This story was originally published by Dermot Cole, Reporting From Alaska.
“What change does this bill make to the oversight by the department?” Sen. Gary Stevens asked Sen. Mike Dunleavy in a hearing on the morning of March 3, 2014.
The topic was Senate Bill No. 100, the Dunleavy bill to allow educational services to be purchased from private and religious organizations.
Dunleavy launched into a discourse about inputs and outputs in education, saying that he cared about outputs, but the inputs should not be controlled by the state.
“There’s a series of regulations embedded that talk about the inputs. Things that can and cannot be purchased. Things that can and cannot be done. And it’s my contention and that of others, that it should be the outputs that we’re looking at. For example, we’re talking about adopting a test-for-credit concept. Well, test-for-credit is purely output. You’re looking at the performance and the output on that test. We’re not looking at the inputs, we’re looking at the outputs. And so this particular approach, this approach relies on the public school teacher, the parent and the ILP (individualized learning plan) with the district oversight, to determine what those outputs should be.”
“And what, excuse me. No, the state determines the outputs. Excuse me, the state determines the output, proficiency. But the parent, the school district and the ILP teacher determine what the inputs are to get to that output. As opposed to the Department of Education through its regulations determining the inputs. Local school determines the inputs. Local district determines the inputs,” Dunleavy said.
After Dunleavy finished his treatise on inputs and outputs, Stevens said, “In the end, this bill does remove the Department of Education from any oversight of financial expenditures and the ILP?”
“Yes, and places it on the district to do that,” said Dunleavy.
Think of inputs as services purchased from private and religious organizations, the main point of contention in the case that goes to the Alaska Supreme Court Thursday.
The state has hired a Virginia lawyer at $650 an hour to provide input to the high court. Elbert Lin, who is not licensed to practice law in Alaska, specializes in fighting federal overreach.
One of the arguments that the Dunleavy administration is making to the Alaska Supreme Court is that the state has no control over potential unconstitutional spending by the school districts because the law championed by Dunleavy absolves it of responsibility and bans the state from applying other rules.
Attorney General Tregarrick Taylor claims that the state education department is not calling the shots. The education department is free “to ask the attorney general for legal advice on how student allotments may be spent,” but school districts are “independent actors for purposes of liability under state law.”
It’s not our problem, the state says.
I doubt this input will lead to Dunleavy’s desired output.
Elbert Lin, the Virginia lawyer brought in for the case, has his work cut out for him. This is this no-bid contract, under which Lin and two associates were asked to work on four cases.
The contract and a recent amendment deserve public discussion.
The Dunleavy administration hired him a year ago and said the total cost of his services would not exceed $50,000.
This is 2 AAC 12.400(b)7 of the procurement regulations, which allow allow no-bid small purchases of legal services that will cost no more than $50,000.
But there was no reason to think that $50,000 would cover the cost. On June 12, 2024, Lin signed a contract amendment to double the cost to $100,000.
The contract also said it was authorized under a second regulation, 2 AAC 12.430. That regulation requires a written explanation about why the state didn’t use other competitive methods. I have asked the Department of Law for a copy of that explanation.
Dermot Cole has worked as a newspaper reporter, columnist and author in Alaska for more than 40 years. Support his work here.
