Anchorage School Board: 9/15/26 ASD School Board Meeting

Hi, thank you. There's so many of you. I saw that you rotated out when you're sitting up here. Big team. Okay, so I have a few questions, and I'll probably have more later, but high level, since we're talking about being on track to graduate, can you speak about how graduation correlates to subject mastery?

So I'm hearing a lot about different ways and pathways that kids can earn credits and supporting them and making sure that they can earn the credits to graduate, which sounds great. And I'm curious more about what a credit earned means. And so how, how, how do we correlate those credits to how prepared those students actually are for when they leave a school? So, yeah, broader questions to better understand how graduation correlates to subject mastery and being prepared?

That's a great question. I appreciate it. I'll get things started and see if others have things to say. Ali may offer important insight from a counseling lens, but I think that in terms of subject mastery, we have to think about students and their trajectory. It was mentioned earlier about K through 12, or from a high school lens, 9th grade through 12th grade.

We're not looking at one particular class per se, but we're looking at a sequence of classes, one building upon the next, leading to graduation. I think we need to look at what's required of the course in terms of standards, which is part of why the district is really investing a lot of time effort and focus on making sure that every core academic class a student sets foot in, whether they're a second language learner or in special education or part of any other department represented here, that they're accessing grade-level curriculum and those standards that are required by the state. And the culmination of those 4 classes or 2 classes, whatever the sequence may be, If we're talking about core academics, it's 4 years. By the end of it, having accomplished, completed, performed assignments, projects, tasks, assessments, class participation, what have you, at the end of it, the student is going to be competent in that subject equivalent to, you know, a graduate in high school. Interestingly, in Alaska, we don't have a competency exam at the very end of it.

What we have are benchmark assessments along the way, proficiency exams along the way, but those aren't correlated with graduation. So what we're left with is the scope and sequence and the standards of those sequence of classes. So then is proficiency in those various standards evaluated and correlated to graduation specifically? Do you—. Do we assess whether or not a student has participated and engaged in these standards, and that is how they achieve a credit that then gets them on the trajectory to graduate, or do we assess proficiency in those standards even without a completion exam?

But do we assess proficiency even along the way to ensure that they are proficient in those standards in order to ensure that they are truly prepared whenever they graduate versus just having, I guess, gone through the motions potentially? Yeah, and I— that's— it's just such a great question and goes really at a pretty deep level about what we're doing in, in public education, right? I think your question gets at the heart of the expertise, training, and professionalism of our educators. And when they give assignments, a series of assignments, and assign grades, it's really their expertise. And when a student earns a passing grade, that means that they have shown a certain measure of mastery of the content.

Let's assume A is a high level of mastery and F is no mastery at all. And the culmination again of all of those grades would lead a student to earning the requisite credits to graduate. It's a culmination of a lot of teachers and a lot of input and a lot of expertise over many years. Sure. Yes, that, Makes sense, and I get that my questions are deep and nuanced in many ways.

You could probably spend hours sort of talking about this subject in general. Is a credit earned— it sounds like a credit is earned by passing a class. So what is that like? You get a D is passing, you get a credit. Yep.

So then we're talking about whether or not a D sort of, you know, the value of a D versus the value of a different grade and whether or not that means that you've mastered or proficient and what your various levels of proficiency are in that subject. And I get that that's nuanced. Can you also speak to how attendance factors into earning credits and whether or not students are— do they earn credits after, even if they're— I guess maybe that's part of credit recovery, but how does attendance factor into the requirements for earning credits to graduate?

Yes, so a number of things to say about that. If a student isn't attending at all, they can be dropped from the rolls of a school. We really try to avoid that because we want to keep all kids in schools where they can get services and support. We have students who sometimes have poor attendance who do quite well in school. Though that's pretty rare.

We have shown through the work of Chris Opitz in the assessment and evaluation department that there is a very strong correlation between strong attendance, that is 90% and above, and strong grades. There's a very important correlation there. So while we do not assign grades for attendance, credit for attendance. Strong attendance leads to strong grades and ultimately credit completion.

Okay, that makes sense. And then I have one more question, but I— I ask one more question.

Yeah, okay, okay, I'm gonna ask one more question.

Pivoting, I heard a little bit about sort of all the different mechanisms that are provided for supports for students in their schools, outside of their schools, all these different supports. And one of the things that was mentioned, I forgot who mentioned it, I'm so sorry, but talking about PLCs specifically. And so can you speak to sort of what PLCs look like in the lens of a teacher and what type of autonomy that they have in order to be able to really target students and look at their students as a cohort or in departments? To understand what their needs are? You know, are PLCs sort of, they're given a number of standards to look at and specific things that they have to address, or are teachers sort of given the flexibility to address student needs based off of what they're seeing in their own unique settings?

Yeah, so it's another great question. Teachers maintain a great degree of autonomy, choice in choosing what they, they focus on in PLCs. Some are specific to subject area content, some are focused on areas of SEL supports, some are focused on credit recovery, some are focused on mental health. Each school has its own unique set of needs. Many teachers organize themselves around specific contextual school needs.

Yeah, and they range from academic traditional areas of focus to ones that are quite supplementary in nature. The one goal which is very important to all PLCs is that they are focused on students and measurable outcomes. And the best PLCs organize themselves in cycles of inquiry. Where data is reviewed, teachers agree on a certain action, they take the action, they assess its impact, come back again and refine, so that we're in a constant state of review, action, and improvement. Review, action, and improvement.

Okay, cool. Thank you. I'll stop asking questions. We'll go to Member Hickens.

Is that better?

Yeah. Okay, thank you. I'm looking at just decisions we're making over a period of time as to, you know, looking forward with it. When we move 6th grade to middle school, Department of Labor recommended— suggested that your academic scores will drop and your graduation will drop 1 to 2%, but the administration had optimism that that would proved to be positive. We had a drop in academics the first year.

I don't know what the academics did last year, but I'm going to request that. Is there any concerns there that you have that in regards to decisions of redoing or considering what we've done that it might impact it? I like the idea you talk about correlations and the like. I like statistical, I like evidence-based, and so I use Department of Labor and I think it's Stanford study Anything at all that you've seen that says that's, that's not going to be a problem for graduation rates?

Yeah, thanks for the question, Board Member Higgins. Um, for the last 3 years, we've seen our graduation rates increase by about a percentage point each year. Um, it's too soon to say what last year's graduation rates will be. We're compiling those, but I anticipate another increase. And again, with the work we're doing with OnTrack, uh, and you get the level of commitment we're seeing from the team here, and I, I have the sense that we're really just getting started in these efforts.

So in time, I anticipate that the graduation rate will continue to go up. Um, in terms of questions specific to middle school, I would need to phone a friend here and invite some middle school experts to speak to that. I, I will say that the, the high school team, um, is working on very coordinated efforts, uh, to, to support that 8th to 9th grade transition. And in time, I anticipate that it will reach down into 7th and ultimately 6th grade. I also know that 5th and 6th grade are working on similar transition support.

In fact, there was a meeting today in the instructional division focused on 5th to 6th grade transition work. So this is happening across the division at many levels.

Okay, the other question is just curriculum. I mean, one of the things that's always been discussed is doing a comprehensive curriculum, which I realize from a financial standpoint and all can always be an issue, but I've seen the, the curriculum impact have that have a— well beyond what the staff is doing. I remember one when we had 3rd grade throughout the whole district wasn't growing very much. The review showed it was the curriculum and that was the problem. Are we in need of a comprehensive curriculum review of the district?

And because it's been so long since we've had that type of review, and I know that when curriculum changes are done and we haven't seen anything, this has to come to the board, I believe. So I'm just wondering how we're doing on that aspect of assessment.

Um, Member Higgins, I think for this question it would be best if we invited in our Teaching and Learning Office, but since this conversation was more focused on OnTrack data, we might be limited in our ability to fully answer the depth of your question, but I think it is a reasonable one for us to discuss at some point. I appreciate that response, and that was my last question. Thank you.

We'll go to Member McDonough.

Thank you. I apologize for not sending in questions in advance, so I— these actually are like technical things that have come up since staring at the report in more silence here, or mental silence. The first thing is on the student subgroup page, I just— a technical question. It says one of the student subgroups is called multiethnic. Is that the exact same group as what we have otherwise tracked as the group called two or more races, or is that— is it intentionally a different subgroup, or is it just a change in the term?

We may need to ask our assessment office to clarify.

Yeah, so that is, is the same subgroup that you're talking about, two or more races or multiethnic. That's the same thing, and that is a, um, self-reported. So when parents register their students, then they select. They can select individual ethnic groups or they can select multiethnic, so that spans a wide range of those intersections between those ethnic groups. But in some cases it could be two, in some cases it could be multiple ethnic groups that they identify with.

Okay, I, I would Um, thank you for that answer. Um, my, my personal preference, and something maybe if it can be corrected later, or the board might need to weigh in on, um, retaining the term two or more races for correctness. As a person myself who is two ethnicities, I've still only in my life identified as one race. And so like the word multiethnic versus multiracial, they have, they have different applications. So I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't tracking the wrong set of data.

The question that actually stood out to me in the moment is on the first page, our chart with the goal of 90% on track to graduate by 2027-2028.

That 90% on track to graduate is the same number as our actual, like, ultimate graduation attainment goal, which is 90% of our students will graduate on time. Having worked in high schools, one thing that I notice is that who's on track to graduate structurally is always quite a lot lower than who will graduate. And there's reasons for that beyond, um, instructional issues that we should be remedying. For example, students often take classes like Seminary or have to not take a full schedule for other reasons, like personal reasons, that the counselors have a plan to be able to address. Also, like, I talked with a parent this last weekend whose daughter went on a foreign exchange trip So she then spent her entire junior and senior year drastically behind because she didn't earn credits while overseas.

So there is a structural engine of who is not on track to graduate but is not receiving an intervention because their counselors feel like we're, we're actually on track. We're just— so I'm wondering if we as a board and as the administration Changing our 2028 destination, I feel like this, this data is plateauing, but I, I'm not sure where the exact goal should be, but I don't see this will ever get to 90%.

There will always be less on track than who is truly going to graduate. There's always a catch-up effort that's just built into the way that we structure our support, so. Maybe weighing in from the, those who are more familiar with that those counseling nuances to see if that's something we may need to explore.

Yeah, I appreciate the, the analysis and the question, Board Member McDonough. A couple things I would share. In the aggregate, that is the whole district, there is at least over the last 3 or 4 years during my tenure in this position, there is quite a bit of accuracy in the overall report. Typically what we see when we look at the senior class on track metric, the graduation rate will come in about 2 to 2.5% higher, and that has to do with a lot of important bookkeeping work that's actually taking place right now where we identify students who've left the district but we don't know where they landed. Once we determine that, they're no longer ours.

So that's happening right now. You're right, there is some variation if you look at specific schools. You cited a really good example, Seminary. If we've got, you know, a large cohort of kids taking classes outside of the school earning credit, we might see some discrepancy. But as an aggregate, it's pretty accurate.

The other thing that's really important that you noted is while the goal for graduation is 90%, What is also true of this report is that we have freshmen coming in who, you know, are now reporting up to 76%, and we tend to see a little drop for sophomores, and then it climbs rather rapidly for our juniors. The goal, of course, is to get our senior class to 90% and above, and we've had internal conversations about how complex we want this report. And for all of us, we feel like 90% is the number. That's the graduation rate we're pushing for, and we hope to see all of our classes, even beginning with the 9th grade, pushing for that goal.

I, I think, Member McDonough, the only thing I wanted to add, um, that, you know, we definitely saw at Chugiak and other places is that the counselors do work one-on-one with those students to have plans in those situations.

And each of our schools who receive their On-Track status and principals, they do come up with those unique plans for students. And if we could capture that somehow, so then it's who's potentially more at risk for not graduating or not getting On-Track, that would be a great delineation. Just systematically not sure how to mark which, which students have a concrete plan in which are still a work in progress. Yeah, thank you. That's a great way of summarizing it.

I just would hope, with the caveat of there's a resource constraint of how sophisticated our data tracking can get, um, that those students are not invisibilized within the overall aggregates that we're pulling. It, it's likely in the range of several hundred students that are performing well and yet show up in this report.

Member Lissnas. Um, thanks. Um, as with Member McDonough, I failed to send anything ahead of time. Thank you for graciously flying by the seat of your pants, uh, in public, um, right now. So I think I appreciate actually that you mentioned the sophomore— I was going to call it the sophomore slump, right?

And when you look a little bit at our data dashboard, which is all publicly available, You can see that year after year after year, there is this little bit of a dip. So I know that there's been a focus on freshmen. So what's the plan for focusing on sophomores?

That's a great question. We're all seeing that data piece. It's, it's really one of the pieces in this data set that we're, we're focusing on and talking about. It's important to acknowledge that sophomore year academically is more difficult than freshman year. Uh, it's also true that ASD has invested a lot of support, uh, for our 9th graders over the last few years, and I think we're seeing the gains of that work.

I'm quite sure of it, actually. Um, so how to better support our sophomores, um, during a period of austerity, that's also important. Um, I think that's where the work of our department heads comes in right now. We're becoming much more astute in tracking data and responding in a more timely manner. And what I would envision is at the end of the 9th grade, identifying every 9th grader who is off track.

We are beginning to organize those lists by department so that Kelsey leading special ed would know every 9th grader who is off track and assign coaches and support teams to do outreach and come up with a plan for them as they enter their sophomore year. The same would be true for EL, migrant ed, CIT, and so on. That's how sophisticated analytics, unified analytics is. So that, I think, is an important approach. I also believe that our work at all of the comprehensive high schools supporting extended semester and the summer school program is going to play an important role, making sure that students during their sophomore year are getting that support to get caught up.

I failed to mention earlier, 3,000 students enrolled in our summer program this summer, earning 2,200 credits. It's really amazing what's happening. We need to get the word out. We can continue to expand that program now that it's offered at all the comprehensive sites. So a sophomore who's fallen a little bit behind that next summer can hopefully get caught up.

I feel like you sort of raised a couple of things that I was curious about, so if I can send you maybe a multi-part question. Could you tell us more how credit recovery works? In my mind, I have memory of emails I received with my parent hat on broadcasting to all parents, this is how your kiddo can get caught up, but could you more formally share that. And I'm also interested in the summer credit attainment because I'm curious whether the bulk of the 2,200 credits were recovery or kids were taking opportunities to get ahead. And if there's a— because those are, those are two different things happening under the same umbrella.

Those are two different things that are happening. So the summer program I'm referring to is strictly credit recovery, and it's designed to support students who are close to passing but haven't quite done the requisite amount of work, getting back to Board Member Blakeslee's question. And so most of that work involves our curriculum principals and other staff reaching out to specific teachers who have students who've entered the summer program, figuring out what it is they've missed and individualizing support so the student can finish the work. So these are students who have like a 50% to 60%, really close, and they come in for a short period of time, get the work done, and the teacher assigns a passing grade. Kids who are doing original credit work are mostly doing that through AK Choice at this point, and we've separated those programs.

And what's also true is Carmela is running an even more extensive summer program for our migrant ed, EL, and CIT students, which looks a little different.

Very similarly, we have a team that comes on and really reviews every transcript, every referral for every student that we get into our queue as possibly needing credit recovery, and we really evaluate if they really need the credit recovery, if it's something that they really need to work on with their school for grade improvement, or if it's something that's truly original credit. And then from there, we make sure that we're placing those students, and then we really have that dialogue with those counselors and those team members to make sure that that student is placed in the right place, because we— what we don't want to do is set up another student to fail if they're— they haven't been successful in different settings. And so we really are looking at Okay, what is the true, you know, what's the capacity for their student? Where are they at? And which one of those buckets does this student fall in with?

There's a lot of communication with parents and a lot of communication with the counseling teams across the different schools too.

And I think just to add, one of the most powerful components about why more and more credits being earned is the face-to-face option that the teachers at the home schools are, are doing the instruction, the work. It's tied to their classroom. And I think we've seen some amazing progress with, with that being a successful driver behind more and more credit being earned.

Member Bowman. Just one final— thank you guys, this is great discussion. So of the, uh, just for context, what, how When we say kids are off track, is it like chronic, or is it— of those 2,363 students, are they like a couple of credits off, a lot of credits off? Can you break that down just a little bit? Because I think when I think of chronic— not chronic, but when I think of off track, I'm just thinking, oh Lord, poor kids, they just they're just far behind.

And so is that the case that they— is that the trigger for when we, when we throw out the safety net?

Well, that's a— yes, a great observation, a great question. And our role is to really throw out the safety net as soon as we know someone's falling behind. Our team in assessment and evaluation got your question. They've created a chart for you, Board Member Bellamy. We have it coming your way.

But what it shows is that students who have fallen behind in credits really run the gamut. Some are very close. For example, in the 10th grade, 22% or 142 are less than a credit behind. They're very close. So those are students who we want to keep in the program.

We want to get extra support. We want to assign extended semester, what have you. Counselors are going to do really important work to get that student caught up, back on track. On the other side of that, we have about 35% of freshmen who are between 3 and 5 credits behind. That's a real concern.

10Th graders— I'm looking at 10th grade. Yeah, and, and we'll have this data for you. I think what I, what I would like to lead with is that students who are, you know, 2 credits or less behind are students who we can, we can support in the comprehensive school quite effectively, and we're getting better at it all the time. Students who are over 3, 4, even 5 credits behind, this is where the really important work of Benny Benson and SAVE come into play. And those students can enroll there beginning their, their 11th grade year and 12th grade year.

They're doing incredible work. We're working really hard to eliminate all barriers to enrollment so that when students are behind in the 11th grade, they know that those are great, safe, supportive environments to go to and get caught up. And when they get caught up, they can go back to their comprehensive if they want. Some choose to, some choose to stay.

I'm seeing no other questions from the board team. Thank you very much for the student representative. Welcome, the floor is yours. Sorry, um, I didn't send any questions in advance, but I just—. I had a, uh, a clarifying question I wanted to ask.

So for the student subgroups Um, I understand the general goals of this, but, you know, there's a huge change, percentage change, and change on track. For example, Black, the student subgroup, has a change of 6%, um, and then multiethnic has a change of only 3%. So can you guys kind of conceptualize how you guys target those different types of subgroups?

You've hit on one of the great curiosities of this report, actually. So we have, you know, different departments supporting different subgroups of students, historically underperforming students, of which our Black students are not identified by a department. And yet that's the group that has shown the greatest increase And it's a question many of us are pondering and want to dive deeper into. I actually did a little data dive today. I went back all the way to 22-23 where this report starts.

Our Black cohort of students has increased their on-track level by 17%, by far outperforming the district average. And we want to know why. And, uh, Ellen and I were just talking about this before we came up and really want to reach out to the individual schools to look at those cohorts and see what, what is playing out in the context of those schools that's, that's leading to this improvement, which is quite notable. Thank you for recognizing it. It's very astute.

Member Wilson, to tag along to our student representative's question, um, and it's not a question that we could answer this evening, but the The question that brings to mind to me is what in our community, what programs in our community and what individuals in our community are also doing to help our students. So that's, it is a wonderful question that I would love answers to as well, because I know there's a lot of work being done in our community to help support our students outside of schools as well. So I'd love to see that growth as well.

Not seeing any other hands and questions. Team, thank you so much for the presentation, and board, thank you for the conversation tonight.

We will move to public comments.

I'd like to welcome everyone to the board's opportunity for public comment this evening. We've set aside a time slot at the beginning of our meeting to hear from everyone who wishes to testify. During public comment, board members will not answer questions or engage in discussion. This is the board's time time to listen and the public's time to speak. The board welcomes the public to observe and contribute to our meetings.

We utilize Robert's Rules of Order to conduct our meetings. Specific provisions of Robert's Rules of Order include: do not attack a member or speaker's motives. Please, no profanity or foul language. Please refrain from disturbing the meeting. No cheering, applause, outbursts, or waving your signs or posters.

If you have handouts you wish to share with the board, please give them to Ms. Sullivan, who's seated to my left. More information can be found on the handout located at the door regarding audience participation.

Our first community speaker to be heard tonight is Susan Ritter.

Okay, we'll go to Harper Kushner. Oh, Miss Ritter, welcome. You can come forward if you're here.

Welcome. You have 3 minutes. Please begin when you're ready.

Hi, good evening, school board members and Superintendent Bryant. My name is Susan Ritter, and I have worked as a life skills teacher for 20 years, and I have worked for the district for 23 years. I teach at West High School. I intend for my testimony to provide transparency, a clear picture of how my first month of teaching is going at West. First, you need to know that I teach life skills, grades 9 through 12.

The students work hard in all their areas for their IEP goals. I have one paraprofessional whose job it is to work specifically with one student 3 days a week from 9:30 to 12 on very specific work. It was decided that West was the best placement for the student, and I do not disagree with that assessment. He is wanted at West. While the paraprofessional is with that one student, I work with the other 11 students on academics— reading, writing, mathematics, social science, social skills, life skills, pre-vocational skills, behavior management skills, communication skills.

I co-teach with our SLP one day a week on general social skills, and this particular class adds 5 more students to my class. This year, all life skills teachers were told to be more vigilant in using the Unique Learning Systems curriculum. To show that I'm following this directive, I give a pre- and post-test to each student individually for each unit taught in this curriculum. This means I spent the time during the school day giving 4 pre-tests to the student, teach the unit, and then give 4 post-tests. You do the math: 8 tests times 12 students, and there are 10 units.

If you would like to know how I'm doing, I am vigorously treading water in order to keep from drowning. I am maintaining. I have the experience and skills to maintain. Uh, if I were a new teacher in life skills, it would be a very different story. By the way, my 12 students all have IEPs that are coming up starting in October, and they will go through April.

IEPs take many hours to write. I have to invite all parties involved for the students. I have to make sure the invitations are sent out, that all parties are available for the meeting— school psychologist, parents, guardian, general education teacher, department chair, and specialists. And I have to plan for something if it goes wrong, somebody cancels out. I am a clerical worker and I am a teacher.

I have a solution to some one problem here: bring back our building subs. They were taken away from all the high schools last year. We need them back, and you can do that for us.

I am fortunate to have a cohesive group of students. Behavioral concerns are minimal, and I have the support of my administration.

Not all teachers are as fortunate as those of us at West. I hope you will reach out to all special education teachers personally and ask how they are doing. Many are struggling and do not have the supports needed to do the job well. I am talking about good teachers who are feeling stressed, and now it has only been 4 weeks of school. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you for your testimony. Our next speaker is Herper Kushner.

Welcome. You have 3 minutes. Please begin when you're ready. Hi, good evening. Um, also ditto, just really quick.

Um, so I'm here to talk about— so last week I was here, I talked about the building sub issues that are facing our school at Tyson as well. Um, so tonight I, I wanna— I didn't focus enough. I, I threw, I threw my paper because it was like in Arabic when I tried to read it. So So, um, I ended up just improvising. But, um, the point that I was trying to get across 2 weeks ago was staff burnout.

It was 10 days, um, the last time I spoke here 2 weeks ago, and now we're on week 4. So, um, our students are intensely funded because their needs are intensive. I'm the school-based behavior support and one of the 3 teachers at Tyson Elementary, for context. Um, we know that our students have intense needs. They're intensely funded.

We understand that. We care deeply about these students. We stay late, we come in early, we provide food, clothing, all of the extra things that are not otherwise provided. Um, but we need to acknowledge, uh, the work that is being done by the people who are doing it. Um, our staff are experiencing property destruction, um, physical injuries, verbal aggression, and repeated crisis situations.

Teachers are missing their preparation periods because there simply is just not enough coverage. Our behavior intervention coaches are missing their lunch breaks because they are responding to multiple crisis different at different times, and they are choosing to prioritize safety over teacher instruction to take a break. Sometimes our staff aren't responding to just one student in crisis, they are responding to multiple students in crisis at the same time within our three different rooms. I served as a military police officer in the Navy before I became a teacher. I understand trauma, I understand PTSD.

Um, I know that prolonged exposure to this high stress and unpredictable situations— I know what they can do to a person. I'm not saying that every staff member that's experiencing burnout is experiencing PTSD, but what I am saying is that I recognize trauma when I see it. We talk about trauma-informed care for our students, and we should. Trauma-informed care means understanding how trauma affects behavior, creating environments where people feel safe, build trust, and recognize the behavior is often communication. We need to ask ourselves an uncomfortable question though.

Are we providing trauma-informed care to the adults who provide the trauma-informed care to our students? We cannot continually ask staff to absorb crisis after crisis, missing our breaks, sustaining injuries, repair damaged classrooms, and carry the stress home with them every day just to come back and do it again the next day. Supporting staff is not separate from supporting students. Supporting staff is student support. Our students deserve safe, stable, regulated adults who have the capacity to teach, connect, and respond with compassion.

But our staff are human beings too. They deserve to be safe. They deserve to take their breaks. They deserve adequate support, and they deserve to go home at the end of the day without carrying the weight of the entire day's crisis on our shoulders. If we are serious about supporting our students, retaining experienced staff, and providing trauma-informed education, then we have to start treating staff well-being as part of the same mission.

Uh, we cannot pour endlessly into our students' cups from our empty ones. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Our next speaker is William Baxter.

Welcome. You have 3 minutes. Please begin when you're ready.

I'm William Baxter. I'm pumped because I was at the Alaska State Fair and the first week of the FFA is before 4 days, and FFA did great. The kids did great, and there was a 8 kids from Bartlett High School there. I was really excited about that. And the, the, then they had the FFA and 4-H auction.

It was great. They had a lot of, a lot of people there at the— a lot more businesses in that building on bidding on the 4-H and FFA thing. But a lot of times people don't realize, but that, that, that barn during the fairs, basically for 4-H and FFA. Most— that's what's in it. And a lot of people you ask that, they don't— a lot of people ask me when I have FFA or 4-H on there, they mean— a lot of people don't even know what it means.

And, uh, and, uh, you know, when I, uh, I didn't know what really FFA was until about 4 years ago. But, you know, uh, mostly FFA is mostly in high schools and junior high schools. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Our next community speaker is Bruce Scheltz.

Welcome. You have 3 minutes. Please begin when you're ready.

Good evening. Um, I was here 2 weeks ago. Now, as it's been stated before, we're in week 4. Uh, we have another probably 4 weeks to go before the end of Q1. Um, I can only echo the need for the building subs.

I mentioned last time that the per— you know, the, the performance that we have walking the halls with the students, all the same students every day, the familiarity and the bonds that are built are immeasurable. And then when we're called upon to go into a classroom with these students that we've been communicating with in the hallways, it takes the pressure off both the students and the sub walking in as a sub to a, a cold classroom. Now, since you folks revoked the building sub or removed it I've been jumping around for, let's see, like half a dozen or more middle schools, a couple of high schools. And each case, it's a new environment. Each school has a new set of policies and some have block periods, some don't.

So their bell schedules are, you know, you can't, you can't adjust adequately on a one-day assignment. You go one day to one middle school, then you go to a high school— different bell schedule. Now, I've purposefully avoided elementary because that's a little bit, uh, I started there and I've done some time in elementary and I've chosen not to continue there. Middle school and high school is where I spend most of my time. And since I started as a sub, most of that time has been life skills.

So I can agree with the people that were just testifying that life skills is, is a real challenge, and that's in the best cases. So if we can arrange to get— I know we're coming to the end of Q1— if we can arrange to start or restart that building schedule, building substitute schedule for Q2 and beyond. That'd be most helpful. Every teacher, every administrative assistant that I've talked to since the beginning has expressed the need, reiterated, echoed that the building sub is indispensable. You can't live without them.

But we're forced to. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Our last community testifier tonight is Keegan Randall.

Welcome. You have 3 minutes. Please begin when you're ready.

Thank you very much. Well, good evening. Um, it's great to be here. Um, I am Keegan Randall, and I am the executive director of the Nordic Skiing Association And first, I want to express, um, our sincere gratitude for the board's willingness to revisit the student activity funding cuts that were made back in February. We were deeply appreciative to see that restoring funding for Nordic skiing has been included in Memorandum 37 and 37S.

As you know, NSAA and the school district have been partners for decades working together to provide immense value for our students on the ski trails, and why we want to acknowledge that we know you're facing very difficult situations and complex decisions. But as long— and as long-standing partners, we want to, to work together with you on that. At the same time, we are a nonprofit organization that face— are facing our own rising costs, and the 55% reduction in the contract has put us in a difficult position. Um, you know, we have a baseline of funding that we have to meet in order to continue delivering the services that our community has relied on for generations. Um, and I think we have to acknowledge that Anchorage is a winter city and that cross-country skiing is far more than a competitive sport.

It is a lifelong skill. It's a great way to attract people to stay here if they enjoy outdoor recreation. And school-based programs are really the single most critical way to bring students into a sport like skiing. They give access to kids who might not otherwise discover, and it can lead them to lifelong healthy activities. So to ensure that we can sustain these essential programs, we have respectfully asked the administration to accept our proposal to provide services at $30,780 above the rates that were in the initial invitation to submit.

Um, still quite a reduction from where we've been, but again, we're willing to partner here. And so we strongly encourage, um, the board to approve and support the allocation of state one-time funding as outlined in Memo 37 and 37S to restore the support for the student activities. So thank you all for your leadership through these challenging times, and we look forward to our continued partnership. Thank you for your testimony. That completes public comment for this evening.

We will continue to our consent agenda. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda as currently drafted? I move to approve the consent agenda as drafted. A second. It's a motion made by Member Listens and seconded by Member Wills— uh, Member Bellamy.

Um, if seeing no discussion, we'll ask for a voice vote to approve the consent agenda. Student Representative Gibson? Yes. Member Bellamy? Yes.

Member McDonough? Yes. Member Blakeslee? Yes. Member Wilson?

Yes. Member Higgins? Yes. Member Lessons? Yes.

President Jacobs? Yes, we've adopted our consent agenda by a vote of 7 to 0, with the student representative voting yes. That moves us to action items. Our first item is the student hearing. Is there a motion?

I move to approve the expulsion, incident number 1457966, as discussed earlier today in executive session.

Second motion made by Member McDonough, seconded by Member Lessons. Seeing no discussion, could we have a voice vote to approve this item?

Member Bellamy? Yes. I'm sorry, Student Representative Gibson?

Uh, oh, I'm sorry, this one you don't I apologize, I forgot. Member Blakeslee? Yes. Member Lessans? Yes.

Member Wilson? Yes. Member Higgins? Yes. Member McDonough?

Yes. President Jacobs? Yes. That's adopted by a vote of 7 to 0.

Okay, that moves us to Item F2, Resolution 26-27-02, calling on the State of Alaska to advance inclusive diploma options. Is there a motion? Mr. President, I move the S version of Resolution 26-27-02, calling on the State of Alaska to advance inclusive diploma options.

Second. Motion made by Member McDonough, seconded by Member Wilson. Member McDonough, you have— oh, Member Bixley. Still learning voices. Used to be able to do it by ear.

Member McDonough, you have the floor as the maker of the motion. Thank you. Yeah, this— so the underlying resolution is as it was passed through the Governance Committee with some eyes on and, and expressed support from the administration. And then since then, the requests I've made to some outside advisory through channels like the Governor's Council on Special Education and Disabilities, some professors that I know, I've received their feedback and built it into the resolution as a stronger policy ask. It is in its— you guys can check me on this, but if this S version is supported, that would indicate that it is as it was from governance.

This is just an upgrade with deeper policy insights, deeper academic literature around the issue that we're really trying to target, which is that students through all grades are put on the track that keeps a diploma open as, as much as possible. And so the, the S version of this resolution continues to call for inclusive graduation tracks but has a much more clear picture of why this has been a challenge in this state. And in this, this version now has citations from 3 other states, and it has academic literature reviews from across the spectrum about why and how there are barriers involved in diploma tracks.

We'll go to Member Bellamy. Hey, thank you. I guess I'm interested in hearing, um, because it went from a page and a half, I think, to— so all the extra stuff you added since the meeting is just like— is, is your— like the footnotes and references, because I know, um, uh, the director, special ed director, sent you the edits which we, we asked for at the end of governance, and I see that that's in there. You didn't take any of that out, you just added, because it changed. I'm just trying to understand.

Yeah, if I can add, one of the reasons it is 6 pages now is just because of the way the redlining ended up.

Part of the, the literature review logic that then became unearthed, I had to change the order of a lot of the whereas statements. So, and just the way redlining works, you, if you cut it from the top and move it to the middle, it's going to show up in both places. I think when this, when all the Red lines are accepted and track changes. The length of the document is about 3 pages. And it, it's intended then where we are explaining through the body of literature to those who, to whom we're resolving, which includes state officials like Ed Deed and the Governor's Council on Special Education and Disabilities, Deed's advisory groups such as the SEAP.

Special Education Advisory Panel and to the AK Legislature, who will ultimately have to legislate this. I would like their staff to understand why the barriers are in place, not just in Anchorage but in other states, as this is a systemic problem that really emerges from the way that IDEA as a federal legislation— IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act— Everything the administration advised is in here, which included things like emphasis on military programs as one of the reasons that inclusive diploma options is a benefit and changing the term that we had, which was certificate of attendance, which is something that was used when I was teaching, and nowadays it's called certificate of completion.

If I—. If that's I think that's the correct term. If not, please check me. But the— so the terms that admin flagged are in here, and then this will then be something that as we present to the outside bodies, it's much richer and will give us a lot better advocacy to actually address legislation rather than just have AK Ledge accidentally respond to something that's equally inert.

Follow up. So I'd like to know from, uh, Superintendent, um, your thoughts on the— I guess I'm struggling with, um, having the intent of our resolution to have such, uh, have the expectation that our— that politicians or legislators are going to have to use it to do— to, to make this happen. Um, so I'm struggling with understanding why we're including so much in a resolution, but I want to know from the superintendent or Dr. Aguilar if there were any— um, what are your feelings about the enhanced version of what we agreed on? Sure, through the president, Member Bellamy, my understanding is that there's been collaboration between Member McDonough and members of the special education team, but given that this is a board resolution The board has the latitude to add things of particular interest when it comes to influencing how lawmakers will ultimately deliberate a bill. So we recognize there's a limitation in terms of where the administration ends in terms of making sure that these things are structurally sound and aligned to special education best practices and ways in which the board would want to encourage lawmakers to design a bill.

So there may be some subtle differences there. But because this is a resolution and not an administrative memorandum, there really is a greater latitude given that this is essentially the board expressing its will and desires. So I just want to make sure that that partition's clear. This is intended to be a board-driven resolution. But Dr. Aguilar, what other comments or considerations would you like to add?

I think that sums it up. Um, so after reviewing, because we did go back through and reviewed everything again, like the underlying intent is definitely still something that the team is on board with and comfortable with. I do, you know, feel that much of what Member McDonough added to it would be talking points, you know, along the way if we were working alongside legislators to draft something. But the underlying intent we're comfortable with and we're good with supporting as well. Okay, all right then.

Um, all right, that kind of answers my question. I still, I still struggle with, uh, adding so— it changing so much since our last meeting. So, uh, and I, I mean, I don't— it's not that I don't approve it, I just think, um, when things come out of governance, uh, Mr. President, I think they should except for whatever agreed-upon changes. I think what comes forward, and if anything is added, it's added here. Um, but I appreciate the intent and the research that went into a resolution, this resolution, and I appreciate the superintendent clarification that it is a resolution, it is advisory, and it does not— we don't— we're not compelling anybody to, to do anything like anybody else is doing it.

But thank you. Understood. I appreciate that feedback. Member Bellamy, we'll go to Member Lessens. Really a question for the, for the sponsor of the resolution, make the primary author of the resolution And that is, would you be welcome to a friendly amendment towards the bottom indicating that it would be retransmitted to a governor-elect and any newly elected members of the legislature?

Oh, considering there'll be a change in leadership. Member McDonough, I'd be happy to second that modification to the resolution so that essentially we'd send it soon and then after an election retransmitted. I appreciate that forethought. Okay, then I will send the language to Ms. Sullivan, but at this point I would move to add, quote, and to retransmit this resolution to the governor-elect and newly elected members of the legislature after the results of the November 3rd election are finalized, at the end of the second-to-last paragraph.

I've just sent that to Ms. Sullivan with apologies.

Member McDonough, are you going to second? Oh, I second. Thank you.

Uh, Member Lessans, would you read for the record the amendment one more time? So move to add the words, "And to retransmit this resolution to the governor-elect and newly elected members of the legislature after the results of the November 3rd election are finalized," end quote, at the end of the second-to-last paragraph.

Any additional discussion on the amendment to the resolution?

Is there any opposition to adopting the amendment?

We'll do a voice vote. Um, yep. Miss Sullivan, please. Student Representative Gibson? Yes.

Member Wilson? Yes. Member Higgins? Yes. Member Blakeslee?

Yes. Member McDonough? Yes. Member Lessens? Yes.

Member Bellamy? Yes. President Jacobs? Yes. That amendment is adopted 7 to 0.

We're now under the underlying item, the resolution as amended. Is there any additional discussion? Member McDonough? Yeah, I, um, I do appreciate the, um, Member Bellamy's concerns. As especially as a member of the Governance Committee, this situation is not one I plan or hope to be needing in the future, where we debate a resolution in committee and then afterwards, as a, as a member of the board, not as a committee member, I propose an alternative version.

I would like to do that in the right order of operations. Um, it is important that this passes as soon as we can because you could see the amount of people that this resolution is being told to be transmitted to. Um, every policy engine moves very slowly, and the sooner we get this on their desks, the sooner they can prioritize it. So the Governor's Council is going to produce its legislative priorities this next few weeks. The SEAP is going to produce its legislative priorities.

I think this board is even going to come up with ours. So, um, I will ask for forgiveness and, and offer a sort of promise as best I can that in the future I will bring this back through the channel. We just— if we did that, it'd take another month, and then we'd really lose the window of opportunity for these other groups to engage in the issue. Thank you. Okay, there's no other discussion.

We will have a voice vote on ASD Resolution 2627-02.

Student Representative Gibson? Yes. Member Bellamy? Yep. Member McDonough?

Yes. Member Higgins? Yes. Member Lessens? Yes.

Member Blakeslee? Yes. Member Wilson? Yes. President Jacobs?

Yes. Okay, the resolution is adopted by a 7-0 vote with the student representative voting yes. We will move to item F3, ASD Memorandum Number 037, FY26-27 Proposed Budget Revision. Is there a motion?

Member Lessens. Um, Mr. President, I move to approve— oops, I am on the wrong one.

I move to approve ASD Memorandum 037-S.

Is there a second?

A second. Okay, made by Member Lesson, second by Member Bellamy. Member Lesson, as the maker of the motion, you have the floor. Um, thank you. Well, first of all, I appreciate the opportunity that our board had this afternoon to ask questions of the administration about its proposed— original proposal, which was Memorandum 037.

There were a lot of really excellent questions asked and answered, and I personally appreciated the chance to speak to Memorandum 037-S, and I'm going to review sort of the high points here for folks who were not also watching the work session or in attendance. So fundamentally, the two memorandums are— they have many similarities. The S version builds on the administration's thoughtful proposal to allocate newly identified Waterfall funding between the current fiscal year and the next fiscal year. So we're thinking about this year and fiscal year '27-'28.

The S version lowers the expenditure this year by $3 million, which affects the numbers in the actual recommendation and brings each of those numbers down $3 million from what the original version proposes.

The best version expands the pertinent facts that are shared for the record, including a summary of legislative and gubernatorial actions in May through August, which which effectively boiled down to the passage of House Bills 28 and 263, the fact that the governor allowed them to become law 9 and 5 business days before the start of our fiscal year, and expand that in response to our inability to know the extent of the waterfall funding we would receive until 2 months into our fiscal year. Fiscal year. The board took a series of actions in July and August to leverage known new funds and direct those known new funds towards teaching positions. Building substitutes were in that memo. Counselors, paraprofessionals, funding for the Alaska Middle College, ELA pilot materials, a number of other priorities.

We also— the memo explains, and we've discussed up here— leveraged a guarded anticipation of the receipt of Waterfall funding when we dug $68— $6.8 million out of our available $7 million in undesignated fund balance. And it identifies that the board approved a resolution to remove school closures from consideration as a mechanism to balance next year's budget. So those are some of the board actions that this establishes for the record. It also summarizes new information that the board has received from the administration, the state, the municipality between August and September. So really it aggregates all available information since early summer, um, which includes the superintendent's notification in the August 18th meeting that our structural deficit for FY28 exceeds $48 million, that we in fact on August 31st received confirmation that we would receive the one-time waterfall funding for this year.

It identifies the administration's initial draft of Memorandum 037, in which it said If we followed the proposed plan, we would have some expenditures this year, some savings for next year, but we would still have a $26 million deficit for next year. 26.6. Um, it incorporates data that was shared with the board at our last meeting's work session, uh, results from a poll saying that a majority of respondents in Anchorage prefer that the board balance additional staffing and programmatic investments this year with the objective of protecting classrooms next year. And that same poll, in a second question, revealed that a majority of respondents indicated their preference to use additional funds to protect classrooms next year instead of restoring programs or adding staffing this year. It also acknowledges, um, a new document as of September 2nd, which was the mayor's preliminary 120-day budget memorandum.

Which became publicly available, which essentially said or underscored that the municipality's local contribution for 2027 will follow protocol, i.e., that we won't know what that is certainly until the assembly passes their budget in November and makes any revisions in April of 2027. But it acknowledges that the municipality is grappling with increase costs under a local tax cap, and the board is aware that it's the municipality's additional or voluntary local contribution could be substantially lower than we anticipate or have historically become accustomed to. In other words, our deficit would grow if the, if the assembly fails to fund us to the max or to the status quo levels. And finally, it adds a section Um, relaying a report board members received on September 4th about beginning of the year staffing metrics, which include data points such as we have just over 100 long-term substitutes covering classroom vacancies. This was on the first day of instruction.

We had roughly 5 dozen teachers on the first day of instruction who are working through J-1 visas. We have more than 100 teachers working under some form of alternative certification, and that of the additional 66 positions that principals have fully posted to their schools, um, thus far only 16, uh, were filled with new hires. Um, so there is a lot more to that background information, but I thought it was helpful to add a lot to the record. In essence, the main recommendation that's different in this memorandum, I'd say there are two. The first is that it changes the administration's initial recommendation for $3.7 million allocated towards student supports, which was designated to support high-dose tutoring, credit recovery opportunities, and additional staffing— and paraphrasing here— and it decreases that $3.7 million to $700,000.

So it's a removal of $3 million in spending this year to save for next year. And with the funding remaining, there would be roughly $20.6 million available model for FY28, we would preserve about approximately 144 teaching positions next year, including those required to maintain the middle school model. And then a very final point here is that other than for legal contractual compliance and/or budgetary corrections, no investments made for this fiscal year FY27 with one-time funds after July 1st shall be included in the preliminary FY28 budget. And just to clarify for the public, the board in early February, for our first meeting in February, receives the preliminary budget from the administration, which would be the administration's recommendation. But every year the board offers guidance of a sort to the administration in advance of the preparation that it does.

So the board sort of indicates its interest in investing here or perhaps cutting there. So in many ways, this is an early form of guidance, and the question is really what kind of, what kind of initial look at the budget do we want to have next year? And thanks to some discussion we had Um, our CFO essentially said that under Memorandum 037, we would be looking at a deficit for fiscal year '28 of $26.6 million. Under Memorandum 037S, because it saves a little bit more and because it says don't incorporate one-time funding, one-time expenditures made with one-time funding, for next year, the deficit is just about just over $6 million.

So I will pause there.

Okay, Member McDonough, then we'll go to Blakeslee. Thank you, Mr. President.

Um, first, as the first to speak on this incredibly giant— like, uh, it's a bit— but this motion, I mean, this memo is huge, and, um, the work going into it I really want to make that heard first. I feel like every time I read it, even though it's been like 9 times now, I'm getting more information. So the information density is really appreciated. Before looking at the actual appropriations, I did want to raise a motion on one of the points of information in here. It's on the 4th page, the first paragraph, which talks about the Alaska Survey Research poll that we read in the middle of August.

And while— so my intention is to make it clear that that's an important piece of data, but it is not the— that I believe it is irresponsible to use that data as an underlying rationality for this memorandum. Um, the data there showed that a survey done in Anchorage voters revealed that 62.5% of respondents preferred that the board balance additional staffing across next year. Um, and essentially that, that's important data, but it's only one part of the data puzzle. And, and I feel like because it is structurally lacking the whole picture. Um, I would prefer it's not on the memorandum, so I move to strike paragraph 1 on page 4.

Second.

Uh, Member McDonough, since you haven't submitted that writing, can you please repeat it? Oh. I move to strike paragraph 1 on page 4. Page 4.

Member McDonough, just for clarity's sake, um, the paragraph begins with and ends with—.

Oh, the paragraph begins with, during the same work session, the administration shared results from an August 20th to 23rd Alaska Survey research poll, and then it ends with use additional funds to protect classrooms the next year instead of restoring programs or adding staff this year.

Just like the paragraph.

Okay, uh, Member McDonald, do you have additional comments on your amendment? Yeah, just, um, in In brief, um, the intention of the motion and the action of the motion to strike this is not to remove from the public record, because that— this information is still in the public record, and it is a foundational plank of ASD Listens, as the superintendent shared with us and with the assembly. Um, so I appreciate that this level of insight has been gained. I think it is fundamentally irresponsible for us to offload these sorts of questions to only one group of people without recognizing the concentric circles of democratic influence that we should actually be heeding. So when we skip all the way to the outer rim of like the whole electorate at large, we have skipped our students, giving them, um, an intact voice on whether or not we should invest money this year.

We skipped our principals, we skipped our teachers. And so for the intent of really the hygiene of the logic, I would rather this stays in the developing logic outside of our, our appropriation. And then as we get deeper insights into what our students are looking for, what our staff is looking for, then we can look more closely at an actual stakeholder analysis of priorities.

Member Lessans. Um, I think the— I think the maker of the amendment, um, I'm a little bit perplexed. The intention was to simply state the summary of district, state, and municipal updates, and that was an update that we had received. So I— to your point that we have not received robust updates from a multitude of other stakeholders, point well taken. I guess I'm just not sure of the accuracy of deleting a piece of information, because then you could retitle it Summary of District, State, and Municipal Updates, August to September, except for the one that we pulled.

Thank you, Member Lessons. We'll go to Member Blakeslee.

Um, yeah, I think I'm, I'm still forming an opinion. On this, but I, um, I would say that this survey— one, one point of it is that the survey was administered, or I guess we got the results August 20th to 23rd. When was the survey done again? Do you remember? It was before the school year started, right?

Was conducted August 20th to 23rd. We were notified of this in our work session on September 1st. It was conducted— okay, so I think that a point to make just, um, around the survey results, not that they don't have merit behind them, but also it— the survey was conducted prior to people really experiencing the cuts that have been made in these classrooms because it sort of corresponds with the beginning of the school year. And so I think that if we are— maybe the way I'm leaning is if we include this, there are sort of footnotes or caveats made to sort of underscore the fact that it is—. I don't—.

There, you know, it isn't necessarily a representative sample of of opinion, um, or reflect what the reality was at the time the survey was conducted. Does that make sense?

Am I making sense? Probably not. The nature of Robert's Rules is that I think you have 6 other people tell you that. Okay, well, I think maybe, maybe the way I'm leaning before I have an opinion formed is, is even adding sort of footnotes here, right? I mean, I understand that the paragraph here is part of a larger section that says summary of district, state, and municipal updates, but other updates that are district-related are we've received testimony from people, right?

That's—. Those are updates that we've received. We've received overwhelming testimony from teachers and parents and people saying that they want, they want staff, they want long-term building subs. We've heard just this evening. And those to me are additional updates.

So maybe even instead of striking it, I don't have an amendment— the amendment formulated in my head yet, but maybe the way I'm leaning is that if we do include this sort of summary of survey results, we also include a description or a sentence or two that, that notes the fact that we've also heard from many different respondents in many different ways, even since the beginning of the school year and prior to it that might not reflect what we are hearing in this survey, and that also bear just as great of, of merit for consideration and, and could be constituted as part of district updates as we have heard them. There are updates that we have received.

Okay, thank you, Member Blakeslee. Um, I will jump in and, and say that I don't You know, I myself view and read this particular paragraph as providing data and information to include the dates of the survey.

I think that even the percentages listed indicate that there isn't 100% consensus in our community as to how to completely mitigate all challenges our district is facing in FY27 and FY28 with resources that are already spread too thin. Um, so I don't know that I'm in support of removing the entire paragraph, as I think the context is valuable. I can't speak to, uh, any other hypothetical amendments, but I do see value in, in this data being referenced and included.

So I think that's where I land right now based on the discussion. We'll go to member Lessons, and then we'll go back through. Oh, Member Higgins, who hasn't spoken yet.

Thank you. I'm not a tremendous— my job is not to remove our role in looking at what's best for kids based on a survey or recommendation. We have to look at what's best for the students, and, and these surveys are misleading, and how they're handled can be subject to a lot of challenge. So removing anything associated with the survey to me is appropriate because that's not our job. Our job is not to do it.

We end up having times where the superintendent has said the public doesn't support it, then refers to an old survey and said, oh yes, they do, because it solves the $90 million deficit on closing schools. And it wasn't the case. So, um, uh, how these questions are worded and what they're supposed to do, regardless, even if it's perfect in the way it's administered and it's asked everything, the people don't have the information that we have in front of us. We don't see the impact of the kids. It's our job to do that.

We can't say that's not our job. So any changes to any type of proposal that disregards that is a concern to me, and I don't think that overcomes our obligation to do what's best for the kids. So I'll leave it at that.

Go to Member Wilson, then Member Lessons.

Uh, Member Lessons. I wonder, in the yes-and school of thought— and I really like a good long memo— um, I wonder if the maker of the motion would consider, um, removing the proposed amendment in favor of adding language similar to or identical to the following at the front of, um, on page 3 between the paragraphs referring to the August 18th and August 31st meetings to the effect of— and I might need a moment otherwise— since the start of the academic year, the board has received substantial quantities of public testimony regarding challenges related to FY27 staffing shortfalls.

And that would acknowledge— and I have not written this out other than in pencil here— and that would acknowledge the reality that we have received substantial emails testimony in person, um, conversations to the effect that, that teachers, families, and students are really struggling with the draconian— comes to mind— an austere budget that we had to pass, and the fact that $90 million in cuts cannot be reversed by $43 million in delayed one-time funds.

So that was a long way of saying, Mayor Sullivan, I will send you a quick email. So, um, we're just a little out of process, uh, but I'll check with Member McDonough to see if he has interest in withdrawing his amendment at this time.

I, um, while I think this, that advances the intent of the discussion really well.

I do still feel a sense of, well, the reason this paragraph stood out to me in particular is because when the Alaska Survey Research Team has presented to us in committee or right here in front of us in the boardroom, they often show how the data is representative of whether somebody has a student in the school right now, like if the person responding has a child in the school, and that number is 20%. So we have on here a number that says about 60% of the respondents support not investing in schools this year, but only 20% of the respondents actually have a student who's going to be get hurt by that decision. So I'm, I'm concerned about the alienation of this data set, and I think it's just poor data hygiene to include it outright. And I think with that, I don't really support withdrawing the motion, but I'd be happy to see it fail and then debate continue, because I think that will still help strengthen how this memo presents ASD circumstances to the rest of the world.

Member Wilson, I guess I just— I don't read that language the same way. Maybe some other board members are reading it because it clearly states to me that the— it's just information that was provided. That's, that's how I read it, not that it's influencing my decision on whether or not I want to support it or not. I, I have many other questions past this that I know I'm not supposed to be talking about or asking at this point. I guess I just don't read it as that.

I read it as information that was presented to the board, and, and I'd hate to remove it if it is just information that's presented, but I do have many other questions before we move as we move forward.

Okay, um, I just— the only thing I'll add is I want to state for my own purpose and intent that I deeply appreciate and respect everyone who chooses to provide feedback to the district on current operations. That looks like in-person testimony, written testimony, phone calls to school board members, engaging in community council meetings, participating in a survey that the district commissions. I also want to very clearly state that I appreciate perspective from individuals who have students in the district as well as those who don't. I think that the, the weight and how we incorporate that feedback might differ on the issue, and navigating that, I think there's nuance to, but I don't want to minimize feedback from those who don't have students in the district, in part because I've, I've spent time during my campaigns trying to engage and encourage individuals to participate and be present for conversations that involve ASD, whether or not they have a student in their household or whether or not an educator is part of their nuclear extended family. Public education impacts every part of our municipal government, every part of our economy.

And so I'm just going to put that out there for my own piece. I understand and appreciate the thought behind the motion. I'm gonna be a no on this, but I'm looking forward to future discussion. Member Blakeslee. Yeah, I, um, I will just jump in and say I also appreciate the perspectives of people who have students in the district or are teachers in the district, and those that do not, um, that are just residents of the municipality and care about how funds are used.

And at the same time, I do agree that if we include this paragraph as a part of a paragraph related to summary of district, state, and municipal updates, and we don't include the full scope of updates that we received, then that is sort of an example of cherry-picking the data that we are choosing to disclose. So I think that I— I know we're out of the process, but I hope Member Lessens makes that other amendment that would be additive, and if not, I'll make it just so that we can include the full scope of data if that's what we're going to entertain, is having this section be included at all.

Member Lessans.

Technical question. We have an amendment on the floor which we need to deal with before we can make another amendment. So the Yes, that would be my recommendation. There is a discouraged process in Robert's Rules called a motion to substitute, whereas we could in theory change a motion to delete a paragraph instead to a motion to keep the paragraph, or a motion to delete the paragraph and add a larger paragraph which contains the identical language. That's not advisable or transparent, so I would encourage us, if the maker and the seconder of the motion prefer a vote on this on this amendment for us to dispatch that and then consider any other language we wish to remove or delete— remove, add, or modify.

I will say for the record, I have drafted and shared an amendment with Miss Sullivan to the effect, nearly verbatim, maybe with a word or two different. Should we dispatch the particular motion on the floor?

Okay, seeing no other— Member McDonough, additional discussion on this? Never mind, I understood what the— what Member Lessens was saying. I was sorry, I was going to ask a clarification, but I got it.

Seeing no additional discussion, can we have a voice vote on this amendment, Amendment Number 1 to ASTM Memorandum Number 037S, which would delete the paragraph that begins with during the same work session and ends with adding staffing this year.

Student Representative Gibson? Yes. Member Higgins? Yes.

Member Wilson? No. Member Lessons? No. Member Bellamy?

No. Member Blakeslee?

No. Member McDonough? Yes.

President Jacobs? Uh, no.

Uh, that motion fails to be adopted by a vote of 2 to 5, with the student representative voting yes. We are under Under the underlying memorandum, uh, ASD Memorandum Number 037S, which has not yet been amended, is there a motion or an additional discussion? Member Lessans. Um, thank you. Um, I would— I move to add, since the start of the academic year, the board has received substantial quantities of public testimony detailing the significant and complex challenges which have arisen out of FY27's budget-related staffing shortfalls between the 4th and 5th paragraphs on page 3.

Technically, when I sent it to you, I put things around the other way, so I can reread it if that's more appropriate. I think it would be helpful just for—. I will reread it actually as I sent it. Between the 4th and 5th paragraphs on page 3. I move to add, since, quote, since the start of the academic year, the board has received substantial quantities of public testimony detailing the significant and complex challenges which have arisen out of FY27's budget-related staffing shortfalls.

A second.

Motion made by Liston, seconded by McDonough. Member Liston, any additional discussion?

Yes, I just thought I'd fit there chronologically. Okay, seeing no additional discussion, can we have a voice vote on the Amendment 2 to ASD Memorandum Number 037-S? Student Representative Gibson? Yes. Member Lessens?

Yes. Member Higgins?

Member Higgins.

Member Wilson. Yes.

Member Bellamy. Yes. Member Blakeslee. Yes. Member McDonough.

Yes. Member Higgins.

Yes. President Jacobs. Yes.

Amendment 2, a state memorandum number 037-S, is adopted by a vote of 7 to 0, with the student representative voting yes.

Under additional discussion on this memorandum, anyone wish to speak? Member Blakeslee. Okay, we're on the original amendment, right? The S version. Okay, we're on the S version.

As amended. As amended. Okay, great. Um, so I asked a lot of questions during the work session, but I wanted to continue some additional questions that I have, um, in hopes of not repeating the questions I already asked. But yeah, just a continuation of what I already started asking.

So, um, can the administration speak to how many of— so we have talked about, for context, there is— there are a lot of vacancies that still exist. Uh, we have established that the makers of this amendment, um, included a lot of context that, uh, led to the removal of the $3 million from the $3.7 million because of the substantial vacancies we have currently in the staffing pool. Indicating that we have low likelihood of filling those positions anyway. And that's just to reaffirm that's still correct, right?

I guess that's the question to me. Yes, that's the question to you. Yes. Yeah, I think that was one of the reasons, but I think I'd also, if I may, allow Dr. Bryant or ask Dr. Bryant to speak to perhaps why you included the funding in the first place, what trade-offs you explored, and maybe your perception of the district's ability to fill them at this point in time.

Do you want a do-over? If you could maybe expand upon Member Blakeslee's question. Thank you, uh, Member Lessons, Member Blakeslee. So the intent of the $3.7 million allocation was really just to give the administration broad discretion to tackle needs that we know are in schools right now. With that said, is it possible that we may not be able to fully utilize these dollars due to just, uh, A very shallow applicant pool?

Yes. Will needs vary across buildings? Yes. But the bigger picture consideration that I was making was around the investments in FY27 versus FY28, and it wasn't so much that $3.7 million is the amount that we have to have to have a successful proposal. I do think that the S version was made very with a lot of important considerations in mind, but really I think the biggest difference would be one of these proposals would result in a still a very sizable deficit that we would have to balance by March, and the other one, the S version, would be a much lower structural deficit that we would need to tackle.

In my mind, the original memorandum that was generated essentially carried forward $17 million to towards FY28 needs. And in my mind, that was an appropriate number to move forward as a minimum, um, because when I think about our educator salary growth, that's essentially— and please correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Ratliff— but I believe within our educator pool, that's essentially the amount that we would need to pay for their salaries. Because here's the deal, is that, um, we don't have a lot of resources in our schools right now, but we also can't afford the level of services that we have in schools right now, because by the time we balance our deficit in March, that number is going to grow $40+ million because the cost of our labor contracts increasing, utilities and healthcare is going to put us above $35 million. That's greater than, than the amount of the entire waterfall itself. So I think we have to recognize that the status quo is something that we can't afford, which is why I do think it's reasonable for the board to consider the merits, the pros, and the cons of moving forward an even greater amount of resources forward into FY28 than what I originally proposed.

I do think that's worth debate, but there are pros and cons on both sides of it. In the original proposal, the pro is that we would have latitude to add more building subs, to potentially hire and add a few teachers into buildings. But even the $3.7 million is not enough to meaningfully give every school the amount that they would need. This is really just allowing us to duct tape together temporary levels of support to help get us through what's going to be a very difficult budget cycle. Something in the bigger picture that I, I want the board to realize is that the greater this anticipated deficit grows, the more severe the cuts will have to be going into FY $28,000.

That's the fundamental difference between what these two proposals are trying to do versus what we did 12 months ago, where if you'll recall, we did receive a meaningful permanent increase to the base student allocation, but we also sustained a lot of recurring costs with almost the entirety of our fund balance. So that was essentially a $700 BSA investment on top of a $700 BSA equivalent in fund balance, and that was to protect as many services as possible. And really where that, um, where that became very difficult is we had to balance a $90+ million structural shortfall, and that was a very difficult process for our community. So really, in the bigger picture, I think this is less about the $3 million versus the not $3 million. It's the what are we willing to have our community go through when it comes to balancing this deficit before we will likely know our revenue picture.

And I do think it's a reasonable conversation to be had talking to the community about the impact of a $6 million cut versus a $26 million cut in services on top of the $90+ million reductions that they've already gone through. The intention of moving forward $17 million was to give the board some agency in a very uncertain situation to say, at very minimum, we're going to invest in the growth of our teacher, um, or educator salaries going into next year. Because again, the key point is that we hardly can afford the cost of the amount of teachers that we have right now, and we already know that amount is not enough. So that was really the intent of how the proposal was crafted. And all of that to say is that, does the number have to be $3.7 million for school support and personnel.

No, it could be greater, and that would increase our deficit, and it would increase the amount of cuts we'd have to put forward before the community in March. Or it could be less, like in the substitute memo, and that would give us the, the latitude to, um, to have fewer reductions going into FY28. And I think the thing that hasn't been discussed yet in deliberations for the board to consider is that there are several unknowns on the horizon that could allow us to course correct and pivot in the coming months. For example, the first domino to drop will be clarity from the Assembly and the mayor's office in terms of their investment in ASD. If they're able to commit to the local maximum, that might change the calculus of what we're willing to invest in our schools for FY27.

The other domino that could drop is that we could have a new governor who has a bold vision for what he or she is willing to invest in our schools going into the, the new budget that that person will have to develop. That information could truly fundamentally change what we're willing to accept in terms of risk and what we're willing to ask the community to process in terms of cuts on top of cuts. So while there's pros and cons on both sides, I will say to the credit of the substitute version is that a $6 million reduction on top of a $90 million series of reductions could be a a lot more palatable to certain community members than $26 million on top of $90 million. I appreciate that. I, I think for one, I, I feel like we're maybe conflating two things.

There's the $3 million in question reduction, but then there's also the change in the potential deficit for FY28, and it seems to me in reading through this amendment that the significant reduction in the projected deficit for next year is not just a, a reflection of reducing $3 million in this FY27 spending plan, but it's the addition and the amendment of not moving forward recurring expenses. That's the more significant play that dramatically reduces the deficit next year, is the making this— all investments we've made thus far this fiscal year non-recurring, right? A point of clarification, the investments that were made with one-time funds—. Yes, that's what I mean—. Non-recurring, right?

They don't automatically get put back into the budget, but inclusive of the other non— other investments we have made, for example, the $6.8 million that we passed from waterfall funding before we got it, but it was still a one-time investment. But, but the one-time funding not being carried over to next year is the part that dramatically reduces the projected deficit next year, right? Okay, so when it comes to the $3 million in question, isn't it true if, if the vacancies don't fill— for example, if we retained the language in the original proposal that allowed for that funding to be used on high-dose tutoring, credit recovery ops, and also a variety of personnel needs. Opening those positions and not being able to fill them, doesn't that mean that that money would inherently be carried over anyway? So it's not an automatic expenditure if we don't fill those positions?

That's correct, and that is something that could happen, and that's the— that's the reason why the proposal was designed the way that it was. I recognize that there is a lot of uncertainty, and it could be possible that we could attempt to hire $3 million worth of staff and only are able to hire $1 million worth of staff. So that would provide us flexibility, right? So I think in, in that sense, what I see and what I continuously hear in testimony is urgent needs now. And while I recognize that we still have vacancies currently, many vacancies of many varieties both certificated teachers, long-term subs, paras, you name it, right?

It, it still doesn't mean that by opening those positions we won't fill a single one of them. It doesn't mean that we will fill a single one of them, but it does at least provide the ability to do so. And it doesn't necessarily— it doesn't guarantee that we're spending that money now. If we don't fill the vacancies, that money does transfer over to the following school year anyway. Um, and so I think that is— I'm leaning towards my own amendment here to essentially put back that $3 million for personnel needs as the original version.

Um, can I ask a question too of administration? I have heard of a few different times about a bigger issue at play with DEED in having teachers that I think were new hires, um, maybe in the spring or summer that were going to get emergency certs, I think, um, not getting those certs from DEED. And so they were promised one salary, but they're not being paid that salary because they haven't got the certification. Do you know how many of the current, um, the positions that have been filled that might currently show that they're non-certificated but actually have submitted their paperwork and would be certificated if they did what they're supposed to do? Yeah, there's—.

So our historic practice has been when we hire, when we offer a position to somebody and they have applied for but not have yet received their certificate, we would start them them as a long-term sub until they receive their certificate. A few years ago, we changed that practice and started offering contracts on the front end because there were significant delays with DEED in processing times, and they— DEED had guaranteed that they would backdate any applications that were processed back to the date it was submitted. They changed that practice last year and went back to their historic practice of making the effective date when the, the full application was submitted without any deficiencies. And so that created a lot of entanglements for our teachers. So this year we went back to our historic practice of starting folks as long-term subs until they receive their certificate and then move them into their union seniority and their full benefits under the AEA contract.

How many folks are currently in that status? I don't know off the top of my head, but I can certainly get that number and share it with the board this week in BoardConnect. I don't believe— I think they separated those out from the 102 long-term subs that we reported in the beginning of the year snapshot though. Okay. And so that 102 represents long-term subs that are filling vacancies that principals weren't able to fill with certificated teacher, and also folks who are just out on long-term leave like FMLA, right?

So some of those 102 long-term subs aren't permanent positions for the year. They might be filling in for somebody who is, say, out, you know, for pregnancy-related absence.

And I'm hearing DEED changed their historic practice couple times, so we changed back and forth. Are we able to backdate those teachers' pay once they get their certs, or are we not able to because it comes from DEED? It's like a DEED decision to back, back pay what they would have—. What's the one that determines the effective date of that certificate. Okay, okay.

So are the, are those teachers already budgeted for in the current FY27 budget as if they would have their certs and receive the original pay that they had expected? Is that already built into the budget? Yes, that's part of the attrition factor that Andy calculates. Okay, budget overall, because that—. Okay, that's great.

I— so we don't need to consider using any of this funding to then pay those teachers? It's already built in? Okay.

Great, thank you. I'm going to work on my own amendment here in a second, but thank you.

A question for administration. There's— could you remind me that the number of currently unfilled FTE that we have?

So on the Monday snapshot, kind of our weekly snapshot, once you remove the open recruitment positions of our certificated, like, school-based offerings, I think there there were roughly about 90 unfilled positions. Okay. Does administration currently have the purview of if a position isn't able to be hired, reclassifying it and looking to hire someone besides? For instance, if there's a, a classroom educator position, could you instead post a paraprofessional position and hire that if it's a building need and there's a person available, or are you down to hire what's posted?

I think principals have some latitude to work with their senior directors if they want to repurpose a position that they've been allocated that they now feel like they cannot fill. Um, but most of those represent classrooms with students in them at elementary, or sections at middle school and high school that are currently being filled by a long-term sub. And so repurposing that position to, say, a paraprofessional or another support-type position would effectively mean changing the structure of that classroom right now. So some of that is a little bit kind of bound already by the schedules that are set with kids. I don't know if Kirsten has anything to add to that.

Yeah, I would just add Marty's correct that a lot of those decisions are limited by the classroom that's been assigned to position if it's a teaching position. However, there are situations where we have, instead of assigning an additional teacher to a particularly full class, like maybe they're 1 or 2 students over the, the PTR rate that we have, we have looked at hiring paraprofessionals rather than splitting a class in 2 and having that transition. So there are some of those decisions that we're making specifically specifically directly with the principal and what works best for their building. So a lot of those things are very situational depending on the makeup of the position. I'm gonna seek clarification, make sure I understood.

So there could be some positions that are a classroom educator FTE that are posted, but we are currently paying a daily stipend to someone for filling that position as a long-term sub. Correct. Okay, of the 90, how many of those positions meet that criteria?

I would imagine most of them. Yeah, at this point. Yeah, I would, I would say that there are not— there are definitely a lot of creative solutions at this point in the school year that principals are looking at. Some of them are long-term subs, but there are also the, the retire-rehire candidates where retired teachers are hired back as classroom sort of certificated teachers. We've had a number of those come through in recent times as well.

Okay, um, and a question for Dr. Bryant, who can defer to your staff, sir, if you'd like.

Where would administration— I understand that you won't have a final answer for it, but what potential solutions have you identified thus far to remove $6 million from our current operating budget? Where could we cut $6 million? $7 Million, we'll round up.

Uh, that—. It's going to be a very difficult process, but the FY28 budget development process is about to begin. Um, so really that's one of the intentions of SD Listens to start to understand community priorities. I would anticipate we'll be launching a Balancing Act survey as well, like we have in previous years, and it's important that our team briefs the board and the public the cost per student of various programs and, and services. And of course, um, looking at the, the district office as well and seeing what other efficiencies can be made.

But I will just say what I think board members understand, which is that after many, many years of successive rounds of cuts, and the fact that the board has strategically invested most one-time funds directly back into classrooms and schools, um, were very limited even with just $6 million to cut. But, uh, Mr. Ratliff, do you have any initial thoughts? No, I think that's quite accurate, you know. And if we had other $6 million of stuff in mind to cut, we probably would have cut that before increasing class sizes, frankly. So So I don't know where that's going to come from.

It'll be tough to do that as well.

So I'm going to ask a really obvious question, but I feel like it should be part of our record. If you're— if that's the answer to where are you going to cut $6 million from, where would you cut $26 million from?

Well, I suspect part of that, just our normal process. These last things we add back are some of the first things things we cut, just like with the memo that's proposed, you know, if we have another 60 holdback teachers or whatever it is in there, those are probably going to come off first, just like the understanding and in this memo. So some of that would probably line up fairly close what we remove, but again, it's going to be a challenge either way.

Okay, I, um, I think I align myself with with being very worried about robbing from classrooms and buildings in FY28, absent news from the municipality and confirmation they're able to contribute the local maximum, which is the opposite of what we've heard thus far informally. Um, in absentia, uh, a proposed budget from the executive branch, a scenario where there's additional resources for us to allocate between now and when we're required to pass a budget in March, um, is nonexistent.

And so what we have now is what we will have when we gather together to pass our FY28 budget. Deficit, and I don't have a good solution, um, for where to cut $6 million from. Uh, that makes me feel a tiny bit better, um, that administration doesn't either. Um, but I, I don't have an appetite at this point for increasing the size of our FY28 deficit when we don't know what we're going to cut and we don't know how that's going to impact So I'll leave that there. Member Blakeslee, did you say you were working on a motion?

Yes, I have a motion and I just, um, sent it to America with my amendment.

Would you like to read that into our record? Yep. I move to strike and replace Section 2 titled Student Supports to reflect an amount of $3.7 million with the following wording: school support and personnel, $3.7 million. This funding will support high-dose tutoring for elementary students who need additional reading support, additional credit recovery opportunities for high school students, contracted services with the Anchorage School-Based Health Centers sufficient to sustain current operational levels throughout the second semester of the 2026-2027 school year, and personnel to support schools, i.e., paraprofessionals, pulled-back teachers, substitutes, counselors, and other position needs.

Second.

It's on— oh, it's on page of the S version. Sorry, it's on page 5 of the S version. Section 2, page 5 of the S version.

Point of order. Point of order, Member Lessans. It would also need to have language like, and make conforming changes because the $3 million that you're adding back changes all of the numbers in the recommendation, and it changes all of the numbers in especially Section 3. Okay, so we will—. And it probably no longer preserves the middle school model.

Uh, yeah, so I would— no, so understood. Um, that's a point for discussion. Um, Member Blakeslee, uh, as long as you agree that conforming changes should be made should the amendment pass, I think we're covered there. Yes. Um, okay, so are there any other comments you'd like to make in support of your amendment?

Yeah, I would like to just reiterate that Recognizing that opening positions doesn't mean we can fill them, and recognizing that we have a lot of vacancies, I don't have substantial confidence every single position that would be opened with a potential allocation of $3 million would be filled, but I do think that some would be. Um, and that type of opportunity or flexibility, I think, is a signal to the public that we're listening to the current immediate needs in front of us, um, and I would like to respond to those needs as best as we can, also recognizing that that money would transfer over to FY28 if it wasn't spent. Um, that's, that's the biggest element of this amendment. I have questions now about how it doesn't preserve the middle school model. Um, so I'd welcome additional comments.

I'm gonna put myself in the queue, then we'll go to Member McDonough, then Member Wilson. Um, Member Blakeslee, I'm gonna try to— I'm gonna put you in a rough spot, but I put administration in the spot just a minute ago, so I don't feel too bad. Um, do you know where you would like to see a $3 million reduction in our FY28 operating budget? I am, I am not even— no, I, I have not thoroughly thought through the FY28 budget in its entirety. And, and recognizing the realities that we have faced, I'm, I'm not naive to them.

And at the same time, we do have a lot of unknowns, right? We do have unknowns in terms of who the governor will be, who will be in the legislature, what will happen with the Assembly and the municipality. And all of those decisions could go terribly wrong, right? They could all go really wrong, and we could have a much larger deficit. And at the same time, the, the amendment language in here that already states that the one-time funding that we have allocated will not be transferred over to FY28 might on paper look like we are making a significant reduction to the projected deficit, which we are, but to the public, they're still going to feel them as cuts.

It's still going to feel like a, like a new cut, right? Just because we're making that decision now, and I'm not amending that language, but just because we're making those decisions now doesn't mean people are going to feel them any differently. And so I am, I am not going to— I, I did not come prepared today with a list of all of the things that I would cut in a— in the, in the budget, because we're not talking about the FY28 budget crafting and drafting currently. We're talking about this particular amendment and what to do with this one-time funding. So that's what I'm going to focus on right now.

Okay, I appreciate that. Um, I understand the, um, topic of the memorandum isn't the FY28 budget, but I, having been through this process before, recognize that there's a give and take in that what we do tonight will impact FY28. Um, I, I do think that the public will have a right to see, um, recognizing that one-time funds will be spent on expenses for one year is a level of service reduction. Unfortunately, the funding that was given to us from the legislature that we used to restore staffing and program cuts was only one time. I was looking at a social media post from a legislator in South Anchorage who indicated that they expected us to grapple with how to handle this funding given there was a significant likelihood that it was just one time.

And I agree with the sentiment that there is a lot of unknowns. Um, what I think we do know is that there are roughly two opportunities to have new additional resources allocated to us. One of those is the municipal budgets potentially receiving the local maximum. We also know that, that the opposite has been broadcast to us thus far, and then we also know that the state operating budget, when proposed by the new chief executive could also be a sign. I'm hopeful that one or both of those opportunities demonstrate we'll have additional resources to allocate.

Um, and I think that might be a proper juncture to look at additional investment when we have knowledge that dollars are potentially coming. Um, it causes me a bit of heartburn to give the appearance that we're investing in buildings while also potentially indicating that we know that we are going to not be able to hire those positions, which means we're going to save the money anyway. Um, I've been present on this board long enough that both members of the assembly as well as members of the legislature has criti— have criticized our administration, um, and this board, um, for what they allege, um, was an appearance of stuffing our budget with excess positions that we didn't intend to fill. I know that that's not the intent here, but if we're putting positions in the budget while acknowledging there's a significant likelihood they won't all be filled, I think we'll inadvertently give credence to that argument. And I think ultimately I go back to what I mentioned before, which is I don't know how to take $3 million in resources that would mitigate our FY28 deficit and what cuts I would make.

Um, I had to cut $90 million this spring, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Um, but I also wouldn't wish cutting an additional $6 million, let alone $9 million from FY28. But we'll have to engage in that work. So I appreciate the amendment. It was very thoughtful.

I personally am a no at this point. With that said, we'll go to Member McDonough, Uh, thank you, Mr. President. Um, the, the question asked at the maker of the motion, as, as the one who seconded, I feel like I also have a responsibility to reply to that question, um, which was where would I cut this $3 million from in addition to what we're expecting to cut. The answer really is I trust the process that we have built to work with the community on budget cuts.

It's a process that has endured the things I would not wish on anyone. Um, it is not a fun process, but it is a successful one. It has kept us upright for the last 9 years of cuts. I think we really haven't had anything but cuts for 9 years. And I, I understand that this motion makes that a little bit larger for this next year.

At the same time, I would ask a question which I know under Robert's Rules nobody is obligated to respond to, but if I have to ask— if I have to be asked, where would I cut $3 million from in addition to the $6 million? I would ask, how many of your days— if you, if you vote down this motion and you cut these $3 million from our schools tomorrow, how many of your days are spent with 38 kids for the next 145 days of school? A teacher stopped me at the grocery store and said, hey, I saw you, I voted for you. And then pointed out that they had to bring mats from the gym into her classroom to put on the back counter because there were not enough chairs to put in the classroom.

There were 4 more people that needed place to sit and learn English than there were chairs that could fit. So if I'm being hypothetically asked, where do I cut this $3 million from, I'm going to ask everyone Anyone who votes no on this motion, you don't have to answer me, but I think you're going to have to answer the teachers. How many of your days are going to be spent dealing with that hell?

Yeah, Member McDonough, I, um, I feel like that question was at least intended to, to me, if not other board members. Um, I, I think if we, um, deplete our resources for FY28, we are putting staff in a worse situation, um, in that scenario, um, unless there's additional resources that are there to be allocated, which at this point we don't know to exist. And so, um, it's a question that raises the underlying issue that the state is failing its constitutional mandate to adequately maintain a system of public education. Which is why we need to appropriately advocate, uh, in Juneau starting later this week. We'll go to Member Higgins and then go to Member Blakeslee.

Thank you. Um, this entire issue is about alternatives. Uh, you know, I like to comment about, uh, the teacher expressing the frustration. I'm in a classroom with Talking to a teacher with 33 kids, 7 special ed, and no help at all. I'm talking to other teachers and principals and staff and hearing all kinds of, of awful situations and hearing how a lot of people are going to be leaving this year.

They're tired of it, and all we're doing is adding to it. We're going to end up with salary savings this year. It doesn't mean we aren't trying to do it, but we're listening. The demands of the, of the legislature is put the money into the classroom, and that's all I'm asking for. Some things can be addressed, some things can't.

We're going to end up with a lot of savings no matter what we do because we can't fill jobs. That's salary savings. They can't transfer it from personnel to other areas, as I understand, without budget transfers. Unless things have changed, that seems to be a restriction out there. So we've got all kinds of issues out here that we're creating a view that we're not supporting the classroom.

And I just don't think that's beneficial for the school board, which we've had serious problems. If we want to look ahead and say we need to make these changes because of what's going to happen, we would have closed 7 schools a few years ago at the recommendation of the superintendent, including Bear Valley, which he agreed later was it was something that he didn't know what it was being used for. If we're going to project everything forward and do things that are detrimental to the school district or the students, then I have a problem with that. And I don't see right now a clear understanding of where we're cutting, what we're going to do, and the alternatives, because we're not— we haven't been provided that. So I can't support any reductions without more data.

And the idea that the superintendent says when you cut it, then we'll get to it and we'll, we'll decide what and how We're not part of the, of the team on those decisions. I just don't feel like the analysis has been done by administration, and we should be voting not on surveys but what's best for kids, and I don't have enough information. And that's what I'm frustrated at. I want more information before we make this type of awful decision. Thank you, Member Higginswood.

Member Wilson, then Member Blakeslee.

So I, I've gone through the budgets that, um, Member Blakeslee said feel like they have gone really wrong. I think I quoted that correctly because this, these past couple years really feel like that. Um, what, what I don't understand though is how this amendment will affect the entire version of 37S, and I cannot make the decision as whether or not I want to support this amendment before I understand how it affects every other portion of that amendment of 37S in its entirety. Yeah, and I—. Can I— oh, sorry.

So, uh, Member Wilson, I feel like your question was for Member Lessens, or I'll defer to Member Lessens. Yeah, and I would appreciate a correction from our CFO. Essentially, if you restore— if you spend— the S version took $3 million out of the spending plan, so you need to change in the recommendation section. Everything goes back up $3 million, so instead of $11.5 million, it becomes $14.5 million, um, revising, um, in the amount of our funds allocated to our general fund. And so each of those those 3 numbers in the recommendation section goes back up to the 3, back up to the way it was in 037.

More materially, I think that the other conforming changes would be on the very last page, page 6, in sections sort of 3 and 4. So essentially, instead of $20,608,371, remaining, you would be talking about $17.6 million remaining. And instead of 144 teaching positions that you're preserving, my guess is that it goes down to, um, about 120-something, um, maybe 123, um, that we're preserving. I don't know whether that's frankly enough to retain the middle school model. The intention— I mean, you could leave the middle school model language in here, but then the cuts will just be elsewhere, right?

Remember, we're dealing with a deficit, right? So I think fundamentally the overall deficit would shift from the $6 million to a $9 million deficit. Right. So we're digging a little bit of a bigger hole.

So, yeah, so $3 million worth of spending added back into the S version makes the FY deficit, FY28 deficit, just over $9 million rather than just over $6 million, which is currently proposed in the S version. Right. And then we have to identify $9 million in cuts versus $6 million next year. Does that answer your question? So can I have a follow-up?

Essentially what I'm hearing is putting $3 million back into the budget this year for potential support into the classrooms will absolutely take away teaching positions for the next year. Takes away money. The board decides whether those are teaching positions, correct? But according to It would—. If you would directly apply that $3 million to teaching positions, it would decrement about 21 positions-ish, ish, right?

We have salaries and benefits, um, and they're increasing next year.

Does it answer your question? Just one other question, um, can you please again state when the municipality will share whether or not they can fully fund us or not. Dr. Bryant, can you— maybe Mr. Ratliff answer. I want to say it's in October, but it's been a minute.

I believe they, uh, push their budget out sometime in November, and that'll have, um, I guess what they put in for funding for the school district. The second part of that is we come with our ask in March about here's what we're asking for. And I'm not sure that those always line up or have to line up, frankly, but they'll have to approve it at one time, sometime. Does that answer your question, Mr. Wilson? I was just trying to work through in my head if there is the potential, if we potentially do receive any additional money from the municipality, if for the second semester we would be able to allocate any additional supports to our, to our schools currently.

I don't believe we'll receive any more money for FY27 from the muni. That's already set. This would be for FY28. Okay, thank you.

Member Blakeslee. Yeah, I just wanted to add some additional comments. I heard the concern that President Jacobs shared about communicating sort of language as if we're sort of stuffing our coffers, right? Common misinformation that we've received, right? You have all this money that you've allocated for positions that you don't need, which is common misunderstanding when you're allocating money for positions that you can't fill, right?

Um, I would argue though, on the flip side, that if we continue to work on the way that we communicate and, um, Show, you know, whether it's through instead of end of year reports, quarterly reports. These are the number of positions that we have unfilled that corresponds to this number of dollars. That's how this money is gonna get moved to the next quarter, and that gets moved to the next fiscal year. And just sort of recurring communication, I think, helps with that public trust and misinformation that we know is ripe within the community. And I also would say that if we make a spending plan right now that doesn't attempt to use funding to support the immediate needs that we are hearing from desperate teachers, we will also be met with, with a lot of criticism from legislators and assembly members about how we're not taking the opportunity to invest in the classroom when we have the opportunity, but we are We'll absolutely get grilled about how we're investing $500,000 for snowplowing and security, and we're investing money in things that are not classroom-related that we know are needed.

But, but then we want more money from the Assembly and from the muni. So we want to be able to demonstrate that we are taking every opportunity to fill positions or provide support if we have the ability to do so. Think that this addition of the $3 million that was in the initial proposal to support teachers, staff, long-term subs that we again have heard through lots of email, lots of testimony, are desperately needed, even if some of them can be filled. I think that goes a long way in responding to what we are hearing now, um, that then buys trust in the long term for the support we're going to want from the legislature, that we're going to want the legislature to invest in, in our district, right? And then we can show we've done every— we've made every effort at every opportunity presented to put money back into the classrooms.

And even if those efforts haven't been as successful as they could have been had you provided us timely funding, appropriate funding, accurate funding, right? At least we are doing our due diligence and we can show evidence that we're doing that, that we are responding in real time to the best of our ability, even if it is an imperfect scenario. $3 Million doesn't get us all the, all the opportunities and restorations that we need, but I think it does go significantly a long way in showing people and showing the legislature and showing our other elected officials that we are trying to put money where we know it's most desperately needed, even if those efforts are not 100% successful. And that, that would be my, my appeal.

I, um, thank you one last time. Not seeing any other discussion, I appreciate the comments from Member Blakeslee. I, um, appreciate that, um, investing in our buildings now to potentially take from our buildings next year would present immediate evidence to the legislature that we continue to direct funding towards most needed. But I want to stress that that's the word continue. This board pledged, should a permanent BSA increase occur, that it would direct the vast majority of funding straight to classrooms and building and buildings and classroom instruction.

And we've done that when allocated one-time funds prior to a BSA increase. Those were cuts that were reversed predominantly through allocation to building staff and classroom instruction. Um, the funding from the most recent allocation from energy relief as well as the significant portion of the waterfall funding was allocated to restore teaching positions. We should be— we have significant— we have a significant track record at this point to demonstrate that we're trying to put limited funding where it should be, which is supporting our teachers and supporting our students. And we know that supporting our teachers support students, which is why we, we are investing dollars where it matters most.

So I think either way we have that, that case to make. And I think either way, to Member Blakeslee's point, we will hear the concern that we're not doing enough. And I think it's our responsibility to, um, respond in kind to Juneau and indicate that we need them to do more as well. I don't think whether we support educators and whether we forward fund essentially or allocate funding towards FY28 to add instructional positions, or whether we choose to, to add more now and increase our deficit. I don't think there's a choice that could be argued is, is not supporting students and teachers.

I think it's a choice that we shouldn't have to make, which is where to put resources that are too few in a budget situation that's too dire. Member Wilson. I guess this is a question for Dr. Bryant. Um, should this amendment pass, how are the— I, I hear the, the test teachers that were testifying very loud and clear. Um, but how would those positions be allocated?

Like, it wouldn't be enough money to provide support to every school, how would those positions be allocated to, to the schools? Um, I, I know they're all in need.

Yeah, it would likely look similar to the process like when the board restored about 100 positions with the previous funding that we received over the summer, in which case we work with our principal supervisors and buildings to really understand the needs. And I think the piece that's sometimes gets missed is that overall, across the board, all of our schools have very crowded classes. So these positions would really be targeted to some of the most severe things that we can address, perhaps classes that have grown in size because of students who are still enrolling in, in school, or other matters like that. But it would have to be very site-specific, and I would just urge that our team does so fairly and consistently, because again, there's great needs across all of our buildings, and $3 million, while a meaningful investment, is not going to meet the great level of need that largely resulted from the +4 PTR. Dr. Johnson or Dr. Aguilar, would you like to expand upon any of that?

Sure, I think you did a great job, Dr. Bryan, of explaining our process. We, we do keep a regular tally of needs across the district with my team and principal supervisors. So we're very attuned to where the needs are and kind of the spots that need attention. I think that the previous allocations that the board has made have gone to really good use, and people have been very grateful for the assistance. They, you know, and we do We do really try to do that very equitably and look at enrollment.

The one thing that is happening still currently is particularly at our title schools, we do see late enrollment all the way through September. And so that's just something for the board to keep in mind, and that's typically where we see some late allocations that could be beneficial.

Member, member, listen.

Does the administration have any remaining holdback positions? I feel like the last tally there were maybe 9-ish, 9 FTE. Sure, great question. We, we actually have allocated more since that last update. We are roughly around 2.5 positions left in our holdback fund, so there, there really isn't much left there to, to distribute to schools.

Seeing no other discussion, could we have a voice vote on— this is Amendment 3, uh, to ASD Memorandum Number 037.

Uh, Member Blakeslee, this is, this is your amendment. We've had a request from Member Bellamy to reread the amendment. Would you be willing to do so.

Sure, um, I'm just pulling it up. Uh, sorry, give me one second.

I—. Yes, okay, I am. It's basically an amendment to the language to add back $3 million for teachers. So I move to strike and replace Section 2, Student Supports, to reflect a total amount of $3.7 $21 million with the following wording: school support and personnel, $3.7 million. This funding will support high-dose tutoring for elementary students who need additional reading support, additional credit recovery opportunities for high school students, contracted services with the Anchorage School-Based Health Centers sufficient to sustain current operational levels throughout the second semester of 2026-2027 school year, and personnel to support school schools, i.e., paraprofessionals, holdbacks, teachers, substitutes, counselors, and other position needs, and— what was the language that you guys gave me before?

And conforming what? Conforming changes. And conforming changes. And makes conforming changes. And makes conforming changes.

Thank you. So that amendment, just, just so I'm clear, we do not have any idea what the cascading impact would be within the memo.

It, it increases it. It increases the deficit by $3 million. I understand, but we don't know where that, where that's going to come from.

Like, from the— what?

Yeah, from the ESPERS. I have a Point of order for the question. I'm just—. So a point of order to speak to a procedural— that's fair. I can— I'll wait for my turn in the queue.

So just to understand, because it seems to me there's going to be an impact to the S version beyond—.

Yeah, Member Bellamy, I think what you're speaking to is that, um, Member Lessard articulated, um, that earlier that this deficit of, of only $6 million would benefit FY28 and increasing the deficit would have potentially have an impact to classroom staff.

What administration would, I think, has said, and Dr. Bryan, please correct me if I'm wrong, is that we don't know exactly where where we would cut $6 million. So we definitely don't know where we're going to cut $9 million from. So we don't know what that impact of the $3 million will be. Does that answer your question? That does.

Okay. Okay. Uh, Member— I'll go to Member Lessens, then Member McDonough, and then we'll have a voice vote. Great. Okay.

Oh, sorry, are we— we're not voting. Nope, we're— uh, more folks have entered the queue, so we're continuing discussion. Um, okay, uh, Member McDonough, do you have additional comments? I'm just clarifying with the maker of the motion. Your wording has removed or has essentially reintroduced to the S version that the high-dose tutoring is only for elementary students.

Is that an intention of yours? No, sorry, that— sorry, I'm sorry, I took the original version of of what was written originally in the original version. So, uh, no, I did not mean to add back in elementary, just high-dose tutoring. I can reread the memo. America, do you want me to resend it to you?

It just eliminated elementary. You can keep it high-dose tutoring. You guys are all going to kill me. Okay, do you want me to email it to you? Member Blakeslee, if you're just— are you proposing to remove one word?

Yes. Okay, elementary. So I think as long as the second agrees, we can just remove it. I My intention is that the high-dos tutoring can— like, like, um, Member Lesson said in the work session, it would be available as the administration sees in grades that are not elementary. Okay, so we're removing the word elementary.

Aside from that, the language of the amendment stays as is. That resolves, I think, Member McDonough's comments. And Member, um, we'll go to Member Bellamy. Do you have additional comments? Ready to vote.

Okay, Member Blakeslee, do you have additional Comments? Nope. Okay, we are ready to vote on Amendment 3 to AST Memorandum Number 037-S. Member Higgins?

Yes. Member Lessens? No. Member Bellamy? No.

Member Wilson?

Yes. Member Blakeslee? Yes. Member McDonough? Yes.

President Jacobs?

No. The memorandum— or the Amendment 3 to ASD Memorandum Number 037 is adopted by a vote of 4 to 3. Okay, we are on number— or on ASD Memorandum Number 037S as amended. Is there additional discussion?

Seeing none, can we have a voice vote on ASD Memorandum Number 037S as amended?

Member Blakeslee? Yes. Member McDonough? Yes. Member Higgins?

No. Member Lessens? Yes. Member Bellamy?

No. Member Wilson? Yes. President Jacobs?

Yes. ASD Memorandum Number 037-S is adopted by a vote of 5 to 2. Okay, we will move on to our next item under action, F4, ASD Memorandum Number 040. Is there a motion?

Oh, go on. Yeah, so, uh, I moved to— I moved to approve Memorandum 040 to approve a change to the grade levels at Martin Luther King Jr. Technical High School, KTHS, to include preschool. Second. Motion made by Member Lesson, seconded by Member Bellamy.

Um, um, Dr. Bryant, any comments before we have a discussion and voice vote? Sure. Well, thank you to the board for the flexibility to include this direct action. This is a timely item that would ultimately result in more resources generated by the the young— the early grade students at King Tech Preschool. So I'll go ahead and allow any of the administration to extend upon the impact.

Mr. Ratliff, would you like to extend? Sure, yeah. Um, so I guess for years this is operated before we got funding for Pre-K. There was a small tuition requirement for the students, and that would go to pay for some, I think, student travel to conferences and things. Um, but with the new ADM changes in the READS Act, we'll get considerably more money, I think to the tune of like $80,000 or $90,000 additional by changing this grade level and submitting those ADM for reimbursement from the state versus the few thousand dollars we were collecting in tuition.

Seeing no discussion, could we have a voice vote on the estimate from random number 040?

Member Lessens? Yes. Member Wilson? Yes. Member McDonough?

Yes. Member Higgins? Yes. Member Blakeslee? Yes.

Member Bellamy? Yes. President Jacobs? Yes. ASD Memorandum Number 040 is adopted by vote of 7 to 0.

We'll move on to Item F5, ASD Memo Number 005, Award of Professional Service Agreement, Willow Elementary School Renovation. Discussion. Is there a motion?

I move to approve ASD Memorandum 005 to approve the selection of Envision Architecture as the designer of record for the Williwauw Elementary School renovation project and authorize the superintendent to enter into a contract with Envision Architecture for professional services in the amount of $365,861 for the purpose of a conceptual design and 15% conceptual design documents.

Second. Seconded by Bellamy, made by Lessans. Uh, Member Blakeslee, did you pull this item? I did pull this item, and, um, the— I pulled this item and the following one, number 026, I believe. Um, and I've had a really lengthy conversation with, uh, Mr. Anderson and his entire team about contracts and procurements, and I think that conversation is going to continue.

But at this time, I don't have any more questions on both of these items, so they've answered them very thoroughly. And I have, I have new questions that have emerged about much deeper complex issues related to contracts and procurements, but I don't have any additional questions about these two particular items any longer. We just met yesterday. Seeing no other discussion, we can have a voice vote on AST Memorandum Number 005. Member Blakeslee?

Yes. Member McDonough? Yes. Member Wilson? Yes.

Member Bellamy? Yes. Member Higgins? Yes. Member Lessons?

Yes. President Jacobs? Yes. Memorandum number 005 is adopted by a vote of 7 to 0. We'll move on to ASD Memorandum number 026, Amendment to Professional Services Agreement for Transportation Center Garage Renovation.

Is there a motion? Mr. President, I move to approve Memorandum 026 and for the administer— or to authorize the superintendent to execute the amendment to professional services agreement with Bettysworth North Architects and Planners for the amount of $382,892 for the 35% building design documents for the Anchorage School District Transportation Garage Renovation Project.

Second. Made by McDonough, seconded by Blake Blakeslee. Seeing no discussion, can we have a vote on ASD Memorandum Number 026? Member Lessens? Yes.

Member Higgins?

Member Higgins? Yes. Member Bellamy? Yes. Member Wilson?

Yes. Member McDonough? Yes. Member Blakeslee? Yes.

President Jacobs? Yes. AC Memorandum Number 026 is adopted by a vote of 7 to 0. That completes action items for tonight. We'll move to Section G, non-action items.

Does any board member wish to discuss a non-action item at this time before it moves to action status at our next meeting? Member McDonough? I would like to request either at this time or later, just from any board member who can, um, to walk me through, and perhaps also Member Blakeslee, the process by which the AASB resolutions originate from us and go through to the AASB?

Member Bowman? Sure, there's actually on the website, there's actually a really good process. I could send that to both of you tonight. Because it is a little bit different, but they don't use the whereases, but there's a— they have the actual resolution, and then they have an area for a lot of all of the other stuff that is not necessarily part. And then that goes to the delegate assembly in November, and then the whole body will vote on it.

But I can send you that process and be be available for any questions you might have.

Member Lessons. And I would also add that in the event that resolutions are not perfectly polished and ready, the floor is always available at the AASB meeting, and some members take full advantage of the floor at that point in time. It's a long process. I feel like I did that exact thing earlier here today. So, understood.

Okay, we will move on from non-action items. We don't have additional public comment. Dr. Bryant, do you have a superintendent update? Uh, thank you, Mr. President. I'll be very brief, but I wanted to share a few updates on the record on, uh, recent changes to federal scholarship tax credits, and then a brief update on the legislative luncheon that's happening tomorrow, and then a quick update on ASD Listens.

So first, I did want to go on the record and talk a little bit about federal scholarship tax credits. There was recently an Alaska Public Media article. It was referenced in a recent committee meeting, I believe, and there's just a lot more national coverage on this topic. And I did want to share that the administration is tracking this issue, but there are specific reasons why I haven't unveiled a plan. So I just wanted to give a high-level overview in terms of what's going on and how do these tax credits impact public education.

So one, this change begins in 2027, and it's due to recent changes in federal law that were put forth last summer. The short of it is that this gives individuals the ability to invest up to $1,700 in non-refundable federal tax credits for qualified contributions to what they're calling scholarship-granting organizations. And the intent of these credits is really to provide an opportunity to support specifically students that are lower income, relatively speaking, opportunities to receive supplemental services or other enrichment programs related to education. So the reason why I still need to gather more information is because a few things have yet to happen. The biggest thing that I'm waiting for before sharing more information publicly is that the Treasury and IRS are still working on regulations.

And as of this morning, I, I have not seen them, but I'm told that they're forthcoming by the end of this month. And I expect that those regulations will have very important details, um, specifically be the types of public school delivery and partnership models that qualify. Um, a big piece of this is that this isn't money that would be directed to school districts. They would be going to these essentially nonprofit or charity entities called SGOs. And one of the big questions that I would like to know is that would it be permissible to repurpose, uh, let's say a nonprofit that has a broader mission and to give them the added responsibility of being a scholarship-granting organization on behalf of a public education system.

Because essentially we have a, a few options here. We could join statewide efforts, and there are a couple of efforts going on through the Superintendent and School Administrators Association. We could facilitate the creation of a new nonprofit organization, in which case we would have to do a lot of legwork to identify a nonprofit board and to establish clear missions and guardrails through that independent entity. Or option 3, which is what I'm very interested in exploring, which should be partnering with a local entity with known presence here in Anchorage and leveraging them to operate as an SGO on our behalf. But the reason why I'm not able to share more on that is because one of the things that I read was that an SGO must spend 90% of its income on scholarships, and they would also be tasked with verifying which students are eligible because these scholarship dollars can't be earmarked for specific kids from the taxpayer.

It has to benefit students that are within the 300% of the median income that the Fed— the federal government determines. So it gets very technical. So I would need to know if those nonprofits would be interested in taking on that task. Ask, I would need to know how does that 90% income requirement apply to them. And I, I know that there's a lot of urgency in this area because it goes into effect in 2027, but I did just want to let the public know we are aware of it, we are tracking, but there's important information that we just don't have yet.

So I wish I could answer more questions on it, but, um, this is essentially the bulk of what I know. I was interested— oh, and I did want to couple other things. So AXA is taking lead on potentially forming a statewide SGO. Uh, I am in close conversations with their leadership team to determine if perhaps ASD wants to partner with the state association. That's on the table.

But the other piece is once we figure out all this information, um, understanding the ways that we would want to encourage taxpayers to make because essentially the SGO would have to, you know, offer something that would be enticing to a taxpayer to invest their dollars towards. And depending on what that, that offer is, whether it's a scholarship, whether it's enrichment services such as tutoring, what have you, that could really facilitate the amount of taxpayers that are willing to invest in a scholarship-granting organization in the first place. So all that to say, the pitch is going to be key. And there's a lot of very important technical information that I need to know. Another question that I had is what is even the scope of potential dollars that there are for districts in Alaska?

And I would encourage board members to visit this website called bipartisanpolicy.org, and they have a nice calculator. It's called the Federal Scholarship Tax Credit Calculator, and I ran some numbers on the state of Alaska. So these are statewide, statewide figures, and it looks like based on the income requirements, there are about 73,000 eligible students in the state of Alaska according to this calculator. And apparently in the state of Alaska, there are about 282,000 tax returns that would be eligible for this type of investment. And really the scale of this program really depends on the actual scholarship levels that, that individual SGO would determine.

So if there were a $1,000 scholarship, that would mean that we would need about 18% of eligible taxpayers to make that investment to facilitate a scholarship of even that small level. And of course, if we wanted to provide $5,000 scholarships to all of the eligible students, we would need 94% of the taxpayers to choose to make that investment. So I think the higher of the ask for eligible taxpayers to choose to pursue this credit, the more complicated this may be to pull off. So all that to say, that is why I'm not quite ready to provide a detailed action plan for the district, but I did want to do my due diligence of letting the public know that I am tracking it. So I— what I— so I'll just go ahead and finish my other two updates, and then if there questions, I can answer them.

Um, two, we have our legislative luncheon coming up tomorrow, and that's really the opportunity for the board and myself to meet with legislators and candidates to really share the state of the district in many ways and where we're headed. The focus of my speech tomorrow is going to be on protecting our classrooms because I think that's the most important thing that the legislature can help us do, and there are a number of ways that they can do that. But I also want to remind the legislature that when one-time funds have come into the district, the board has been very judicious in investing those dollars towards the, the greatest needs in our classrooms, and that's the type of momentum that we want to keep up. But as we, you know, as we uncover during our very, very robust conversation tonight We have great needs now, and then we have urgent needs that are coming in the next fiscal picture. So we have a lot to discuss with them, but I thought the public should know that we are making concerted efforts to both make responsible decisions now, but also to be strong advocates to those who are tasked with making important decisions on investments in public education.

So more to come on that. And then lastly, ASD Listens. I just wanted to thank I want to thank the community for all the great questions coming in. To date, about 1,100 surveys have been filled out so far. This is the Community Values Survey that you can find on our website, and then additionally, I've been present at the Superintendent Advisory Committees to provide information directly to those groups.

I've gotten some great feedback there. I've attended community forums. I was at this week's Make It Monday to share more about the program, and I'm beginning the, the circuit across different Rotaries. So this, this afternoon I presented to the Anchorage Rotary, and there are going to be more on the way. Great feedback and dialogue, and I will say that I am already seeing the benefits of launching an initiative like this in this moment because I'm able to have these really great conversations with parents and community members without having to discuss a specific policy proposal.

I'm really just getting their candid feedback on all sorts of things they think about the district. So for example, just out of nowhere, I, I met a Baxter parent who expressed to me the value of high-dose tutoring. She expressed to me that initially she was very skeptical because that service is delivered through a computer screen. It's online. But she said her perspective completely changed when she saw the impact on her student.

And that student was one of the many that we've seen in 3rd grade that saw meaningful growth in their, in their reading benchmark scores. So that was just great personal feedback to put an individual family towards some of this larger district data we've been sharing with the board. I've learned about the value of individual healthcare service providers on individual family needs. And then I'm also hearing very, very valid concerns about our long-term health, and then of course a lot of great concerns about needs that we see in our classrooms today. And then I'm also gathering some themes around the health of our choice programs, and I recognize that the majority of our families choose neighborhood schools.

So there are valid concerns around strengthening our neighborhood schools. But then I also hear from families that are enrolled in charter schools or alternative programs, and they just worry that the, the state of finances in Alaska and the challenges that we face as a district is really compromising the integrity of programs that have added value for decades. So we have our work cut out for us, but but I'm really glad that I'm having these informal conversations well in advance of actual proposals being put forward. So I just wanted to take a moment to let the community know that the survey is still out there. It's gonna close at the end of the month, but even before the survey closes, I am listening to you, I am hearing you, and the next step will be once the survey closes to come back to the public and let you know what I heard in the area areas that I think we really need to focus on in the next 12 months.

So that concludes what I had to say. If there are any technical questions on these topics, happy to answer them. Member Blasey. I, um, had a few, um, teachers that were talking about how the ASD Listens survey isn't anonymous. It requires you to input your name and information.

And I just— I apologize, but I just tested it like 2 or 3 times, so you're gonna get like 3 blank responses in your survey. And it looks like it asks for your name, but it isn't a required question. Is that— is that correct? So I'm 99.9% sure that we do not ask names in the survey itself, but to perhaps to access the Google Form infrastructure, you need to log in or have some sort of credential, but that isn't something that we're tracking or using in any way. It says at the end— I'm clicking to the end— it says at the end you can provide— it says collected separately so survey responses remain confidential, and it asks for your first name, last name, email.

It doesn't have a little asterisk next to it that says that the question is required, so I don't think it's— obviously it isn't required because I I submitted a few test forms and they're blank. So, but I just wanted to share that it sounds like there are some teachers that would like to provide feedback but are worried that if they are honest in their answers that their information is being collected and that they're, they feel fearful of providing their feedback. So I don't know if there's language maybe to put on on the website that says the part where it says name and email isn't a required question, or I don't know, um, or you don't have to sign in to— because I don't think you have to sign in to do it. I didn't sign in to complete it, but maybe if there's additional language on the website, it might encourage getting some responses from maybe those that want to provide it but feel cautious. That, that is great feedback, and I'll certainly take a look at that.

And just put on the record. We are not interested in collecting names and pairing that to survey responses. We honestly want candid feedback. The only reason why I am somewhat interested in having email addresses is because eventually I want to build a survey panel for the ASD community, and this would be a way to, to, um, to see who's interested in that type of future engagement. But that would be the only reason why I'd want an email address.

Can I just because I did the survey and I didn't need to use my name, but I did put my name in at the end as wanting more information. So maybe we could clarify the last slide or that last piece. Um, so anyway, yeah, but I didn't have to use my name. Thank you, member. When I put my name in there, it was because I wanted get more information, and I wanted to— I volunteered to be in other surveys or something like that.

Thank you, Member Bellamy. Member Blixley. Member McDonough. Yeah, I have a— I guess just, uh, like sharing my own personal preference on that potential list of how we can organize use of these student scholarship funds.

As a member of a private scholarship-providing nonprofit, one of the significant benefits that we've been able to reach in our mission is that we look at— so we basically have two funds. One is our scholarship fund. One is from other philanthropic sources is support for the scholarship recipients and having control over that and being able to basically match scholarships with additional support. So we now invest in care packages, we invest in a mental health tutoring— or not tutoring, a mental health support line for the students, and we're able to really wrap into those students. I think that would— that's a benefit for this to be a locally controlled type organization, because the more local that we are, then the more we actually have that ability to lasso around our community and offer that support.

So I would offer my own support as a, as another board member of a scholarship foundation that local is a very strong model. It's complex and, you know, we'd have to build a lot of infrastructure, but the benefits of how we can target needs for the students that we're sending off to college knowledge would be really phenomenal.

Member, listen, um, this is like the most exciting thing since sliced bread. Um, it really is. So I've been thinking about this and tracking this for like a year, actually-ish. And, um, like nationally, we're talking $24 to $28 billion over the next decade. Like, it is a lot of money in Alaska.

Alaska, one report I saw that essentially if 30% of participants participated, 30% of eligible participants, you know, it could be like $60 million in annual donations to Alaska's in-state SGOs. And any taxpayer with a federal liability up to $1,700 can take that. You can actually, if you have a $10,000 federal tax liability, You can take 5 years starting January 2027, and then you sort of can't do that again. But there is going to be a lot of money at play very soon. In Alaska, we may also have assets which are aunts and uncles and cousins out of state who might be interested in supporting kids in Anchorage because you don't have to be a taxpayer in one state to support a school, support an SGO in another state.

So essentially making a case, I think, for local investment, I think, is important for the Anchorage School District and for the Anchorage School Board to keep in mind. I'm glad that the, um, uh, ACSA is considering something, but, um, I do think I would lean towards a hyperlocal approach because I think that it helps with buy-in. And I know that the folks at Edgenomics have had some conversations about this that I've been tracking. And anyways, I'm just very excited about the potential here, but agree that it's going to fundamentally require really savvy partnership cultivation. And frankly, I also think that it's gonna require some more homework from our state leaders.

I actually think I wrote an op-ed like 4 months ago that never got published, so I'm pulling from that right now. It was way too in the weeds, but the state of Alaska may still be in a position to do things like limit scholarships only to students enrolled in schools or districts that participate in accountability mechanisms. The state could require Alaska's SGOs to prioritize scholarships for an area's neediest students first, or from households at a lower level than that sort of federal parameter. They could define the word school for Alaska's SGOs. Do micro schools count?

What about preschools? What about correspondence schools? So like, how can our partners of the legislature help with some guardrails? The legislature could also empower each of Alaska's locally elected school boards to determine which SGOs are authorized to grant scholarships in those district schools and also create new regulations governing how districts can account for essentially new revenue. New, because that's going to be really complicated too.

So I'm really happy to geek out about this and interested in the path forward, and also waiting for federal guidance. Thank you, Member Listens. Thank you, Dr. Bryant. We'll go to school board administration comments. I understand the administration doesn't— it does not have any additional comments.

We'll start with board comments. To my left, Member Wilson. I, I have no comments this evening. Thank you. Thank you, Member Blasey.

I don't have any comments either. Thank you, Member Omiya. Ditto, ditto. Ditto. Thank you, Member Lissitz.

No comments. Thank you, Member Higgins. Thank you. I'll jump in with a few, but I just want to say that the public needs to know that when we talk about these surveys, depends upon how you ask the questions. If you ask people if you want to close schools to do— to solve the budget, the answer is going to be yes.

If you tell them you're going to close the school, in a few years $51,000 will be saved, I think you get a different answer. If you got an answer that said it's going to $51,000 but we're going to lose almost $10,500, $11,000 per student that transfers over to charter schools, and we got one school that picked up an extra $40,000, so that's half a million dollars, and one of the schools we just closed picked up enough to eliminate the savings, I think you get different answers. I think when you talk about just because you're dealing with money, you get one answer. When you talk, talking about kids, you get a different answer. The survey bothers me for a lot of reasons because we're trying to get things out of the survey that supports things I think that's already been decided.

I have a lot of concern, and I'll mention this now, to Superintendent using the emails to go ahead and select and develop a committee, you know how they stand on issues. So now you get a chance to selectively pick if you wanted to. It doesn't mean you're going to do that, I know, but it does give you that option. I don't view that as objective. I don't view that as something that may be appropriate to get a true sampling of the community when you select only those that respond to this email.

Of course, they have to be somebody engaged enough to do that. And then you have an opportunity to know where they stand on issues before you select them. So I'm not too happy with that aspect. I'm very concerned. I have told everybody before, I had requests for information and I still haven't got all those back yet.

But when I do, I promise you I will make those available. And I'm going to do what I have done to Walked to a lot of schools, and I'm going to go through a lot more, but I'm hearing the concerns that you have, the criticality of, of.