I took the Alaska Home Educators Alliance (AHEA) online survey. As surveys go it isn’t written to gauge opinion but rather to lead the survey-taker to the answer AHEA wants. So, I’ll go through the six questions one by one.

1. Do you agree that the compulsory school attendance age should remain the same and should not be raised from 16 to 18? Raising the age of compulsory school attendance may affect homeschoolers as it requires them to continue their home education for two years longer than now required and it would also raise from 16 to 18 the age of a person restricted to a combined total hours of school and employment in one day.

I agree wholeheartedly that compulsory school attendance should remain at 16. Many local districts are motivated to increase the age to 18 to make it easier to reach the graduation rate portion of NCLB. But if a student is so unhappy and unproductive in school locking him in doesn’t help that student. The product needs to change to fit the educational needs of students. If the product does not change then raising the age is akin to locking customers in a store with goods they don’t want to buy.


2. Do you agree that there should be equity between in-district and statewide programs in regards to allotment provided for student assessments (IOWA Basic Skills Tests, CAT Tests and Learning Style / Interest inventories, etc.)? The in-district programs are able to pay for assessments that will help the parents meet their child’s educational needs while the statewide programs are restricted to using Standards Based Assessments only.

Frankly, I don’t understand this. Usually, homeschoolers flee from testing. Why would a homeschool parent be disappointed that their allotment would not pay for the IOWA Basic or CAT? Perhaps it’s a misunderstanding of the information those norm-based tests provide which is really useless to parents and teachers. I don’t know of any regulation that restricts a district from using money for assessments beyond the SBA’s. Now when it comes to Learning Profiles that is a pretty big deal. Frontier Charter provides that to any student who wants it and it is an invaluable tool. Retail cost of the Profile is around $6000. Frankly, it is up to the local districts whether or not they want to provide that service. I don’t know why they are taking this issue up with the state.

3. Do you agree that the State Board of Education should eliminate the 15% of funding formula limitation (the spending cap) on Art, Music and P.E.? Currently, only statewide programs suffer regulatory limitations in funding for Fine Arts, Music and P.E.

No, I do not agree. Now we come to the crux of the matter. In-district programs are not subject to this limitation for a very good reason–local control. There is local community accountability for how money is spent. The State grants the Foundation Formula dollars to local districts with very few strings attached. It is apparent that statewide correspondence schools exist to raise revenue for their local school districts. Representatives from two of these local districts stated so publicly to Education Secretary Margaret Spellings during her school visits to Alaska the week of September 4. When a district operates a school to maintain a profit margin I submit that academic excellence and accountability come in second. This complaint by AHEA is akin to a Chevy owner complaining to GM that they want the leather seats the BMW has. If they want the leather seats buy the BMW. If they want fewer restrictions they should enroll their kids in an in-district program. In-district local programs have a right, through properly elected local officials to control the local schools within their boundaries.

4. Do you agree that funding for P.E. should be separated from the restrictions on Art and Music? P.E. is currently a required subject while art and music are not and yet the same restrictions are placed on funding for all three subjects.

No, I do not agree. This issue could mean trouble for the public homeschoolers. How much money is enough? Seven or eight years ago when charter school health club memberships were a headline item in the Anchorage Daily News the legislature took action. They created a category of schools for funding purposes only and called them correspondence schools, aka homeschool programs. Funding for these schools was cut to 80% of the Foundation Formula. Ouch! I submit here that if we are bickering over how much we want to spend on swimming, skiing, and taekwondo the legislature will take a dim view and cut further. Ask the Alaska Youth Academy which is now subject to a funding cut because the legislature has found they have more money than they need. Then consider the Fine Arts and PE programs in places like Aniak and Noorvik. The legislature has a solid history of cutting money to school programs they deem to have more than necessary. How does 60% sound? That’s what Alyeska Central was funded at for years.

5. Do you agree that families should be able to use privately-purchased materials that are aligned to state standards without loss of funding? Currently, the Department of Education requires that homeschoolers in statewide programs use “State fundable” materials in at least four courses in order for the district to be funded (which limits enrollment funding for each child).

I do agree strongly and absolutely. To prohibit privately-purchased materials that are aligned with standards from being used is just plain wrong. They are limiting a delivery system and that’s a slippery slope to limiting homeschooling.

6. Do you agree that homeschoolers in statewide programs should be able to take advantage of savings from family passes and that the State should allow the parent to teach and facilitate the P.E. instruction using a family pass? Currently, the statewide programs cannot pay for a family pass to a facility even when it is the most cost efficient use of the child’s allotment unless the parent hires an instructor and uses the limited P.E. funds. This also limits the child’s Fine Arts and Music opportunities.

I think the answer is yes, I tepidly agree. In-district programs have worked out pro-rated reimbursements where possible. I see no reason why this is not possible for statewide programs. But I go back to item 4 about raising the Fine Arts/PE issue.

No comments yet.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website