Anchorage School Board: 8/4/26 ASD School Board Meeting

Testing.

Call yourselves to order. Today is Tuesday, August 4th, 2026, for our first school board meeting of the 26-27 school year.

Present in the boardroom are members Blakeslee, Jacobs, McDonough, Lessons, and Higgins. Present online are members Wilson and Bellamy.

Uh, member Blakeslee, would you please lead us in the flag salute and then read our land acknowledgement?

To the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

We acknowledge that we gather here today on the traditional lands of the Dena'ina people of Upper Cook Inlet. For thousands of years, the Dena'ina people have been and continue to be the stewards of this land. ASD is committed to diversity and inclusion, and it is with honor and respect that we recognize all Indigenous people who live and learn in our community.

Thank you, Member Blakeslee. We want to welcome you to our meeting and thank you for attending and supporting the work of the Anchorage School District and this board. The board thanks students, parents, teachers, staff, school business partners, and the entire community for your investment in our district with your time, your talent, and your tax dollars.

That said, board members, we have an agenda in front— agenda in front of us. Is there a motion?

Mr. President, I move to adopt the agenda as written. Is there a second? Second. Motion made by Member Lessens to adopt the agenda and second by Member McDonough. Is there discussion?

Seeing none, is there any opposition to adopting our agenda? Okay. We have an agenda. Thank you, everyone. We'll move on to reports.

Uh, we don't have our student representative with us tonight, and we don't have our military representative with us tonight. Item B3 is board conference and committee reports. Does any board committee chair wish to make a report at this time? Member Blakeslee? Yeah, I'll just give a quick update about our last Finance Committee meeting we had a few weeks ago.

Um, We had a special Finance Committee meeting to talk about 3 distinct topics, one of which was a topic that was moved from the last, uh, meeting where we allocated a certain amount of appropriations for, um, the funding that was not contingent on oil revenue and not part of HB 263. We moved one of those items, uh, back to Finance Committee to discuss. In further detail, uh, the Alaska Middle College School proposed appropriation. That discussion happened at our meeting and has now been moved back to our non-action item list for the purposes of tonight's agenda, so it will not be voted on tonight, but we will discuss it again. Um, the other topic that we addressed was just getting clarity around what an attrition fund is.

Ergo, it is not a fund. So if you'd like to Katie's over there laughing at me. If you would like to go back and listen to the Finance Committee recording, you can learn more about what those— the attrition budget line item, I guess, is the way you'd phrase it—. Is used for. And the third topic that we talked about was really around updates around one-time appropriations from the legislature, which is also going to come up tonight.

I invited Alexi Painter from Legislative Finance, the Director of Leg Finance, to come and speak with us to give us a better understanding about the contingencies embedded within HB 263, which is the one-time appropriation that the legislature approved, but with contingencies tied around making a determination about whether or not those funds will be released to school districts across the state on August 31st, which is long after the school year starts. So we invited Alexi to come talk to us about any potential confidence or probability models he could give us around how likely that funding would come to fruition. He also enlightened us about some additional accounting infighting, I would say, that OMB and the Department of Revenue are having around another priority item that might have to be paid out prior to school districts receiving funding. The waterfall funding— it's called waterfall funding because the one-time appropriation that School districts are slated to receive— ASD would be slated to receive up to $32.2 million. The waterfall funding mechanism, though, is really FY26 surplus funding that would allow us to receive that appropriation.

But there are other priorities that the state would have to pay out first, and one of those priorities are energy reimbursements that come to— they're going to go out to people who applied for the PFD. And then after that, there is this other priority of potentially having to return funding to an account that was withdrawn to balance the budget. But given the surplus, there's a technicality about whether or not those funds were actually drawn out. So if it's determined that that funding was withdrawn, then that funding would have to be paid back by the legislature before then the third priority would be funding school districts across the state. So we had a robust discussion about that, and if you ever feel so inclined to go back and listen to the Finance Committee meeting recording, you are welcome to do so.

It's all on there. And then again, it has translated into further steps that have transpired that we'll talk about later tonight regarding an action item around appropriating additional funding. And that's what I got.

Thank you, Member Blakeslee. Is there any additional board committee reports? Member McDonough. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.

Um, so the— as chair of the Governance Committee, we don't have a report because, um, we haven't met since the last board meeting. Our next meeting will be— I should have noted the date, but it's after the next board meeting. It's, um, the 27th. Yeah, thank you. I'm hearing it's, it's on August 27th.

Um, but As of, I suppose the date was July 16th, the president of the board has created an ad hoc committee on right-sizing. Um, and so, and the process by which that committee was created also named me as chair. I would invite the public to watch the recording of our work session and the discussions we had where The committee hasn't yet met to begin the work of looking at policy changes for, or advisory work generally around school right-sizing and facility use. But I was very— like, it struck me how supportive the whole board was in embracing a more transformative mission for that committee. In the meantime, after the charter had been created in mid-July, I did meet with the superintendent and the communications department, and we will begin updating the public about the new direction for ASD right-sizing for this school year, where the committee will take a driving— like a driver's seat in being able to voice the business of right-sizing to the public.

I also took up, just generally in my own capacity as a board member, in non-action items on the agenda, the Resolution 2627.01, which, if it passes through the next reading of the board, would essentially tell the— like, the board being able to express that it will limit its authority in closing schools this year. Only to emergency situations, which I think will be a supportive voice from the board to the committee to be able to say that we don't want to disrupt the process of planning a new engagement strategy by having to then identify schools to close halfway through that strategy being completed. So, um, again, to the public, watch the board work session if you have questions on how we're going to be be picking up the business of school consolidations and school closures this year. And then look for more ASD communications under the right-sizing page for more information soon.

Thank you, Member McDonough. Let's see any additional board committee reports. We will move on to goals and guardrail monitoring, where we have a technical report on guardrail number 3. The superintendent will not allow unsatisfactory employee performance to go unidentified or unaddressed. Dr. Bryant.

Thank you, Mr. President. So this is our first technical report on a guardrail for the year. So typically we don't walk through the entire report. This is really just my opportunity to, one, inform the public that this report is available online on our agenda. And as Mr. President shared, this is guardrail 3, which is that the superintendent will not allow unsatisfactory employee performance to go unidentified or unaddressed.

And there are a couple of ways in which we measure this. That are described in the report that essentially come down to employee evaluation and performance management systems. So in 2 weeks, um, all the, the board and I will have that discussion for any questions that we may have about this goal and how we measure this guardrail. And then in the meanwhile, my request to the board is that as you review this report, if you have any questions, if you could please send them to my assistant Brenda Lannon. We'll compile them and make sure that we have an informed robust discussion in 2 weeks.

Thank you, Dr. Bryant. With our technical report completed, we will move to Item D, public comment.

Like to welcome the public to our opportunity for public comment this evening. Uh, we've set aside a time slot at the start of our meeting to hear from everyone who signed up to testify tonight. During public comment, board members will not answer questions or engage in discussion. This is our time to listen and the public's time to speak. The board welcomes the public to observe and contribute to our meetings through their comments.

We utilize Robert's Rules of Order, a set of rules for orderly meetings that have been used since the 1800s. Particular provisions of Robert's Rules include: please do not attack a member or speaker's motives, please no profanity or foul language, refrain from disturbing the meeting, no cheering, applause, outbursts, or waving of signs. And if you have and as you wish to share with the board, please give them to Ms. Sullivan, who's seated to my left. There's additional information near the entrance on the table.

Okay, we have one student testifier tonight. According to our process, will speak first. We have Dalton, uh, Ante and, uh, Christy Ante with us tonight. Welcome, Dalton. You will have 3 minutes.

Please begin when you're ready.

Good evening, my name is Dalton Ante, and in a few weeks I will be a freshman at South High School. I have attended Bear Valley Elementary and Goldenview Middle School.

And I have been extremely lucky to have many fabulous teachers. Every teacher I have had has cared deeply about their students and wanted every one of them to succeed. I have seen firsthand how many patients— how much patience and effort goes into helping students learn. That is one of the reasons I am here tonight. I know my teachers are not the problem.

They are doing the best they can with the resources they have. What I noticed throughout my time in school was one problem that seemed to grow every year: class sizes. I have worked hard in school and have been successful, but even as a student who is doing really well, I can see the challenges created by overcrowded classrooms. When there are too many students in one room, even normal questions, conversations, or interruptions can make it harder for everyone to stay focused and for teachers to keep lessons moving. It becomes more difficult for every student to get the attention they need.

In both my math and science class last year, it was almost a daily occurrence that instruction stopped when while classroom issues were being addressed. Those were actually my smaller classes with 36 students. Even brief interruptions added up over time and took away instruction time for everyone. One class that I— one class that really stands out to me was my advanced language arts class. We had more than 40 students.

We complete assignments on a unit sheet, and after each assignment, we had to get it checked and signed off by our teacher. I have the kind of parents who noticed when my unit sheet was sometimes days behind being signed off, even though I had already completed the work. The reason was simple: Ms. Callahan was one person trying to keep up with more than 40 students. She cared about every one of us and worked incredibly hard, but there simply was not enough time for her to get around to everyone as quickly as we needed. Now I am headed into high school, and I know how important these next 4 years are.

The grades I earn and the classes I take have a big impact on my future. That is why I am concerned. If having more than 40 students in a middle school classroom made it difficult for teachers to give every student attention they needed, what will class sizes look like in South High School after these budget cuts? I am asking you to please make class sizes a priority. I'm not asking teachers to work harder.

They already do. I am asking that they be given support and resources they need to be successful. Smaller class sizes give teachers more opportunities to teach, students more opportunities to learn, and every student a better chance to succeed. If additional funding is received from the legislature, please use it to help address the challenge of large class sizes in our schools today. Thank you for your time and for listening.

And thank you for your testimony. Welcome, Miss Antti. You have 3 minutes. Please begin when you're ready. My name is Christy Antti, and I'm here tonight as both a secretary at an ASD elementary school and the parent of a student who will be entering high school this fall.

These two roles have given me a unique perspective on the challenges our district is facing. In my work, I help support the enrollment process, and I see firsthand the reality behind the numbers. What I can say is that the effects of this year's budget reductions are no longer theoretical. They are fully visible today as we plan for classrooms this year. This year's classroom configurations will hold more students than they were originally designed to.

Our teachers and staff continue to give everything they have to support the students, but there comes a point where dedication alone cannot overcome being spread so very thin. Every additional student impacts the learning environment, the attention each child receives, and the ability of teachers to meet individual needs. As someone who regularly interacts with families, I hear their concerns. In conversations with parents and through discussions with other secretaries across the district, one message is very clear: families are paying close attention to class sizes. Many today are waiting to see what the school year looks like before deciding whether to keep their children in ASD.

If those families lose confidence in our schools and choose to leave, the consequences extend far beyond the classroom or one year. Declining enrollment means reduced funding, making next year's budget challenges even more difficult. Investing in our classrooms today is also an investment in the long-term health and stability of the district. I'm aware of the discussion about whether additional funding from the Alaska State Legislature should be set aside to help offset next year's projected budget deficit, and I appreciate the importance of responsible financial planning, and I know these decisions are not easy. But the students sitting in our classrooms today only get one chance at this school year.

We cannot ask them to wait for a better budget next year when we have the opportunity to improve their educational experience now. Every day that passes in overcrowded classrooms is a day we can't get back. I urge the board to direct any additional funding towards our classrooms in an effort to reduce class sizes, strengthen student support, and provide teachers with resources they need to help every child succeed. Preparing for tomorrow is important, but our first responsibility is to the students who walk through our doors today. When we invest in their success now, we strengthen not only their future but the future of the district as well.

Thank you for your time and for your commitment to the students and families of ASD.

Thank you for your testimony. Our next speaker is Lem Willis.

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

Thank you, Mr. President, members of the board, for the opportunity to address you this evening. My name is Lem Wheelis, and 2 weeks from now I will begin my 23rd year teaching at Diamond High School. When students walk into my classroom on August 20th, I will face a situation I have never faced in my entire career as a teacher. I will have 45 students sitting in my classroom. Anticipating this increase in class sizes last spring, I did some research on the fire code and room capacity regulations in Alaska.

I measured my classroom divided by the regulatory metric for classrooms of 1 person per 20 square feet and determined my classroom has the capacity for 38 people. That includes me, so 37 students. That leaves no room for a guest speaker, a special education paraprofessional, or a principal to do an evaluation. I've heard it suggested there will be attrition in my class of 45 students, especially since it's my AP US History class and students decide during the first week whether to stay or change to on-level US History. And in a normal year, I might expect 4 or 5 of those students to move.

However, the increased PTR metric for this year means I only have one section of AP US History, where for the past 15 or so years I've had at least two sections every year. Since I only have one section, there's a long waiting list to get into the class. I expect that every student that drops will be replaced by one who's on the waitlist. All that to say, I expect to have an overcapacity classroom all year, and I know I'm not the only one. As concerning as that is, what is of greater concern to me is the impact that will have on my ability to teach those students.

Every additional student means another essay to grade every time I assign one, and given that 40% of the AP US History exam score is based on essay writing, my students need a lot of practice in writing historical essays. They also need timely and constructive feedback, like Dalton was talking about, something that is harder to provide with so many more students than normal. And of course, my students would like me to know their names, who they are, what their interests are, so I can connect with them and be an effective teacher. It will not be easy to build a community of learners with 45 students crammed into too small of a room. The good news is you have the ability to change this scenario.

I was encouraged to read ASD Memorandum 16 over the weekend, and I'm here tonight to urge you to pass it. We need to put every dollar we can get into reducing class sizes. And in spite of the Department of Revenue refusing to make any early commitments on the additional funding, I'm confident we will get it. Hiring 50 more educators won't solve every class size problem, but it's a move in the right direction, and it will mean a meaningful impact on schools in ASD. I urge you to add those additional teachers.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Our next speaker is Adrian Michael.

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

Hi, my name is Adrienne Michael, and I'm the mother to 3 elementary age ASD students. I want to voice my strong support for adding 45 full-time positions to this school year. Um, studies have shown time and time again that smaller class sizes produce better learning results. This board has set a policy declaring that an effective class size for younger grades is 15 students to 1 teacher. However, this year classes in even our lowest grades will be double that if we do not add additional teaching positions.

As a parent and someone who volunteers regularly at our school, I can say that this is the number 1 contributor to students moving outside of ASD and the top contributor to losing good teachers. As a parent, it's an extremely daunting thing to look at an upcoming school year where your child may be placed in an elementary combo class with 38 students. Even parents with a strong belief in public schools start to question if this is a safe and effective option for their children. Teachers have resigned or are resigning because the ask is just too high. 30 To 40 kids in a classroom teaching multiple grade levels.

There's no gas left in the tank by the time you get to January, let alone May. I have watched teachers retrofit lunch carts so they can hold more lunch boxes. I've seen spouses build capacity shoe racks so there's not footwear all over the place. I've seen fun reading nooks removed to make space for more desks, and I have watched as teachers use mic packs and Bluetooth doorbells to communicate with their students or get attention because even the ambient noise of 30+ 10-year-olds is really loud. Believe me when I say that I am aware of the budget constraints that this district faces.

I've spent the last 2 years looking at way more of this data than I would like to and fighting fights that I never wanted to be a part of. Right now, you can make a positive impact on students' ability to learn this year. The money is available and the school year has not started, so adding teachers to classrooms and taking some of this pressure off is a very impactful action. You can make the what-if and the but-next budget arguments all you want, but the reality is the money is available and you can impact this school year right now. Leaving class sizes so large will without a doubt impact MCLASS and STAAR testing results, as well as what's actually learned during the year.

We have got to prioritize keeping teachers in classrooms one year at a time so students get the best quality learning for as long as possible. This is my 6th year with children in ASD, and I have watched as class sizes progressively have gotten larger and larger. When my older two started kindergarten, they were in one class, uh, out of three with 19 students. Now my youngest faces the very real possibility of starting kindergarten in one class of 30, or starting in a K-1 split of 30. This is not sustainable.

Last year I volunteered over 120 hours at school, and as someone with a full-time job, I'm now asking myself, how much more can I do, and how do we possibly make this work? I just want the same learning opportunities for my youngest as my oldest had. I'd like to thank Member Blakeslee for not giving up and getting this on today's agenda, and I would encourage you all to please support the adding of 45 full-time positions to this school year. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

Our next speaker is Bonnie Gurney.

Welcome. You have 3 minutes. Please begin when you're ready. Alrighty. Hello, um, I am also here to add my voice to the support behind increasing our teaching staff in the district and lowering the class sizes.

I was really disheartened last week to learn that we were losing one of our most beloved, charismatic, and young teachers at Bear Valley because they they were facing the prospect of a 38-wide combo class. And frankly, um, I was upset about it the entire summer, hearing that that was the future for my 5th grader, who has the attention span of a squirrel but has done great with the amazing teaching staff in Bear Valley. And I kept saying to myself, this one named Teacher was about the only person that I knew that could handle it. So to find out that she resigned because She's a new teacher, Tier 4, has no benefit, and is getting the district's message that frankly she doesn't matter enough to support. She left.

That's a tragedy. And it's the long-term investment that is required for you guys to spend the money when you can on the most simple things. I was a basketball coach for 10 years in the district. When my teams were spiraling and they were not doing what they needed to be doing, we would always come back to the acronym KISS— Keep It Simple, Stupid, right? I'm asking you guys to keep it simple.

You need more adults in the classrooms. You need teachers there. There are about 42 adults in this room. So if you could picture being the teacher, make half of us, uh, IEPs on file, needing some additional attention, having all sorts of issues that you need teachers and beloved adults to handle, give some of us, uh, dysregulation issues, emotional intelligence issues, and then try to sell that millions dollars of curriculum is what we really need. Teacher— or parents aren't buying it.

The levy failed and the bond failed because the public trust for the district is gone. And you guys have an opportunity to send a message that the teachers being in the classrooms is important. It's more important than anything else. Adults in the schools is important. It becomes a safety issue.

Um, the gentleman that spoke from Diamond talking about a fire code, those are all really important things. And this seems like the most simple solution for you to send a message that while being on a sinking ship and facing funding issues that are not necessarily your fault directly, it is now time to take whatever money you have and try to get as many people on board to bail out the water of a sinking ship so we can get to store. I would love to say that the funding will come through. I will be voting in ways to support public education. I always do.

But right now, to instill that public trust, we need you guys to do what's right, and that is putting more teachers as quickly as possible and helping lower those class sizes. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Our next speaker is Lee Butterfield.

Welcome. You have 3 minutes. Please begin when you're ready. Hello, my name is Lee Butterfield. Thank you for having me here tonight.

Um, I want to tell you a little bit about class sizes. I've been teaching here for about 2 decades, and while you have lots of studies that might give lower numbers and higher numbers, I want to give you an observation. At 24 students in a secondary classroom, learning ends and management begins. At 35 students in a secondary classroom, management ends and triage begins. I had multiple classes last year at 40, and that was before we lost the people we've lost coming into to now.

My classrooms are full of chainsaws, razor blades, hot stoves, and knives. I've never been trained in ASD on how to take care of those, but I've been trained on how to clean up the blood. I'm really excited to be here tonight because I think that Memo #016, S version, is a good step forward. We've been in forced austerity together since 2011. That got worse when HB 278 passed in 2014, in which our state allowed public money to go to private schools.

Schools. We now have a common enemy, which makes us comrades in this process. There are things we cannot do, and there are things that we can do. You as a board cannot fund education at the same rates that our state funds incarceration. You as a board cannot offer competitive defined benefits in order to attract high-quality teachers.

You as a board cannot compete for talent at a national level. What you as a board tonight can do is you can be on the record showing the community and your educators that what you can control is at least a part of the quality of the work environment that matters enough to you to offer to your employees, which will then flow to your students. I'm hoping, based on what I witnessed at the meeting at 4 o'clock, that this will pass easily, and I really, really will be wonderfully happily surprised if it passes unanimously. I also understand that we may not fill all those positions, but it is you on the record saying that it matters. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Our next speaker is Elizabeth Congdon McGee.

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

Okay.

Good evening, Superintendent Bryant, President Jacobs, and school board members. My name is Elizabeth Congdon McGee, and I'm a school counselor at Northern Lights ABC K-8 School. I understand the funding challenges facing our district and our state. I've spoken with legislators about these issues, and I know that there are no easy solutions. As you make difficult budget decisions, I ask you to remember ASD Choice Schools.

Families choose Northern Lights ABC because of the Back to Basics philosophy, whole group instruction, strong phonics, curriculum of choice, paper and pencil learning, homework, and smaller class sizes that allow teachers to give students the individual attention they need. My own children attended private school before I chose to enroll them in Northern Lights ABC through the lottery because I believe so strongly in this educational model. Although I— although my administration has worked hard to preserve the philosophies, funding constraints have resulted in combination classrooms and larger class sizes. As a school counselor, I see firsthand how students thrive in this environment. They work hard, achieve high levels, and benefit from those close relationships with teachers and the strong partnerships with families, as many of these other, um, people that have testified tonight on.

Northern Lights ABC is one of only 3 Blue Ribbon Schools in ASD, which consistently strong academic outcomes. Its, its successes demonstrates that families value the educational approach, while also we serve nearly 20% of our population in ELL services. As future funding opportunities become available, I urge you to protect the unique mission of ASD's choice schools as well as look at more teachers within the classrooms. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

Our next speaker is Christy Sitz.

Welcome. You have 3 minutes. Please begin when you're ready. Good evening, members of the board and superintendent. Thank you for your time and your service and your continued consideration.

My name is Christy Sitz, and I serve as the president of the Anchorage Education Association. I'm before you today on behalf of educators, parents, and families across Anchorage who are preparing to head back into our classrooms in just a few short days. As we do, we are facing the stark reality on the ground. Our educators and students are walking into some of the largest class sizes we have ever seen. Our schools are at a breaking point, but tonight you have the power to make a modest adjustment and change the direction.

Through tireless advocacy, our community pushed the legislature to secure vital state funding, a nearly 12% permanent raise in the BSA in 2025, followed by significant one-time funding and permanent energy relief in 2026. Anchorage's estimated share of these state resources includes $32 million in one-time funds and millions more, millions more in energy relief. The decision sits right here. The ASD Finance Committee has brought forth a proposal to invest to hire over 50 teachers. We urge you to pass this.

Looking at our neighbor— neighboring districts in Matsu and Fairbanks, they've already stepped up to hire teachers and lower their student-to-teacher ratios. Anchorage students deserve the same exact commitment. This modest investment goes a very long way to show our community that you hear our families, you value your educators, and that you are listening. Reducing class sizes isn't just a number on a spreadsheet. It directly improves student learning environments and outcomes.

It slows down spiraling workloads, helps to retain our dedicated educators, and keeps our talented workforce right here in ASD classrooms. We ask you tonight to be bold. Take this crucial opportunity to invest directly in our students and support our educators and strengthen our public schools. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

Our last speaker tonight is Donna Donna G— can't quite make up the last name.

Is there a Donna with us tonight?

Very good. Um, so if you could state your name for our record. Welcome, you have 3 minutes.

Good evening, thank you. My name is Donna Goldsmith, and, uh, some of you know me. Uh, I'm a member of the community who's very active on issues that I think are important to community health. I don't have children or grandchildren in this, uh, in this community, but I think that these issues are going to affect our future. The legislature has appropriated $115 million for K-12 schools this year, monies resulting from expected fiscal year 2026 surplus.

Oil price data and analysis from the Legislative Finance Division indicate that These— this revenue is sufficient to fully fund the $115 million appropriation. While the official availability of those funds will be determined at the end of the year, or at the end of this month, it's expected that this amount will land in the state's treasury. I urge you to vote to release all or even some of these monies to support schools for this upcoming school year. You know well that education provides the foundation of our children's ability to become independent adults who can find their way in the world. Education's the bedrock upon which we build our communities.

It affects our future as a community. A properly funded education system is essential if we have any hope of stopping the outmigration that has already begun due to Alaska's failure to properly fund our schools. Young families who we hope will produce the new leaders who will move us into a strong future have been sounding the alarm as they consider options out of state to ensure their children's education. That's a tragedy in my mind. Some have even begun to flee.

I heard recently that 6 families in one neighborhood alone already made the decision to leave Alaska because they're unwilling to risk or jeopardize in any way the education of their children. Teachers are joining the outmigration, and I can't blame any of them. We cannot afford to ignore these dire warnings. While I'm asking you to release the full $115 million that has been appropriated to hire back teachers, committing any portion of that money to rehire some of the teachers who are laid off would go a long way toward the viability of our schools. Members of the legislature have stated clearly that they have high confidence that the full amount of the appropriated funds will be in the state treasury following the Department of Revenue report.

But schools won't just magically bounce back if you wait to fund next year, and I've heard that that's something that you're considering. I find that troubling at best. If current reductions in hiring remain in effect this year, it will take years for Alaska schools to recover. So I know you can do this if you have the will. Alaska's kids need you to have the will.

And I want to thank Rachel Blakeslee for all the work that she's done on this. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. That completes public comment for tonight.

We'll move on to Section E, our consent agenda. There's one action item on it this evening. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda as drafted? Mr. President, I move to approve the consent agenda as drafted.

Is there a second?

I'll second. Motion made by Member Lessen, seconded by Member McDonough. Seeing no discussion, can we have a voice vote on our consent agenda, please?

Member Bellamy? Yes. Member Higgins?

Member Lessens? Yes. Member Wilson? Yes. Member Blakeslee?

Yes. Member McDonough? Yes. President Jacobs? Yes.

We've adopted our consent agenda by a vote of 7 to 0. Move to action items, Section F. Item F1 is ASD Memorandum Number 016, FY27 Appropriation to Restore 50 FTE Positions. Is there a motion?

Member Blakeslee. Uh, I move to, uh, yeah, I'd like to move the S version. Can I do that now or after the—. You can—. This one?

I'd like to move ASD Memo 016S Final. Is there a second? Second. Motion made by Blakeslee, seconded by Lessons. Um, we are on the action, and we've taken action.

So, well, I'd like to mirror our process from our work session. With members' permission, I'll ask the superintendent to lay the groundwork for the conversation, then ask Member Blakeslee to speak on the original memorandum, and then ask Member Lessons to discuss the S version. Dr. Bryan. Thank you, Mr. President. So it's been quite an eventful summer, so I want to recap the community on some key things that have happened, and I hope that we have a very illuminating, if not positive, discussion tonight.

So So to recap, we did have a productive legislative session and a couple of bills were passed that can directly, positively impact students across the state. So that is one of the reasons why the school board met earlier this summer on July 7th in appropriation. So to make a long legislative story short, we did receive a small amount of dollars from the legislature that were known revenues, and I thank the legislature for making that possible. And I also recognize the school board for allocating quite a bit of those funds towards teachers. So earlier this summer, we were able to add about 50 additional teaching positions that we've already started allocating across the system.

Now tonight, we have another important conversation to have, which is about revenue that's contingent on surplus revenue. It's been discussed in public testimony and in the media, so I just want to add some context here. There are certainly people in the community that may think this is a very easy decision to make, and that there's certainly a case to be made there, but I think it's also important that the community understand the full context for what is happening, what revenue is known, what is not known, and what is the conversation to be had tonight. So, um, with all of that context said, tonight we'll be discussing a memorandum to restore an additional 50 FTE positions beyond what the board allocated earlier this summer. That's because of the efforts of Member Blakeslee, Member Lessons, and others, so we can have this discussion as quickly as possible.

So the reason why we're having this discussion is because one of the bills that was passed essentially will provide $115 million statewide. There's some confusion out there that that's going to ASD. The legislature approved up to $115 million statewide going to districts across the state. For ASD, that would mean that we could receive up to $32 million. Why am I adding these qualifiers?

As some have alluded to, these dollars are not based off of reserves at the state level. They're not based off of known revenues at the state level. They're based based on anticipated surplus revenues. And as many of us have been reading, oil prices are elevated right now. That's a positive thing for this discussion.

But one of the reasons why this is a tricky calculation that we have to make at the board level is because only the Revenue Commissioner will be able to make the final determination that that full amount can go to schools. Why is that a question? Because there are competing priorities as well. So per the law that was passed by the legislature, some of those dollars will first need to go towards energy relief payments to supplement the PFD. Uh, we were told by Legislative Finance that there are a couple of other smaller priorities, and then the bulk of the revenue will go to school districts.

So one of the reasons why we need to have this transparent discussion is because essentially this is a conversation around risk tolerance and an opportunity to make a difference for students immediately. So the risk here is that there is a possibility that the full $115 million will not come to fruition for the state. There is a possibility that ASD will not receive the full $32 million. That's why it's very prudent that we, if we were to take a risk and allocate additional funds for positions, that we do not overspend, because the short of it is that ASD has a very small margin of error because over the past several years we've spent our reserves to be dangerously low, so we do not have $32 million to gamble. But I want to applaud the efforts of Member Lessens and Member Blakeslee that have put together a very thoughtful, calculated risk assessment that I think is worth deliberating tonight.

So with all of that said, why are we having this discussion today? Why can't we just wait until August 31st? August 31st is important because that's the revenue commissioner's deadline to review the total surplus revenue and let us know how much money is going to districts. So there's an opportunity cost here. So ideally, in a fully functional, well-resourced system, we should be hiring teachers in February and March.

And for various reasons, primarily at the state level, to make a long story short, that hasn't been happening. We have not been adequately resourced enough. However, we still have a couple of weeks until the first day of school, so there's still time to go out, recruit some teachers, and start assigning people into classrooms for this school year. And that could be a positive opportunity opportunity for students. So there is an opportunity cost.

So there's a lot of benefit for the board to deliberate allocating these dollars tonight because that will give my team the authority to go out and start hiring teachers to make a difference in classrooms. So that's the opportunity cost here. And the reason why I, I really gravitate towards the way that this memo was formulated is because it focuses on the most urgent need for the Anchorage School District, which are teaching positions. It's the most critical thing, and I appreciate the fact that the bulk of these revenues would go towards just that— hiring up to 50 or about 45 educator positions for the Anchorage School District. So with that said, because this is a universal need, because school hasn't quite started, this is a conversation worth having now and tonight.

With that said, I have laid out this is not a risk-free proposition. When you read that memo, you'll understand that we're essentially talking about spending up to $6.5 million. I'll let my colleagues on the board more fully describe the memorandum at hand, but the reason why I believe that that is an appropriate number to deliberate at the board level is because that is equivalent to the amount that we do have in our, uh, in our unassigned reserves. With that said, our unassigned reserves serve a very, very important purpose, and we need to have this conversation with the understanding that we need to restore our fund balance to a of 5%. That's already incorporated in the memorandum that will be discussed.

But again, this doesn't come without risk, and I do think it's important that the community hear the full conversation so that the board can make an informed decision tonight. And if this memo is approved, we can make a positive difference for classrooms, but let's make sure that we have a full understanding of all of the factors at hand, which is why my team is available to answer questions. So with that said, I'll go ahead and pause and let the makers of the memorandum share more details. Thank you, Dr. Bryant. We'll start with Member Blakeslee.

Thank you, Dr. Bryant and President Jacobs. So the deliberations that we're having tonight really manifested on Friday when we received a letter from 12 members of the House majority in the legislature expressing their confidence that we will be receiving the full amount of funding that that districts across the state could get, meaning about $32.2 million for ASD. With that letter coming on a Friday morning, I quickly created a memo trying to balance both that confidence with the risk that Dr. Bryant just alluded to and spoke to. Um, and so with the guidance of our CFO and learning that our unassigned fund balance is currently at about $7 million, I started with an initial version of this memo that essentially allocated an appropriation that did not exceed that threshold. So the original memo that I put together essentially proposed spending about $6.8 million to restore 50 FTE.

With my assumption or intention that it was, it was for classroom teachers. Since introducing that memo onto the agenda, you know, Friday was the deadline to get something on the agenda, and it was also the date that we got the letter from the legislature. So it was a very quick turnaround to, to try to get something on the agenda that we could all deliberate. I was then able to collaborate with Member Lessens and Member Jacobs, and Member Lessens that basically added a lot of additional pertinent context to this memo and also a safeguard by which I think is really important to restore the fund balance once that funding trickles in from the legislature. And I just want to again reiterate that the funding that we're talking about is this one-time appropriation of up to $32 million, but all of these other priorities have to be funded first.

And so there was an earlier sort of question, at least among our board, about whether or not the way that HB 263 was written meant that we would either get all or nothing, right? If oil revenues met this target threshold that the legislature set, would that mean we would get all the funding? If they didn't meet that, that target, would that mean we got nothing? And what his has, um, become true. What we've learned is that, that it's a middle ground so that we would essentially get waterfall funding, incremental funding.

We might not get the full $32 million, but we could get less than that. And so given market revenue or market data and current oil prices and this letter from the legislature, it made it possible for us to at least put this on the agenda for discussion. And that said, I do really appreciate all of the additions that member lessons incorporated, especially regarding pertinent facts regarding risk and also expanding the way in which this FTE could be allocated to really meet the critical needs that schools have been communicating, which aren't necessarily just for teachers but are certainly teachers, but they look different in every at every school, so it allows flexibility to meet the needs that schools are communicating. And with that, I am going to pass it off to Member Lessons to speak to all of the, um, the additional revisions that she made to strengthen this memo. Thank you, Member Blakeslee.

Member Lessons on the S version. Great. Well, thank you. Um, first of all, thank you to Member Blakeslee for dreaming and and putting forward something that no other board member that I know of has ever dared to do, which is spend so boldly in support of students. I never thought I would be here today advocating.

Um, I have 3 pennies in my hand. You can't see them, but I have 3 pennies. Why do I have 3 pennies in my hand? Embedded in this document, as Member Blakeslee said, is a discussion of the risk that it entails. If the Anchorage School District's budget was $100— I spoke to this earlier this afternoon— we have a board policy that says our minimum amount of fund balance we need to retain is $8, 8%.

Of that 8% of those $8, we have to retain about half of that to protect the municipality's bond rating. Can't touch it. For at least the past 3 fiscal cycles, maybe 4, really when the federal COVID relief funds expired because they've been masking our ongoing structural deficits, we started spending our fund balance down to 5%, $5 for every $100. This proposal, in essence, in Memo 016, and quite frankly also in 016S, says with that dollar, that 5th dollar, dollar number 5, from 4 to 5, we're going to spend 97 cents, leaving 3 pennies for our students if there's an emergency. Um, so the proposal is at its core to leverage $6.8 million in our unallocated fund balance at the start of the school year under the assumption— it's not a promise, it's an assumption— that this waterfall funding will be received at least in part.

And I believe that the board believes we can do this, and that is encouraging. Um, so I just, I wanted to speak to the level of risk this undertakes. And for a little bit of context, context. I looked at a memo shortly after— it was November or December of 2018, shortly after our earthquake. We needed $100,000 in fund balance just to activate like an insurance item, and then many millions of dollars of fund balance were leveraged to respond to that substantial emergency.

We live in Alaska. Volcanoes across the inlet were an issue. We bought a lot of air filters. I hope we still have, them. Um, we could have a fire at a school or playground.

We could have any number of things go wrong. We're spending in this memo our fund balance down to $200,000—3 pennies for every $100. So I want the public to understand that risk. However, in choosing to make that investment and choosing to put 97 of our precious pennies towards our kids, the recommendation really does a couple of things. So I'm just going to read it because I think normally we read the recommendation.

It would approve and authorize the superintendent to appropriate $6.8 million of the $7 million remaining in the district's unreserved fund balance to reinstate up to 45 school-based FTE and restore levels of service for secondary student athlete for the '26-'27 school year as outlined at the bottom of the memo. I'll talk about that in a minute. The second component in this recommendation is, should the district receive additional one-time funding from HB 263, it is further recommended that the superintendent or designee shall fully restore the district's unreserved fund balance to no less than 5%— back to where we were today, back to where we are today— prior to recommending any other allocation or obligation with those funds. It doesn't say save it all. It says give us back a $7 million buffer so we have it in case of an emergency.

I want to go towards the bottom. I guess it's the, the third page of the memo when it really bifurcates the dollar amounts. So of that $6.8 million, $6.12 million, so that's $6,120,000 would go to reinstate up to 45 classroom teacher, building substitute, and/or counselor FTE for the 2026-27 school year to address schools' most critical staffing needs in support of adopted board goals. I'll say I have a potential amendment to make to that in light of the work session, but I'll hold that for right now. Um, with the remaining— we talked about 6.8, that was 6.12— there's $680,000.

Where would that go? The second bullet point on page 3 says $680,000 would ensure that student athletes enrolled in any sport retained or restored for FY27 by prior board action— read, these are things we've already said are priorities— can safely and equitably access district-level competitions and regional or state-level competitions via district-provided bus transportation. Those levels of service were reduced as part of our February budget balancing exercises, and that those students can safely and equitably access participation in daily sport-specific practices. And most schools have a basketball court, most schools have tennis courts, um, not every school has a pool, and not every school necessarily has cross-country running, cross-country ski trails. Every school is a little bit different.

I want to make sure with this memo that any student in a sport that the board has already prioritized retaining can actually practice their sport in that— in a safe facility each day of the week. Swimmers this year, for example, are getting water 2 to 3 days week. It seems like if we're asking families to pay $500 for a swimming fee this year, they should have access to water every day. Um, so this, this accomplishes that goal. This ensures that there's transportation between schools and the dome for the spring sports that we've reinstated that would use the dome, and it would ensure that if a school lacks safe and appropriate on-site facilities is essentially students could regularly practice at another location, whether that's another school or a park or some other appropriate location.

So in sum, the differences between the original version and the S version equate to slightly fewer FTE, 45 in the S version versus 50 in the original version. The S version specifies that it would, that we would direct those new dollars towards teacher, building substitute, and counselor FTE. The S version underscores that the FTBE will be aligned with progress towards adopted board goals and critical school-based staffing needs, and it really speaks to staying true to the promise that we made to our student-athlete earlier this budget cycle and ensuring they can do what we said they could do. It also, I will say, decreases our sort of the externality of relying on parent and student drivers, which is not always possible at those schools. So those are the core differences.

It does spend some time talking about risk It includes information on our current levels of vacancies, holdback usage, really for the historical record, but the, the core of this is an allocation piece. Thanks.

Member Blakeslee. Well, if you're going to turn it over for questions, I'll, I'll wait. I was getting early in the queue. Okay. Member McDonough.

Um, thank you, Mr. President, and to the makers of the motion and the, the memo. Um, I am— I think it needs to be stated in the first comment from the board that if the 7 of us had our way, the money that is going to be given during the next fiscal year, we would have received in February. Way when we made our budget. So if we had our way, these teaching positions almost surely would have been something that we already have and even hired for. Um, that said, we don't have our way, and we have, we have the, the difficult process of, an ugly process of making sausage tonight and deciding how risk works, and even the process of hiring back the teachers where we directed only about 3 weeks ago 50 positions restored.

This would bring that number up to 95. And, um, you know, having been a district administrator hiring people, I know how hard and slow that process is. And frankly, it screeches to a halt in August because the pool of licensed teachers— if you're a licensed teacher who wants to teach in this country in August you have a job. Because every other district in the country is also dealing with the teacher shortage crisis. So I would like to ask the administration and note something in here first.

What this S version, I think, really positively does is understands that using FTE teaching positions to be able to reduce class sizes can be done as a mechanism, and then filling those positions with certificated teachers is a difficult and arduous process. And I think we need some contingencies built. So I like— I actually like how this S version has the contingency of including wording for building substitutes. And I, I think that mechanism is worth an early discussion so that we, we have confidence in the ability to put caring, qualified, experienced, and resourced adults into those classrooms. So could I quickly ask the Superintendent to explain the logistics that these additional 45 positions would have, as they're noted in this S version of the memorandum?

Um, sure. Uh, through the president, uh, Dr. Johnson, can you walk us through the logistical process of assigning these FTE to our building should this pass? Yeah, certainly. Uh, so my team and I meet on an ongoing basis, um, from essentially the end of the school year, um, until school starts, and even a few weeks after school starts, to evaluate enrollment reports, projected enrollment before the student students show up. So that's, that's an ongoing process.

And, and what we do is start prioritizing where the enrollment does not match the projected numbers that we anticipated coming in. So often there will be shifts that we, we wouldn't anticipate in the community, and more students will show up at one school versus another. So those are the, the situations where we're able to say, like, you're over your projected enrollment, and so we're going to give you another teacher at that time. Additionally, we look at programmatic needs. We also look at combination classes and how the grade level bands break out at elementary schools.

So we evaluate a whole variety of different issues, and we start to allocate those as soon as the board assigns holdbacks. So that process has actually been ongoing since June. We did allocate some holdbacks as early as the springtime after the final budget FY 27 budget was signed. After the July 7th budget memo, we did a significant amount of allocations of holdbacks, and we do have about 27 FTE left in our holdback account total from the original budget and also the amendment on July 7th. We have been judicious with those at this point because we're 2 weeks out.

Registration closes this week for secondary schools. Elementary was from the previous week, so we actually were, prior to this, this particular memo, planning to do more allocations on Friday. Depending on Board action tonight, we may— we would certainly accelerate that process if there's more allocation to distribute to schools immediately, and we have been in the meantime collecting needs to watch so that we're ready to deploy those almost immediately based on Board action. Does that help, Member McDonough? Yeah, um, in as few words as I may, I would like to restate, I think, what I understood also.

Well, the intent of the question really is, is the wording as it's changed here, which now directs this as 4 to 5 classroom teachers or building substitutes and/or counselors um, because frankly I've heard from a number of principals that said it would be great if we got a position. I'm nearly confident we won't fill it because it's like in a— like the next need on their staffing chart would be a very hard-to-fill position, like a, like a science position or something. So the, the principal said they would appreciate the board giving the funds in a more flexible way than just straight up like certificated salaries and requested that we, we have a, like a, a broader provision. So is this sufficient, or would— should we find an amendment to embrace so that a principal who recognizes the likelihood that their position may not be filled at all can instead be more resourceful and go outside of the certificate pool. Yeah, I think, I think that would definitely be wise advice I would give to the board, that flexibility at this juncture is really key.

We ultimately want to find as many qualified teachers as possible to put into classrooms and reduce class sizes. That's, that's our number one goal in a process like holdbacks. Unfortunately, we do have a limited pool of candidates at this point. And so while I know in the work session Mr. Lang talked about options that we utilize, like retired teachers coming coming back and working for us. We also look at long-term subs.

We, we look at a variety of different ways to fill positions as much as possible. I would say that sometimes there are instances where a paraprofessional could be another addition to this memo that would be really flexible use of the funds, particularly in larger class sizes where you could have the direct instruction from the teacher that that is certificated and then break into smaller work groups and have different supervision with 2 people in the room versus the 1 certificated instructor in the event that you couldn't find another teacher. So that would just be the addition I would, would suggest, but the flexibility is definitely welcomed by someone like me that looks at this at a regular base— on a regular this. Go to Member Lessans.

Um, I appreciate the question and answer. We talked about this a little bit earlier in the work session. So at this point, um, I'd like to move an amendment. Um, I would— I move to add the word paraprofessional to the first bullet point on page 3 between classroom teacher and building substitute. To make the corresponding change in the second bullet point on page 4.

I'll second.

Ms. Sullivan should have received the emailed language. Motion was made by Member Lessin, seconded by Member Wilson.

Discussion on the amendments. I see Member Blakeslee in the queue. I was in the queue for a different— I'll come back in, not on this topic. I don't have— Member Zunna in the queue.

Yeah, I think that is— that's great, and that's where I was leaning to, is maximum flexibility, which, you know, something could be said that it really isn't the best way to direct funds but it's also not the best way to receive funds this late. So I think this is our, our appropriate reception of these funds is to be maximally flexible. I think the accounting question here is if a significant number of these positions do get filled in paraprofessional level hires, is that like, where would those extra funds go? Because essentially, like for every 10 paraprofessionals, it would cost us the equivalent of about 6 or 7 teachers. So if we do hire, let's say, 10 paraprofessionals, are we then going to shortchange the FTE impact, or how do we end up receiving those extra funds?

Just kind of a logistics accounting question.

I'll start, and then Katie might have a more accounting version of, of an explanation. I think there could be language that could be added, something like 45 FTE or dollar equivalent, because, because of the issue you just explained, Member McDonough. But Katie, please correct me if I'm wrong. Sure. Yeah, the way that we handle it for just our regular practice would be, you know, because the dollars and cents don't always match up, we move the dollar equivalent and the FTE equivalent.

So that if there are remaining funds available after some of those movements are made, we preserve those in the existing holdback accounts to be able to make sure that the intent of the approved funding is used for the same purpose, right? So sometimes that will come about in terms of some class coverage issues. There's other point 2 class coverage issues for teachers who take on additional duties or additional periods. Kids. And so we make sure that those funds are available to meet the needs of schools if there's some of those things that come up later in the year that don't quite— that aren't quite captured somewhere.

But we always retain the intent of the use of the funds.

Member McDonough. Thank you for the answers. I would I would at this time then like to make a motion to amend the amendment to include the words 'or dollar equivalent' after the term, um, to reinstate up to 45 classroom— or after the word FTE. So it would— so again, I'll rewrite, uh, reword the motion. Um, I move to amend the amendment to include the words "or dollar equivalent" after the word FTE as it comes after the word counselor in the second line of the bullet on page 3.

I can email that to you, yes.

Member McDonough, once you have a refined motion, could you please restate it to see if we can get a second?

Okay, um, and thank you, Member Lessens, for, uh, helping me with the wording. So, um, to restate the motion which I've sent to Ms. Sullivan, I move to amend the amendment to include the words 'or dollar equivalent' after any mention of FTE, as the memo mentions presently 45 FTE and further strike the phrase 45 versus 50 on bullet number 1 of the summary of page 4.

Is there a second? Second. Made by McDonough, seconded by Lessons.

Okay, discussion on the amendment. Member Lessons. Yeah, I'm just flagging for, um, Ms. Sullivan's record keeping that this would also change a little bit of the language in the recommendation itself, so that the recommendation would read, um, authorizing to reinstate up to 45 school-based FTE or dollar equivalent, dot dot dot.

But I think it's a good amendment. Thank you. Member Blakeslee. Yeah, I appreciate the amendments and the amendment to the amendment, but one quick question maybe, and I know we talked about this in the work session a little bit already, but could you add some additional clarity about how these holdbacks are assigned? And specifically what I'm thinking about is one aspect that I appreciated of the original S version is the incorporation of building subs counselors in addition to classroom teachers was really in response to what teachers and principals have, I think, told various school board members on phone calls.

Let's say a high school might, uh, not want another classroom teacher because it would totally mess up their block schedule and create more chaos, but a counselor, uh, would do a world of good, or a building sub would, whereas an elementary school might still very much need and prefer a classroom teacher is various needs based off of grade levels and individual school needs. So now with the addition of a paraprofessional, can you just speak to what I think— I assume, but just for confirmation— how those positions are assigned and if it's still truly informed by those needs versus prescribed, right, versus administration or leadership saying we don't think that you'll get an applicant, and so we will— we're going to tell you that you're going to get a paraprofessional or something else instead of what you truly want or need? Or is it more of a conversation of a school expressing, this is what we truly need, can we try to get this thing that we need first before we're allocated something that's second best? Sure, so I can, I can give a couple of examples. That we've actually already addressed, and then kind of just talk a little bit about the process.

So, so first of all, there's a— it's a highly collaborative process in the way that we allocate holdbacks, and there's a lot of people involved. Katie and Marty, who are here with me, are a big part of that process through budget and the talent management team. So we, we really work collaboratively at this level, and then there is a lot of communication between principal supervisors and principals about their needs. And so principals are invited readily to express what they need in their buildings in terms of holdback allocations. And so as an example, at King Tech High School, just recently we did— in the original budget, we did cut a counseling position.

So there was one, there were, there was one less counselor at the site than there was previously. They have a lot of transitions and scheduling needs and many different programs going on there, so the counseling need in terms of like that, that scheduling and advising is, is higher than in some other locations. And so we were able to give them back a counselor for that need. Conversely, at King Tech High School, they, they offer CTE programs. Those teachers are a rare find.

They often come from industry and have a different teaching certification. And so if we were to just give them a teacher, the likelihood of them finding an industry professional this late in the summer to hire and offer a CTE pathway at King Tech High School is not very likely. So that's an example of where we've listened to the principal and, and met a need. In terms of where we are at now, if we get to a place where we aren't going to find a certificated teacher, there are still classroom bubbles at like elementary school as an example, and maybe they're right on that cusp of like crossing over the recommended kind of PTR number for that grade level. One of the, the really effective ways that we deal with that is by hiring a a pro for that classroom.

And, and particularly at the elementary level where you often break students into small groups to do different types of instruction, that can be a really effective model where they're still getting the instruction but getting more of that one-on-one assistance in the classroom. So, so it's really evolving process with holdbacks and really listening. And then we also do prioritize things like Is this a school that we know historically goes over their projected enrollment because of lottery numbers, as an example? We look at those types of things. We also look at things like programs that have multi-age classrooms as a part of their philosophy, and we want to keep those programs intact.

So there's a whole layer of things that we look at and we prioritize in terms of need. The, the nice thing about this memo will be we will be able to address more needs as the school year starts this school year versus where we're at now. Right now we're being very judicious about our allocation because there isn't enough to give every— a holdback to every school in our district, unfortunately. And so this particular budget amendment and memo would really give us a lot of tools to help our schools right away. So, okay, great.

Thank you.

Member McDonough, on the amendment to the amendment. Yeah, on the amendment to the amendment. So I, I made this, um, I think it's worth telling my colleagues the, the trade-off that I've weighed in my head of, um, removing strings attached to funds given to the administration. So, uh, the original version of the memo, which actually hasn't been moved but was a really good starting point, narrowly defined this as only teaching positions. And then I've had conversations with principals, and I think a lot of other board members have too, where how we get those teaching positions this late in the game is, is very unorthodox.

So I think the the, the lack of restriction will help make sure that every dollar we're appropriating now will actually reach the students as soon as it possibly can. And I urge the passing of this. But I also think, you know, if we pass this, I would not relish that we, we give the administration now what would be about 100 positions with a lot of missing oversight. I don't even think the administration would invite that in a normal year. So I think, you know, as we go forward, let's appreciate that both of tonight's appropriation, if it passes, and the appropriation we made earlier in July are responses to very late legislative bills passing that also took the Governor as late as he possibly could to either sign or decide not to sign and just let it pass into law without his blessing.

So I think we need to be proactive in making sure in, uh, appraising our guardrails of FTE appropriations. I think that's good business for when we have a lot less fires to put out. It's something I, I would urge at a future work session, whenever this board might actually, like, actually get kind of slow. I would like us to look closely at the trade-offs between a straight-up PTR reduction where we have a sort of equity chart that would direct where those go based on the students that are at schools. That's the most equitable and controlled mechanism.

Holdbacks is something where the board has a lot less oversight, and, and I think that the trade-offs need to be warranted. But at this time, I think the only available path forward is this unrestricted holdbacks, where we've actually taken the concept of holdbacks and now expanded it to long-term subs and paraeducators. Which is certainly the first I've ever seen the school board doing. And it's— I think it's the only mechanism with how late the state dollars have come in. So I would— that's my justification for the modification to expand as liberally as possible so that the admin can be as flexible as possible.

Seeing no additional discussion, can we have a voice vote on the amendments to Amendment 1?

1. Member Blakeslee? Yes. Member Lessens? Yes.

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

Yes. Member McDonough? Yes. President Jacobs?

Yes. The amendment to Amendment 1 is adopted by a vote of 7 to 0. We're now on on the Amendment 1 as amended. Is there additional discussion?

Seeing none, do we have a voice vote on Amendment 1 as amended?

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

Yes. Member Bellamy? Yes. Member Lessans? Yes.

Member Higgins? Yes. President Jacobs? Yes. Amendment 1 is adopted by a vote of 7 to 0.

We're now on ASD Memorandum Number 016 as amended. Is there additional discussion?

Seeing none, Member McDonough? Oh, I will note that Member Blixey had hers up before that amendment, so if you would like to go before me, I can exit and re-enter the Thank you. Oh, well, sure. Well, okay, thank you. That was really nice.

Okay, I just had one quick question, and I— we also talked about this in the work session, but just for the other people that have joined the room this evening that were not in the work session, um, Katie, could you enlighten us just a little bit about the conversations that you said that you've had with DEED? I think that one of the, um, earlier items that we've talked about is risk, right? Spending down our fund balance to this level feels really risky. And also it is in tandem with the fact that there is going to be a determination made by the Department of Revenue on August 31st. And when those dollars flow in after the fact is like another question, but there will be a determination made within a matter of weeks just after the school year starts.

And so can you speak to just what you had alluded to earlier about Deed's intentions about how to allocate funding and, and the speed at which they tend to do that. Sure, yeah. So with respect to, for example, the energy relief, that one, that revenue source is pretty much locked in and was not contingent, didn't have a waterfall provision attached to it for what was included and appropriated. So Deed is trying to push that out out as soon as possible to districts so that they have that immediate resource. With regard to the, the waterfall funds, they do have to wait for confirmation from the Revenue Commissioner after August 31st.

However, their intent is to try to get information out as quickly as possible to districts and superintendents about what those allocations are going to be and to provide two payments. And to try to— I can't remember the exact timing, so forgive me on the, on the planned timing of some of those payments, but my understanding is they understand the position that the districts are in and know that, that those resources hitting the bank as soon as possible is really critical to kind of completing the year. Other districts, you know, as I think has been mentioned, have programmed some of that into their plan for this coming school year, and so So Deidre is aware of that and wanting to get resources into our bank accounts swiftly.

Thank you. Member McDonough. Yeah, so I have a set of questions regarding what I see as an additional priority or something that I just, I don't think has made its way into this memo given how late it's been put together, and I'd like the discussion raised. So before I make a motion, if I may, I have a question for the superintendent. Um, I, I see— so this, this particular memo has recognized the need as a need-based service to restore the cuts that were made to the academic or the athletics Specifically busing and access to facilities like pools without having to rely on students or their parents driving across Anchorage.

I would like to start the question about the gifted bus route that I think my understanding is still presently cut from operation and ask what would the cost of restoring the district Highly Gifted bus route be?

Thanks, Member McDonough. And just to recap, I think with our FY27 budget adoption, we made a reduction of 10 buses, if I recall correctly. So, Mr. Anderson, can you walk us through the costs? We did. They're $143,000 apiece.

The Rogers Park Highly Gifted was 3 buses, so $429,000. So the The current memo recognizes the cost of things largely including transportation of $680,000, and then in an additional priority stream, we're saying that the gifted bus would be an additional $429,000.

I also have a question that's germane to how I'd like to raise a motion in— what is the expected, like, let's say hypothetically a motion was raised to, to also restore the IGNITE program, which a previous memo, actually a previous resolution indicated was 21 FTE. This late in the game, what are the actual viable pathways to restore IGNITE, or is it really a point of no return? For the Ignite to transition out of the WIN program, which we have identified as a lower cost, back to its pullout that it was from last year?

From an academic scheduling piece, well, there's two pieces to it. One is the academic program, but then also just the staffing at this point. Um, all of the Ignite teachers have been reallocated positions across the district in, in classrooms. So to pull that back now would be extremely difficult prior to the school year and would then leave us with vacancies that I'm not sure we would be able to fill in the general classroom. So that's one piece.

The second piece from an academic programming standpoint is that the, the Ignite work going into our WIN program has been built into an entire new master scheduling kind of procedure, if you will, at the elementary level. So to flip that at this juncture before the school year would be a lot of work by a lot of people. In fact, all of our elementary principals are meeting tomorrow to actually go through a master schedule training based on our new specialist model, which also includes WIN time. And so they're setting their master schedules, they're assigning their specialist staff, and those— some of those librarians that are part of that specialist staff are going to serve that Ignite WIN kind of system that we talked about in the spring. So there, there would be a lot of work to unravel.

I'm not sure, to be quite honest, if we would have time to do that in, in a really effective way prior to school start. Thank you. Yeah, I, uh, I had a feeling that, that level of change is astronomical. If we present a budget, I mean, I'm now making a lot of assumptions, including that somehow the state presents us with a large windfall in the early winter. But if we do, like, if we do restore Ignite in a future year, is that possible as long as we do it by the regular budget deadline of February?

Yeah, if, if that was the board's directive and part of their budget process, um, the team would definitely put the work in to do that. And there are resources that we could still access. Um, we, we do have less people in teaching and learning, um, and in our, in our highly gifted, um, kind of staffing as well to consider. So we would likely need to have a pretty robust discussion about it. Okay, yeah, I appreciate those questions.

So So while I'm still on the line of questioning about gifted, I would like to raise an amendment to add to the memo the $437,000 to restore the 3 highly gifted buses to Rogers Park Elementary School.

I'll second. I have a point of order.

Member Lessin, state your point of order. The math doesn't add up. Where would you need to— would you be able to specify where that would come from? Because the overall ceiling is that we have $7 million in fund balance. The recommendation is to allocate $6.8 million, and the $6.8 million has been bifurcated.

So I guess I'd like clarification. Are you proposing to expand utilization of fund balance by $200,000 and then source the remainder from the 6.1 or the 0.68? Where's, where's $429,000 going to come from? Just for a meeting, governance will treat it like a point of information. And Member McDonough, if you'd like to answer that question, uh, to help the board determine I'm gonna throw a second, actually.

Member Hagan seconded, so we're just really under discussion of the amendment. So, Member McDonough.

So the— to answer the question of where the $437,000 comes from within this memo, um, first, just kind of answering politically, there's 3 options. We take it out of the $6.8 million for the staff we take it out of the $680,000 for sports, or we take it out of an additional draw from the revenue that will come in under HB 263. Um, so knowing that the revenue will happen with really what I consider at this point an excessive amount of— like, an admirably excessive amount of diligence on behalf of our accountants to verify every sort of point of no return has been crossed. Cost, we will get the windfall of $32 million with, I would say, also a 97% certainty rate. Like, um, well, I think I'm 100% certain we'll get that amount.

The deviance of if it's $32.2, that might change by a factor of that 3 pennies analogy. So we're getting the money. Um, I— my preference— now the memo is kind of left open because I I think an amendment can be taken to actually direct from which of those 3 pots it's cut. My preference is taking it out of an additional draw from the fund balance because I would like to see us voraciously and vigorously trying to recruit teachers and then quickly identifying where those vacancies can't be filled and being able to help those principals use subs or paras. Um, those decisions and those processes are still going to take— like, if we hired everybody today, their payrolls will likely only begin actually showing up in our accounts 5, 6, 7 weeks from now.

It, it takes a long time to go from I've decided to hire a teacher to I'm actually drawing funds to pay that teacher. So there's a natural buffer where we're putting this much of an appropriations in staffing where the identified risk to the fund balance would be identified like very well in advance. Um, and I weigh that against the opportunity cost of having our high needs, highly gifted students, which I would say is an equal or higher need as all of our athletic participants. The opportunity cost of not doing this now would say those students don't get to go to the school that is designed to suit their needs, and that is more or equally egregious as telling a swimmer that you can't go to to a pool to tell a highly gifted student that you can't go to the school that's built around your needs. So I think while the motion is up, I'm not yet going to raise the amendment to specify that it would come out of an additional fund balance.

But at this time, I think that's my preference, and I think I'm, I'm also still open to debate. So I think others being able to show risk and priority is part of the intention of the motion.

Go to Member Higgins. Yeah, I appreciate the, the effort here to focus on these, these particular students with the highly gifted program. The, the other— the, the group, when they break out the 20th percentile in all the students— you know, the top 20%, the bottom 20%, in the middle, the group that gets the least academic growth. And that's the studies I've seen over and over again. It's the top group.

You're not challenging them. They're not growing a full year. They're not having that opportunity, and they're the most likely to benefit, you know, the most of all of them. But they aren't being kept up with the challenge to being left behind. We see that that in all kinds of ways.

You see the Congress study with people, kids with Head Start in 4th grade, they're at the same level because we're not challenging them enough. So there are a lot of things in here that are transportation for the dome from in the future and other— if we're cutting back, we know that this number is not realistic on what the money we hope to get it, but it is all we can get out of the, out of the budget. If we delay something in here, then we can find the funds for it. And if we don't do it now, we're not going to be able to get it done. Every kid is our responsibility, every kid.

And, uh, the highly gifted program are the ones most at risk of not getting a full year academic growth according to the studies. And leaving them out because of funding, they don't have the resources to go there, um, it's just something I think we should try to avoid. It's a, it's a temporary monetary issue right now, waiting for the final monies to come out. I'm sure it's going to be more than what's out there. And, and that's important.

And I just don't want to leave those kids behind. It's just that simple.

Member Lessons. Um, I have an idea, but a question. Um, so thank you to the maker of the amendment. It is an amendment. The question is real because I think this is something that, that I thought I heard in a previous meeting, and, and maybe I'm wrong, but I guess I thought I heard that there was a reroute and that HG students might have been taken care of, at least with the really long Eagle River route.

So no, no, that did not happen. Okay, so we still need all three. We, we don't have all the students enrolled yet, so we don't have the finalized busing routes completed yet. Okay, but at this time we had no budget authority to add the HG buses, and we're still, we're still doing all the final routing for, you know, the normal sped in gen ed. Okay, um, I feel as though I might need a moment to sort of fully compose myself, but the thought before I might ask for a 5-minute recess is that we could potentially allocate a short period, right, if we want to stay within the parameters of our existing fund balance months, we could potentially invest in a short-term period of busing for HG a month or two, make some other maybe spring trade-off, and reconcile things a little bit later.

But I don't have that fully fleshed out, so someone can either step in or or let me wordsmith. I think, I think we're firing on the same frequency.

So similar question that I think the superintendent answering both at once will really help. The $680,000 directed in here to restore FY26 levels of service for sports, can we bifurcate that to identify just the the fall sports services that we need, and then see if we've already made up the delta of the $347,000. Because, um, part of what I— my heartburn is, is to like hire a full-time bus driver knowing we've only funded 2 months of your contract, uh, and then expecting a future board, or this board but in the future, to then restore the other 8 months of their contract. That possibly could be done, but I, I I would prefer, like, maybe we just look at the sports in their 3 chunks that are already, um, and see if we know the cost of reinstating just the fall sports, seeing if we've made up the delta. And then a future version of this board, like in a few months, we could look and see where our actual revenue is and then look to do the same for the winter and spring sports.

Thanks, Member McDonough. I think you're, uh, thinking what I was thinking, that it would not be practical for the district to offer short-term busing because we would have to hire a full-time bus driver. So I would not advise that. With regards to can we bifurcate the $680,000 for sports, I'm not sure that my team would be able to do that calculation on the fly, but I'll go ahead and ask, um, if Dr. Johnson might have insight into the sports costs. I, I have some, but I, I would also want to, you know, do a more thorough look.

I do know that if we were to return swimming to the original pool usage time from FY26, that it would cost in and around $70,000 to restore that. So I do, I do have a good concept of that cost. The busing cost is something that I don't have a good handle on to, to say tonight. I do know overall when we briefed the board in the original budget last year when we were talking about activities and busing and the new kind of model moving forward, that the total busing cost at that time that we would be saving is $440,000. And so obviously not all of that goes to fall sports.

There are 3 seasons, so we, we could make an educated guess at this time around busing, but I, I don't have an exact number for just the fall sports. I do know also, just for context, that fall sports are our largest participation season, so roughly half of what we spend on sports is actually spent in, in the fall season, for context.

Member Blakeslee, I saw yourself in the queue earlier. Did you want to speak now? Um, I had another idea, but I don't want to— I don't want to introduce it yet.

Mr. President, can we have 5 minutes please? 5-Minute recess. Sure, we'll take a 5-minute recess. We'll resume at 7:50 PM.

Okay, we're going to call ourselves back to order at 8:16 PM. My understanding is that the motion that is technically on the floor, as it was made by Member McDonough and seconded by Member Higgins, may be withdrawn. Member McDonough? Yeah, Mr. President, I will withdraw the motion and see if Member Higgins would also be willing to withdraw the second. Member Higgins, do you agree with the withdrawal as the second of the motion?

Yes, thank you. Um, is there another motion to be made? Member Lessons. Mr. President, I would move McDonough-Lessons Amendment 1.

Second. All right, seconded by Member McDonough, made by Member Lessons. Uh, it is on the floor. Member Lessons, do you want to explain the amendment? Yeah, so, uh, McDonough Lessons Amendment 1, uh, responds to the conversation we had some time ago, um, before the recess, and it would substitute an edited version of text for the second bullet point on page 3, and I will read it.

So we are talking about, uh, referring to the $680,000 figure So the language would read in its entirety on that second bullet point: $680,000 to ensure that in the first semester of 2026-27, highly gifted elementary students and student athletes enrolled in any sport retained or restored for FY27 by prior board action can safely and equitably access the educational services for which they are qualified, and district-level competitions and regional and/or state-level competitions via district-provided bus transportation, and participation in daily sport-specific practices, including but not limited to daily pool access for every high school swim dive team, and district-provided bus transportation to no less than FY 6 levels of service.

And I can speak to that. That is the end of the verbatim text substitute. So it incorporates a first semester commitment to highly gifted busing. It, for, um, uh, what's the right word, continuity purposes is it deletes a section referring to the Dome because the Dome does not exist for students in the first semester of 2026-27. And it deletes a little bit of language that maybe is just unhelpful at this time in, in what was sub-bullet point, the third sub-point on page 4, um, talking about use of roads and paved trails.

The intention is still there, but it's cleaner and I think a little bit less prescriptive. Um, I would say the further intention is that the administration would return to the board sometime after August 31st, once we understand what the waterfall funding would permit, so that we could give students and families involved in the H.G. Elementary School program, as well as student athletes who are expecting to participate in winter and spring sports, supports continuity and certainty. And I guess my hope is that we can extend a first semester model to a second semester model and that the administration would do hard and a little bit awkward work of cleaning up this mess. Um, well, it is a mess, but it's also an opportunity and, um, I'll let Member McDonough speak if there's anything left to say.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. President, and especially to the superintendent and the team. We are, I think, literally inventing new appropriation mechanisms like right here on the fly, and an accountant really does not like it when we have a brand new way of spending money. So thank you, Katie. For being willing to, like, give us as much flexibility as we can. What, what I think this does is that it achieves both recognitions that sports are a needs-based program, the highly gifted intervention is a needs-based program, and while we actually don't yet have the clearance of the funds through the August 31st deadline to fully fund it this year, this particular creative accounting memo does give us the funds to fund it long enough to get to that checkpoint.

So, um, I hope this passes, and I also hope that, you know, the board members that are voting yes today are earnestly looking for the next memo that would fully fund both of these models through the whole year., but right now we just don't have the accounting to even commit those funds. So this is the most we can commit, and I appreciate that there is a way to get it done, and I hope the board supports this and the one that comes in a few months.

Member Lessons. Thanks. I have just one more comment, and perhaps Miss Parrott can speak to this more eloquently and specifically, but one of the One of the fundamental problems we've had for a long time, since maybe 2015-16-ish, is that transportation— and I'm looking at Representative Kai Haaland, thank you for being here— transportation has been chronically underfunded. Yeah, busing fuel does not get cheaper as we go forward. The cost of repairing our buses.

This entire section is a, is a busing-related investment to get students to schools and to get students to opportunities that might keep them in school and might help motivate them to maintain their grades and, and teach all of the other soft skills, quite frankly, that we want our students to that we've articulated so beautifully in the Portrait of a Graduate— teamwork, right?

Transportation funding remains a profound need in the Anchorage School District. We are in essence literally taking operational dollars from our savings— I'm holding up my pennies again— to fund transportation-related needs. Needs. So thank you to board members and administrators for helping conceptualize what could be possible this evening.

Seeing no additional discussion on this amendment, Member Blakeslee, uh, just to clarify, if we were to receive funds to allow this to be fully funded for the fall— or sorry, for the spring, the second semester, what would be the additional amount that we would need? This is the $680,000 that's including athletic services, transportation for athletic services, and participation in, in services like swimming. And it is the highly gifted busing for the first semester. What's the delta that we would need from that additional waterfall funding to fund it potentially in the second semester. We'll have to do the detailed math for all the sports in spring semester, but it would be the same cost second semester for HG at Rogers Park.

If it's helpful, there was some information that Dr. Johnson shared earlier, at least with me and maybe President Jacobs, when I had asked asked some questions about the cost of different activities, and I think that the cost for the year to revert high school transportation for sports to FY26 levels of service was $438,000. So the swimming was another $70,000 on top of that. I think that additional cleanup will be coming. I think it's probably on the order of a few hundred thousand dollars. Is my spidey sense, but I could be wrong.

Yeah, you're correct, Member Lessons. I think that doesn't account for the inflation and fuel costs, so we would have to do that math like Katie has pointed out. But, and I think you mentioned to Member Lessons, but yeah, it wouldn't be, you know, millions of dollars. It would be hundreds of thousands that we would be looking at. Okay, sounds like we've answered Member Blakeslee's question.

I see Member Higgins in the queue. Thank you. I just want to say that we're using the money left in the reserves to the degree, all except for the 3 pennies, right, uh, out there that we're doing. That's not a projection of what we expected the state's really going to provide us at this point, to be realistic, uh, that it would be matched up, that we're not going to get anything. We've got the legislature doing this.

I think if we— this is a timing issue to do to do it. I appreciate the efforts to do it, and I fully support it. Thank you. Okay, seeing no other discussion, can we have a voice vote on McDonough-Lessons Amendment 1?

Member Lessons? Yes. Member Blakeslee? Yes. Member Wilson?

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

Member McDonough? Yes. President Jacobs? Yes. That amendment is adopted by vote of 7 to 0.

We're now on the underlying ASD Memorandum Number 016 as amended. Is there any discussion?

Seeing none, can we have a voice vote on ASD Memorandum Number 016 as amended, please?

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

Yes. Member McDonough? Yes. Member Lessans? Yes.

Member Wilson? Yes. President Jacobs? Yes. Yes, team memorandum number 016 is adopted by a vote of 7 to 0.

That completes our action items tonight. We have an action— a non-action schedule, uh, for our next meeting later this month. Does any board member wish to discuss a non-action item tonight?

Member Lessons, I saw your microphone first. Nope. Okay, Member McDonough. Um, yeah, thank you, Mr. President. Shuffling all the papers in front of me, um, I, I It's actually probably not numbered.

I'd like to just, as I discussed briefly in the committee update, from a more direct— I asked for the inclusion of the ASD Resolution 26-27-01 on here. And as board members read it and as the public reads it, I'd like to state what in effect this resolution resolution would do if it passes the next time the board meets and the reasoning for it. We have— so the resolution would state that the board hereby commits that it does not intend to close any schools this school year as long as there's no emergency need, like weather, epidemic, another epidemic, or something. Um, and the, the rationale I think comes from the, the superintendent's remarks way back in April, uh, where the superintendent gave many reasons why school closures this year, while it may be a cost savings measure, we have so much dust settling from other programming efficiencies, 3 years in a row of school closures um, and now the board is committed to a new committee to basically re-engineer the whole process of identifying schools for closure, uh, that a year of reprieve and respite would be very needed for the community. I would say that now that the committee exists, I think that the need for this resolution to come from the board is even higher because I would hate to have the committee begin public outreach with everyone in the community that says, what do you need to see in your kid's school?

And then suddenly the board comes in and, and says, we have to decide to close your school because our budget is really bad. This resolution recognizes— I don't think we will have any financial windfall by our budget timing in February, and it will be harder to balance a budget without about the ability to maybe look at schools as an option. But I think that the cost is a relational and community capital cost is far greater than the savings or the fungibility of a budget. So I just wanted to call out that I'm introducing it myself, although I think it's also intended to support the direction of the committee. It's not raised from the committee.

From the committee, and that I hope that as we read it in the next 2 weeks that we're able to give the community some assured understanding of where we are on school closures this year.

Thank you, Member McDonough. Okay, seeing no additional discussion, is there any other board member who wishes to discuss a non-action item? Seeing none, we'll go to the superintendent update. Dr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. President.

I'll be brief. We've had quite the eventful evening, but first I just want to thank the, the board for your leadership tonight and making a positive difference for our students, our classrooms, and our educators. So since July 7th, the board has committed almost 100 new educator positions to be allocated across the Anchorage School District. I think that this is a positive moment, but it underscores that there is still work to be done. Done.

We are literally trying to put pennies together to reinstate buses, to reinstate teachers that frankly should have been there in the first place. But this board is trying to deliver for our community the best that it can with the limited resources and lack, uh, suboptimal timing that, that we have with appropriations. So we had a very difficult budget cycle last year. We reduced 400 certificated positions from the district in made cuts across the system. We have a lot of headwinds going into the next school year, but I hope that tonight offers a glimmer of hope that it's still going to be a strong school year.

We have incredible principals and teachers who are ready to come back and welcome our students for the new year, and I think it's going to be a strong start despite the obstacles. So thank you to the legislature for making this moment possible. Thank you to the board for your leadership in providing opportunity and hope to our community and starting that process of restoring trust. So just to recap, ISD will be implementing about 100 or so positions. Um, there's some asterisks there because as we discussed during our discussion, um, the board has given the team flexibility to recruit educator positions, and in the event that we can't find educators, we have the flexibility to put other school support staff in our buildings so that our kids are supported.

That's a positive thing. So I'll save most of my back-to-school remarks for 2 weeks from now, but just in short, I'm excited to welcome back our community. I'm excited to begin my 5th year as superintendent for the Anchorage School District. We recently sent out our mailers out to the community with the checklist of what to expect as you come back to school. If you want— if you haven't received it yet, please visit our website, either our Hot Topics page or asdk12.org.

Www.montco.org/backtoschool, and you'll have access to a lot of great pertinent information that's also available in multiple languages. We recently welcomed back our principals, and they're ready to start the year strong, and I'll share more about this in 2 weeks, but I committed to them a focus on really 3 areas, most of which I've already shared with the board, and I'll share more in more detail with the public in the coming weeks. Weeks, but the first would be our new academic strategic plan that we briefed the board on during our retreat this summer. We've briefed the principals, and this is a way to really align our focus and our resources and attention to what we know makes a difference for student achievement. It's not complicated.

It's creating strong systems that support our teachers and support our leaders to do the best that they can for our kids, and ensuring that as a district that we have stronger communication protocols so that the entire ASD community understands what's going on. Number 2, we have a lot of conversations to be had on fiscal stabilization. We had a $90+ million shortfall that we balanced in the FY27 budget, but I— what I need the community to understand is that all of those reductions, the 400 educator positions that were removed from the budget, the transportation services that were reduced, the gifted services that were reduced, created really austere budgetary conditions for our district and for our community. But as I've gotten out there and started speaking to individuals about how to rebuild trust within the Anchorage School District, I've realized that something that the community doesn't fully understand is even how deficits happen in the first place. There are literally parents out there that believe that our deficits are the results of misspending, or, you know, spending beyond our means, or adding things back to our budget that we shouldn't be adding, etc., etc.

But it's much more complicated than that. And the brief point that I want to make is just to remind the public that that FY27 budget that we passed will be $40+ million more expensive in 12 months. The exact same budget that had all of those cuts our budget will be $40 million more. It's not because we added $40 million worth of more stuff. It's because the cost of labor is increasing.

It's because of the soaring prices of energy. It's because of utility costs rising. The status quo is going to be extraordinarily more higher, and it remains to be seen what investment will look like from the state. So the work is not done at the state level, and within the Anchorage School District, we're going to do the best that we can to scrape our pennies together put forward a product for our community, but I need you to understand the headwinds that we face. Fiscal stabilization is my number 2 priority because we know that we have about a $40 million structural shortfall.

There's some glimmers of hope. The legislature did pass a bill that expresses a commitment to fund a portion of districts' energy costs in perpetuity. That provides some potential relief. I would love for that to be present in the governor's budget when the new governor comes on and begins that process, because districts Students need confidence and assurance that the legislature will fulfill that commitment because that will make the difference for how we approach the next 12 months. But all of that to say, as a board, it's going to be very important that we not just look in terms of our needs for FY27, but we have to think year over year over year.

We've provided our forecast for FY28, and that needs to be at the heart of our conversation when we approach appropriate whatever the delta is for this waterfall. That remains to be seen. And just to recap what I shared in the work session, ASD could receive up to $32 million as a result of the legislature passing that bill. We will see what the Revenue Commissioner determines on August 31st. Uh, I do expect that districts will receive some form of funding.

That's why we made this commitment tonight, but we need to see the final dollar amount. And that's going to set the stage for our budget development process. So what you can expect from our team is that over the next few months, we're going to be talking a lot about the budget because I want to honor the commitment that I made at the end of the year that we need to do some things differently and to begin talking about the same topics in different ways, to collect input from the community in different ways, and to really make sure that our public has a grasp as to what are the challenges that the district and districts at large statewide are facing as a result of our funding situation. And that gets me to the last point that I wanted to briefly make. Priority number 1 is the academic strategic plan.

Priority 2 are robust conversations with the board on stabilizing our finances so we can hold on to as many of our educators as possible without the very destructive effects of laying off staff and bringing them back and all of that, which is why the 3rd priority would be a new initiative that that will be a personal project of mine called ASD Listens, which I don't want to talk too much about tonight because we've talked about enough topics. But essentially, I want to deliver on what I talked about at the end of last year, where we need to do things differently and we need to restore trust so that we can get as many resources for our students as possible, and so that our community is informed on how they can be a part of the solution. So ASD Listens is not just a survey, it's not a a town hall. It's really making sure that we make feedback loops more accessible and more omnipresent within the entire organization. And that'll look a lot of different ways that I'll talk about in the coming weeks, but I can't wait to see what that does for our community.

And I do think it'll make a difference for the good. And thank you to all the community leaders who I've already spoken with to provide your candid thoughts on what the district can do to begin that process. Thank you to the board members that I've spoken with about this as well. The formal launch will be coming in the, the following weeks, but I think this is a great opportunity that despite the obstacles, ASD is going to rise to this moment and do what needs to be done in service of our children. So that's all I'll share for tonight.

Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Bryant. We'll move to school board comments. We'll start on my left, Member Blakeslee.

Okay, end of the night. I am just gonna, for the first time in a while, just end with a message of hope. I have had a lot of sleepless nights lately and shed a lot of tears, but I feel really happy about the fact that we passed something meaningful and unanimously on this board for the benefit of our community. Um, I also want to thank the 12 members of the legislature who signed this letter that enabled us to even begin this discussion, have this discussion tonight, including Member Holland here who's in the room. And I, I also want to thank the rest of the school board members here.

I know that when I first introduced this memo, not everyone was happy with me, but I appreciate the openness to considering this proposal and and the further collaboration that happened that felt really meaningful, and I, and I think strengthened this memo. So thank you to all of my colleagues here on the board and to everyone who showed up. So there's a bunch of people in the room right now, but we also received a deluge of emails in our inboxes and an outpouring of public testimony. And I feel like this is a moment in which, even though the future is not as bright as we want it to be, it is a little bit brighter because I feel like your voices were loud and I feel like we were able to listen to them. So I really appreciate you all taking a long night on a summer weekend to be here and to advocate for kids alongside us.

So with that, I, uh, and I will also just say the, the projected deficits that we keep running into because of rising costs and fixed costs that we cannot control is very real and very true. But I also have a small glimmer of hope because for the first time in a long time, we are in a critical election year, and we do not know who our leadership, um, will be. We do not know who the governor is going to be, and we do not know who will be in the legislature. And that gives us a level of opportunity and hope that hasn't existed for a very long time. So I am gonna hopefully get a little bit better sleep tonight before, I'm sure, many future nights of worry.

But thank you all for being here. Member McDonough.

I do also feel the same, uh, almost uncanny feeling of hope, and for a lot of similar reasons as Member Blakeslee. Um, really, the, the source of the hope are the teachers still in front of me. It's, it's 9 o'clock and still summer, and you're here advocating for your students. And that, that's the power of a public institution, um, that we're here for our people. Um, I also have hope, uh, Member Holland joined us to make sure like, how are we investing in our schools?

Is it working? And I'm sure you got to see the sausage being made, and there's a lot of surprises at just how hard it is to actually account for public dollars.

I also leave with some level of frustration, and it's not a— I think it's to recognize that most of us in this room are still frustrated, hopeful and frustrated at the same time. So we, we have found a clear path for an additional $6.8 million to the highest, most critical needs in our district. Um, and so at the end of this summer, with thanks to the, the two House bills that made their way to law, we will have restored over 100 teachers, about 6 nurses, and most of the critical needs supports that we provide our students. Some of the need supports didn't get restored, like special ed paraeducators. We had a, a pretty large blanket cut and we didn't really fill that hole all the way.

And the IGNITE program is an intervention for elementary students, is being moved into a very different structured intervention that I think we would have been able to we would like to sink our teeth into if we had more time and more dollars. We're also going on this journey with the new arts and health curriculum that wasn't pilot tested because we had to, because the dollars just weren't there to restore it. So the frustration is that, you know, we're sitting— we, we're expecting $32 million through this new waterfall, and we've only spent about 7. I think that the biggest reason why I didn't raise anything further is the, the actual signatory on the promissory of those dollars is the Department of Revenue Commissioner, and that's a very unusual way of actually issuing public dollars. Usually the governor signs it into law and the commissioner basically just has to compel, like they have to comply.

This just reads in a way where there's still a variable that I've never seen managing public dollars. The Revenue Commissioner could just be sick one day or could choose not to or XYZ, and while I think we would prevail in court very quickly to compel that action, we don't have the risk account to be able to do that. Our savings doesn't permit us to— we couldn't even hire a lawyer to take that case because we would have already drawn so much out of our savings to do that. So I, I would have loved to say, you know, we just spent 7, but I'm actually going to move to spend the other $24 million tonight, and I just don't think there's a path forward to do that because the actual signatory is the commissioner, and the date in which that must be done hasn't yet happened. I will say the day after 8/31, you know, I intend to approach board leadership and say, let's start to look at that other $24 million where this memo at least says it needs to go into the fund balance, and we need to be very, very quick quick and sprightly about how we assess what's left and who needs to receive those dollars this year.

Um, so I want to be able to explain why there's still a feeling of, why didn't we spend all of it? And this is— the money will come. I'm very confident it will come. There is not yet ink on the line that needs to have ink on it. So we need a signature from the Commissioner of Revenue And, and it's an unusual mechanism.

I can understand why it was needed this year, but I hope in the future, you know, Member Holland, take back to your, your fellows— I'm sure you would do this anyway, but I'm asking, like, let's get education funding passed in February. It, it's a must-have this year for both parties and the independents. I think we need to see 60 votes yes on education in February. Next year, um, because we're running out of clever tricks up here to pull. So thank you, and thank you for supporting this, for sending us the letter last week.

It, it really made a monumental task, uh, possible tonight. Member Lessens.

Sitting up here, I'm reminded of an exercise on like a like a ropes course or a bonding exercise where maybe there is a grid of like lasers or string and you have to cross from one side to the next and you have to contort yourself in all kinds of crazy ways. And that is exactly what being up here tonight has felt like.

Um, the Anchorage School Board— no board in the state of Alaska should be in the position of trying to fill positions days before the school year starts and of staring down to like the bottom of the barrel with their resources. Like, it's just, um, shameful. Um, so yes, I'm proud of the collaboration here tonight, but but I retain the level of angst and deep frustration that I've had for a really long time and exhaustion. I'll say that too. It's really hard to find solutions and we're running out of band-aids.

Thanks, Member Haynes. Thank you. Um, I'll start off with appreciation for the speakers and all letters that we've received that are advocating for the additional staffing. It's, it's advocating for kids. The impact is there, and I really appreciate that.

Um, I will say that I was the school board member that went to, to the legislature in February last year to advocate for additional funding. I paid for that myself, just to let you know. Uh, but I went there, had a chance to meet with them. What I heard over and over again from legislators that supported additional funding was we wanted to go to classroom size reduction. That's our focus.

And they, and they wanted to hear that. And I think what we did tonight was live up to that commitment that they wanted to know that we're going to be willing to do that. And I think that's important. What I heard from some other legislators is that what they wanted to see was us cutting schools, and they thought we had too much funding money anyway, and they didn't care, and they didn't want to support any increase in the BSA. And that cluster was there as well.

So we ended up with two groups there. I raised that because, uh, the legislation— I mean, the Anchorage Daily News asked What's the solution to the underfunding with BSA and underfunding with schools? And I said, it's the voters. You, you, you need to know, you know, what your legislators vote for, what they vote against. If you care about education, if you care about other issues, you're going to decide what happens after February.

You're going to make that decision. So, Uh, that's, that's your role. Uh, if the board— you're going to vote for the board. Do you like what the board has done? What you don't like?

Know what individual board members do? Your vote makes a difference and it impacts the outcome in the future. So if you're unhappy with something, you're going to vote differently. If you don't like the PSA, if you don't like the people who have opposed it, if you— we had the votes for and against defined benefit retirement system. System, which is something that impacts our ability to do our job.

That's a big issue. But I would say, ask you to become educated on the voting issues. It makes a big difference. You can impact our funding next year. You will impact it one way or the other.

How you vote is going to make a difference.

I will say that, share with you, we had a board retreat, had quite an interesting thing. I'm disappointed. I want to share it with the board. I was told before then that we were going to have the president of National School Board Association, the NSBA, there, uh, and the decision was made not to do it because it didn't meet with the, um, goals of what the, uh, the board president chose to include in there. And, and I, I think that was a mistake, and I hope we address that issue.

I had a chance to meet and talk with her extensively at the Urban School District, the large Urban School District Conference. Paid for that myself too, I promise you. Uh, and it was a great meeting, fantastic presentation about the roles of the boards, how to be active, how to get more stuff done, how to be engaging with the public and the like. The retreat we had had public relations and talked about— I— what stood out for me was how to avoid difficult questions. And then legal, that Open Meetings Act is not a big problem.

It could impact stuff, but it's not illegal. And, and we spent time on that rather than team building and addressing the lack of public confidence in what we're doing today. We had that opportunity. I hope we do it. We also don't do audits of operational audits where we can save money in the administration area, and we have done those in the past.

But the Council of Great City Schools, which believe the board should just do what the superintendent says and don't even ask questions, um, they didn't support that anymore. So we've got some serious issues on the board, and I hope that we go forward and address this opportunity at the National School Board Association. Did the Alaska Association of School Board— the who just retired on that, said they can't do what the NSA— what the National School Board does. They made it clear. So I'm just hoping that we will somehow as a board try to come together again after we've got the minority and the majority and it's separated out.

And the meetings that took place, uh, with the superintendent, board president, that we have to address that issue and we need to move forward to be able to really benefit bit and be responsive to the public. We need to listen to you more than what we've done, and we've let that down. And I will share that I have asked for a lot of Freedom of Information Act requests. I'm going to finalize a number of those tomorrow when I get information that's interesting, because I know the board, you know, president and the superintendent has said they want to be, um, you know, honesty and transparent. When I get information I think that's relevant to public, I'm going to make sure you get it.

Uh, I, I really want this board to come together. I want us to fight for the kids. I want us to be willing to, to take positions and evaluate what we did in the past, so whether it was good or bad. I am not opposed, by the way, to closing schools. I'm opposed to closing schools without looking at all the options that may be better for kids.

I don't think that's an unreasonable approach, but that's where we're at right now. I don't, and I believe that we're in partnership with, with the public and the Assembly and the mayor. We've got in the, in the legislature, we need to be working together as a team, and I don't think we've achieved that, and I hope to get that this year. This is going to be a tough year. It needs to be a transition year, and you need to continue raising your voice every chance you yet you make a difference.

Thank you. Member Bellamy has no comments. Member Wilson, any closing comments? Yes, I wanted to, um, again say thank you to the legislators that continue to support education and continue to, um, fight for our kids in Juneau. I, I really appreciate those efforts.

Also, I, I wanted to, um, give some shoutouts. It's— school year is about to begin, and we have, uh, ASD and many community partners that are supporting our students and our families in, in making sure that they get back to school, excuse me, with the supplies they need. Recently, I believe it was July 31st, we held our annual back-to-school supply drive at Beggich, so it was last Friday, Beggich Middle School, and families showed up early for that. The crowds were one of the largest and continue to demonstrate the need in our community and I wanted to thank Toni Riley and her amazing Community Engagement Team for all the work that they put towards the HUGS event. 3,500+ Backpacks with school supplies were distributed.

I know the lines were long and the families and the students appreciated the opportunity to collect those school supplies. We want to thank our, I want to thank our community partners who helped produced such a successful event. So thank you to all the folks that put work into and volunteers to make that one a successful event. And ASD also supported the Anchorage Police Department's annual clothesline project. I know that one is near and dear to our Steve's heart.

He puts a lot of work into that also, and that was held the next day, August first at Clark Middle School, and the crowd was large. The need is great. Those students and families get to take home bags of school— or not school supplies, but bags of clothes to get them ready for the school year. They have a DJ, they have free food, they have games. It's, it's, it's an amazing, huge event.

There's a tremendous amount of work that goes into that event as well. So thank you to COPS for Community and all of the partners that helped with that event as well. As well. And as the Superintendent stated, our back-to-school checklist mailer is out with everything the families need to know about what they need to gear up for a successful school year, and more information on that is on the back-to-school webpage. So you'll also see Team ASD stories, which Team ASD and our students are amazing and doing one wonderful things.

I, I want to make sure we continue to highlight all of the, the amazing things our staff and our students are, are achieving and completing. So that's all I've got. Thank you.

That completes board comments and our business tonight. Is there a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

Made by Lessin, seconded by Higgins. Seeing no opposition, we are adjourned at 8:57. Thank you, everyone.