adn.com | The Mat-Su View : The state vs. local school districts

The Mat-Su View

Welcome to the site for news in the Mat-Su, where we’re surrounded by fantastic scenery – from Denali to Pioneer Peak to Tahneta Pass.

The Mat-Su View is a creation of the Valley staff of the Anchorage Daily News, and is updated frequently from the newsroom in Wasilla.

Check in for breaking news, advance word on upcoming ADN reports from the Mat-Su, for links to Outside stories with a Mat-Su connection and to read or post comments about hot topics in the Valley.

Keep your comments civil and on point. Avoid personal attacks. Do not use profanity. Posts that violate the Terms of Use will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned.

The state vs. local school districts

Posted by matsublog

Posted: May 13, 2008 - 1:08 pm

From Mat-Su education reporter Melodie Wright:

What do you think?
The state Education and Early Development Department's proposal to regulate correspondence study programs run by local school districts has generated heated discussion among home schooling parents and school district officials. They say these in district programs are already regulated by their local school boards. They say that, as long as their children are proficient at standardized tests, why bother them with more bureaucracy?
The state says its mandate is to regulate programs that use public money.
Is this proposal an erosion of local control on education or a fair attempt at leveling the playing field with statewide programs, which are already regulated?

Look for the full story online and in tomorrow's Mat-Su edition.

login or register to post comments

6 May 15, 2008 - 9:00am | momof5

New regulations reduce state control for MANY

Statewide correspondence programs are available to EVERY student/family in the state of Alaska whereas District programs are exclusive to those who live in a district that has one.

We in Statewide programs have been severely restricted by the state. The new regulations remove much of that restriction and allow our children to receive a better education.

I am in favor of LESS state control as the local teachers and parents are best qualified to give the children the best education. That is why I am IN FAVOR of the proposed changes.

The cap on music art and PE is high enough that the majority of what is allotted to students ends up allowable to use for those subjects. This is because the districts that administer the program keep the majority of the allotment.

What no one seems to be talking about is how A HUGE amount of state oversite has been returned to where it belongs... with the programs instead of the state.

This is a step in the right direction, and the district programs will adjust with little change to their programs since the cap is MUCH higher than what we had been restricted to, and the allotment per student is going up next year.

I would like to thank the DEED for seeking to improve these programs for everyone. I am sure that as these changes are implemented we will see if the cap allows a sufficient amount for the subjects our children need.

5 May 14, 2008 - 10:09pm | afrau

The real issue

Being with a statewide program since the regs got imposed on them in 2004 (because of a few) has not in any way affected what curriculum I choose.
The DEED was not “responding to ongoing complaints from state-wide programs”, but looked at in-district programs, how the money was spent, and whether public funds should be used this way and decided that it is time to step in. They also simplified the application process for correspondence study programs. Another good thing is that it will increase the Art/Music/PE allotment to 25% of the base student allocation, which would be very beneficial to all of us that are in these programs. So far I have not heard anything about them having an issue with a child’s progress. There is nothing in the regs to that regard. http://www.eed.state.ak.us/regs/comment/4AAC_33.pdf

The board is actually very open to home schooling and knows that we, who teach our children at home, do a great service not only to our children, but to our community as well. Quote from an e-mail I received from one of the school board members:” You and your family can be commended for the significant commitment you are making in the education of your children.”

This, I think, is the real issue for the in-district programs:
4 AAC 33.426. Core course requirements. (a) A student enrolled in a [STATEWIDE] correspondence program, whether full-time or part-time, must take at least 50 percent of the student's coursework that the student takes through the correspondence program in core courses; a "core course" is a course of study in
(1) English;
(2) mathematics;
(3) social studies;
(4) science;
(5) technology;
(6) world languages

This means the district will have to say “Good Bye” to all the funding they got for all the children that are enrolled in private schools. That is why they are behaving like three year olds, screaming: “This is not fair!” Maybe it is time to grow up.

4 May 14, 2008 - 8:58pm | SB

No state control needed.

My home-schooled children are working grade levels above any standards set by the state. They are thriving using curriculum selected with their learning styles in mind. There is no need for the state to interfere at the local level. If the local school district has an issue with my child's progress they will address it with me. There are rules in place to address what is required of students not meeting state standards. The Department of Education is responding to ongoing complaints from state-wide programs, not any identified problems with district programs. If they want to increase the amount that statewide programs have for non-core subjects and loosen the curriculum restrictions they can do that without impacting local programs. Is the state also prepared to impose restrictions on all charter schools re:curriculum and maybe standardize curriculum across the state for traditional public schools? School is one of the traditional local control areas in Alaska. A school district choosing to offer services statewide in an attempt to add to the funds available in their local district does so knowing they are subject to different regulations. Parents are free to choose what options best meet the needs of their family. I personally do not care what is done with the state-wide programs but leave the district offered programs alone. One or two vocal statewide programs with undue political influence should not be able to determine that what is not broken needs to be fixed.

3 May 14, 2008 - 8:45pm | AlaskaAlaska

homeschooling in Alaska

As a parent who homeschooled until HS graduation, I am grateful to have been able to do it in Alaska. One of the main reasons that we did homeschool was so that we, as parents, could decide the curriculum and not have the state breathing down our necks. Yes, we could have received funding from the state IF we did it "their way", but we chose to make the sacrifices necessary and pay for the schooling ourselves so that we had the freedom to school our way. We homescooled in two other states and Alaska is by far the best place to do it, as a parent can choose ANY homeschooling method they choose. If parents are upset about the cap that is being put on the subjects mentioned in the article, then they need to pick up the slack and figure out how to do it on their own. There are not many states that have the homeschooling freedoms that Alaska has. Parents should be grateful that THEY have COMPLETE control on how they school their children - IF they so choose.

2 May 14, 2008 - 1:54pm | lynn2

Statewide vs. Local Control

Good article Melodie. I'd add one critical factor regarding the regulations. That is, statewide correspondence schools are in business to generate revenue for their small, rural districts. The reason the state currently regulates them is because of spending abuses in the past. There are no similar abuses by in-district programs. Local control works and yet the state is choosing to extend the regs to programs that work according to local standards.

Local programs exist to provide services to their community. Statewide programs exist to maintain a revenue stream. Two very different motivations that produce different spending and services.

May 14, 2008 - 10:19pm | akmomof7

Statewide vs. Local Control

But there HAVE been abuses by the in-district programs, according to the Department of Education and Early Development. They stated in one of the (State Board) work sessions on March 26th or 27th that this is one of the reasons that they have proposed that regulations extend to all programs.

As for the "revenue stream," you might want to check with your district to see how much they get from the state per student. Statewide programs get 80% of $5380, or $4304 per student. That's it; no additional funds. Once you consider the allotment of about $2000, the computer and printer, internet access for families, and overhead such as long-distance phone calls, offices, and salaries, there is not much of a "revenue stream" left! In-district programs receive at least twice that and yet do not provide more services for their families. Personally, I do not have a problem with money generated by one school in a district benefiting other schools that may need the funds more. It all goes to improved education and if some funding generated by my students helps students in another school in my district, that is something that I can be proud to be part of. But the in-district programs should stop throwing stones when they are the ones who have additional money to spend in other areas.

Proud homeschooler for over 20 years, all in Alaska, some years in programs and some years independently.

May 14, 2008 - 5:59pm | afrau

Statewide vs. Local Control

I need to correct you on a few points.
The families enrolled in state-wide programs spend a lot of their allotment right here in the Mat-Su. They benefit the community right here as well. (Besides, what is wrong with helping rural communities?)
There are abuses in (our) in-district programs. That's why the board decided to address this issue. What about all the kids enrolled in private/Christian schools that they actively pursue for enrollment? They are not "Home" schoolers, they do not take correspondence classes, they just want the $$ for the extras (new computer, gymnastics, ice skating, dance, health club memberships, etc.).
I am glad that these kind of abuses will end.

11y home school mom of 3, that has been with all the different programs

1 May 14, 2008 - 8:25am | rmmiller

Regulating Home Schoolers

I have been a home school Mom for 7 years. I became a homeSchooler because I wanted my children to have the best education that I could give them. If they state limits us as parents then it is our children who will suffer.
Our school and district works with us the parents closely to ensure that our children are doing well. if a child is not doing as well as they should . it is looked at and approprate changes are made to help that child scussed.
our school is one of the only Homeschools to pass the state no child left behind. as long as a child is passing that test we should not be limited. the state not only wants to limit how we spend our alotments but the curriculum that we use. even if we buy it ourselves. Each child is different what works for one will not work for another. it is for this reason that I homeschoool. If the state succeeds in this I know we will lose children. then what will happen to them. There will be no test to make sure that the children are doing well. Children will be lost and there will be no one there to see that they need help. this proposition will force many parents to leave the programs that they are in. in disteict parents are watched closer then state ones. because we not only have a compleate school that watche our children and how they do , but we have the Borough school disterict that watches us as well. we don't need any more resraints put on us. When we asked the state school district why they are changing therules if it was based on any data. they said no. if we were failing our children then fine. But we are not so leave us alone. why fix something that is not broken. the programes that they put limits on have not passed the benchmarks. but we have . if they need to chang and make it fair then let them not be limited . that way they can be the same as us. if they need more supervision make them a school board that watches them as ours does us.

Thank you
A Wasilla homeschool mom

May 19, 2008 - 11:57am | akhomeschooler

Reply to "If it ain't broke..."

You state "Why fix something that is not broken?" The state giving money to in-district programs with no oversight has been the same as letting the foxes guard the henhouses. It is severely broken, and it's about time the state school board step in and place some oversight on what has been an unregulated handout. Everyone knows that a school district runs on money. Some in-district programs have been so bent on making money and trying to move one step ahead of the statewide programs like IDEA (the largest of the statewide homeschooling programs), they'll stop at nothing to get it--employing many schemes that are both in violation of current regulations, improper and unethical. Here is a list of abuses that these regulations will correct:

1) In-district homeschool programs will no longer be able to F/T enroll students attending private schools full time. Currently there are hundreds of students attending private, Christian schools full-time, who are also enrolled (full time) in In-district homeschool programs. This subsidy of private school parents across the state is not only a clear violation of the separation clause of the First Amendment, it is ethically wrong and is costing the State of Alaska MILLIONS of dollars every year.

2) In-District programs have not adhered to regulations of No Child Left Behind. In some cases the violations are as comparatively small as having no "highly qualified" teachers overseeing student progress in specific classes that require HQ oversight. In other, more disturbing cases, a few in-district programs have non-certified staff overseeing student progress. This is not only an embarrassment, but is a clear punishable violation of the No Child Left Behind Act.

3) In-district programs have several different policies regarding how to manage and support parents and students enrolled in their programs. Some are adequate, others are marginal, and others are downright self-serving and laughable. One, Frontier in Anchorage, requires no regular defined parent contact schedule, no samples of work and no parent/student accountability. A parent could never be contacted by the ASD, never turn in work samples, never contact their in-district teacher and never have any accountability whatsoever to the school district once their learning plan is turned in. Later in the year the school district takes grades, but they have no system of even marginal accountability built into their system to determine whether the parents are even doing school on a regular basis.

4) Most in-district homeschool programs are letting parents use curriculum that has not been reviewed and approved by their school boards--a clear violation of state policy.

5) Some in-district programs allow students to spend their entire allotment on PE or music lessons. many of these students are already enrolled full time in Private Christian schools and have no need to spend their allotment on academic subjects. In order for the in-district programs to lure them into enrollment, they let them spend their entire allotment on "extracurricular" activities. Clearly this is unethical and a waste of taxpayer dollars. The state of Alaska should not pay for extracurricular activities for private school students.

In-district homeschool programs have been allowed to self-police; meaning it has been up to the local school board and in-district administrators to make sure their policies and procedures reflect an adherence to legal and ethical procedure. It is unfortunate that they have chosen not to take the high road, because trying to cut corners in an attempt to get a leg up on the statewide programs, they have placed themselves and their parents in the unfortunate position of forcing the state to come in and do the job that they have failed at.

In-district programs are screaming bloody murder about the state DOE over-reaching. They will say that they want to retain local control--when it is clear that local control is not working and is costing the state millions of dollars a year spent subsidizing students enrolled in private schools who aren't even homeschooling. They say that these regulations are too strict and unattainable. This argument holds no water. In fact, the IDEA homeschool program has operated under an even-stricter version of these rules for many years, and has become the largest homeschool program in the state, making it clear that these regulations are both fair and attainable.

I am a homeschool parent and I am in favor of these proposed regulations. I believe they will serve to preserve the integrity and the reputation of all homeschoolers and homeschool programs and will give ALL homeschool programs a standard which is universal, fair and attainable.

Search Jobs | Place an employment ad

The Mat-Su View

Archive

The state vs. local school districts