This is a very hot issue right now and will be discussed at the State School Board work session Friday, September 21st. Statewide correspondence schools are subject to a 15% spending limitation on fine arts and P.E. and prohibited from using parent-purchased sectarian materials in student learning plans. In-district programs are not subject to these limitations. Families in statewide schools see this as unfair; let’s take a closer look.

The State Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) funds both types of schools equally at 80% of regular classroom students. The programs for the most part have many similarities but the big difference is that in-district programs are closely controlled by local school boards.

DEED relies on the local school districts to regulate the in-district correspondence programs. This reliance is consistent with the concept of local control of education which is deeply embedded in our educational system. However, a district’s education of an out-of-district student through a statewide correspondence program is not local control of education. –from Memorandum to Senators Fred Dyson and Lyda Green, From Scott Norstrand, Deputy Attorney General, Re Statewide Correspondence Programs and Religion, September 20, 2005, File No. 663-05-0233.

So, that’s the crux of the matter, local control. The Attorney General goes on to say:

Accordingly, DEED exercises its statewide regulatory authority over the statewide correspondence programs to ensure that the education offered to out-of-district students (over which the local school districts have less of a vested interest) (emphasis mine) is of equally high quality as the in-district programs.

So, in a nutshell if an Anchorage family enrolls their child in Raven Correspondence, part of the Yukon-Koyukuk School District, that family has no input into the school board or administration of the YKSD and their policies and operations. They can only have influence in the Anchorage School District. Likewise, the YKSD is not accountable to the voting families who do not reside in the YK district.

Vocal advocates for removing the regulations are adamant that the “money should follow the child” and that parents should be able to spend the money however they deem suitable. While I am somewhat sympathetic to their philosophy it’s not practically and politically possible. Having “money follow the child” equals a voucher. Vouchers are unconstitutional in Alaska. I do not think that correspondence schools are the appropriate venue to debate vouchers especially since it seems that statewide correspondence schools operate to generate revenue for their local districts.

No comments yet.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website