001Hey. Hey. Can you guys hear me? Margo, I can hear you fine. Thank you. Okay, we're good to go. >> Okay. Good afternoon. This is the Thursday, February 12th meeting of the school board finance committee. I'm Kelly Lesson, school board member and treasurer committee chair. We'll go around and introduce >> appointment superintendent executive assistant >> Christy state. >> Margot, do you want to introduce yourself? >> Yeah. Margot Bellamy Scoobler. >> Great. So, we have four board members here and we will announce anyone who joins. Um, again, this is in a sense a regular February meeting, but we adjusted it from a previously scheduled end of the month. Dr. Bryant has just joined us uh to be between our our two scheduled board meetings. Um, there are essentially four items on our agenda today. And the
002first one is really um there as an anchor for members of the community. So if Sullivan can just u maybe briefly click on each of those. One of those documents is um an FTE history by administrative department over the past 15 years. And I think the thing to note at the bottom is that there has been uh an aggregate decline of about 16 and a half% in all of those positions um AI is there ready to do takeaways um uh since FY uh 12. So that and we're not going to talk about it but it's there for community reference. Um the second document is historical FTE by state function and maybe I would just let CFO Andy Ratliff talk about that briefly. >> Sure. So this is like this mandatory state functions that we have
003to report on. Um but we wanted to provide you know the way FTE has changed over time. uh for each one of these functions. You can see you know uh instruct both instruction district admin and admin support have all declined by over 30% some 50% in community services and some of the other ones less so particularly like the special education instruction as we've seen increases in both intensive needs students and gened is or regular special ed has either kind of held steady or increased over that same time period even as we declined overall population. >> Great. Thank you. >> Member Holland just >> and member Holland is online as well. Terrific. Thank you. Um the third document which is really there for reference point for members of the community and also frankly for board members.
004Um we've done this in previous budget cycles. Um Mr. has consolidated a lot of the detailed information that exists throughout the 400 plus page budget book, 300 plus page budget book and shown um one file shows the elementary classroom teachers that are going to be available through this proposed budget in in FY27 and how that compares with um FY26 allotments per school And the other document is much the same and it focuses on secondary and alternative classroom teachers. So if you were interested in the change at Airport Heights or at Central Middle School or at Bartlett High School, you could use these one pagers to understand the gravity of what the PTR plus 4 is translating to at any given school level. And if there's anything else the administration would add or clarify that. Yeah,
005I'd like to flag on the elementary classroom teachers. Those are the classroom teachers only. So they don't include specialists. So if you're trying to look at the set FY27 classroom teachers line on that, it's not necessarily going to marry up to our budget book because the budget book does include those specialists. The secondary uh and alternative should pretty well mirror the book because we included all teachers in there. >> Any questions? Yeah. >> Is there a [clears throat] Is there a regardless of student population, regardless of what what the pupil to teacher ratio is, is there I'm assuming it is. What is the minimum amount of educator FTEES that allows a school to function at the elementary level? Five. Is it one for each grade level? >> Six, >> right? Six. Yes. Okay. So is
006it is six that number? >> Yeah. >> Okay. And and what um what is our ideal? I mean if again if student population if if we had one section per grade level is six still sufficient >> depending population >> then yeah what >> in the dispersement of that one the grade levels >> if you had if it was a perfect world and there was the same exact number in every single grade right >> six works but usually six doesn't work because you have a big bubble or >> two fourth grade and you'll have combo classes >> so because a perfect world doesn't exist any elementary school that's being allocated six educator FTEES is essentially broken at at risk of needing to be assigned a hold back position. Is that fair? >> Yes, that's very fair.
007>> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Depending how far they are are from that perfect. >> Okay. And do we I I can't imagine we know this off the top of our head, but how many of how many of our elementary schools are at six >> with this budget? I think only one. There's one at 6.5 also, but that one >> on the other. >> Oh, on this but we were talking elementary. Yeah. >> Yeah. So the 6.5 one was actually in the view and that's changing. It doesn't >> this does not reflect any of the changes with the Nali monastery getting uh the tutor monastery students that choose to go there and it doesn't reflect the neighborhood students from government hill moving to >> welcome thank you >> any yeah >> it would make a difference
008then type of school for example monoi is three three grades in one just read the grades of one classroom. So, it gets a little bit confusing that way as well, just to put that >> any of the special programs change kind of what you need in your building. >> Right. Well, and I think at the end of the day, the PTR increase really, as we've heard testimony, destroys programmatic integrity of a lot of those special programs >> as we've had them, >> right? As they have existed in the past. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> What what I think I'm hearing is that even six isn't ideal. Everything's fine. It's there are going to be problems and severe complications when someone calls in sick and um that is that is sustainable but that's the bare minimum.
009>> Okay. [clears throat] Thank >> great. Um any questions online? >> I'm good. Thanks. >> Okay. Great. So these documents are really there for board members and community members to look at when they have additional time. Um the second item on the agenda is the levy and I am hoping we can spend the bulk of this meeting talking through it. Um if so there are five items attached. I'm not going to have Miss Sullivan open four of them, but just to um share, there's one slide deck which is titled operational levy and then there are four items which are either PDFs taken directly from the assemblies p uh from the assembly documents um as they were prepared or transcript from um recordings just to show um the conversations taking place over the last six weeks
010to get us where we are today, which is that we have a really amazing measure proposition that'll be appearing on the April 7th ballot to support our schools. So, um I will they're there as references. Um but at this time, Miss Olen, could you open a slide deck? And I will begin with a caveat that I prepared the slide deck. Any errors are my own. Although I did run some numbers by Mr. interat with um this is not a normal CFO procured presentation. So, the Kelly special. Um, all right. So, if we go to the next page, the goal as um as the slide deck shows is that I'm hoping we can walk out of this finance committee meeting today with clarity from board members and input from administration on how the board would like
011to direct a successful levy towards our schools. And so, uh, there is tenative language that I drafted that I would welcome feedback on, but quite frankly, it's modeled on the amendment that the board passed unanimously last February. And uh it would potentially read that if a majority of voters approve proposition, whose number I can't I don't know yet, during the April 7th municipal election, the school board directs that the administration shall allocate those additional revenues to teacher positions and student programming as follows. And then we would clarify that right now. So um suggestions or feedback are welcome either now or Yeah. Member >> Higgins. This same situation exists with the legislature. They want asurances that we are addressing class sizes. I know superintendents met and they came up with a 30 million type of thing
012that we would be able to avoid the class size increases and all that. And they're they're when I talked to them, they've got two issues. One is that the money is going to go towards the teachers, okay? And not going to go towards other things. It's going to go towards the classrooms. And the second one is what are we doing to ensure administration cost or are down as much as we can. Uh that those are the two issues. You always got the a group out there talking about the administrative cost without any data at all, but they're still going to attack it. Some are attacking it. It may be a little more difficult to defend uh within that. Uh so those are the two issues that I have from the legislature over and over and
013over again. They want the commitment that we're going to use it in the classrooms, no place else, and they want um asurances in regards to what we're doing to control the administration cost. >> Great. Thank you for that. Um well, I think that as the levy language itself makes clear, this cannot go to anything administrative. And I think at the end of the day, you could confirm, Mr. of should a successful levy uh should a levy be successfully passed that will you know an investment of almost $12 million into teachers will tip the balance even more in favor of um direct instruction and it'll make the relative investment in administration go down. I think last year we saw that through the allocation of new dollars the proportion of the overall budget that went to administration
014did decrease. So, I would expect that the levy, successful passage of a levy will decrease the proportion of our budget going to administration. Um, but but thank you for that segue, Member Higgins. Um, if we go to the next slide, I wanted to begin with the input that we received from the community um at the end of December through Katy Carrot's um delivery of uh balancing act input to the finance committee. And really, I think it's very clear that the public comments emphasized uh a need to protect and prioritize the classroom above all. And I just wanted board members to be reminded of that. Um for academics, we're were seen as central cutting central administration non-classroom items. The administration has told us they're cutting um 22% of the education center staff. Um that is a
015pretty academics. Yeah, >> academic staff. academic staff at the ed center. Okay, thank you. Um we have just directed the administration to come back with another um presentation about closing and consolidating schools and um we've also settled the teacher contract uh since the balancing act. So I feel like we can check off a lot of these as we move forward. >> Can I yeah just a comment on this and I hope it helps frame things forward. Um, you know, I was I was asked by actually the legislature how we justify um paying teachers more with a budget deficit. Um, and I can't help but acknowledge that we've got the AA president in the room. I hope that we um join together with one voice and say that we quite literally listen to the legislature and
016committed to [clears throat] putting more of our budget in the classroom by doing that. And um it boggles my mind how um anyone in Juno could question um how we will try to address educator recruitment and retention in the only way that we truly can um financially of the things that um educators have valued most at least according to the um the deed recruitment and retention commission's uh survey that was done uh by uh commissioner Bishop the deed department a few years ago which said educators want more affordable um health care um reduced class sizes and then higher compensation the defined benefit plan. We we can't um address you the pension option um but we can to the best extent of our resources um address compensation and and healthcare and so those two things seem
017to be um at odds um and I think we should push back hard u because injecting money into the classroom quite literally means paying teachers a competitive wage so we can retain them. Um, so I hadn't heard that argument before. I kind of um stumped me when I first did and uh I think that's something to continue to highlight to the community as well as we're putting money in the classroom by providing teachers out of >> Yeah. [clears throat] Thank you. Um, if we go to the next slide, please. >> Member lessons. >> Oh, yeah. Sorry, I didn't. >> Oh, I I I can't I can't figure out on my phone where it is. Anyway, uh I apologize but I think on that previous slide that re-evaluate, restructure and reduce while that is coming from
018the community came through uh balancing act uh that that's a hard concept for the community to those are hard concepts for the community to understand and I think um so as we are moving through this um I anyway I just wanted to highlight that I I just because that is exactly what we are trying to do. The only word I would add to that is reimagine just reimagine how we are delivering certain services not and and that doesn't necessarily means that we get rid of them but they may look different. >> Thank you. Um okay so this is a little >> Oh yeah. What what from the superintendent what is considered to be essential student services because I know that's going to be they're going to say what does that mean? >> Can we we
019hold that question? >> All right. >> Okay. So, um at least let's talk about this first. So, uh when um about uh a month ago, today's February 12th, uh there was um a press conference with Mayor Lef France and uh Dr. Bryant uh as well as um certainly Assembly Member Broly. Uh I remember seeing on hand um Mayor Le France shared in her introduction of this proposed levy that it would be a strategic investment to reduce forecasted class size increases and protect essential student programs. Dr. Bryant spoke eloquently and committed to directing the dollars to teaching positions and essential student student services. Contextualize the scale of the levy. Um, and I think it's important to know that that was probably but that was before a teacher contract was settled and before um an amount that
020would be uh dedicated to charter schools was also accounted for. So that number has changed since January 12th. Um, and you really spoke well to this that you envision every dollar to be directed to our teachers and to our classrooms. So maybe you can answer member Higgins question point about what do you mean by student services? >> Sure. So I want to emphasize that um this conversation started due to Marilyn Francis leadership and she really envisions that the Anchorage community has the opportunity to make their voices heard. I hear all the time from families that is there some way that I can help some of the cuts that I see forecasted specifically around class sizes. And I think Marilyn Francis heard very similar feedback from the community. So really we put our heads together and
021figured out how do we mitigate some of the worst impacts that we see coming and we came to consensus that it's all about class sizes and making sure that we support our teachers. So um with regards to this press conference there are a couple things that were still in the works at this time. So this was right around the time that we were finalizing the proposition proposition language in collaboration with the municipality. So at the time I did I hadn't consulted with the school board because this happened really quickly. This literally happened just days before this press conference. So, I did want to give the board some wiggle room for the possibility that perhaps a small portion of the funding could go towards some sort of essential student service. So, I didn't have a specific
022service in mind, but I knew that given a $90 million deficit that there would be um reductions to course services. But with that said, I think the based on the community feedback that I've heard, the most urgent positive use of these funds would be for the um impacted class sizes. I appreciate the question and the answer. I think that really frames sort of the next few slides. Um the language of AO 20 2026-14 as it was presented on January 13th um really uh echoed what Mayor Lefra and Dr. Bryant shared this is what voters will see when they when they go to vote in in two months. Um shall Anchorage levy >> oops I'm sorry the next slide. Shall Anchorage levy a one-time special tax to collect an amount uh not to exceed 11.8 million.
023I'm now going back to fund teacher positions and student programming. So that's what voters will see. However, I think that the intention that your intention has been to really focus it on class size reduction. Um and I think that we saw that in the debate at the Anchorage Assembly at the end of the month uh on January 27th. There was an amendment to a longer preamble to this ordinance um which was approved and recognized that it is the intent of the assembly that this one time levy if approved by voters will contribute to better educational outcomes and higher teacher retention through decreasing class sizes. So again you see this language and intent to really dedicate it to class sizes. Um and then when doc sorry next slide please and then wh uh sorry the next
024one. Uh when Dr. Bryant was asked to testify that evening following assembly member debate on the amendment to the preamble that you really spelled it out that you'd like for every single one of those dollars to be directed towards teacher positions and you had a little bit of an adjust calculation. um moving towards I think where we are now um over 80. >> Uh yeah, >> one slide said 90 teachers. >> So yeah, so when he first spoke early in January, we had not settled the teacher contract. >> Okay. >> And there we had not perhaps reviewed that a portion of the uh levy because it is an increase to the local contribution will go to charter schools. So that reduces the overall 8 11.8 to a certain amount and we'll talk about that >>
025and they very well could put their money for teachers as well. >> And then the other thing is that when this proposition was being developed I hadn't fully understood whether the board would be more interested in leverages leveraging these dollars towards pupil toteer ratio or specifically to hold back positions that we could use more flexibly. That flexibility was there and that factored into the messaging too. So we have a ballpark figure and hopefully we can come out of today's meeting with something specific. >> Appreciate the clarification. >> Um okay if we go to the next slide please. Um uh I was just uh I'm a part of I'm the board's leazison to the municipal budget advisory committee and about an hour and a half ago received this document uh before their meeting and so this
026is what the mayor's office is circulating and you can see that same message is being um shared uh from their perspective that the levy means funding to retain more than 80 educators helping to reduce projected class sizes from that PTR plus4 to a PTR plus two. Right? So, we're reducing the plus4 by two um from the mayor's office, the perspective of the mayor's office. >> Um if you go to the next slide. So, these are some examples based on budget materials that I received that we all received where it's clear we cannot support nurses, counselors, principles or assistant principles, other administrative staff, supplies, curriculum, IT agenda. um those are not classroom teacher related investments and I'm sure there are others to add to that list. So if we go to the next slide please really
027today I'm looking to help guide the conversation. Do board members in the room online prefer to conceptualize an amendment that focus the entirety of the available levy towards reducing our forecast class size increases or if you look at the language which allows that sort of bifurcated use right teacher positions and sports reduce some of the forecasted class size increases in order to also maintain those essential student programs. And this was an opportunity for the administration to clarify its stance. >> Yeah, I think and I've thought about this a lot. I think at the end of the day, this is not a trivial ask to the community with regards to the financial contribution. And I think that clarity is kindness in the situation. And if we can be clear and say that we need these dollars
028so that we can hire as many teachers as possible for the Anchorage School District, I think that's something that people can understand. I think that the more nuanced the ask becomes like the more we might lose people along the way. So that that's my position but again as I said in the press conference from day one it's ultimately the board's decision on how to appropriate these dollars. Great. Thank you. Um if we go to the next slide based on numbers that we have received in um I was leaning heavily on the slide deck that we reviewed on February 3rd. These are things that I believe were either possible teacher investments or possible student programming investments. For example, the first you cannot have them all. Uh the math doesn't add up. So if you look at
029them individually, decreasing the K12 PTR by four, which also requires a little investment in the kindergarten pair of professionals, um fits under the of the 11.8 8 million the board is able to retain 11.138 less than 662,000 for charters. So we can restore about 80 teachers and 3.44 KD parapros with all of putting all of the funds towards that PTR reduction. You could alternatively sort of parse take that apart a little bit. So if we decreased the KTR the K12 PTR by plus4 by one and made um that investment in kindergarten pair pros uh there's probably space to do some combination of the middle school model which is classroom teachers and learning opportunities which you know it could also include um Ignite which are classroom teachers and elementary specialist teachers are also classroom teachers. So
030those things are definitely not the PTR plus one, but I think there's something the board should at least grapple with. Um, and the one thought that I had for possible student programming, and I guess I would appreciate the administration's, you know, at least analysis are sports student programming. >> This is >> or not? I think in the conversations that I had had with the municipality that I believe it's possible that it could be used for sports, but that's something that we would also want to get final confirmation from all the legal teams involved. Okay. But we that was something that was within the realm of possibility when that ballot proposition was developed. Okay. >> But that said, the again the first conversation with Marilyn France was really centered on teachers >> and the and class
031sizes. Okay. and and that's what the assembly has also indicated. So if you go to the next slide. Oh, and you said there was somebody online. >> Uh member Holland had a question. >> Yeah, member Hollerman. >> Yeah. Um I just want to say if we restore the middle school model that also decreases PTR and I I just don't want that to get lost. I mean I realize in in this case you're talking about the overall PTR across all grades, but that's it's not a it's not an exact tradeoff. Um, unfortunately I think if we restore Ignite that may not change PTR. >> Yeah, I think I'll ask member or Mr. Ratliff to speak. >> Yeah, I mean I guess it would change the true PTR but it wouldn't change the class size because those
032are just to provide additional uh collaboration time in those middle schools. It doesn't >> put more kids or fewer kids in any class at any time. Okay. >> It does allow the ability to have >> uh students more classes. >> Right. Right. >> Okay. Yeah. It actually it would create more classes, but you're right. Those classes would not be smaller. So, interesting contrast, but yeah. Thank you. Okay. >> If you go to Thank you for the question and the answer. If you go to the next slide, this leans heavily on the the prior slide and these were some options that uh I spent a lot of time thinking about. The first one is really I think what the superintendent has indicated strong support for. I think it's what um the balancing act input indicates strong
033support for. That's what the mayor's office seems to be saying and the assembly seems to be saying. Um so option one would be to decrease the K12 PTR by four plus4 by two. Um option two is an example of a combination. So you could decrease K12 PTR plus4 by one and perhaps restore sports if there was legal analysis. Maybe there would be a you know maybe we would need legal analysis. Uh there's probably a little additional FTE. Um, one I will say that uh I was at the student advisory board and uh meeting and students spoke to the budget cuts just the other day and some of the students uh were able to um brought to my mind that students at our charter and homechool programs uh also rely on um high school middle uh
034high school sports. Um so it's not something that affects just our brick and mortar students. Um so restoring those sports certainly benefits a lot of kids. Um another option in that sort of hybrid vein would be to decrease class sizes for K12 by by one of those projected increases and restore the middle school model and then you have some leftover FTE that you could allocate towards um you know additional ETR reduction. [clears throat] Those are just sort of my my guesses. But um you know, as Mr. Gustoson noted, restoring the middle school model restores elective opportunities um which I think is particularly important for immersion students who need space in their schedules to maintain >> and special education. Okay, great. So I can make an addition an amendment there as well. Um so there are
035uh some considerations to keep in mind. Um, that's option three. Option four would be in lie of a PTR reduction, you could probably take on the middle school model, high school and middle school sports and potentially the elementary specialist teachers. But when I tallied that all up, it went over by about 1.3 million based on sort of a number that I used in um from balancing act. So I think it technically might align with the levy language but maybe not really its intent. >> Yeah. >> So I I do want to talk through this. >> Y please >> with the elementary specialists I I I've seen where we been using 25. Just remember that we had 20 additional holdbacks on that old old system. >> So that's really 45 FTE. Um, >> okay. >> That's
036what I mean with the study of this new model to reduce costs. It also allows more full-time people in the schools. You know, I mean, there's a lot of benefits to this new model. But if we're going to replace if you want us to go back to the more inefficient model, we need 45. >> And so that would eat up about half of the remaining holdbacks that we have. >> We don't even know if it would be that because of the class size increases. diving more. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, there's a big asterisk then with option four >> with the elementary specialists. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, with that, so again, the board is going to be allocating a chunk of 662,000 to charter schools and there's a remaining 11.138 million to for the
037board to allocate as it sees fit. Um this is the point where I would be interested in um entertaining discussion. So thank you all for humoring uh the slide deck. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> One question. One of the last two schoolboard meetings last night. Both of them attacked special ed that we have people making special requests. They don't have the funding. They're not providing it. They feel like that's a legal compliance concern. I don't know if you could these are not. I saw a letter I saw a speaker last time but that seems to be growing with an un with an expectation I read it from another school as well that they just it's a matter of resources in some cases we just don't have teachers we don't have this but that where we
038end up having um an IEP that's not being that's what the concern is right now the three sources that have hit me up I don't know if you're familiar with that or not but I told him I said you know special ed is illegally require ired we have to accommodate we if we we say this is necessary if it's phys if it's even possible and if it is impossible we shouldn't be agreeing to the IEP say it's not possible but they feel like it's not being met and they're pretty pretty strong statements last night two school two community council one was vir one was eagle river uh and individuals speaking up and others in the community in the in the group speaking up as well >> if I may Um, I will say that I
039will be meeting with the special education superintendent advisory group tonight to get um, specialized feedback from that group. But one of the things that's important for the board to understand is that this budget, despite the $90 million reductions, does include about $150 million in premium grants for special education. So, it's one of the light items that had the least reductions. Um it is a population where we are seeing fewer students in the general special educ special education population though we are seeing more students with intensive needs but I do feel that I believe it was a three to 5% reduction overall but we do have over $150 million dedicated for students special needs and I do think that we can meet those students need with those dollars. With that said, there may be opportunities to
040better allocate those dollars, but I think as a whole, I think the appropriation aligns with our financial situation. One of the complaints I dismissed because it talked about we think there should be somebody with this child at all times because they get mad and they don't get bites. Okay, that's not an IEP and that's it's an allocation issue. But the other two IEPs they claim have not. But I'll give you that information. You know, if I could just mention one thing in regards to that, we we do try to, you know, we are obligated to meet all IS. There are times when we have to do uh makeup services and and that type of stuff, which is funded through our um through the budgeting process as well. But I I I would I would make
041sure you when you have those people come up to you, make sure that they're communicating that with the they all everybody has this the procedural safeguards. And we're definitely wanting to make sure they're all being met, but there's avenues for them to communicate to the district and actually argue their points. So I always welcome. >> Okay. >> Would any >> We're going to stay really close to watch that clock. All right. member. >> Okay. So, moving back to the topic of discussion. Um I I guess I have a question. First member list, you included anformational um poster from the MUN. Yes. >> Um >> is that already in circulation? Is that our approval? What >> was emailed? That was emailed to the budget advisory commission from the mayor's office. >> So, that's live. >> Uh
042that is live as of this, you know, an hour and a half ago. >> Okay. So, that I don't think we have much to discuss. Um if the mayor is already communicating that um and super based on the superintendent's comments that we intend to um utilize the the four uh the 11.8 million to reduce the plus4 PTR to plus two. Um I think that's the only responsible thing to do at this point. I think the communication of having to throw the car in uh reverse while it's in drive uh would u the complications of that well even if it could be possible uh would be challenging and problematic from a communication [clears throat] standpoint when this is a voter approved uh proposition and so um I I think it's the right thing to do but
043I also think even if it weren't even if there was debate and there was a close or an equal second option. Um, reversing course at this point would cost significant capital in voter trust and understanding of the levy which I don't think we can afford. So I I personally supported option one from the beginning. Um, and then I think that there are other ways to um reduce expenses to to save um other elements. >> Yeah. To reduce programming. But I think if we get that levy um we should utilize it for class sizes. I think if we get additional funding from the state, we should look to um reverse some other cuts. Um I think we also can look um at the consolidation process to utilize that process to um obtain some short-term savings and
044that can save some um potent some programs potentially. But I think those are the three pathways I I prefer. >> Yeah. >> Any any do any maybe I'll ask this. Did any board members online or in the room disagree with supporting an amendment that would delegate that would direct the administration to allocate all levy funds towards class size reduction? >> The only the only question there is that you know we get the money from the state they're looking at directly towards PTR. We're going to be overlapping a little bit. So we need the language to make sure we recognize we're directing it in the school with the goal of eliminating the you know the increase in the PTR. So that gives us a little flexibility for art music or this or that so that we
045don't have to explain what we only need this much for PTR for the state and that's what they're being focused on. They want PTR. So the wording of that needs to be >> well I think we're specifically talking about the wording of an amendment regarding the levy. >> Yeah. A member Jacobs. >> Yeah. and and I I have I've avoided talking about the legislature because this isn't our topic of discussion. I think we should have a separate conversation about um how we handle um conversing with the legislature and how we um how we and if we consider a part two to the lessons Jacob's amendment from last year. Um I remain focused on option one being the most viable scenario in this instance for the levy funds. Um, I'll just say briefly, the legislature doesn't
046get to write our budget for us and we were generous enough to provide them an assurance last year that of exactly how we would allocate those funds. We dollar fordollar honored that commitment. the assembly um chose to ignore that precedent and that there were a few members who I think for partially political purposes pretended that didn't happen and said you know we don't um we want specific language uh from the from our board to ensure that we um you know utilize the funds in the same way that they were envisioned and so I think we'll honor that process would be my vision by choosing option one um the legislature is going to have to allow us to reverse some things that make the most sense I want to say that some at least one of
047our curriculum is social studies references a a president that may or may not be living any longer. Um like we have some curriculum that is in desperate need of replacement that isn't a classroom teacher but will make and improve the lives of students and educators and that's just one example. Um I don't know how long we we let that go. um at some point we're going to have technology refreshes that need to happen. And so I'm less inclined to um tell the legislature exactly how we'll spend every dollar of the funding this year uh because I want to be able to consider all options especially because we've made this commitment to the levy uh the ley fun. >> Um may I see member Holland online? Uh yeah, I' I'd like to rephrase it slightly to
048say that everything from the levy will go to classroom instruction and that would leave us room if we did want to use funds to bring back the middle school model um rather than saying it's going to reduce class sizes because that that really does lock us in. I I don't want to equivocate equivocate much um because I think the more simple and direct it is to the public uh the better. But I I hadn't thought about that. But yeah, if we bring back the middle school model, technically we're not lowering class size, but we are putting teachers in classrooms with students and giving them real opportunities. So I'd want to have room to do that. >> So thank you for that. So if Miss Sullivan can click um there and go to slide two. It
049sounds like slide number two. Sorry. Yeah. Um sorry, it's number slide. up one more. >> I agree with the Yes. Slide number two. >> Yeah. So, the language that I initially conceptualized says teacher positions and student programming. And it sounds like the suggested language would say uh revenues to classroom instruction. [clears throat] Period. um classroom instruction um with potential new language spelling out 80 additional teaching positions and three and a half pair professionals as well as the charter schools share. >> But depending on what you do with the money, you wouldn't necessarily need all of the par professionals if you directed that towards like the middle school model. There's no parents associated with it. Um, so it have to kind of depending on what the ultimate outcome is, >> I think that it's it what
050what member Hollerman um says does with this is with 80 positions and the number of schools we have, even if we put one of these positions in an elementary school, it's not going to lower all the class sizes in that school. >> It's pretty much going to lower one class size in that school. So it isn't a blanket thing. So people are starting to think we're going to lower all the class size with this levy. Like it's not it's not 90 million. It's 11.8. So I think positions might be a better >> I don't understand. I I'm not tracking exactly the flexibility that Sven is speaking to or that it's even necessary. I my personal perspective and what I the hill I will die on this issue um is that we need to very clearly
051comm communicate to the community who's going to vote on this and hopefully will approve it. A very simple message and I think Dr. Brian's comments about the simpler the better is very wise um and electorally sound. A uh I I don't think the community broadly understands what the middle school model is, but they do understand that the class size increase will be cut uh the PTR increase will be cut in half. We also know that the mayor has clearly communicated based on uh in part Dr. Brian's comments as well as the fact that this has come up in a a board meeting and while we wasn't put to a vote, it was mentioned that that was something that we publicly discussed and committed to and there weren't significant there I don't recall any comments actually
052I'm disputing or indicating we should revisit the issue and so any additional flexibility although I I personally see value in the middle school model would cause a significant communications hiccup and so I think if there are and and and therefore a community trust hiccup it would put the board on a different page page in the mayor's office. It would give credibility uh to right now hollow arguments that um the board can't be um trusted to to wisely allocate these potential new resources. Um even if they will benefit students um it will be viewed as a change and I I don't think we should venture into that um that lane. Um, I think we should clearly clear clearly articulate this will go to reduce a PTR plus4 to a PTR plus2. And if board members see
053value in in specific programs, and I do see value in middle school model, I mean that necessarily as [clears throat] someone who's parented a couple dozen middle schoolers within the district. I think we should look for other ways to accomplish that um and not look to the levy because that complicates the message. It also complicates the communication and we're pretty far down the road at this point. And so, um, I'm not disagreeing with member Hollowman that it wouldn't be wise to have some flexibility in theory. Um, it's just I don't think it's wise. I think it I think it's I don't know it's necessarily timely at this point. I think there's other ways to accomplish the goal potentially if a majority of the board wants to do that. >> Member Hollow, is your hand still
054up? >> Yes, it [clears throat] is. Um, I'm not saying we should put any of those options in the amendment. I'm saying we should just say we're going to use the levy for student instruction. Period. And then if it turns out that we add a class that we thought we were going to have to drop, we're still being true to our word. If we did use the money for the middle school model, we'd still be true to our word. I I think this the I don't think the public understands PTR much better than they understand the middle school model. they do understand putting teachers in front of students and and I think that should be our message on it. >> Um, I'll weigh in. I appreciate what you're saying. However, my my hope going into
055this meeting was that we could be specific coming out of it. And I don't while I know I agree with your intent, I think that that is far too vague for the specificity that other stakeholders in the community are indicating is desired. And so I guess I would defer I guess I would I appreciate the comment personally. I would not support that suggestion at this time and would strongly indicate that we are specific and say something along the lines of um the admin the school board directs that the administration shall allocate those additional revenues towards 80 classroom teacher positions. That seems to be the clearest number that has come from our CFO. Um I guess I'm a little bit unclear about whether we need to indicate the proportion that charter schools should receive sort of
056in this language. >> I think we'd want to I mean just for the community to know that they do get their share and it is statuto required. >> Okay. So there was there there would need to be some language about charter schools in a finance committee amendment as well as 80 classroom teacher positions. >> Yeah, middle school is all related to how many teachers you have. So it seems like if you're adding teachers back in that's the only that's what you really the resources necessary is more teacher position to give them that extra hour to do it. So I don't see why we have to make any changes and still this language allowed you if we're going to add additional revenues to teacher positions. Those teacher positions could be used for PTO or they can
057be used for middle schooling used for any of those sort of things. So I I just I don't have a problem with this language is what I'm saying because that's the way I read it. >> Um well let me know. I know you will. Okay. Then I' my I would suggest for purposes of conversation uh the following language. The school board directs that the administration shall allocate $662,000 of those additional revenues towards charter schools as required and toward 80 classroom teacher positions or something very similar. >> And maybe we don't want to workshop this entirely right now. >> Or maybe we do. My two cents is I think we should >> and I also don't know that uh my personal preference is that I I think um I think specifically carving out the amount for
058charter schools might be too much weeds um for clear language. Although I do have a question about how our board can [clears throat] give teeth to the fact that we will allocate a share of this um funding to charter programs. And I I I'm assuming we combined APCs, but I we I know we approve the statute says that we approve their budget annually. Um and I assume they will have to revise their budget. Um and so I would assume through that mechanism we could leverage that. Um but I I I don't frankly I want to avoid a scenario where we allocate this funding to a charter school and because it isn't directed by this board, it's used in a different manner. Um, but I I don't know what that process looks like and so I'm
059just flagging that separately. For that reason, I don't want to carve out the charter school funding in particular. Um, I I think it it's probably too much weeds. Um, I agree with with member Hollowman that in theory teaching positions is is great. It's simple and PTR does not equate to class size. Um, the challenge is that we've we've effectively begun communicating that it will have it will cut in half the class size increase. And that that I think is still true and and utilizes the it tries to mitigate the PTR equals not class size conversation that uh our district and many others have struggled with in in perpetuity because the mayor has specifically used the PTR plus4 to PTR plus2. I think our board should be very clear and use the exact same language. I
060think a separate conversation with the community can be work workshopped in a way that is palatable for voters to understand exactly what they're looking at. Um, but I think we need to provide clarity and confirmation to the assembly um and to the mayor that we are all on the same page. And so for that reason, I would almost I think member lesson the way you began the amendments um the what you said a minute ago is fine, but I would just throw the second bullet point from the flyer from the mayor's office like at the end of it. Um the the funding for teacher positions with the goal of reducing the PTR increase from plus4 to plus two. If we do anything else, there's a delta between what the mayor is saying and what our
061board is saying. And I don't know, I haven't heard a good idea as to how to address that or how to mitigate that. Um, and I don't know that there is one. So that's that's where my level of comfortability is, but I also began the conversation being comfortable with utilizing this potential funding mechanism to address that possibility plus four to plus two and utilizing other mechanisms and opportunities to address some of the other harmful cuts. So I I was already in that space. Um so I I understand that I you know uh that's my line of thinking might not be the same as it. >> Okay. Out of respect for time, what I would like to take from here is consensus of finance committee support really for that first option of allocating all available dollars
062towards class size reduction. So, if I could have member Higgins and member Bellamy indicate whether they support that. >> The language you as is. >> Uh, no, not as is, but actually >> Yeah. >> Okay. But >> I don't have a >> Okay. And as >> can you just read it again? Can you read what you have, Kelly, again, please? I'm sorry. >> Uh, I think what I have is a work in progress. I know, but just generally as long as it reflects what the mayor I have not had a conversation with the mayor. I've I do know that Carl has and and um Dr. Bryant has maybe even Andy, but it needs to be as close to what she said what we told her we were going to do. So >> So what the
063mayor I'm going to read what the mayor's um flyer now says. This has funding to retain more than 80 educators, helping to reduce projected class sizes from a plus4 studenttoteer ratio to a plus two studenttoteer ratio. And the suggestion from member Jacobs was to incorporate that language in a finance committee amendment. >> Yes, I agree. [clears throat] And so >> and the board can vote on it, we can do it then. If finance committee members can indicate their support, which it sounds like you've done, >> or generating a um an amendment in that vein, I think that we're in a good place to bring Tuesday. Let's do it. >> I will I will workshop that and review it with President Jacobs and we'll make sure that we have that uh for the board's consideration um
064for the 17th meeting on the 17th. So, thank you. Um, with that said, there were two other items on our agenda. One was FY27 budget Q&A. The other was potential budget amendments. Um, I don't know that any board members have submitted potential budget amendments at this time, but this would be a great chance for um, budget Q&A. Perhaps we can go five minutes longer if if that works. Yeah. Member Jacobs. >> Um, I have not submitted an official amendment. I probably won't. Um, but I I am curious about how administration, if a majority of the board uh voted to separate the transportation funding that is awarded to ASD through the statutory formula for the students that are enrolled in charter optional programs that don't have transportation. If we were f for forced to provide our
065current level of transportation without that funding for the students who currently don't receive it, how would we bridge that delta? >> We would either have to reduce more routes for our rest of the schools or you would have to transfer money in from another funding source most likely the general fund >> if we reduce I and this might be a question mark for Mr. Anderson, but is I mean is reducing routes to that level sustainable? >> I guess it'll [clears throat] depend on how many routes we have to do and where they're at. I know they're going through the process where they can try to become more efficient on the routes, but I don't know exactly what the outcome of that's going to be. So depending on how that goes. I mean, maybe there is
066flexibility there in there being what they find. Um, but there is also the potential to not have that flexibility. Uh, I think if um I don't want to surprise administration, and I I don't think I have. I've brought this up a dozen times. I I I think I I may see value and having the board vote to and not because I I I have a concern about how we operate or why we're doing what we're doing. The state has woefully and negligently um funded student transportation in our state. wyfully inadequately and negligibly in my opinion. Um, and it's one of the reasons why I'm glad individuals are suing the state. Um, I think by by continuing to utilize funding for students who um are in optional charter programs to subsidize transportation and other programs, we
067are hovering for that inadequacy. And I'm I'm personally tired of that. Um, I think the legislature deserves to know how much they're inadequately um funding student transportation, at least [clears throat] for Anchorage. And so I may ask the board to vote um on an amendment. And I guess if if if at some point I could get the cost what that would be um >> yeah, the amount of planning that would ultimately be >> I'm still in the finance. I'll join yours in a second. I have to respond. >> Jim, [clears throat] yeah, you're on. He has his hands, by the way. Just don't start talking about the point you're >> Hey, Carl. Could I could I point out that we cut $1 and a half million dollars in transportation out of the budget just to
068get a balance to zero, and we have yet to actually figure out how to get to zero. We found $300 to $400,000. We're going to add back buses as part of the consolidations the board directed. Um it would be very difficult right now for us to um state that we we know that we have to find $1.5 million in cuts already. >> Yeah. >> And and if it's just understand it just adds to the deficit. >> I Mr. Anderson, I promise you I understand. I I I know you and I have talked about this many times. I I I know you and appreciate and understand that the system is broken. And so I I think all I'm asking for right now is one I want to provide general awareness this is still a topic of
069interest for me and that two I'm interested in high continuing to highlight how broken the legislaturator's choice to fund student transportation is in statute right now and then [clears throat] three trying to understand what that cost is which we don't need to talk about right now and but then I I may may or may not draft an amendment um and then I may draft an amendment that I think the deadline we've set is tomorrow I may or may not introduce it but I I am interested in continuing to talk about >> um as far as the charter schools it would be about 1.1 a little over 1.1 million of the transportation funding would be directed towards them if it was all uh that 529 per student was just pushed towards it. >> That would be
070the equivalent of how many buses? >> Um nine maybe eight or nine. >> Okay. So buses are a little over 100 >> think around around 130,000ish. >> I'll follow up with you and Mr. Anderson offline and I just want to again no surprises the topic of performing this is the first time I've talked about on record. I I I think and I hope we continue to advocate for sustainable transportation. Thank you. >> Um any other board members online with either questions about the budget or amendment comments? Yeah. Um, if I could speak through the chair, I just want to um say I appreciate that you're returning to a plus4 PTR to a plus two PTR because AEA has already tagged in to the ASB and MUN campaign fund with that exact language. So, like you
071said, President Jacobs, like trying to claw back that message that we've already messaged out to our members that this isn't going to directly impact them would be astronomical. >> Just absolutely devastating when all their public comment is talking about how it's going to just devastate their classrooms. >> Great. I appreciate that. So, that will um ensure everybody is in alignment. One quick comment that is with the legislation. One of the issues was questioning whether we what we did last year with the extra money. Did we really do it? They always come back with this kind of issue. If we can have something that would support it and finance to show that we did it and that we can stop that argument before it begins, I think we'll be a lot better off than letting it
072blow up. Like you got to know if you got $100 million in savings or you got all the other issues that we heard. Let's let's head it off before it gets. Okay, that's what I'm suggesting. Yeah, I suspect we have something from that August or September whichever uh >> whatever came we had whenever we restored >> the response that we have to that be preemptive because that's out there discussion with some of the non you know BSA supported anyway. >> Okay, we are five minutes over time. I appreciate the collective input from everyone. I will follow up with President Jacobs and ensure that a finance committee recommendation is um brought for the board's consideration on the 17th. Um and just a reminder as per President Jacobs that amendments are due by the end of business
073day tomorrow. the staff I believe the staff quit I know staff are done with their day at 5 and so any amendments should be posted by five so they don't have to work weekends in here >> to allow public testimony on the seventh >> Yes ma'am >> okay all right >> can I can I just confirm that we achieved consensus today around the plus 4 PTR to plus two PTR >> we did I heard I heard the full finance committee support um voice their support for that and um >> really great conversation from from all parties Yeah, it was a great meeting. Thank you. >> Okay, thank you.