One of the frustrating aspects of the new proposed regulations is the notion underlying them that in-district schools are the same as statewide correspondence schools and should be treated and regulated the same. Admittedly, there are some similarities on the surface but there is a much bigger picture to look at than allotment amounts and learning plans and purchasing guidelines. So, let’s take a closer look.

The first huge difference is the whole concept of local control. Local control has been affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Milliken v. Bradley (1974) and is an established part of our national and Alaska’s public education tradition. In application, local control saves the state the laborious task of overseeing, minutely, the operating details of each program by delegating that task to a local district and its community’s standards and needs. The State Board’s proposal completely ignores this established precedent and chooses to regulate individual programs within a district. The issue of local control cannot be overstated. Statewide correspondence schools have zero local control. I’ve written in greater detail on the issue of local control here.

I’ve made a couple lists to illustrate some of the ‘big picture’ differences between our schools. This subject is so complicated I had to find some way to lay out points that had some kind of structure. This proposal package is ‘target-rich.’ Its regulations are inappropriate in numerous ways and even illegal when applied to charter schools.

The proposed regs already apply to statewide schools. The only change for them is an increase in the amount permitted to be spent on fine arts and P.E.

So, here are some reasons I have heard that correspondence schools should be regulated. First, the statewide correspondence schools. I’ve added my own humble opinion in italics.

Reasons Statewide Correspondence Schools Should be Regulated:

• No LEA (local education agency) oversight once enrollment crosses district boundaries. Only the State has statutory authority to oversee statewide schools.
• Motivated by revenue stream and therefore incentive for self-oversight is minimized. These schools want maximum enrollment to generate maximum revenue for their local districts.
• A significant portion, 25%, of the Base Allocation is not spent on the student nor the correspondence school itself. Goes to previous point. Money is not spent where the legislature directed it. This is because there is no local control. Parents cannot even vote for the school board and thus have no voice in how funds are spent.
• Inappropriate uses of public funds documented. These were what brought the public’s attention to this issue and thus the regs that are in place now.
• Lack of compliance with existing regulations. This is anecdotal. Many of us know families in SWC’s who use sectarian mat’ls as their primary curriculum. These are prohibited under the current and proposed regs.
• Special education services are inadequate. It’s tough and expensive to provide these services from a district 800 miles away from its students.

Reasons In-District Programs Should be Regulated

• ‘Much public comment regarding correspondence study programs.’ This is the stated reason in the Board’s memorandum.
• Expectations by those in statewide schools of ‘fairness.’

That’s it. Those are the only two reasons I’ve heard that in-district programs should be regulated. The latter requires real chutzpah. A coarse analogy is one of a squatter living in my backyard demanding the equal access and privileges of family to make it ‘fair.’ The real-life example is the Galena City School District enrolling 860 students within the Anchorage School District (ASD) and wanting a ‘fair’ chance to enroll even more by being given the same privileges as Frontier Charter School and Family Partnership Charter School but without the local control from the ASD School Board nor the community standards applied to the two charters. Keep in mind that Galena is a town of 640 that is 344 air miles from Anchorage without road or rail access. Galena is just one of several statewide schools that enroll within the ASD.

There are no allegations of misuse of public funds nor of mismanagement of the in-district schools. So, why regulate them? The motivation appears to be political. Public comment closes May 8th.

No comments yet.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website