Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 106
04/08/2009 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB59 | |
| SB57 | |
| HB215 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 215 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 59 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 57-CHARTER SCHOOL FUNDING 8:52:18 AM CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business would be SENATE BILL NO. 57, "An Act relating to charter school funding." 8:52:29 AM SENATOR JOE THOMAS, Alaska State Legislature, presented the CS for SB 57, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: SB 57 is about supporting school choice and doing away with the charter school penalty. Current law results in charter schools with under 150 students receiving 30% to 45% less state funding than neighborhood schools of their same size. The colored chart in your packet graphically demonstrates the effect of the current law. This legislation solves the funding problem in an equitable, fiscally responsible manner. CSSB 57 states that charter schools with fewer than 150 students will have their student count adjusted by the same per-student rate as neighborhood schools with 400 students. CSSB 57 also addresses the problem created for school districts when their charter and alternative schools unexpectedly enroll fewer students than the number required for the state to fund them as separate schools. Today, the minimum number of students a charter school must have to be funded as a school is 150, and the enrollment an alternative school must have is 200. When these schools fall just one student below those thresholds in the October count period, the state cuts funding by $500,000 - $700,000. This is a disaster for the school and its district. CSSB 57 contains a one-year, hold-harmless provision for charter schools and alternative schools that unexpectedly fall below the threshold, and are either in their first year of operation or were above the threshold the previous year. For one year, these schools will receive 95% of the per-student rate they would have received at the threshold. Charter schools in their hold harmless year must submit a budget to their local school boards, laying out the plan for the following year if their enrollment does not rise. Finally, SB 57 lowers the separate-school threshold for alternative schools from 200 to 175. Alaska has a serious problem with school achievement and high school graduation. One type of school is not best for all students. Charter schools and alternative schools offer parents choice within the public school system. This legislation has received strong support from around the state. We have been contacted by parents from Ketchikan to Nome. The Alaska Association of School Boards, and representatives of the Fairbanks, Nome, Juneau, Anchorage, Lower Kuskokwim, Ketchikan and Mat-Su school districts have testified in favor of SB 57. Our school funding system has limited communities' ability to create and sustain innovative programs. It is essential that the legislature take action this session, and I would appreciate your support. 8:55:48 AM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if there is a minimum enrollment for charter schools. She recalled that charter schools were funded the same as public schools so long as enrollment was 150 students or more. The aforementioned provided the state protection against having numerous low enrollment charter schools that would receive a disproportionate amount of funding. SENATOR THOMAS answered that the minimum enrollment for charter schools is the same as for public schools, which is 10 students. 8:56:46 AM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON surmised then that a charter school with 10 students would receive the same amount of funding as a school of 400 students. SENATOR THOMAS directed attention to the chart entitled "Adjusted Student Count for Charter Schools vs. Neighborhood Schools," which illustrates how the count is adjusted. He acknowledged that the funding is for a neighborhood school, which is a school of 400 students. In further response to Representative Wilson, Senator Thomas confirmed that the left axis represents the count adjustment per student. 8:58:09 AM CHAIR SEATON noted that the aforementioned chart has been previously viewed without the projection of SB 57. He said: The problem is the blue bars [neighborhood schools] is you get smaller and smaller as a single site school. It's showing that if it's a noncharter school, the per child amount goes up and up and up because you don't have the economy of scale. The purpose of this legislation is so that it doesn't drop so far that it's uneconomic to have a charter school under 150. But, it doesn't give the same advantage as a small school would. So, it just caps it at a level. There's actually a decreased amount because you're not funded at the higher per student that you would get at a 150 or above; it jumps up to the 400 student level. So, that's not going to encourage an explosion, I don't think, of small charter schools. But, the big problem has been that if a school drops below 150, the regular school district has to take out of its budget a large amount of money to offset because the formula, then, doesn't work even to hold the school district harmless. 8:59:37 AM SENATOR THOMAS mentioned that the committee should also have a document entitled "Example Adjusted Student Count Calculations," which supports the aforementioned chart. 9:00:34 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER expressed some confusion with regard to how this legislation treats charter and alternative schools, particularly since both charter schools and alternative schools offer alternative programs to the standard schools. She related her understanding that charter schools tend to have more involved and engaged families than the alternative schools. The alternative schools sometimes serve the needs of students who haven't been successful in other schools. In terms of funding and that they tend to be smaller schools, she inquired as to why alternative schools may need to be handled differently than charter schools. SENATOR THOMAS related that there are some basic differences, including that the school district is in charge of how alternative schools are run and there is more parental involvement in the operation of a charter school. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if SB 57 proposes to make the same changes for charter schools and alternative schools. SENATOR THOMAS replied that the changes proposed in the legislation are the same for charter schools and alternative schools, except for the change to the threshold. CHAIR SEATON clarified that the threshold refers to the size. The size before the 95 percent would come into play would be 175 students for alternative schools and 150 for charter schools. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether there could be a good argument for treating alternative schools in the same way as charter schools, in terms of funding. SENATOR THOMAS acknowledged that there could be. He explained that the desire was to keep the fiscal note down, and the thought was that in the future there may be more adjustment. The legislation presents what is acceptable with which to move forward [in fiscal terms]. 9:03:33 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said that although she didn't want to damage the prospects of SB 57 moving forward, she expressed concern with protecting the charter school students but not doing the same for the alternative schools students with the same needs. SENATOR THOMAS related that most of the comments he has received have been in regard to concerns with charter schools. The main concern has been to reduce the count to 175. 9:04:09 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER questioned whether the reason the majority of the comments were regarding charter schools was because those folks tend to be more involved. Perhaps, the alternative schools have the same needs just not the same involvement, she suggested. SENATOR THOMAS acknowledged that may be the case, but noted that folks were contacted to provide comments on alternative schools. The school districts did comment, he related. 9:04:40 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER clarified that an alternative school is not defined in statute, but rather is defined in regulation as school that's designed for the specific needs of particular students. Therefore, any district can create an alternative school. Furthermore, the alternative school regulation specifies that a charter school is a type of alternative school. He reminded the committee that when he had similar legislation, he found the drafters being hesitant due to the vague definitions of schools. 9:05:44 AM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ pledged that during the interim she would help craft language that would lower the threshold for alternative schools. There is also the need to address the need for state compliant language in order for the state to receive the federal funding available for charter school facilities. Regarding the facilities issue, charter schools have the responsibility of paying for their facilities out of their per student allocation, while the facilities for alternative schools are provided by the school district at no extra cost to the program. 9:09:08 AM LAURY SCANDLING, Assistant Superintendent, Juneau School District, City & Borough of Juneau, said that she would specifically speak about alternative schools as she has spent 11 years as a manager of an alternative program within a high school as well as a separate alternative high school in Juneau. She highlighted that the alternative school students are funded at the rate of the largest school in the district, using the .84 multiplier. The aforementioned assumes there are economies of scale at an alternative school that might be achieved at a large high school. However, Ms. Scandling said that's simply not the case because from her experience, those students in alternative programs are there for a reason and bring a host of issues that require intensive academic and social support. She then mentioned that there is often a concentration of secondary students in alternative programs whereas there tends to be a concentration of elementary students in charter programs. Therefore, she recommended the committee consider dropping the level at which students can be funded at a more equitable level from 200 to 175 or 150. She related that her research regarding the effectiveness of organizations that operate at the tipping point of 150 has resulted in her preference for 150. 9:12:03 AM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked if Ms. Scandling supports CSSB 57(FIN). MS. SCANDLING declined to make a statement since she has not read the entire legislation. 9:12:53 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked if Ms. Scandling would anticipate action to obtain more students if the legislature were to lower the threshold for alternative schools down to 175 students. MS. SCANDLING expressed her pride with Juneau's alternative program, which has been nationally recognized as a model program. Drawing upon her experience as the principal of Juneau's alternative school, recalled that its annual average attendance was around 190 students. However, the quarterly admissions system causes there to be a rollover of students each quarter. The challenge [were the threshold lowered], she opined, would be to ensure that a greater number of students was enrolled by the count date. She further opined that an enrollment threshold of 150 is more manageable and better for students because effectiveness is lost at an enrollment level over 150. However, she recalled that she worked with Juneau's alternative school on a long-range plan with a three- to five- year implementation period and an enrollment of up to 200 students as that's the current level of funding. Still, there was concern with the size of the alternative school because smaller class sizes make a difference. In answer to Representative Keller, Ms. Scandling responded that she would anticipate the alternative school seeking more students if the threshold is increased. She reminded the committee that the funding is provided to the district that hosts the alternative school, and therefore the funding is a general revenue source and the allocation of the funds is up to each school board. She mentioned that the Juneau School District has generally supported Juneau's alternative programs over time with the necessary resources. 9:15:07 AM BRAD FAULKNER, Member, Academic Policy Committee, Fireweed Academy, stated support for CSSB 57(FIN). Mr. Faulkner mentioned to the committee that since Standard Base Assessments (SBAs) are being administered today, most teachers are unable to testify. Mr. Faulkner opined that from a charter school perspective, SB 57 isn't perfect. He informed the committee that the Fireweed Academy has a student count of 90, but will be funded as a school with 400 students. Still, those in the Fireweed Academy will share the facility with other students and receive substantially less funds than other students in the facility. However, the legislation is a good start that everyone in the charter school community supports. Mr. Faulkner then highlighted some differences between alternative schools and charter schools. A major difference is that an alternative school receives local funding while a charter school does not. For example, none of the Kenai property taxes are used to fund the charter school, and therefore the funding for the charter school starts at about 30 percent less than for other students. Furthermore, the charter school is funded at 26-30 percent less from the state. Moreover, charter schools don't receive any funding for the facility. In the past, charter schools have experienced up to 90 percent of bonding for facilities of state reimbursement. Currently, it's around 60 percent. However, out of those state funds, the charter school has to pay for its facilities funding. Mr. Faulkner then turned to the common misconception that charter schools attract the best students. In Homer, the charter school has a good reputation and receives more needs-intensive students than is its share. In conclusion, Mr. Faulkner reiterated that CSSB 57(FIN) is a good start that charter schools support. 9:18:11 AM JEFF FRIEDMAN, President, Anchorage School Board, Municipality of Anchorage, paraphrased from the following written statement, [original punctuation provided]: Our board has discussed this charter school funding several times in the past and I believe the board and the administration are fully supportive of SB 57. The 150 student cut off has caused problems with two Anchorage charter schools since I have been on the board and at least one charter school before that. Two of those schools ended up closing. The other struggled for a year, but has since been very successful. The changes in SB 57 will provide a safety net for schools that drop slightly below the 150 student level, and will provide a more equitable funding method for alternative schools and charter schools. Charter schools and other alternative schools provide choice for those students who don't fit well into traditional neighborhood schools. They are a vital part of our district. I urge you to support SB 57. 9:20:02 AM TODD HINDMAN, Lead Teacher, Anvil City Science Academy, speaking on behalf of the Nome Public Schools Board of Education and the Academic Policy Committee of the Anvil City Science Academy, related support for SB 57. He said that in a small community such as Nome, a charter school with a student population of 150 is highly unlikely. Furthermore, if a charter school with such a population were achieved, it would likely have an adverse impact on the other public schools. The small size of Anvil City Science Academy (ACSA) is one of its strengths as it allows for flexibility in its daily operations to provide unique opportunities to its students. Therefore, students are able to go out into the community and use it as a resource in their education, which provides a more meaningful learning experience. The ACSA's small size also creates a culture around family value, which ensures student success through daily engagement with the parents. Mr. Hindman thanked the committee for its efforts in providing support for small charter schools, which are identifying and meeting specific needs in the communities they serve. 9:21:39 AM NANCY WAGNER, Superintendent, Fairbanks North Star School District, paraphrased from the following prepared statement [original punctuation provided]: I am representing the Fairbanks North Star Borough School District and want to express our support for Senate Bill 57. I would like to thank the House Education Committee for scheduling SB 57. This Bill is extremely important to Charter schools which provide choice and alternative educational programs for our students. We currently have three charter schools and a new one coming on-line next year. Two of our current charter schools and our new charter school have target enrollments at about 155 students, so struggling to meet the 150 funding threshold is not uncommon. This year, one of our charter schools just missed the 150 student "average daily membership" threshold during the count period, even though they had over 150 students by the end of the count. Falling short of the current enrollment threshold cost our district about $680k. All because of a small timing difference related to student enrollments. While we expect that all our existing charter schools will be larger than 150 students next year, this bill helps addresses the catastrophic impact should a school fail to meet that 150 student threshold, even if by the thinnest of margins. It is a fair compromise for funding of existing charter schools. We also expect our new charter school to exceed 150 students next year. But this bill also provides a fair funding compromise should their startup enrollments fall a little short. It would still be difficult to offer the curriculum as originally envisioned, but it would not be impossible, as is currently the case. It provides a great incentive for schools to get to their targeted enrollments. SB 57 fixes the funding problem in an equitable, fiscally responsible manner. I encourage you to pass this Bill. Providing alternative educational programs is important for the public school system. We are charged with the responsibility of meeting the needs of EVERY child enrolled in our district. Alternative and Charter Schools provide the opportunity for Alaska families to choose the program that best meets their child's needs. Without the previsions outlined in SB 57, at least one of our charter schools could be in danger of having to close. 9:25:12 AM JOHN WEETMAN, Assistant Superintendent, Mat-Su Borough School District, paraphrased from the following prepared statement [original punctuation provided]: The Mat-Su Borough School District supports Senate Bill 57 and is supportive of school choice and currently hosts 4 charter schools and 3 alternative schools, which enroll approximately 1500 students. I do believe that Senate Bill 57 will correct the funding problem in an impartial and fiscally dependable manner. By lowering the threshold for alternative schools from 200 to 175 Senate Bill 57 will address a financial setback that occurred this year for MSBSD, one of our alternative schools unexpectedly dropped below the required 200 number by 6 students, resulting in a $780K deficit to the school district. The one-year, hold-harmless provision for charter schools and alternative schools that unexpectedly fall below the threshold, allows charter and alternative schools to focus student education and not financial deficit created by the current funding. Charter schools and alternative schools offer parents choice within the public school system that provides smaller learning communities, dropout prevention and increased graduation rates. In conclusion Senate Bill 57 creates a sustainable funding system for innovative programs. I thank you for your time and effort that all of you put in for the students of Alaska. 9:27:39 AM BRENDA TAYLOR, President, Academic Policy Committee, Juneau Community Charter School, informed the committee that at a recent charter school conference she was impressed with the variety of charter schools. The one thing that the representatives at the aforementioned conference could agree upon was the importance of choice for students, teachers, and parents. That choice lends itself to students, teachers, and parents having more passion and involvement in the schools. Therefore, it's not just that more involved parents choose charter schools, it's that once parents are able to choose the type of education for their child they become more involved in their child's education. Ms. Taylor opined that the aforementioned choice and passion are the reasons that charter schools survive. As has been mentioned, charter schools have more expenses than neighborhood schools. For example, charter schools have to pay for space. As much as is possible, charter schools try to reduce costs by using the passion of the teachers, parents, and students. Therefore, those groups perform much of the custodial services, supervision during playground time, and office/administrative support. She pointed out that charter schools have to pay the same [as other public schools] for the teachers' salaries and office staff. The aforementioned has resulted in having to make some difficult choices, such as not having a counselor in the Juneau Community Charter School. Ms. Taylor urged the committee to work on SB 57 in as expeditious a manner as possible. In conclusion, she acknowledged that the committee has a difficult decision in terms of how deeply to review the alternative schools. Still, alternative schools do have the [advantage] of the district, which directly supervises and runs alternative schools. The districts have more flexibility in terms of the use of funding while the charter schools receive funds that come directly from the state and no outside sources of funds in the way that alternative schools do. 9:32:44 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER expressed interest in the idea that funding could be used to provide a bus in order to increase enrollment since there are children who cannot attend due to transportation issues. Therefore, she questioned whether providing transportation would be a large factor in charter schools maintaining their student populations or even growing. MS. TAYLOR said that she believes transportation would be a larger factor, even knowing that school districts throughout the state run differently. For example, in Ketchikan the bus system works such that it can transport children to the various schools. However, the Juneau School District is more spread out and is unable to transport children to all the various schools. She opined that this legislation will help districts in regard to how to think about choice. 9:34:20 AM CHAIR SEATON, upon determining no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony. 9:35:19 AM CHAIR SEATON inquired as to the function of the 95 percent per student. 9:35:28 AM EDDIE JEANS, Director, School Finance and Facilities Section, Department of Education and Early Development (EED), explained that basically there are two hold harmless measures in this legislation. One of those measures addresses the charter schools that have more than 150 students, but have less than 150 students in a subsequent year. The hold harmless causes a charter school in such a situation to be funded at 95 percent of what 150 students would generate. The legislation requires a charter school in such a situation to develop and submit a plan for the upcoming year to the local school board. There is also a hold harmless provision for alternative schools such that when it has a student count of more than 175 one year, but falls below that the next year. Again, the alternative school in such a situation would be funded at 95 percent of 175 students in the subsequent year. Therefore, the hold harmless clause allows the school to plan for reduced funding or recruiting more children. CHAIR SEATON asked if EED views the aforementioned as an equitable manner in which to do long-range planning. MR. JEANS answered that it's an appropriate response. 9:37:13 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER, drawing from the fiscal note, related his understanding that the Mat-Su Borough School District may be a big winner with the passage of this legislation. He explained that in the Mat-Su Borough School District there are two alternative schools that are near the 200 student count threshold and one that has dropped below the 200 student count threshold. Therefore, the potential impact to the Mat-Su Borough School District is high. He then related his belief that an alternative school better serves students at the lower student count of 175. He asked if his assessment is correct. MR. JEANS replied yes, and then directed attention to page 3 of the fiscal note where it references the projected student counts of Mid Valley Alternative High School, which would qualify them for the hold harmless funding in fiscal year 2010 unless the enrollment exceeds the current projections. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER, in response to Representative Buch, specified that the alternative schools in the Mat-Su Valley are listed on page 3 of the fiscal note. 9:40:23 AM CHAIR SEATON asked if the committee members had any amendments; there were none offered. He then asked whether the committee would like to hold the legislation for a second hearing. He noted that although the committee has had one hearing on SB 57, it has held multiple discussions on the topics it encompasses. No request was made to hold the legislation for a second hearing. 9:40:59 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said that although he is willing to make the motion to forward the legislation from committee, he related a sense of loss in that money is being distributed without an attachment or incentive related to academic excellence. 9:41:50 AM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON mentioned that she has changed her view of charter schools in the system. 9:42:58 AM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to report CSSB 57(FIN) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, it was so ordered. 9:43:29 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, referring to surveys regarding why students drop out of school, highlighted that many of the reasons given for why students dropping out are addressed by charter schools. Therefore, she suggested that members review those ways in which charter schools support the efforts to improve graduation rates.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 59 background I.pdf |
HEDC 4/6/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 59 |
| HB 215 material.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/10/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 215 |
| HB 59 workdraft version E and original version R.pdf |
HEDC 4/6/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 59 |
| HB 59 background II.pdf |
HEDC 4/6/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 59 |
| HB59-ESS-EED-4-2-09.pdf |
HEDC 4/6/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 59 |
| SB 57 material I.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2009 8:00:00 AM |
SB 57 |
| SB 57 material II.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2009 8:00:00 AM |
SB 57 |