SB 140, the education package, is on the governor’s desk. The bill underwent arduous negotiations between the House and the Senate, with Governor Dunleavy, a former teacher and superintendent, making known his priorities which were specifically designed to improve student outcomes. The bill on his desk, however, left out some of those priorities and watered down others.
Some legislators seem to be taken back by the governor’s strong stance that he will veto SB 140 if items to improve student outcomes aren’t moved through the legislative process by his veto deadline of March 14. They are unaccustomed to this type of Wally Hickel / Jay Hammond strong move. Dunleavy has the full constitutional authority to veto the bill, and with the votes present to uphold his veto, those legislators who want the $680 BSA increase, better get on board or they will lose that increase altogether.
One item left out of the bill is, in my mind, a significant key to helping lift our children out of the academic deficiency hole: teacher bonuses. Growing a school budget is not correlated with academic improvement; supporting teachers specifically is. Valuing and supporting our teachers, ensuring they get a larger piece of the pie and stay in our communities, is fundamental to student success.
The bill in its current form slightly expands both charter and correspondence options, attempts to address K-3 reading, reasonably boosts pupil transportation, and increases the base student allocation by $680. I made extremely clear in my remarks on the Senate floor, however, that the absence of funding targeted directly to teachers was a mistake. I stated on the record that after the bill passed and the ball was in the governor’s court, if he chose to play hardball to make improvements for the sake of our students, I would be on his team.
So here we are: we are playing hardball. I’m on the team to help our students and to help our teachers.
In addition to including a provision for teacher bonuses, the wording in the bill intended to help K-3 students with reading needs to be restructured. Right now, the bill incentivizes a district to keep a child in the “deficient” category until mid-school year. Instead, the funding should be a set amount per K-3 student. I would support a provision to allow intensive needs students who choose public correspondence schooling to receive additional funding; I would also support transportation vouchers for low-income students attending charter schools that don’t provide bussing.
If the $680 increase to the BSA holds, those dollars will only help our students if districts allocate those funds wisely. Districts are well aware of our chronically low student performance across our state; they know they’re responsible for increasing proficiency; they know the task ahead, and they know they are under scrutiny. Based on the Moore vs State of Alaska 2007 case, the state will be constitutionally required to intervene if results don’t improve.
We need to pass the additional provisions that will help our districts help our students achieve proficiency by March 14. No one should be opposed to that.
