Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 106
02/28/2014 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 278 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 278-EDUCATION: FUNDING/TAX CREDITS/PROGRAMS
8:06:35 AM
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."
[Presentation and discussion limited to the school
transportation section of HB 278.]
8:07:27 AM
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), said his presentation is in response to the
committee's questions about the appropriateness of
transportation being listed as a component of [HB 278]. The
presentation will include the history of the transportation
component, its funding, and its impact on districts.
Commissioner Hanley began by reading the current statutory
language as follows:
The budget for charter schools shall not be less than
the amount generated by the students, and that the
amount generated by students enrolled in the charter
school is to be determined in the same manner as it
would for students enrolled in other public schools.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY explained that the language of the charter
school portion of the bill is based on - and is a clarification
of - the aforementioned current language. The idea of the new
language in the bill is not to add new components, but to
recognize and clarify the amount of funding generated by
students, specifically transportation funding. He stressed that
the language is addressing equity, and issues of disparity, that
have been brought to the attention of EED. Commissioner Hanley
directed attention to a document found in the committee packet
entitled, "Transportation of Pupils," and dated 2/28/14, which
read:
Sec. AS 14.09.010. Transportation of students.
(a) A school district that provides student
transportation services for the transportation of
students who reside a distance from established
schools is eligible to receive funding for operating
or subcontracting the operation of the transportation
system for students to and from the schools within the
student's transportation service area. Subject to
appropriation, the amount of funding provided by the
state for operating the student transportation system
is the amount of a school district's ADM, less the ADM
for the district's correspondence programs during the
current fiscal year, multiplied by the per student
amount for the school district as follows:
COMMISSIONER HANLEY stated that the transportation program was
once a reimbursable program; districts submitted their costs to
EED and the department reviewed and reimbursed the costs. About
ten years ago, in an attempt to encourage efficiencies, EED
moved from a reimbursable amount to a block grant program based
on the average daily membership (ADM) in a district and a
formula that calculates how much a district receives. He
referred to a second document found in the committee packet
entitled "Pupil Transportation Program - Charter School
PROJECTIONS," and dated 2/28/14. This document indicated the
projected fiscal year 2014 (FY 14) ADM and per child
transportation costs for each school district which, when
multiplied, determine the amount of each district's
transportation grant. Also, two separate columns indicated the
additional projections for the students enrolled in charter
schools in eight districts.
8:11:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked for the consequences to a charter
school whose ADM drops below 150 students.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said if a charter school falls below 150
students it is in hold-harmless standing, and receives 95
percent of its funding for that year.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON pointed out that the charter schools in
Juneau and Nome are below 150 students. She asked whether that
meant less funding from the state every year.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY clarified that the students in those schools
generate less funding from the state for their districts. He
said he would provide further clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether transportation to school is
mandated by state statute.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY advised transportation is included in EED's
intent and responsibility to provide an education for all
students in the state; although he was unsure of the directive
in statute, it is recognized by state and federal governments
that access to education is part of the requirement to provide
education to all students.
8:15:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for the distance from school that
qualifies a student for transportation.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY noted that the districts decide the exact
distance, and he read from the statute as follows:
The school district provides student transportation
services for the transportation of students who reside
a distance from established schools. [Said student] is
eligible to receive funding.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY added that there are other factors besides
distance, such as a situation where a student would have to walk
across a highway.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled that when transportation was
reimbursable, the state only paid for bus service for students
who lived over one and one-half miles from school.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY agreed there were criteria as to what was
reimbursed such as hazards and other extenuating circumstances.
In further response to Representative Seaton, he confirmed that
there are no longer criteria because the [grant amounts] for
districts are based on the transportation contracts that were in
place at the time of the change from the reimbursable program.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred back to the PROJECTIONS document
and clarified that the [estimated grant amount for the
transportation of charter school students] is reflected in the
column under the heading: Charter School Projected Pupil
Transportation Funding. He concluded that the state does not
pay a certain amount per student across the state; the state
pays a per student amount related to the cost of transportation
that was in place in 2005. For example, the Alaska Gateway
School District is granted $2,195 per student, and the Annette
Island School District is granted $192 per student. The idea
that each student generates a certain amount of money is
incorrect.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY observed that the grant amounts were
originally based on the routes the districts ran, and the number
of students served at that time. Last year or the year before
the legislature made adjustments to those costs.
8:19:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX speculated about the sense of busing a
student less than one mile.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY reminded the committee of EED's previous
testimony that charter school students are generating
transportation funds for their district, thus the district needs
to negotiate with charter schools on the logistics of
transportation for their students, so that the district provides
that service in the same manner that it is provided for other
students in the district. On the other hand, a district could
direct transportation funds directly to the charter school, to
be used for transportation only. He stressed that the intent of
the bill is to prevent a district from retaining transportation
funds and leaving the charter school "on [its] own as far as
transportation goes." He pointed out that there are only two
school districts that don't provide transportation to charter
schools.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON reported that the Ketchikan Gateway
Borough School District has an agreement to provide the charter
school transportation.
8:23:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that the Anchorage School District
(ASD) works creatively to provide transportation for homeless
students so they can stay at the same school no matter where
they are.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON cautioned that the bill may increase
conflicts between charter schools and school districts. For
example, a charter school may require students to provide their
own transportation, and by the change in statute proposed by the
bill, still receive the transportation funds allocated for their
students. This would result in a negative impact to the
district's busing system, and exacerbate conflicts between
charter schools and the school district.
8:26:01 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY pointed out that if a charter school chooses
to receive transportation funds, those funds must be used for
transportation. In addition, he assured the committee that the
state will not interfere in a required contract between a
charter school and school district; moreover, transportation
needs to be addressed at the time of the contract. He opined
that transportation is currently an issue of disparity and is a
"built-in conflict" that the bill seeks to relieve.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON questioned whether transportation funds
are audited in each school district to ensure that the funds are
spent on transportation.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said no. However, EED believes that school
districts and the charter schools will discuss how to spend
transportation funds for efficiency and to provide
transportation services.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested a simpler means would be to
require in statute that all school districts must provide
transportation to students attending neighborhood and charter
schools. She acknowledged Anchorage may have a problem doing
so.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded:
We don't want to step in and tell a district how to
implement the most efficient process, what we want to
do is clarify language that already says 'You need to
be fair to charters, and don't forget you need to
consider the pupil transportation funds that are
generated.' Beyond that we don't want to step in on
how to implement, we want to say, 'Recognize that in
the contract you have with your charters.'
8:30:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III stated that some districts, such as
Juneau, have an easier time identifying the allocable cost for a
charter school, but in Anchorage there are multiple charter
school facilities for students from all over the district.
Parents of students attending Anchorage charter schools cannot
determine the transportation "share" generated by their
child(ren), raising questions about equity.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY agreed.
CHAIR GATTIS commented that some school districts are very large
and solving transportation problems requires a lot of discussion
between the districts and charter schools. However, without the
proposed bill, charter schools are not allowed to participate in
the discussions.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON observed some areas don't have enough
students to warrant a bus and alternatives may need to be
considered, such as taxis or carpooling.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX opined that the directives related to
transportation funding in the bill interfere with school
districts more than just a requirement to provide transportation
to all charter school students; in fact, Anchorage is the only
district not accepting this responsibility. An agreement
between ASD, its charter schools, and Anchorage charter school
parents would supplant a change in funding.
8:36:22 AM
DEENA PARAMO, Superintendent, Matanuska-Susitna Borough School
District (MSBSD), agreed with Commissioner Hanley that providing
transportation requires extensive conversations between school
district administrations and charter school principals. This is
not just a charter school issue in that districts are provided
transportation funds for students attending neighborhood,
charter, and special mission schools, such as Chugach Optional
Elementary School in Anchorage. At MSBSD, the administration
quantified the amount of transportation funds generated and
queried the charter schools for their preferences. For
instance, the location of one charter school determined that it
would use its funds for full transportation. Other charter
schools use hubs to collect students from outlying areas; in
fact, one route is 90 minutes in duration. Hubs are used to
transport students efficiently to all of the other schools as
well. Traditional busing service for neighborhood schools is
provided, although high school and junior high students are
allowed to mix in order to offer options, choices, and
efficiencies.
8:39:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON posed a scenario in which a charter school
is allocated its transportation amount, but does not collaborate
with the school district on transportation. It is not in
statute that transportation funds must be used for
transportation, and if the district needs the money, would the
district justify retaining the charter school's transportation
funds.
DR. PARAMO said school districts have three funds: operational,
transportation, and food-service. If there were excess money in
transportation, money can be carried over to the next year and
used for transportation. Further, transportation funds from the
state cannot be used for field trips, but only for home-to-
school transportation. She said she could have a reserve
transportation fund, but could not transfer money to a different
fund.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled that the original structure of
the law was to allow districts to identify efficiencies and if
so, reserve funds.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she would like to hear from schools
in Anchorage.
CHAIR GATTIS inquired as to ways to incentivize other districts
to work with charter schools on the transportation issue.
DR. PARAMO was unsure, except to bring the problem to light.
8:44:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that if the law required school
districts to provide transportation to charter school students,
and this was not done, the repercussions from violating a law
would provide charter schools "a place at the table."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON returned attention to the PROJECTIONS
document and noted that some school districts have huge expenses
per student for transportation. He cautioned that putting a
requirement for charter school student transportation in statute
should be carefully considered.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said the current language in the bill
is appropriate because it promotes collaboration and equity.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY clarified an earlier response as to whether
the law requires that a district or the state must provide
transportation. He read from the document entitled,
Transportation of Pupils [text found above] and pointed out that
the statute does not direct that all school districts "shall
provide." However, if an Alaska school district suddenly
refused to provide transportation, legal issues would arise.
Commissioner Hanley restated that the intent of the bill is to
treat charter schools like traditional public schools, and solve
problems at the "ground level."
8:51:10 AM
CHAIR GATTIS turned attention to the transportation portion of
the bill related to changes in busing contracts. She asked for
an explanation of the circumstances surrounding the
transportation of students who attend Monroe Catholic, a private
religious school in Fairbanks.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY directed attention to AS 14.09.020 which
read in part:
AS 14.09.020. Transportation for nonpublic
school students
In those places in the state where the department or a
school district provides transportation for children
attending public schools, the department also shall
provide transportation for children who, in compliance
with the provision of AS 14.30, attend nonpublic
schools that are administered in compliance with state
law where the children, in order to reach the
nonpublic schools, must travel distances comparable
to, and over routes the same as, the distances and
routes over which the children attending public
schools are transported. ...
COMMISSIONER HANLEY advised that this statute allows EED to
provide transportation to nonpublic school students following
the same bus route as the public school students.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether a court case, perhaps
related to the provisions of the Blaine Amendment, has ever
ensued from this provision.
[Note: Alaska's "Blaine Amendment" language is part of the
Alaska State Constitution Article 7, Paragraph 1 which reads:
"The legislature shall by general law establish and maintain a
system of public schools open to all children of the State, and
may provide for other public educational institutions. Schools
and institutions so established shall be free from sectarian
control. No money shall be paid from public funds for the
direct benefit of any religious or other private educational
institution."]
COMMISSIONER HANLEY expressed his understanding that the
language of the Blaine Amendment speaks to benefiting a private
or religious entity, and the historical interpretation of the
statute is that transportation benefits a child, and is not a
direct benefit to the private or religious school.
CHAIR GATTIS opined the focus of HB 278 is on what is best for
kids.
8:55:55 AM
DAVE JONES, Assistant Superintendent, Kenai Peninsula Borough
School District (KPBSD), informed the committee that in his
district charter school students are transported in a manner
similar to, and under the same regulations as, the traditional
school students. Currently there are four charter schools, and
three utilize the school district transportation service. Prior
to 2005, KPBSD was reimbursed for transportation costs by route,
thus a route could be added with approval from EED. He recalled
that one state regulation was that the district did not have to
transport students living less than one and one-half mile from
school, unless warranted by a hazardous condition. Mr. Jones
explained that when the reimbursable program changed to a block
grant program, the per student funding allowance came from the
calculation of the cost of the bus routes a district had in
2005, divided by the number of students; therefore the allowance
that has been carried forward was based on the framework
existing in 2005.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that a school district that had
been conscious of its transportation costs was penalized under
this system.
MR. JONES said that was possible; however, the state required
that routes were proven necessary by the number of children.
9:01:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON recalled some frugal districts were
frustrated with the change to the block grant.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reflected on the effect of the proposed
change on school districts. For example, if the statute directs
that charter school funding includes the transportation
allowance, and one charter school does not need transportation,
but still collects the transportation amount, that amount would
be subtracted from the [funds supporting the] existing routes in
the district. He asked how the district's transportation system
would be affected.
MR. JONES responded that in his district if a charter school
decided to take the transportation allotment instead of
transportation services, "it would be hard for [them] to do
that." He explained that the current bus contract is paid by
$9.65 that KPBSD receives per student. The district would not
be able to cut routes to compensate for the loss of the per
student allowance of $9.65, because the charter school students
are incorporated in the existing route structure, thus the
district would be short the amount paid to the charter school.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised a charter school could decline
transportation services, but use its transportation allotment
for field trips. He asked whether the potential losses of
transportation funding could cause the denial of a new charter
school application.
9:04:55 AM
MR. JONES clarified that an existing charter school that
withdraws from transportation services would cause a deficit;
however, a new charter school would be invited to utilize the
transportation system - as long as it met safety standards - and
the students would be incorporated in the existing routes.
CHAIR GATTIS asked why one charter school in KPBSD did not
choose to use transportation services.
MR. JONES relayed his understanding that the charter school's
academic policy committee (APC) made the decision.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY advised that some schools in Anchorage do
not need transportation services and some do; moreover, the
school district would not require a charter, or neighborhood
public school, to use a bus that was not needed. Thus the
debate is not about money, it is about "in the same manner" in
providing transportation based on the amount generated by all
students. "In the same manner is the idea of equity" he said.
He continued:
If I offer transportation, and we work out a contract
for transportation, and we get what you need, that
might mean one bus, and it might mean no buses, then
we've worked that out. ... If there was money on the
table only for charters, but not for a school that
didn't need a bus, now we have disparity again, now
we've gone backwards again, now we're treating
charters like super-schools, now they get something
that nobody else gets. That's not what this is about.
[The bill] is designed and it's written to bring them
up to the level of the other schools.
9:09:05 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked if a charter school has any leverage in a
situation where the charter school wants transportation, but the
school district is unwilling.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY further explained that if a charter school
requests transportation, the district has an obligation to look
at the transportation funds generated by the charter school
students, work out a solution, and provide the transportation.
The funds generated by the charter school students are its
leverage. In further response to Chair Gattis, he said the law
already requires parity for charter schools; the proposed bill
provides further clarification and removes the general provision
that is "open to interpretation."
9:11:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON 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 SEATON said the question is not about "the
conversation, it's about the words on the paper" and he read
from section 9 as follows:
The budget shall not be less than the amount generated
by the students enrolled in the charter school ...
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said this language means that the budget
to the charter school - in a manner different than a
neighborhood school that does not need transportation and that
does not get transportation funds - by statute says the budget
includes the money generated per pupil.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said that it is clarified on line 7 that the
money is to be in the same manner.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON read line 7 in part as follows:
The amount generated by students enrolled in the
charter school is to be determined in the same manner
as it would be ....
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated current statute directs that the
money has to go into the charter school budget, and the proposed
bill adds in the transportation portion as well. He pointed out
that could happen by any means, such as a contract with the
school district, or to parents providing transportation. He
requested an opinion from Legislative Legal Services on the
meaning of the language.
9:13:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX agreed that the testimony and the language
of the bill conflict regarding whether a charter school that
does not need transportation still receives transportation
money.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY restated his interpretation and agreed that
a legal opinion is warranted.
CHAIR GATTIS said an opinion will be requested.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III asked if the funds for transportation
are administered separately from the base student allocation
(BSA).
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III surmised that BSA funds would be
administered, in a manner similar, and the transportation funds
would be administered, in a manner similar, but not as one fund
for a single budget.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said for accounting purposes that is
correct. He added that both funds are generated by ADM, but are
separate accounts.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that MSBSD understood that
transportation funds could not be used for other purposes, which
differs from his understanding. He asked whether the monies
generated are based on the cost of a district's past
transportation system, and is it still the case that if a
district can save money, the funds can be used for other
purposes.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY deferred to EED, School Finance and
Facilities Section.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON questioned the relevant state law, rather
than common practice.
9:18:19 AM
LUKE FULP, Assistant Superintendent of Business & Operations,
MSBSD, informed the committee that the pupil transportation fund
is discretionary. At MSBSD, after the change [in transportation
funding] from the reimbursement basis, the fund was administered
much like a special revenue grant. Currently, the funds
received from the state potentially could be used for other
purposes. He acknowledged that a transfer back to the general
fund may be allowable by state statute, but that is not done by
MSBSD; in fact, the situation is that this is a deficit fund
subsidized with instructional dollars.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON restated his point that a charter school
is not under an obligation to only spend its funds on
transportation, or account for them separately.
9:21:08 AM
KIKI ABRAHAMSON, Principal, Fireweed Academy, expressed her
belief that the most cost effective method to handle
transportation monies is to direct the funds to the school
district. As a small charter school, Fireweed Academy could not
afford to provide transportation using its per pupil
transportation allocation. The school district can contract for
transportation service more efficiently on a higher economy of
scale. She assured the committee Fireweed Academy has a great
transportation system and its students, including out-of-
attendance boundary students, are treated in the same manner as
at other schools.
9:22:58 AM
JOEY ESKI, Chair, Academic Policy Committee, Aquarian Charter
School, said regarding transportation, Aquarian Charter School
is viewed as inaccessible to economically disadvantaged children
because their parents are unable to provide transportation to
the school, therefore, the school is asking for support from the
school district to provide transportation to students who would
benefit from attending. She opined that the charter schools in
Anchorage do not seek transportation funds, but do seek the
ability to negotiate with the district on the transportation of
students. In response to Chair Gattis, she said her school and
ASD first discussed transportation issues two weeks ago, an
event coinciding with the release of the proposed legislation.
Ms. Eski stated that ASD's transportation budget has an over $1
million deficit and is supplemented with general funds; ASD
offered to share transportation services with charter schools
provided more funds were available from the state. If this were
the case, ASD proposed that the charter schools purchase
transportation services from the district with their
transportation allocations. Ms. Eski said charter schools in
Anchorage seek fairness and the ability to open their doors to
more students who cannot attend due to a lack of transportation.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether ASD buses that have
routes to serve charter schools are currently available.
MS. ESKI declined to respond as to the availability of buses.
She recalled that when per student allocations were determined
in 2005, Anchorage was not providing transportation to charter
schools thus it probably does not have sufficient funding to do
so now. Furthermore, ASD does not provide transportation to its
alternative and optional schools either, except for the Highly
Gifted Program at Rogers Park Elementary, which may mean other
public schools may need to be served also. She acknowledged
that busing presents a major dilemma for ASD.
9:28:25 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked whether ASD provides transportation to any
charter school.
MS. ESKI said no.
[Although not formally stated, public testimony was opened on HB
278.]
9:30:26 AM
BRENDON GERDTS, Student, ASD; Representative, Students With A
Voice, informed the committee his organization seeks to raise
awareness about the educational needs in Anchorage and
throughout Alaska. As an aside, he recalled that when he
attended Rogers Park Elementary School the bus carried six
students, which was not efficient; however, busing was necessary
so that the program could benefit students throughout the city.
CHAIR GATTIS asked if Mr. Gerdts could offer any alternatives
for a more efficient busing system.
MR. GERDTS said he was unsure. The geography of Anchorage does
not lend itself to efficiently transporting students who are
interested in a program across the city. He suggested using
smaller buses on an expanded route would be one option to save
money. Turning to HB 278, he said raising the BSA by $86 is
inadequate to restore past losses or to prevent the impending
loss of 200 positions in Anchorage. Mr. Gerdts noted the
previous loss of school counselors has hurt the emotional
stability of the student body, particularly for elementary
children of military families; in fact, any loss of school staff
is damaging. In response to Chair Gattis, Mr. Gerdts
recommended an increase to the BSA of $400, inflation-proofed,
which would restore the educational programs supported by his
organization.
9:36:20 AM
GRETCHEN STODDARD, Member, Goldenview Middle School Parent-
Teacher-Student Association (PTSA), informed the committee her
son is a student at Goldenview Middle School and she is speaking
with the support of the Goldenview PTSA. She said her son rides
the school bus, which is usually not full, but it often runs
late because the bus route covers Goldenview, South High School,
and Rabbit Creek Elementary. Inclement weather often causes the
bus to run late. Ms. Stoddard stated her support for busing for
all students if the resources are available; however, Anchorage
is a massive school district that serves all of Anchorage with
one level property tax base. Ms. Stoddard restated her support
for transporting students to the school of their choice if money
is available.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX understood that transportation is
difficult for ASD; however, if the district has made
accommodations to bus students from all over Anchorage to Rogers
Park Elementary School for an optional program, she questioned
how ASD could not provide transportation for other optional, but
important, programs.
MS. STODDARD cautioned that [school issues] are pitting parents
against each other. She opined there are not enough resources
to give everyone a choice and provide transportation, but the
state has sufficient resources to provide "one good option to
children, but we don't have the resources to give full bus
service to everything [that] every parent would want.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III asked if a weather delay results in an
overcrowded bus.
MS. STODDARD said there is always room on the bus, but by the
third route, the bus often runs late.
9:45:35 AM
BOB GRIFFIN, Member, Academic Policy Committee, Rilke Schule
German School of Arts & Sciences, stated he was speaking on his
own behalf. He encouraged the committee to think "outside the
box" about charter school funding and transportation issues. He
agreed that the funds are discretionary, and should be applied
in a way to allow better access to charter schools by low income
students through alternative transportation methods. As opposed
to charter schools in the Lower 48, Alaska charter schools are
not geared to benefitting low income students, with the
exception of the Alaska Native Cultural Charter School in
Anchorage. Mr. Griffin urged committee members to find a way to
provide transportation funding and equal support so that charter
schools have transportation and encourage attendance by a more
diverse student population.
9:49:37 AM
MIKE ABBOTT, Chief Operating Officer, ASD, stated that ASD has
not taken a position on the portion of [HB 278] that requires
transportation funding to be allocated on a per student basis to
charter school entities. He informed the committee that
currently ASD retains the entire per student allocation from the
state, multiplied by the student population, and parses out the
funds to certain services provided districtwide. The last
estimate indicated that about one-half of the students in
Anchorage are eligible for transportation funding; in fact, the
district's policy has not changed from before the time the state
reimbursed districts for actual transportation costs.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX observed that ASD does not provide
transportation for charter school students, and asked for the
basis of that decision. Furthermore, she asked for the
practical ramifications of legislation which may mandate that
ASD provide transportation.
MR. ABBOTT said he could not speak to the causal factors leading
to the manner in which ASD addressed charter school funding ten
or fifteen years ago. However, regarding the potential impact
of the previously described legislation, he said approximately 5
percent of the student population attends one of eight charter
schools. If the legislation diverts 5 percent of the student
transportation revenue stream away from the current district
program, ASD would either have to reduce the service level
provided for the overall student population, or further
subsidize the student transportation program from its general
fund. He noted that at this time, the transportation system is
subsidized with about $1 million, which is equal to 5 percent of
the total transportation costs. Mr. Abbott acknowledged that
subsidizing a transportation system with general funds is not an
unusual situation for schools.
9:55:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked about the distance a student lives
from school to be eligible for bus transportation.
MR. ABBOTT responded that if a non-hazardous walking route is
less than one and one-half miles, a student is not eligible for
transportation. If the route is longer or deemed hazardous, a
student is eligible, but only to their neighborhood school. The
primary exceptions are Rogers Park Elementary, Child in
Transition, special education, and No Child Left Behind
programs.
9:57:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to how much money would be
saved if the boundary limit was changed to two miles.
MR. ABBOTT said he was unsure exactly, but it would
significantly reduce elementary school busing. Most of ASD's
elementary school children live less than two miles from their
school; in fact, over 10 percent of the elementary schools do
not have transportation provided, except for special education
or other programs. An expansion of the walking limit to two
miles would put many more elementary schools in the walking
category, and reduce bus service at others. Mr. Abbott said
that sort of service-level change would be considered if the
district were faced with a reduction in transportation funding.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether it would it be practical and
cost-effective to bus kindergarten through third grade students
for one distance, and fourth through sixth grade students for a
longer distance.
MR. ABBOTT said it could; however, generally ASD's challenge to
provide transportation is not the number of students, but the
distance of the route. For example, elementary bus routes have
many stops, and there may not be significant savings from a
lower or higher density [of riders].
10:01:13 AM
CASSIDY WYLDE, Student Representative, Fireweed Academy Charter
School, said she was speaking for nine Fireweed Academy students
who average 16 miles one way of travel to school each day, in
three different directions. Therefore, the bus funds per
student would not be sufficient to pay the cost of their bus.
Although the proposed increase in the BSA is appreciated, it is
not enough, and she urged the legislature to increase the BSA by
$100 per student, each year, for the next three years.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON submitted a question for the committee's
future consideration. He referred to section 9 of the bill, and
asked school districts to report to the committee on whether
special education dollars should be proportional to the number
of special education students in a charter school, or be a
"flat" allocation as is proposed in HB 278.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|