Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 106
03/05/2014 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB93|| HB278 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 93 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 278 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 93-CHARTER SCHOOL
HB 278-EDUCATION: FUNDING/TAX CREDITS/PROGRAMS
8:10:15 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the only order of business would be
concurrent hearings of HOUSE BILL NO. 93, "An Act relating to
the authorization, monitoring, and operation of charter
schools," and 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."
8:11:25 AM
CRYSTAL KENNEDY, Staff, Representative Lynn Gattis, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the prime sponsor, Representative Lynn
Gattis, recapped HB 93, paraphrasing from a prepared statement,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
The purpose of this bill is to expand and improve our
state's charter school laws in an effort to create a
healthier environment for the establishment of and for
the operation of our public charter schools. Our
state began this effort almost 20 years ago and as
we've seen the benefits that a charter school program
has afforded our students these past two decades and
it has become evident that we need to continue to
revise and improve our laws to expand those
opportunities and continue to meet the educational
needs of our youngest citizens. Our state has been
ranked 40th in the area of supportive charter school
laws (by National Alliance of Public Charter Schools)
and this bill addresses some of the statute's
shortcomings by removing some of the barriers that
have unintentionally become a hindrance and by
providing efficiencies for better implementation of
this viable and in-demand educational option.
8:12:38 AM
MS. KENNEDY continued presenting HB 93, reading [original
punctuation provided]:
[HB 93] has several main components that I'll
highlight briefly:
It allows multiple authorizers for approving public
charter school charters.
It requires DEED to develop procedures for approving
those authorizing entities and establishing the
requirements, responsibilities and expectations for
those entities.
It charges the DEED for prescribing the application
procedures rather than a local district for the
purposes of statewide consistency.
DEED and the Board of Education remain the final
authority for approving authorizers and charter
schools.
It puts more oversight and reporting responsibility on
the shoulders of the DEED, not the charter school
itself or the local districts.
It specifies that districts must disburse funds
including the local contribution amounts to the
charter school in a timely manner.
It provides for an agreed upon exemption to local
negotiated bargaining agreements and allows for hiring
a teacher who is outside of the local collective
bargaining group.
My goal is simply to refresh your memory on the
elements of the bill and I am more than happy to
answer any questions but with the approval of the
Chair I would like to suggest that you hear from those
waiting to testify on this bill. There are several
people available on-line from nationally recognized
organizations [that] can shed more light on how any of
these changes would improve our charter school
environment and will give you a better picture of how
these changes are working in other states around the
nation.
It doesn't take the ability away from local school
boards to approve a charter; instead it adds that
privilege and responsibility to other state approved
entities.
8:14:38 AM
CHAIR GATTIS remarked that she brought this bill up last year
and believes that now is the perfect time to look at some
outdated charter school laws, especially since the charter
schools have evolved.
8:15:12 AM
MS. KENNEDY read portions of the testimony from Russ Symnic,
Senior Director, National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.
She said that Mr. Symnic says that authorizers are the entities
that review applications, enter into charter contracts with
applicants, oversee public charter schools and decide whether to
review or close them. Most states with charter school laws
allow local school boards as charter authorizers; however, 35
states and the District of Columbia also permit non-district
entities, such as universities, colleges, and independent state
chartering boards to serve as charter authorizers in addition to
the local school boards.
MS. KENNEDY related six types of non-district authorizers: new
independent state chartering boards - 14 states and the District
of Columbia - universities and colleges, three states allow
cities to be authorizers, four states allow nonprofit
organizations to be authorizers, six states have regional
education entities, and 18 states take advantage of existing
state boards, commissions and departments. One of the 20
essential components of the national Alliance for Public Charter
Schools' model public charter school law is ensuring two or more
authorizing paths, such as a school district and a state charter
school's commission, are available for each applicant for a
public charter school with direct application to each
authorizer. In one of his final comments, Mr. Symnic says,
"Whatever path a state chooses, allowing non-district entities
to authorize public charter schools will lead to a larger number
of high-quality public charter schools in states. Not only will
these schools benefit the students who attend them, but they'll
also serve the larger public education system by sharing
successful practices with surrounding school districts."
8:17:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reminded members that on March 15, 2013,
the committee adopted Version O as a working document. He asked
whether the committee is currently still working from Version O.
CHAIR GATTIS answered yes; however, some discussion has arisen
since the document wasn't listed in BASIS.
8:19:21 AM
MATTHEW LADNER, PhD, Senior Advisor of Policy and Research,
Foundation for Excellence in Education, stated that this
organization is a nonprofit founded by former Florida Governor
Jeb Bush, in Tallahassee, Florida although he resides in
Phoenix, Arizona. He said charter schools tend to generate
controversy. He read from Article VII, Section 1, of the Alaska
Constitution, as follows, "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." Clauses like this reinforce that
school districts are here to stay and 100 years from now will
serve even more students. Further, he anticipated they will be
a permanent feature of all states in the educational landscape.
The question is to discover means to help public schools operate
better. Of course charter schools are public schools, but are
organized a little differently. Directing attention to the
committee packet and the handout entitled "Charter Schools and
Alaska's Challenges," he reviewed age data generated by the U.S.
Census Bureau to explain trends in student enrollment growth.
By 2030, it is expected that the target school population will
increase and the number of charter schools will rise. He
cautioned against viewing students as a fixed pie with charter
schools taking away from public school funding and student.
DR. LADNER turned to "Figure 1: Alaska's Expanding Youth and
Elderly Population" to population projections. He directed
attention to the bar graph that compares the census population
for 2010 with projections in 2030. The blue bar graph
represents children ages 5-17 and the red graph, seniors 65
years and older. In 2010 children ages 5-17 totaled 125,603 but
will increase in 2030 to 176,174. Conversely, the elderly
population will increase from 56,548 to 127,202 during the same
time period. He predicted Alaska is one of 12 states that will
experience a large increase in senior population at the same
time they experience an increase in the K-12 population. Both
of these populations will have an impact on state budget
considerations due to Medicaid programs due to the baby boomers
moving into retirement as their grandchildren increase.
8:25:43 AM
DR. LADNER said charter schools represent a means to create new
public schools without drawing on state funds to build
facilities in the same way that traditional schools do. Charter
school operators raise private funds from philanthropic sources
to open new public schools.
CHAIR GATTIS interjected that Alaskan charter schools do not
follow that form and at this time do not have private funds.
All charter schools are public schools and lease buildings,
often paying property taxes from operating funds.
8:27:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for further clarification on whether
most states charter schools are supported by funds other than
public funds.
DR. LADNER explained that charter schools are funded from a
combination of funding sources, but often they will raise
philanthropic dollars to establish their facilities. He pointed
out the anticipated student population growth and suggested that
if someone did raise money from philanthropic sources, it could
benefit the state.
8:28:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for further clarification that in
other states in many cases the charter school facility costs are
raised through private sources and operations occur through
state funding.
DR. LADNER answered that is correct. The growth trend indicates
that school and retirement age populations will grow but the
percentage of Alaskans in the labor force will be fewer. Thus,
at the same time that fewer taxpayers will be paying into the
system Alaska will face additional demands for K-12 students.
He highlighted the two big issues Alaska faces, first, how to
house 50,000 additional students. Second, the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) or nation's report
card, which is a highly respected source of data, provides
scoring that indicates Alaska, similar to other states,
experiences quality issues. This is especially pertinent, since
the 2030 taxpayers are currently in the Alaska public school
system.
8:31:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX interjected that Alaska does not currently
have a state tax, as he is conjecturing.
CHAIR GATTIS acknowledged the state does not have a state income
tax.
8:32:20 AM
DR. LADNER, referring to the slide entitled, "Figure 2: Alaska
Students Scoring "Proficient or Better" on NAEP," addressed the
NAEP scores that indicate full grade level proficiency scores,
which indicate Alaskan scores for student run about 30-31
percent. Obviously, he said, the state will want to improve on
these percentages. He related NAEP has four levels: below
basic, basic, proficient, and advanced.
DR. LADNER referred to the slide entitled "Charter School Law
Rankings and Scorecard 2013," which outlines data from the
Center for Education Reform (CER), a Washington D.C, group that
focuses on charter schools. The CER has graded all states'
charter school laws and Alaska ranks on the low end in the "D"
column. The CER found that the biggest flaw is the
authorization, and leaving authority solely to school districts
creates a conflict of interest. He added that there is concern
on how charter schools may impact neighborhood public schools;
however, as a practical matter it doesn't come up very often in
rural areas. Charter school operators are making a big
investment and tend to focus on urban settings and not in rural
areas or other areas in which the school won't be viable.
DR. LADNER turned to the final chart entitled, "Annual test-
score gains between 1992 and 2011 (percent of standard
deviation)." This chart does not indicate Alaska statistics but
lists cost per student cost as compared to improvement. He
related this tracks the past twenty years of investment. He
pointed out that Florida appears to be the most improved for the
least per pupil investment and suggested that one of the major
themes in the Florida reform effort has been school choice. He
characterized Florida's charter school law as being very robust,
with private, charter, and virtual school diversification. The
proficiency and effectiveness in Florida has been dramatic and
population growth has been robust. He indicated a greater
percentage of children are being taught to read and are becoming
proficient in math. Like Alaska, Florida has a growing student
population and must consider where to house students. In his
experience it's not just that charter schools create healthy
competition for students, but they allow parents the opportunity
to match their child with a school that fits the need. He
touted the need to liberalize the charter school laws to meet
students' needs.
8:42:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON acknowledged that charter schools are
widely accepted in Alaska, and not a concern for quality and
performance. He turned to the chart indicating the scorecard
ranking and said that Alaska, Maryland, and Arkansas all fall in
the "D" column, yet charter schools in these states showed the
greatest improvement. He asked for further clarification.
DR. LADNER said there are multiple ways to improve public
schools and did not intend to suggest charter schools are the
only way to do so. He said a number of studies on charter
school performance found students who gained access to charter
schools via lotteries had a clear academic advantage over
students who applied but did not gain access. Thus, solid
evidence shows that charter schools will help improve education;
however, charter schools are not the only way to improved public
education in Alaska.
8:45:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO, III reiterated that Alaskans don't pay
state taxes and he noted Alaska's revenue oil-based revenue
source faces declining oil production and reduced revenue, so
the state faces budget constraints. He viewed the growing
student population statistics as positive, but it also puts more
pressure on Alaska's budget situation and makes it likely to
justify funding programs that may not be tested. He asked if
the state allows other authorizers for charter schools if they
will need to meet the same requirements as the public school
system.
DR. LADNER responded that with declining oil revenue, the state
will likely need to increase personal taxation. With 50,000
students on the horizon, he suggested the state might seek
statutory changes to encourage philanthropic dollars for
educational purposes.
8:47:22 AM
CHAIR GATTIS said she received a comment, which read: "Charter
schools are an attack against local control. As new charter
schools pop up in school districts and decreased enrollment in
traditional public schools, school districts might be forced to
close neighborhood schools. Currently, school districts are
able to make decisions about charter schools that benefit all
students." She asked him to respond to the fear of charter
schools.
DR. LADNER, based on census data, responded that the district
schools are not in jeopardy of closing in Alaska. With a 40
percent increase in school age population it is more likely
potential overcrowding is more of a concern. The best kind of
local control for schooling options is through parental control.
He acknowledged and respected the school board process, but
favored greater options for parents to seek out the appropriate
situation for their children's education. No matter the
setting, every school has some students who could be better
suited in another situation.
8:50:24 AM
CHAIR GATTIS suggested multiple authorizers may be a question
for the committee to discuss. She reported the trend in
Alaska's public school districts appear to be declining student
population with the exception of the Mat-su School District.
She asked for further clarification on the figures.
DR. LADNER said he reviewed the current school enrollment
statistics which he accessed indicate the growth as shown on the
census chart. He said other options could cause the decline in
the public schools. He was unsure what the private school and
home school rates were and how that affects the figures.
8:53:53 AM
AMANDA FENTON, Director, State and Federal Policy, National
Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA), stated that
NACSA works with charter school authorizers, the entities that
grant and oversee charter schools. In Alaska, it would be
school districts. The NACSA works to ensure that the policies
and structures ensure that the best schools are being approved,
the charter school is held accountable, fostering a high-quality
structure. She addressed the multiple authorizer questions and
said the first principle is that a charter school should have at
least two authorizer options available in their jurisdiction,
but not too many. The state should ensure that new and existing
authorizers are of the highest quality to help ensure that the
charter school sector will be high quality and produce the
highest performing school.
MS. FENTON cited that 31 of 42 states that have charter laws
have multiple authorizers, one of which could be the State Board
of Education, a state charter school board, an institution of
higher education, a nonprofit organization, or municipal
government. This helps ensure that a single operator cannot
block all charter schools. Some states like Ohio, Minnesota,
and Indiana have had too many authorizers, up to two dozen
statewide authorizers operating at once. When too many are
operating, there is a concern for creating a "race to the
bottom" situation, when authorizers try to attract charter
schools, causing a negative impact on the quality of the charter
sector. The possibility for 2-5 would be optimal and if a
school has been turned down by five entities, it is likely the
school shouldn't be approved. Expansion of the authorization
process and ensuring quality will foster positive growth of a
vibrant charter school sector while providing protections
against some of the negative impacts of too many authorizers.
Policy stipulations can be imposed on charter schools, such as
strengthening renewal standards, but also for authorizers, such
as requiring measureable results to hold accountability levels
up. She stated this can be accomplished through regular
authorizer evaluations, or by strengthening the authorizer
application process proposed in HB 93, or as Minnesota has done
by holding the authorizer directly accountable for performance
of the charter schools it oversees.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO, III said the current system hosts 53
independent schools in the state and suggested that an
additional state authorizer might be in order rather than allow
any authorizers to come forward, which could lead to 60 or more.
9:00:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether current state law requires a
charter school be authorized in the district where it is
physically located. She asked whether Fairbanks could authorize
a school a charter school in Anchorage.
9:02:05 AM
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), answered that the school district authorizes
schools in their district, but technically there are no
prohibitions on the physical boundaries. For example, the
Middle College Charter School falls just outside the Mat-Su
Borough School District (MSBSB), but, typically, charter schools
do operate within the district boundaries.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related her understanding that may be
tradition, but is there any law prohibiting the MSBSC from
authorizing schools in the Anchorage School District.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered no. The students attending the
school are not Anchorage School District (ASD) students, but the
Mat-Su Borough's students.
CHAIR GATTIS interjected that the students reside in one
district and the charter school is in another district.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY related the school is on the university
campus.
9:04:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO, III said the funding for the students in
the charter school comes from the home district. A charter
school authorized in Fairbanks but taking place in Anchorage
would need to consist of Fairbanks students, which may be the
delineating factor. Therefore, it would not likely result in an
authorization. However, the MSBSC and ASD share adjacent
boundaries so MSBSD's students could cross into the ASD to
attend, but would bring their MSB funding.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related her understanding if the funding
followed the students, under HB 93, would the student costs
reside with Anchorage because of the approval by an independent
authorizer from Anchorage.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY explained that an authorizer that is not
connected to a district essentially creates a separate district
for schools not defined by geography, but defined by the
authorizer. He didn't envision each district would become its
own local education agency (LEA), but every authorizer would
create new school districts as it approves schools.
9:06:53 AM
CHAIR GATTIS said the intent for HB 93 was to allow local
control of schools, and neighborhood schools could become
charter schools. She related her understanding that some
parents and teachers in rural Alaska wanted to break away from
districts and create a charter school, but received push back.
In addition, some Native Corporations would like to participate
by bringing rural students to Anchorage.
9:08:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX, in the context of a village with a small
student population, noted not everyone would agree on whether to
have a neighborhood school or a charter school.
MS. FENTON interjected that a quality authorizer will not
approve a school that may not prove to be viable on all fronts,
including community support, financial viability, and other
facets. In small communities schools that are approved often
occur as a means of consolidation. She related a scenario in
Colorado to illustrate that schools are not typically created in
areas where they are not desired.
9:12:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD remarked that more needs to be done to
improve our schools. The current school budget is at $3
billion, and the NAEP scores indicate low proficiency in
critical areas, such as 8th grade math. She expressed concern
that many students are being held back and long wait lists exist
at charter schools. The parental choice is not available, due
to the limited space in charter schools. She acknowledged that
multiple authorizers would be important in a healthy system.
She asked for a recommendation of three authorizers with a
proven record.
9:14:41 AM
MS. FENTON said that beyond the school district authorizers,
that two institutions of higher education include the University
of New York and Central Michigan University, the Thomas B.
Fordham Institute in Ohio, a nonprofit, the City of
Indianapolis, Denver Public School District all are exceptional
authorizers. What makes these entities stand out is a
commitment to authorizing, and in some ways they are single-
purposed entities that focus to ensure quality approvals, and
when a school is closed it is done so in a fair, efficient and
expedient manner.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked for a listing for the committee.
CHAIR GATTIS offered to distribute the list.
9:16:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood the duties of the authorizer as
stipulated in the bill. He expressed concern that separate
authorizers would create new school districts that would receive
the funds. He questioned if new districts are created how the
new school district would operate, and if the decisions would be
made by the authorizer outside the existing school district. He
said the committee is on the verge of a fundamental change and
broaching a much bigger question. Wherever the students are
located, they are the members of the charter school. He offered
his belief that the ramifications are much larger and he didn't
feel comfortable adding it to the governor's bill.
CHAIR GATTIS agreed, noting it is more important to have the
conversation and to consider alternatives. She said there are
positives and negatives for keeping charter schools under the
local school district's authority, but there are many other
considerations, including whether charter schools are a means
for private industry to contribute.
9:23:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX understood tension may exist with funding
issues regarding charter schools and districts. She asked if
there is subjectivity involved or whether school districts have
specific things they can consider when determining whether to
authorize a charter school. Additionally, is the school
district permitted to consider the effect that a charter school
may have on its budget.
9:24:35 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that AS 14.03.250 speaks to the
governance of a charter school. He added that charter schools
are the vision of a school board and school district to provide
an opportunity. He disagreed that school boards don't want
them. He acknowledged some friction can occur with charter
schools' increased autonomy. A charter school may hire a
principal by contract, but if the school doesn't perform well,
the school district doesn't have as much control.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned how the community can obtain
authorization for a charter school if the school district's
"private" vision doesn't include a charter school. She asked
for further clarification if one consideration could be the
effect the charter school will have on the budget.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered yes; but the process is at the
local level and not specified in statutes although it's one
reason the governor put that aspect in the Alaska Education
Opportunity Act. Thus, school boards would need to be placed on
the record as to why a charter school is not authorized based on
facts and findings of law.
9:27:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX further asked if the only reason for
denial is the financial viability of the district based on the
potential number of students to attend the charter school how a
second authorizer would affect the decision. She suggested if
districts base their decision on financial viability, a second
authorizing entity may not be concerned with financial viability
of the school district.
9:28:39 AM
SUSAN MCCAULEY, Director, Teaching and Learning Support,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), said the
current law allows a local district to deny a charter school.
Current statute requires the EED be informed when a school board
decides not to approve a charter school. There is not a
requirement to share the reasons for denial, such as financial
impact on the district, nor does it provide for an appeal
process.
9:29:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for clarification whether under HB
278 - the governor's bill - financial impact would be a
legitimate reason for denying the authorization of a charter
school.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered yes. It would be inappropriate for
a commissioner, on appeal, to force districts to create a new
charter school.
9:30:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related under HB 93 a charter school could
be authorized by an independent authorizer that could impact the
financial viability of the aforementioned district.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that an independent authorizer
would be responsible for authorizing a viable charter school.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX clarified that the independent authorizer
would only have responsibility for the specific charter school
and not in relation to a neighborhood public school.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY agreed that an independent authorizer would
have sole responsible for the specific charter school.
9:33:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
from his school board experience, reviewed a number of facts
regarding the current charter school situation. The state has
received 54 charter school applications with 27 charter schools
operating since 1995, but the Juneau Borealis Montessori School
has been the only application denied. Twelve charter schools
never opened, some due to organizational difficulties. He
reported that of those four closed due to financial issues, four
closed due to low enrollment, three converted to correspondence
schools, one closed and reopened as a district program, one
application was withdrawn and one is awaiting adequate
facilities. Thus, the charter school approvals have been
successful in the state. He emphasized the importance of
benchmarks to assure charter schools have an opportunity to be
successful.
CHAIR GATTIS recalled serving on the school board, noting the
school board didn't deny applications but some never made it to
that level. She pointed out a process in the governor's bill
that allows for an additional appeal, which has some merit.
9:35:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK addressed the waiting list issue and said
bridging the funding gap may be helpful. He referred to a chart
in members' packets, entitled "Anchorage Charter School
Facilities Analysis" and said the percentage of rent per
facility ranges from 6-28 percent, but some charter schools were
converted to home school programs and the Aquarian facility
rents an older facility. Thus, removing those schools increases
the rent from 24-28 percent. He suggested an increase to the
Base Student Allocation (BSA) of 10 percent to charter schools
to offset facilities' costs.
9:38:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK related a charter school startup grant
program in statute is due to expire in 2015, but removing the
sunset provision could assist in start-up costs with
approximately a $500 per student grant. Another provision in
statute allows for federal funding and eliminating the sunset
could provide additional funds if the federal program is funded.
9:39:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked for further clarification on
federal funds for charter schools.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered that the state hasn't received any
funding. In 2003, the legislature established the law to
receive the funds, but federal funds have not been available
since that time. The sunset could be removed in order to
receive these funds if they become available.
9:40:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK suggested the committee may wish to consider
converting neighborhood schools to charter schools, which will
provide choice and all or part of the school could be converted.
This could be made part of the application process and it could
free up the wait list as well as the opportunity to use
established school transportation. A grandfather clause would
allow students to remain in the school.
CHAIR GATTIS commented that in Nome, a charter school is next to
the public school and shares facility assets.
9:42:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD related that repurposing existing
facilities is important and a number of schools in Anchorage and
Eagle River are at 80 percent capacity. She couldn't remember
the statute that directs the commissioner to do so, but offered
to work with Representative Tuck on the issue of repurposing
schools since charter schools could have first right of refusal
on buildings.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK suggested a state grant program that was
repealed in 2003 offered $500 per student for start-up costs
could be reinstated.
9:44:10 AM
RUBY ALLEN, Student, Fireweed Academy, read from prepared
testimony, as follows:
For the record I am a 6th grade student in the
Fireweed Academy in Homer, Alaska. At our charter
school the teachers are flexible to our personal goals
and if I know how to make masterpiece sentences then I
am [allowed] to work on my own projects in my
[interests] as long as they fit the New English
Standards for [Language] Arts.
We need teachers in charter schools who believe and
know how to teach according to our school.
My classmates in the room [appreciate] learning how
bills are passed [especially] if they are making our
school better and improving the way we learn. We love
our school and we want to support it.
9:45:08 AM
CLAIRE BRYANT, Student, Fireweed Academy, read from prepared
testimony, as follows:
For the record my name is Claire Bryant and I'm a 6th
grade student at Fireweed Academy.
My classmates and I wanted a different format for
completing our literature studies. Yesterday our
teacher gave us the new Alaska English Language Arts
Standards and allowed us to create the literature
studies for next quarter. We couldn't have done this
if we had a traditionally trained teacher that wasn't
interested in our charter school.
Thank you for working to approve charter school law in
Alaska.
9:45:48 AM
KIKI ABRAHAMSON, Principal; Teacher, Fireweed Academy, stated
that she has been with Fireweed Academy since 1997. She has
found the most effective way to teach is to bring the children
to the Legislative Information Office (LIO) to watch these
hearings and follow the bills that affect us. She was happy to
have this opportunity to testify. She directed attention to
Section 8 of HB 93 and AS 14.03.270(b). She was uncertain how
this language would solve one of the main problems with staffing
situations. She suggested the committee consider an amendment
to existing language in AS 14.03.270(a), which read:
(a) A teacher or employee may not be assigned to
a charter school unless the teacher or employee
consents to the assignment.
MS. ABRAHAMSON indicated the district can still force a school
to take an unassigned tenured teacher due to the language in
subsection (b) since it requires adherence to negotiated
agreements or collective bargaining. She suggested an amendment
be considered that would add "unless the principal and [academic
policy committee] APC consent to the assignment." She referred
to the authority in existing AS 14.03.255 (b), in particular,
paragraph (8), which read, "the name of the teacher, or
teachers, who, by agreement between the charter school and the
teacher, will teach in the charter school;" and emphasized the
importance of hiring teachers who are aligned with a school's
philosophy, mission, founding principles, and methods.
CHAIR GATTIS agreed with the need for the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered to distribute the written comments
previously submitted by Ms. Abrahamson.
9:50:25 AM
JOEY ESKI, Chair, Academic Policy Committee, Aquarian Charter
School said an informal vote was taken by five charter schools
and one home school regarding multiple authorizers resulted in
particular concerns, which included: accountability, lowering
standards, and possible outside interests capitalizing on the
local charter school system. The vote was unanimous for
facility based schools not having outside authorizers except a
few people from the home school based charter schools that felt
additional authorizers might give them a potential advantage.
9:52:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled the concern in the Anchorage area
for pupil transportation. He referred to a memo from legal
services dated 3/4/14 that indicated transportation must be
provided on existing routes, which would solve a number of the
issues. He asked whether some charter school issues in
Anchorage would be solved if the district was providing
transportation for charter school students on existing
neighborhood school transportation routes.
CHAIR GATTIS clarified that a bus enroute to neighborhood
schools could transport charter school students since they are
all public school students.
MS. ESKI offered her belief that it would be helpful for the
Aquarian Charter School to be integrated into the school system
and any pupil transportation support could help. A primary
criticism of charter schools has been that disadvantaged
families cannot partake due to transportation issues.
9:55:53 AM
CHAIR GATTIS said she has worked with Mr. Eddy Jeans to craft an
amendment for pupil transportation to be included in the bill to
allow this type of activity. She characterized it as a "win-
win" situation.
9:57:03 AM
NATASHA VON IMHOF, Vice President, Anchorage School Board (ASB),
paraphrased from a prepared statement, as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
After reading the bill, our impression is the bill's
intent is to "empower entities outside the traditional
public K-12 milieu to grant charters, in hopes to
provide diversity in perspective about school choice-
and bring a wider range of knowledge and experience to
bear on charter growth."
We are assuming then- that authorizers would have
sufficient information and expertise -at the point of
charter application- to judge the likely future
performance of schools.
On one hand, giving an entity like the University of
Alaska or Alaska Pacific University the opportunity to
be an authorizer could make sense. In fact, we are
engaging in discussions right now about creating an
ASD/ UAA partnership around an elementary school.
However, the ability for another authorizer -such as
one with less educational expertise-- could pose
problems down the road. In 2009, the Center for
Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) based at
Stanford University partnered with 15 states to
consolidate longitudinal student-level achievement
data for the purpose of creating a national pooled
analysis of the impact of charter schools on student
learning gains. The study found that, "where state
legislation provides for multiple charters, there is a
significant negative impact on student academic
growth."
The success of the charter school is often dependent
on the ability of the authorizer to execute a
meaningful and sustainable academic program, which is
not easy to do. Success also depends on the vision and
leadership qualities of the principal, whether they
are able to attract and retain excellent teachers, and
whether students there best suited for that particular
learning style or environment. There is wide disparity
in performance between charters, with some charters
actually reporting less performance gains than their
local public school counterparts.
9:59:43 AM
MS. VON IMHOF added that she heard earlier today about a
charter school wanting to operate as its own district. She
expressed significant concern since charter schools are
"pseudo-private schools" and Alaska's Constitution does not
allow that. Secondly, the districts provide significant
support in the form of maintenance, special education,
career and technology, English language learners, gifted,
as well as information technology (IT), human resources,
purchasing, and more. She said the largest cost
prohibitory for a charter school is the facility. In
response to Representative Reinbold's comments on
repurposing, the ASB has been considering ways to assist
charter schools. She asked to state the ASD's interest in
this regard.
10:01:38 AM
MS. VON IMHOF continued reading [original punctuation
provided]:
One of the concerns from our board is that if public
money is going to be used to fund Charter schools,
then the publically elected board should have some
oversight on the authorization of those charters. The
question remains, who will be ultimately responsible
if the charter school does not perform well for any
reason (financial problems, academic performance).
10:02:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD offered her belief that funding and
control may be the focus rather than in outcomes and parental
involvement. She felt that more parental involvement comes from
having more choice and "one size certainly doesn't fit all." She
pointed out that some public schools aren't serving students
well. She cited the NAEP proficiency statistics and said in
order to be successful the mold has to be broken and the system
must reward success and reduce dropouts.
10:04:03 AM
MICHAEL REHBERG, Member, Academic Policy Committee, Winterberry
Charter School, stated that Winterberry Charter School
(Winterberry) is one of the newest charter schools, founded in
2005. In 2012, Winterberry moved into a new facility. He said
that Winterberry has used BSA allotments to fund the facility
and he reported that the school can afford one classroom per
grade, an office, and a workroom for faculty. He said that Ms.
Eski's previous testimony covered Winterberry's concerns and
needs. He suggested that funding a larger increase and
predictable annual change to the BSA is what could help charter
schools be successful today. He emphasized the importance of
the BSA. The school works to keep its number up and currently
has 28 students per classroom. He referred to HB 278 and said
the mechanism in the bill allows for grants for construction and
facility maintenance. He further suggested that it would be
helpful to expand this provision and allow funding to be used
for purchasing existing facilities.
10:07:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for an explanation of the appeals
process and the criteria used to forward or deny [charter school
applications]. He suggested a process, such that a commissioner
could request additional information from a school board or
charter school for further consideration.
CHAIR GATTIS acknowledged it does appear that a hostile
environment could be created if the commissioner did not see any
reason to deny an application but the district was opposed. She
offered her belief that the intent is for charter schools to
have a place in the public school system. She supported charter
schools being honored in the same way.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that the current appeals process is
to ensure clarity at the local level based on facts and findings
of law. An appeal could be brought to the commissioner and
under HB 278 it could be remanded back to the local school
board; the commissioner could agree with the denial; or the
commissioner could suggest approval. He reported that denials
and approvals subsequently go before the State Board of
Education (BOE) for final decision. He anticipated that if both
entities have denied the application, it stands to reason that
the BOE would uphold that decision. He reiterated that when he
reviews appeals, he would be reviewing the decision made at the
local level based on facts and findings of law, but other
criteria is not spelled out in the bill.
10:10:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether having the commissioner in
the process to request additional information from the district
and charter school applicant may be helpful without creating an
adversarial situation.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered yes; that would be the intent. He
said it would take a lot for a commissioner to overturn a local
decision.
CHAIR GATTIS theorized her understanding and said the bill
appears to allow the school district to perform its due
diligence. She could see that the proposed process has merit.
10:13:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed concern for the lack of a time
limit for local school boards to approve or deny the charter
school. She asked what would be reasonable length of time would
be reasonable as a cut off.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY deferred to local districts to recommend the
length of time for the process.
10:15:21 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked whether this is standardized across all
districts.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered no; there is not a standardized
form. The expectation for the charter school structure is done
at the local level.
CHAIR GATTIS asked if it would be helpful to have this process
standardized since charter schools are often put together by
parents.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that it would create a clean, but
not necessarily a more effective process to develop the
criteria; however, local, elected board members create the
vision for their school district. He acknowledged it may be a
sloppier approach.
10:17:14 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked for further clarification on the process of
the paperwork.
MS. MCCAULEY explained that while districts aren't required to
use a standardized template for the application for charter
schools, one exists and most districts utilize it. Some
districts have additional requirements or request additional
information. Statute and regulation do not require that any
template be used nor criteria that a school district must use to
evaluate a charter school application. Most use or modify the
template but they don't have to do so.
CHAIR GATTIS related her understanding there is a starting
point.
10:19:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX returned to the topic of charter schools
having to accept a tenured teacher. She asked whether a
neighborhood school principal would have the opportunity to
accept or not hire a particular teacher.
MS. MCCAULEY answered that the neighborhood schools are directed
to hire through the district teacher bargaining unit
negotiations, without much principal input, save for new hires.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for further clarification on whether
a tenured teacher only speaking English could end up in the
Spanish immersion school through union requirements.
MS. MCCAULEY answered she wouldn't take it that far. She
recalled earlier testimony with respect to a lack of exemption
from transfer requirement, pointing to the language in charter
school statutes that clearly states that local negotiated
agreement provisions apply; however, charter schools can request
an exemption, which are not automatic, but must be agreed to by
the charter school, the local association, and district. In
response to a question, Ms. McCauley indicated that the local
association is the teacher's union.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether a situation could arise in
which a language immersion school may receive a teacher
transferred in that doesn't speak the language.
MS. MCCAULEY answered that it could happen.
10:24:04 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY remarked that it is not the intent of the
district, the board, or the local association to place teachers
in these types of situations. A protection is in place to honor
teachers and give them first choice during decreased enrollment
instead of selecting new hires, he said, noting hypothetically
it could occur although it is no one's intention to do so.
CHAIR GATTIS recalled that this has occurred, which may have
been unintended consequences.
10:24:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the highly qualified teacher
requirement applies or if teachers are moved into situations
that are not so.
MS. MCCAULEY explained that highly qualified status has
certification status which would be considered in reviewing
requirements and rights. She related a scenario to illustrate
that a teacher certified in physical education could be placed
in a language immersion school if the certification requirement
is for physical education but the language consideration is a
secondary consideration. Thus, the teacher with the required
certification and transfer rights will have met the legal
requirements and local negotiated agreements for transferring in
to the physical education position in a language immersion
school.
[HB 93 and HB 278 were held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|