Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 106
02/26/2014 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB278 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 197 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 278 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 278-EDUCATION: FUNDING/TAX CREDITS/PROGRAMS
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 278, "An Act increasing the base student
allocation used in the formula for state funding of public
education; repealing the secondary student competency
examination and related requirements; relating to high school
course credit earned through assessment; relating to a college
and career readiness assessment for secondary students; relating
to charter school application appeals and program budgets;
relating to residential school applications; increasing the
stipend for boarding school students; extending unemployment
contributions for the Alaska technical and vocational education
program; relating to earning high school credit for completion
of vocational education courses offered by institutions
receiving technical and vocational education program funding;
relating to education tax credits; making conforming amendments;
and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR GATTIS said the committee would hear testimony on specific
sections of HB 278 directly affecting charter schools.
8:11:54 AM
SUSAN MCCAULEY, Director, Teaching and Learning Support,
Department of Education and Early Development, explained that
the portion of HB 278 related to charter schools has three main
components, the first of which clarifies the application
procedure. In the event a local school board denies the
application of a charter school, the board must put the reasons
for the denial in writing and provide the written denial to EED.
Currently, at the time of a denial EED is informed, but specific
information is not required. The second component allows a
charter school that has been denied to appeal the decision to
the commissioner [of EED]. The commissioner can uphold the
denial, or forward the application to the Alaska State Board of
Education & Early Development (State Board) for final
consideration. The appeal process ensures that the reasons for
denial are substantive and thoroughly vetted. Finally, the bill
clarifies that the funding for a charter school needs to include
certain components such as transportation, vocational and
technical education, and special services/students with
disabilities funding. Currently, statute dictates that funding
includes all funds generated by students that are enrolled in
the charter school, and without further specification, local
districts may have interpreted this statute differently.
8:14:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether charter schools will start
providing transportation to their students.
DR. MCCAULEY explained that the bill directs that transportation
funds generated by students enrolled in a charter school must be
forwarded to the charter school. Currently, a school district
could interpret the applicable statute to permit the retention
at the district level of transportation funds, which are
generated on a student-by-student basis. However, the bill does
not require that a charter school use the funds for
transportation such as home-to-school bus service.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX provided a scenario in which a school
district with 100 students has 50 students attending a charter
school. She asked if currently, such a school district would
receive transportation funds for 100 students.
8:16:16 AM
LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, EED,
indicated yes, and explained that in the past, school districts
had bus systems with approved routes and expenses, which were
reimbursed by the state. In about 2005, in an attempt to
control costs, the legislature directed that transportation
costs would be reimbursed determined by a formula based on the
needs of each school district. The formula is based on average
daily membership (ADM) and has been adjusted regarding the
amount allotted. Mr. Morse provided an example of one middle
school using three buses and another middle school across town
that uses thirteen buses. In this case, the transportation
allowance did not flow to the school per ADM, but was received
by the district per ADM, and the district provided funds to each
school for its transportation needs. He said he was unsure of
how a charter would use transportation funds, but suggested it
may establish drop-point transportation rather than home-to-
school busing. He concluded that the bill provides charter
schools with transportation opportunities.
8:20:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX described a village where all of the
students can walk to school, but the school receives
transportation funds through the formula. She asked whether the
school can use its transportation funds for other expenses.
MR. MORSE responded that generally, transportation funds are all
going for transportation. If the village in the example did not
have a reimbursable bus system in place, no transportation funds
would be allotted. Some rural districts may have a small busing
system with a low transportation allotment compared to an urban
school district. He expressed doubt that a school district
without the need for a busing system would receive
transportation funds under the current formula.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed concern that funds for
transportation fixed costs may be taken from a school district
and provided to a charter school, unless the charter school
provides transportation.
DR. MCCAULEY opined that the concept of the bill is that funds
that are generated by charter school students - as
transportation funds are - should be used to benefit charter
school students. On the other hand, funds that are not student-
generated can be used to support districtwide operations.
8:24:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER clarified that in the past, school
districts applied for reimbursement of costs, and then there was
a switch to a formula that allocated transportation funds on a
per student basis. Now, if a district did not have a need for a
transportation program, it does not receive funds.
MR. MORSE said the status of a district relates to when the
state changed from the reimbursable program to the formula
program. In some cases, a district may have villages that do
not run buses, but may have one "hub" with a single bus.
Therefore, that district's formula is very low.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER surmised that beyond the certain
allocation for the number of students, the need for
transportation is a factor.
MR. MORSE said there is a historical factor for need.
CHAIR GATTIS asked for an explanation of the two ways that
transportation is currently funded, both within and outside of
the formula, and she pointed out that outside of the formula,
not all districts pay for transportation to charter schools.
How the bill addresses this situation is also part of the
question. She noted that villages that do not provide
transportation still receive a portion through the base student
allocation (BSA). In addition, she asked whether a neighborhood
school is required to use its transportation funding to provide
transportation.
8:27:14 AM
MR. MORSE said the funds are based on ADM, and there are certain
requirements for busing students, depending on the distance
between neighborhood schools and students' homes; however, the
need is based on the historical need at the time the system
switched from reimbursable to the current formula funding.
Furthermore, the transportation formula is separate from the BSA
formula.
CHAIR GATTIS said the main question is whether students are
benefiting from "the money that was meant for them."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER observed that under current law, there is
no requirement to use transportation funds for transportation
purposes. He asked whether school districts are directing
transportation funds to other purposes and if so, have
objections been raised.
MR. MORSE advised that generally districts find that
transportation funds meet the expenses of transportation, thus
it is a rare case that transportation funds are not used for
that purpose.
8:29:32 AM
DR. MCCAULEY restated that it is possible for a district to
interpret the current statute regarding charter school funding
to retain transportation funds generated by charter school
students. For example, a district with charter schools students
would receive transportation funds for those students, and it is
possible that a school district could retain those funds.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether the aforementioned
possibility is happening.
DR. MCCAULEY responded that information regarding how a district
relegates funds to charter schools is not collected by EED. In
further response to Representative Saddler, she said the bill
addresses the problem of a lack of clarity regarding funds that
are generated by charter school students; the bill is more
specific regarding the distribution of those funds.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER inquired whether the lack of clarity is
causing problems.
DR. MCCAULEY said EED is aware of different practices from
district to district, and of differences regarding how the
statute is interpreted by the eight school districts with
charter schools, but is unaware of specific differences in the
distribution of transportation funds.
8:32:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER surmised EED seeks to forestall the use
in the future of charter student-generated funds for purposes
other than transportation.
DR. MCCAULEY opined the problem is the lack of clarity resulting
in different interpretations regarding "what funds generated by
students enrolled in a charter school mean exactly. Does it
mean only formula funds? Does it mean funds outside the
formula? This language is intended to clear that up."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether districts have requested
clarity or if EED seeks clarity.
DR. MCCAULEY stated the change to provide clarity is driven by
an expectation that charter school law should be "crystal clear"
regarding funding, which is the standard that has been achieved
by other states.
8:33:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reminded the committee that in 2005 there
was 100 percent reimbursable support for approved student
transportation systems in the state. In order to control the
growth [of transportation expenses], the legislature converted
the reimbursement based on school districts' transportation
costs at that time. This resulted in a per student expense
formula that supported not the transportation cost for each
student, but the transportation system of the district. The
problem today is that [the proposed legislation] will divert
funds from the transportation system to individual charter
schools, and the district transportation system will no longer
be supported. Thus a district such as the Kenai Peninsula
Borough School District, with a robust number of charter
schools, will have substantial funds pulled from the
districtwide transportation system - which is underfunded anyway
- and will take the per student funding - which has been
supporting the district transportation system - and give it to a
charter school, which is receiving the same transportation
support as any other public school. He opined this will destroy
the existing transportation system, and asked for confirmation
of the accuracy of his statement.
8:37:26 AM
DR. MCCAULEY advised that currently the majority of charter
schools do not receive busing services. The academic policy
committee, which is the governing board of a charter school,
manages its own budget, and historically does not provide
transportation. This poses a challenge as charter school
students do not come from a geographic area, and home-to-school
transportation is impractical. School districts are faced with
the dilemma of the difficulty of arranging transportation to a
charter school, yet transportation funds are generated by
charter school students who receive no benefit. The intent of
the bill is to provide some funding to charter schools to
provide basic transportation services, so that parents are not
exclusively providing transportation, thus establishing equity
and clarity.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that transportation funds are
not generated on a per student basis in neighborhood schools
either, as there are neighborhood schools that do not have bus
service. He observed that the bill does not allow for
transportation funds to be allocated on a per student basis to
all public schools, but just to charter schools. Representative
Seaton suggested that if HB 278 is passed, the legislature will
need to return to a reimbursable type of transportation system
because the proposed legislation will make the current busing
system financially untenable throughout the state. In fact,
money will be taken out of the classroom to maintain the current
busing systems. He opined that rural school districts with
several charter schools will lose money for their transportation
system.
8:42:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said that many schools have students
within walking distance and yet receive transportation funds.
She suggested that these schools have slush funds for
transportation. She said the bill is brilliant and equitable,
and provides that charter schools are no longer penalized,
because they are efficient and high performing schools.
Representative Reinbold observed that if transportation costs
are high, an internal audit is in order to determine the reason.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX agreed with Representative Seaton's
opinion; although charter schools should be provided a
transportation component, the funds cannot be taken out of the
formula on a one-to-one basis due to the fixed costs that must
be considered.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON agreed with Representative Seaton as to
how transportation funds are allocated. She suggested that a
simple solution would require districts to alter routes and,
using the same amount of money available, bus students to all
schools.
8:46:40 AM
DR. MCCAULEY said she did not intend to imply that districts are
using transportation funds for purposes other than
transportation. The problem is that there is a difference
between districts regarding whether transportation funds
generated by charter school students benefit those same
students, thus there is a potential for disparity. The bill is
intended to ensure that there are transportation benefits for
charter school students since the mechanism that generates
transportation funds is per student.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON restated her suggestion to bus all
students.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned the practicality of busing a
student across an area like Anchorage to a charter school.
Secondly, funds that are generated per student should be
dispersed fairly; for example, students at the school in her
neighborhood are not bused, and transportation funds do not
benefit those students. She observed that, if HB 278 passes,
charter schools that are located within neighborhood schools
will receive transportation funds that the "regular public"
school will not, which is not fair either.
8:51:24 AM
DR. MCCAULEY responded that the feasibility of providing bus
service is a difficult situation. She offered a personal
anecdote of the busing service to the charter school where she
acted as principal, and how a system was worked out with the
district that allowed approximately 60 children out of 300 to
ride a school bus to school. The intent behind HB 278 is to
ensure that all charter students receive some benefit, and she
acknowledged the dilemma about how best to do so. The language
of the bill provides a mechanism that provides transportation
funds to charter schools across the state, and benefits to
charter school students, such as those provided to her school.
8:54:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to the equity for students who
walk to their neighborhood school without benefitting from
transportation funds.
DR. MCCAULEY said districts are charged with operating schools
that meet the needs within their area. She remarked, as
follows:
I think that going too far in the consideration of
funds generated by students in neighborhood schools
benefitting those students - I don't personally think
that that is an appropriate application. The charter
school structure is entirely different in terms of how
it operates. It is, 'Charter school here are your
funds, make it work.' Everything from trash pickup to
snow plowing to ... staffing, facility costs, all of
it ....
DR. MCCAULEY concluded that the construct of a charter school is
fundamentally different from that of neighborhood schools thus
the "per pupil generated fund perspective" cannot be
appropriately applied. Charter schools have autonomy to make
decisions that would otherwise be made at the district level
such as pupil-teacher ratios (PTR), extra-curricular activities,
and curriculum. She stressed that charter schools and
neighborhood schools are not interchangeable.
8:56:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the aforementioned "slush
funds for walkers." He recalled that the transportation funding
formula was based on the busing systems in place, thus if
students were walking to a local school, the district received
no transportation funds for that school. He stressed that every
district has a different formula for transportation based on its
historic transportation needs; there is not a base amount across
the state so that each district receives the same amount on a
per student basis. He acknowledged that this formula has skewed
since 2005, because bus routes and situations have changed; for
example, in one district a school closed and students had to be
flown to school. He restated that the formula is not the same
across the state and noted that in his district, transportation
for all of the charter school students is accommodated. He
suggested that the real problem is when the formula is
misunderstood that it is generated per student; in fact, some
districts get zero [funding] and some get a lot because in 2005
their busing system was expensive.
9:00:20 AM
CHAIR GATTIS directed that a presentation related to busing and
transportation costs will be forthcoming during further review
of the bill.
DR. MCCAULEY restated that the language of the bill is meant to
remedy the following situation: A student who has been bused to
a neighborhood school and decides to attend a charter school
near the neighborhood school, and then the student no longer has
the opportunity to ride the school bus.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER directed attention to page 7, lines [9]-
12 of the bill that read, in part:
and includes funds generated by special needs under AS
14.17.420(a)(1), secondary school vocational and
technical instruction under AS 14.17.420(a)(3), and
pupil transportation under AS 14.09.010.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked how the language in the bill could
lead a member of the committee to believe that the bill will
destroy the busing system.
DR. MCCAULEY was unsure. She offered to provide more
information on the intent of the bill and a full presentation
regarding current "transportation circumstances."
9:02:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked:
If we have the funding for a bus system ... [in a
district with] a fairly good proportion that are going
to charter schools, if we pull out that funding from
that bus system, how does the district maintain the
busing system when we've pulled out the per student
allocation, which is the formula to support that
busing system?
DR. MCCAULEY restated her offer to provide more information on
how much money is involved, districts with several charter
schools, the amount of funding per pupil, and the overall impact
of transportation dollars following the charter school students.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON then asked Dr. McCauley if she agreed that
in a district with a robust system of charter schools, the
impact on its busing system would be much greater than on a
district with no or few charter schools.
DR. MCCAULEY confirmed that the bill structure is that
transportation funds generated by charter school students would
follow the charter school student and therefore, more funds
would come out of a district with more charter schools.
9:05:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX directed attention to section 9 of the
bill which read:
* Sec. 9. AS 14.03.260(a) is amended to read:
(a) A local school board shall provide an
approved charter school with an annual program budget.
The budget shall be not less than the amount generated
by the students enrolled in the charter school less
administrative costs retained by the local school
district, determined by applying the indirect cost
rate approved by the Department of Education and Early
Development. The "amount generated by students
enrolled in the charter school" is to be determined in
the same manner as it would be for a student enrolled
in another public school in that school district and
includes funds generated by special needs under AS
14.17.420(a)(1), secondary school vocational and
technical instruction under AS 14.17.420(a)(3), and
pupil transportation under AS 14.09.010. A school
district shall direct state aid under AS 14.11 for the
construction or major maintenance of a charter school
facility to the charter school that generated the
state aid, subject to the same terms and conditions
that apply to state aid under AS 14.11 for
construction or major maintenance of a school facility
that is not a charter school.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said section 9 relates not only to
transportation, but also to funds generated by special needs
students. She gave an example of a school district with 100
special needs students, none of which attend charter schools,
and asked if charter schools in the district would get funding
generated by the special needs students.
DR. MCCAULEY explained:
The language here is that, as part of the formula in
which there is a special needs factor of 1.2, that
that would be applied to the generation of funds of
the budget for the charter school. It is to ensure
that that special needs factor, as part of the
formula, is applied when a district is determining the
budget for a charter school.
9:06:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX gave a further example of a district with
10 special needs students, each costing $100,000 and in the same
district a charter school that may not have special needs
students due to its academic criteria. However, the charter
school may receive funding, through the formula, without taking
on the responsibility of special needs students.
DR. MCCAULEY pointed out the difference between the special
needs factor in the formula of 1.2, and "intensive funding,
which is times 13". She further explained that the language in
the bill does not include intensive needs funding; in fact, the
language in the bill is exclusively to ensure the inclusion of
the items listed in section 9, and limited with regard to
special education to the special needs factor of 1.2, and
purposefully excludes the requirement of intensive needs
funding, which are the funds intended to support students with
significant disabilities. Those funds are not required to be
forwarded to a charter school.
9:09:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX acknowledged that transportation is
necessary to assist working parents, especially low-income
working parents, to have the opportunity for their children to a
attend charter school; however, she questioned whether a charter
school without special needs students should take funds away
from a neighborhood school.
DR. MCCAULEY assured the committee that the enrollment process
for charter schools does not permit a charter school to deny
acceptance to students with IEPs with disabilities.
Furthermore, all of the charter schools have special education
students in percentages ranging from 2.2 percent to 23.7 percent
of the school's population. The statewide average of students
with disabilities in charter schools is close to that of schools
in general.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reflected on the wide variety of special
needs students attending charter schools. He suggested it would
be more applicable to have the 1.2 factor apply based on the
number of students in the schools, and on the BSA. The 1.2
factor equals a 20 percent increase in funding and this would
fund charter schools on the percentage of students enrolled who
satisfy the criteria.
DR. MCCAULEY said the intent is to leverage the existing
formulas through which districts receive funding to ensure that
when they calculate the budget for a charter school, the funding
element of the number of special needs students is included.
Representative Seaton's recommendation would require 'something
different' from EED in the way the special needs factor is
considered. The intent is just to clarify that the special
needs factor should be included in the calculation of a charter
school budget.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that the proposed bill will require
something different in that money will flow in a different way.
Some charter schools will have a few students generating special
needs income and some will have more. He expressed his belief
that the percentage should be tied to that of the percentage of
special needs students in the district, and then requested
further information from EED on how funds would be implemented
on a pro rata basis to the charter schools that have numbers of
special needs students.
9:14:49 AM
CHAIR GATTIS discussed the need for further information from EED
on the funding formulas.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked to have EED provide information on
special needs funding under AS 14.17.420(a)(1) and also on a
proportional distribution within a school district by student
enrollment. He remarked:
So it's really not changing anything other than saying
that the funds generated and applied proportionally to
the charter school versus the rest of the district.
... It refines it so we don't get these [real]
discrepancies where we have a charter school that has
few special needs students getting the same money as a
charter school ... that has a lot of special needs
students ....
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked to hear testimony from a variety
of school districts on how they will be affected by the changes
in transportation funding.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER directed attention to section 8, on page
6, line 31 of the bill that read:
[SECONDARY SCHOOL COMPETENCY TESTING AS PROVIDED IN
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether line 31 deletes only the
high school graduation qualifying exam (HSGQE) or other
competency testing.
DR. MCCAULEY answered that this only refers to the HSGQE.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER surmised that if the HSGQE is not
repealed, charter schools will still be required to administer
the exam.
DR. MCCAULEY said correct.
9:18:46 AM
CHAIR GATTIS reminded the committee that charter schools are
part of the public school system and fall under all of the state
requirements for public schools.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON returned attention to section 9, line 10
of the bill [text provided above], related to secondary school
vocational and technical instruction. He observed that the
formula directs 2 percent per pupil to the district for
vocational and technical instruction and asked whether a portion
of these funds would be directed to a charter school whether it
is an elementary or secondary school.
DR. MCCAULEY said in a similar manner to the special needs
factor, the language in the bill refers to part of the formula.
The career and technical education factor is 1.015, but
different than the transportation funding - which is outside the
formula - the bill directs that the factor of 1.015 would be
used as part of the formula by which the funds for charter
schools, that include secondary school students, are generated.
In further response to Representative Seaton, she said the funds
would only apply to schools that enroll secondary level
students, and offered to provide EED's answer as to what are the
grade levels of secondary students.
9:22:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER directed attention to section 6 of the
bill that read:
Sec. 6. AS 14.03.250 is repealed and reenacted to
read:
Sec. 14.03.250. Application for charter school.
(a) A local school board shall prescribe an
application procedure for the establishment of a
charter school in that school district. The
application procedure must include provisions for an
academic policy committee consisting of parents of
students attending the school, teachers, and school
employees and a proposed form for a contract between a
charter school and the local school board, setting out
the contract elements required under AS 14.03.255(c).
(b) The decision of the local school board
approving or denying the application for a charter
school must be in writing and must include all
relevant findings of fact and conclusions of law.
(c) If the local school board approves an
application for a charter school, the local school
board shall forward the application to the state board
for review and approval.
(d) If the local school board denies an
application for a charter school, the applicant may
appeal the denial to the commissioner. The appeal to
the commissioner shall be filed not later than 60 days
after the local school board issues its written
decision of denial. The commissioner shall review the
local school board's decision to determine whether the
findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence
and whether the decision is contrary to law. A
decision of the commissioner upholding the denial by
the local school board is a final decision not subject
to appeal to the state board.
(e) If the commissioner approves a charter school
application, the commissioner shall forward the
application to the state board for review and
approval. The application shall be forwarded not later
than 30 days after the commissioner issues a written
decision. The state board shall exercise independent
judgment in evaluating the application.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether in current law the State
Board must approve or deny a charter school application.
DR. MCCAULEY said yes. In further response to Representative
Saddler, she explained that another statute clarifies that the
State Board ultimately determines whether a charter school is
approved or denied. Section 6 is intended to connect the State
Board to the appeal process.
9:23:51 AM
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, EED, said that Dr. McCauley is
correct in that currently there is other statutory language that
the State Board gives final approval for charter schools;
[section 6 in the proposed bill] provides that if a charter
school application is denied at the local level, and the
commissioner approves the application, the decision remains with
the State Board. In further response to Representative Saddler,
he said he would provide the relevant statutory authorization.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to section 7 of the
bill which read:
Sec. 7. AS 14.03 is amended by adding a new section to
read:
Sec. 14.03.253. Charter school application appeal
to commissioner. In an appeal to the commissioner
under AS 14.03.250, the commissioner shall review the
record before the local school board. The commissioner
may request written supplementation of the record from
the applicant or the local school board. The
commissioner may
(1) remand the appeal to the local school board
for further review;
(2) approve the charter school application and
forward the application to the state board with or
without added conditions; or
(3) uphold the decision denying the application
for the charter school.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the commissioner was
required to act on one of the three options set out in section
7.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said yes.
9:25:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired as to the criteria under which
the commissioner will review and either approve or deny the
application, questioning whether the criteria is based on the
charter school's goals, objectives, and plan.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY referred to section 6, subsection (b) of the
bill [text provided above]. If the denial is based on fact and
the conclusions of law, for instance, the charter school
applicant is not going to accept special education students, the
application would be denied because it violates the law. He
acknowledged that there are no specific criteria for the
commissioner to use, but it is anticipated that the reference
would return to the findings of fact, although there are no
specifics as to what the commissioner would consider in the
appeal.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON was unsure as to the amount and the basis
of discretion that the language of the bill provides. He
cautioned that the commissioner's denial or approval of an
appeal should be on a defined basis.
9:27:57 AM
CHAIR GATTIS opened public testimony on HB 278.
9:28:52 AM
BARBARA GERARD, Principal, Academy Charter School, said she
appreciated the emphasis Governor Parnell and legislators have
placed on improving education. Ms. Gerard addressed one of the
barriers to creating a charter school, which is housing
students. Of the six charter schools in the Matanuska-Susitna
(Mat-Su) Valley, five pay to lease space because they have no
other option, and this takes money away from instruction.
Another challenge is the start-up cost to provide desks and
curriculum materials. These are the two main barriers to
opening a charter school, and she spoke in support of
legislation to address these two areas. Ms. Gerard said the
charter schools in Mat-Su are strong and healthy due to the
leadership of the superintendent, however, charter schools need
to have in law funding requirements including indirect fees, how
the funding follows the student, and funding facilities, in
order to grow and focus on instruction. She thanked the
committee for its support of education and all children.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether charter school applications
have been denied by the local school board in Mat-Su.
MS. GERARD recalled one or two did not complete the application
process, and one charter school closed, but she did not have
further information.
CHAIR GATTIS, speaking as a former school board member, said one
application was denied, but instead was housed within a
neighborhood school.
9:33:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked how the requirement to provide a
facility affects the instructional program at Academy Charter
School.
MS. GERARD explained that Academy Charter School has a different
situation, but to lease space the other charter schools must
take as much as $400,000 out of their operational budgets, which
could be used for teachers or curriculum.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked how state funding for charter
schools should change to eliminate the disparity.
MS. GERARD suggested per pupil funding for charter schools or an
option for bonding at a 70/30 ratio that would allow charter
schools to acquire permanent facilities.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER agreed with the previous speaker that a
charter school should demonstrate a level of success.
9:36:23 AM
BECKY HUGGINS, Principal, American Charter Academy, informed the
committee that the schools in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough
School District (MSBSD) enjoy support from its superintendent,
administration, and the school board. However, her experience
is that administrations change and support is not statewide.
She expressed her support of an appeals process with multiple
authorizers, and expanding the routes available for Alaskans who
are seeking educational choice. In addition, she recommended
the creation of a mechanism that moves facility cost outside of
discretionary funds, which would begin to equalize charter
schools with other public schools. In addition, there should be
the ability for charter schools to bond for facilities at a
better than 70/30 ratio.
9:38:52 AM
MS. HUGGINS continued, noting that the existing charter school
facilities law needs further definition to identify a per pupil
formula that reflects the district's capital costs; for example,
account for rent, construction, maintenance, upkeep, and
expansions to compare and clarify the facility allowance. She
also suggested that charter schools should have the right of
first refusal for closed or underused public buildings.
Regarding the charter school law, she suggested adding for
clarification that charter schools are exempt from all laws,
regulations, and requirements applicable to public schools
unless the law states it applies to charter schools. In the
same vein, charter schools should be exempt from all portions of
negotiated agreements that are contrary to the charter school
law. Regarding funding, Ms. Huggins said all sources of funding
should be shared with charter schools. In her district, charter
schools benefit from the BSA formula as do the local schools,
including special needs funds. Also, the current indirect rate
fluctuates, making budgeting and long-range planning difficult.
She said that the American Charter Academy uses school
transportation, and acknowledged that if transportation funds
are directed to her school she could not provide the
transportation that the district is currently providing.
Therefore, Ms. Huggins recommended that transportation funding
continue to the districts, and that the districts are required
to provide "required/desired transportation for charter school
students at a level equal to or greater to the services provided
all students."
9:44:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for clarification on the school's
transportation needs.
MS. HUGGINS explained that the current system of regular school
bus routes and shuttle buses to the charter school is working
very well. However, if the school were given a little
transportation fund, it could not provide the same level of
service.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD agreed with granting charter schools the
right of first refusal to facilities. She paraphrased the
transportation issue, as proposed in HB 278, and said her
understanding is that the bill would allow the money to follow
the student going to the charter school, via larger contracts.
MS. HUGGINS expressed her concern about having the money follow
the student, regarding transportation, because it is not a per
pupil equation. She said the state needs to support all
students in all schools in the same manner.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether Ms. Huggins supported the
proposed transportation language in HB 278.
MS. HUGGINS was unsure, but stated her support for ensuring that
transportation for charter school students is equal to what is
provided to other schools.
9:48:58 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY clarified that the intent of the bill is
that the amount generated by students enrolled in charter
schools is to be determined in the same manner. However, a
district can choose to supply a charter school with
transportation that provides the service "in the same manner"
thus the charter school and district can determine the best
contract for transportation.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Ms. Huggins for more information on
the 70/30 bonding opportunity that was missed in her school
district.
MS. HUGGINS answered that her school was originally part of a
large bonding package; however, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Assembly determined that the bond package would only include
projects reimbursed on a 70/30 ratio. For an unknown reason,
charter schools are only authorized to bond at a 60/40 ratio
thus a rare opportunity was missed.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested that EED fully explain the
bonding system as it applies to charter schools.
CHAIR GATTIS informed EED the committee would hear a
presentation pertaining to charter school facilities.
9:53:05 AM
ROBERT BOYLE, Superintendent, Ketchikan Gateway Borough School
District, informed the committee the State Board is the
controlling factor that determines the relationship between
school districts and charter schools; in fact, decisions by the
State Board supersede those by district superintendents.
Transportation services can be operated by the school district
or contracted, which is the system in Ketchikan, and the
transportation contract costs the school district approximately
$90,000 per bus route. Transportation funds generated on a
daily count basis do not cover this expense; however, pooling
funds allows the district to operate this service at a neutral
cost, because not every student needs transportation, for
example, many high school students drive to school. Charter
schools are offered full access to transportation, although the
bus system is designed around neighborhood schools, and service
to charter school students requires some modifications by
charter schools regarding the start time of their school day.
Mr. Boyle agreed that the money generated by the charter
schools' ADM count would be insufficient to operate an
independent bus system. He assured the committee that the
charter schools in his school district are "fully embraced" in
all funding aspects, and a facility is provided, as is
transportation, maintenance, and support.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether transportation costs are
deducted from charter school funding.
MR. BOYLE answered that transportation costs are a systemwide
component, and added that the biggest obstacle to providing
adequate funding for charter schools is the required ADM count.
State statute requires 150 students for a charter school, and he
suggested that if the legislature desires more active charter
schools, it should review the requirement for 150 ADM.
9:57:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX observed that the committee has heard
testimony that transportation services are not a problem for
charter schools in Wasilla and Ketchikan. She asked which
districts do not help charter schools with regard to
transportation.
DR. MCCAULEY said EED does not collect information related to
the level of transportation in each district. In further
response to Representative LeDoux, she said she would research
the question.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether charter schools pay for a
transportation contract in areas where transportation is
coordinated with the school district in the Mat-Su Borough.
DR. MCCAULEY responded that in her experience transportation was
provided to the charter school as part of its indirect rate
which pays for services provided by the district.
[HB 278 was heard and held.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB197 Letter of Support.pdf |
HEDC 2/26/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 197 |
| HB197 Support-3rd Grade Literacy.pdf |
HEDC 2/26/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 197 |
| HB197 Support-3rd Grade Policies.pdf |
HEDC 2/26/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 197 |
| HB197 Support-A State at Risk.pdf |
HEDC 2/26/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 197 |
| HB197 Support-ASD Retentions.pdf |
HEDC 2/26/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 197 |
| HB197 Support-Ending Social Promotion.pdf |
HEDC 2/26/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 197 |
| HB197 Support-New York Retention.pdf |
HEDC 2/26/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 197 |