUGH FORMATION
AASB continues to oppose mandatory formation of boroughs. A mandatory borough act reduces the current level of
local responsibility and control by encouraging the elimination of small REAA districts and small city districts, and
would also reduce the level of local control of education, as it exists today.
Rationale. Local communities may differ in their values and the priorities associated with the delivery of educational
services.

A mandatory borough act ignores the economic reality of the lack of an adequate tax base in some rural areas of the
State. If the state wishes to require local communities to contribute financially, the legislature already has the statutory
authority to implement a tax in the unorganized borough. Creating an additional level of local government may not
produce the desired effect. Amended 2001, 20003 (Sunset Nov. 2008)

1.4 MAINTAINING LOCAL CONTROL IN CHARTER SCHOOL FORMATION
AASB recognizes charter schools as a locally developed alternative to the standard education program. AASB
supports charter schools as long as the local school board:
(a) retains the sole authority to approve the charter;
(b) retains options to terminate the charter of any school that fails to meet criteria set forth in the charter
or as otherwise specified by the local school board;
(c) maintains authority to require and enforce accountability, including determining the criteria, standards,
or outcomes that will be used in establishing the charter;
(d) ensures that a charter does not foster racial, social, religious or economic segregation or segregation
of children with disabilities.

Rationale. Section 14.12.020 in Title 14 of the Alaska Education Laws states that a school district shall be operated
under the management and control of a school board. SB 88, Formation of Charter Schools, became law in 1995. It
gave local school boards the ability to approve or deny charter school applications, and not be overturned by another
group, and gave local boards the ability to add other requirements for charter schools, including Principal/Head
Teacher Certification. Amended 1998, 1999, 2003 (Sunset Nov. 2008)

1.5 SCHOOL VOUCHERS
The Association of Alaska School Boards is opposed to using public tax dollars to finance private, parochial, or home
school vouchers.

Rationale. Public schools educate every child, regardless of race, ability, religion, economic circumstance, or special
needs. Public schools, through their elected school boards, are directly accountable to the citizens of the community
for the expenditure of public funds. Taxpayer-funded vouchers for private, parochial, or home school tuition and fees
drain scarce resources from public classrooms and diminish revenues available for public schools. Vouchers may
raise local taxes if state appropriation is insufficient.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2002 that a voucher program in Ohio did not violate the
U.S. Constitution. Referenda in other states have turned down vouchers. The Alaska Supreme Court has held that the
following provision of the Alaska Constitution, a restriction independent of the U.S. Constitution, bars disbursement of
public funds for the purchase of private or parochial education:
“The legislature shall by general law establish and maintain a system of public schools open to all children of the
State, and may provide for other public educational institutions. Schools and institutions so established shall be free
from sectarian control. No money shall be paid from public funds for the direct benefit of any religious or other private
educational institution.”

(Alaska Constitution, Section 1. Public Education.)
In addition, voucher funding tied to students could not fully ensure students or taxpayers the benefits of accountability
measures, like state mandated content and student performance standards, and could not satisfy other state and
federal mandates under which public schools are required to operate, without invading the religious and other
constitutional freedoms of private and parochial schools. (Sunset Nov. 2008)

1.6 CENTRALIZED TREASURY: DISTRIBUTION OF ALLOCATED FUNDS FOR SCHOOLS AND
INTEREST EARNED
AASB urges the Legislature to provide that all designated funds directed to school districts, including interest earning
related thereto, must go to school districts without penalty, and that all interest on school district funds must accrue to
the school district.

Rationale. Educational funds appropriated by State and local governments are appropriated for the purpose of public
education. The efforts of local school districts should be to provide sound planning for future educational needs. State
funds allocated to school districts have been retained by certain municipalities under centralized treasuries. Some
municipalities retain fund balances on school budget monies, and interest accrued on school funds are sometimes
held by the municipalities. As it is unclear how interest on school funds are to be distributed, this action will make
certain all moneys allocated and earned for schools are used to benefit children. Currently, with a municipal
centralized treasury it is possible for school money to be used for things other than education. “Use it or lose it” is a
disincentive to utilize educational funds in the most efficient and effective manner. Adopted 1998. Amended 2002,
2004 (Sunset Nov. 2008)

1.7 SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT (NCLB)
AASB urges the legislature and the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development to join AASB in
advocating for improving the federal No Child Left Behind Act by amending the law to replace arbitrary proficiency
targets with ambitious achievement targets based on rates of success actually achieved by the most effective public
schools. The federal law should be amended to allow states to measure progress by using students’ growth in
achievement, as well as their performance in relation to predetermined levels of academic proficiency. Other changes
to the law should be aimed at ensuring state and local control over requirements for “highly qualified” teachers for
every class, especially in small schools; state and local capacity to effectively address school improvement and
student achievement goals; that improvement plans are given sufficient time to take hold before applying sanctions;
and that funding of Title I and other programs are raised to the levels required by these recommendations without
reducing expenditures for other educational programs.

Rationale. In the five years since passage of NCLB, local school boards have gained substantial experience with its
implementation, including the benefits of having rich data about the performance of specific schools and groups of
children in their communities. In addition to these benefits, boards have concluded that NCLB places too much
emphasis on one way of evaluating schools and students. Among our concerns is an over-emphasis of standardized
testing; a narrowing of curriculum and instruction to focus on test preparation; the use of sanctions that do not help
improve schools; the inherent impossibility of 100 percent of special education and LEP students passing tests at
grade level; and inadequate funding. The NAEP assessment is the national assessment. Nationally normed tests,
such as Terra Nova, that are not aligned to Alaska state standards should not be mandated.

1.8 ACCOUNTABILITY FOR HOME-SCHOOLED STUDENTS OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC
SCHOOL SYSTEM
AASB urges the Legislature to give State Department of Education and Early Development the authority and funding
to register and track the achievement of all school-age children throughout the state who are not enrolled in public
schools or private schools that perform assessment substantially equivalent to that performed by the state. Parents of
such students should be required to provide information regarding instruction of and progress of their children, to
provide accountability that essential skills are being taught and learned. Public school students are already tracked
through benchmark exams and the HSGQE. AASB supports testing for all students to see that adequate, essential
skills are being provided.

Rationale. The goal is to ensure every child receives a quality education. Children receiving an education outside the
public school system at home are not required to register or be accountable throughout their education. The State of
Alaska has no compulsory law requiring some form of educational plan be filed with the state. Whether by not
enrolling or by leaving the school systems of the state, no “safety nets” for students are in place to assure that all
students are receiving the benefit and right of an education. No independent or objective testing, including the high
school qualifying exam, is required for these students.

Though home schooling can be very effective for some, public schools often receive students who have fallen behind
due to failed home schooling or the lack of schooling. Entry of these students into public education puts the receiving
districts in a position of providing substantial remedial assistance, while subjecting the students to the same testing
and evaluation standards as other students. With the enactment of federal No Child Left Behind legislation and state
designators, public schools will be unfairly held accountable for any inadequate preparation of entering students. With
the High School Graduation Qualifying Exam, inadequately prepared students will pay the price of the state’s failure to
monitor the progress of home-schooled students. Adopted 2000, Amended 2001, 2003, 2006 (Sunset Nov. 2008)

1.9 COMPULSORY ATTENDANCE LAW
Current state law requires compulsory school attendance from age 7-16. AASB supports changing the mandatory age
for school attendance to run from 6 to the earlier of 18 years old or high school graduation. AASB urges the
Department of Education and Early Development and enforcement agencies to work with districts to support
compulsory school attendance laws and provide adequate funding for mandatory enforcement efforts as a matter of
child welfare and public safety. Enforcement of any compulsory attendance law is a challenge, but parents and
students can and should be held accountable.

Rationale. State and local performance standards set high expectations in mathematics, reading and writing for
children age 5 through 7. Furthermore, research indicates that earlier education is beneficial. In fact, most children in
Alaska are enrolled by the age of 6.

Most 7-year-old kids are in first or second grade. With the renewed emphasis on reading, writing, and mathematics
skills in the first few years, skills on which the child will be assessed, children starting school late are at a big
disadvantage. With the enactment of federal No Child Left Behind legislation and state designators, the legislature will
be accountable for paying the cost of remediation to overcome that disadvantage [NOTE: STATE IS RESPONSIBLE;
SCHOOL DISTRICT IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE]. Importantly, reduction of the compulsory school age to 6 would not
eliminate active home schooling as a viable alternative for parents.

Sixteen-year-olds are not ready to make the enormous decision to give up a high school education. Increasing the
mandatory age to 18 helps ensure students who have not yet graduated from high school stay in school and have
more opportunities to meet performance standards and pass the HSGQE. Mandatory attendance laws must be
enforced, but not all school districts are able to afford a truancy officer and not all communities in Alaska have law
enforcement or judicial agencies to address the issue. Adopted 2001, Amended 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006
(Sunset Nov. 2011)