Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 106
03/10/2014 03:00 PM 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
5:15:47 PM
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 noted that before the committee was CSHB 278,
Version U.
5:19:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved Amendment 1, labeled 28-
GH2716\U.1, Mischel, 3/10/14 [text provided at the end of this
document].
CHAIR GATTIS objected for discussion. She directed attention to
Version U page 1, line 5, and summarized that Amendment 1
provides a coordinated transportation effort by allowing public
school buses to transport charter school children, where and
when possible. The expectation is for school districts and
charter schools to collaborate and join in a good faith effort
to maximize existing bus routes and transportation
opportunities, which is already the practice in the majority of
districts. She said the "teeth" associated with the requirement
will be the direction given to the transportation dollars
generated by each student under the foundation formula, and
whether the allocation is granted to the district or the charter
school.
5:21:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated support for Amendment 1, and said
it addresses her concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated support for the Amendment 1, and
said it supplants an amendment he was sponsoring.
CHAIR GATTIS removed her objection and, without further
objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
5:24:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved Amendment 2, labeled 28-
GH2716\U.2, Mischel, 3/10/14 [text provided at the end of this
document].
CHAIR GATTIS objected for discussion
5:25:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said Amendment 2 places a time limit for a
school district to accept or deny an application made by a
charter school, and said 60 days is proposed to represent a
reasonable length of time.
5:25:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III questioned the impact to some school
districts based on the working schedule of the local school
boards; the review panel. He conjectured that 60 days may be
restrictive.
5:26:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed, and pointed out that the
application process may not align with the meeting times of
school boards; however, he said he could not offer the mechanics
that might need to be considered.
5:28:07 PM
SUSAN MCCAULEY, Director, Teaching and Learning Support,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), advised
that districts could establish regulations to govern internal
expectations, rather than adopting a requirement in statute.
She opined that Amendment 2 stipulates that the school board has
60 days, from the date the application is received, to make a
decision. School boards are currently able to specify
application submission deadlines to ensure workability of the
process and Amendment 2 does not inhibit the continuation of
such internal management practices, she said.
5:30:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX, as sponsor, said that an amendment to
amend the proposed 60 days would be acceptable.
MS. MCCAULEY deferred speaking to the needs of local school
boards and district administrations; however, placing a
statutory timeline will not preclude the districts from creating
internal deadline structures to ensure compliance.
5:31:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON noted that it is important to allow
appropriate time for a charter school to work through the
appeals process, if necessary, and stated support for the 60 day
limit.
5:32:08 PM
CHAIR GATTIS suggested that a district and school board, would
have knowledge, prior to receipt of an application, that a
charter school was undertaking the steps to open its doors, and
agreed that 60 days would be an appropriate time limit; 90 days
would also be acceptable.
5:32:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested assurance that the 60 days would
represent an adequate length of time, given the internal process
that a district would place into regulation, and allow for
action to be handled in a timely manner.
MS. MCCAULEY assured that determination of an application could
occur within the 60 days restriction, as proposed.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON queried whether the internal policies and
regulations would be able to stipulate when applications are
due, in order to align with the variables of review board
meeting schedules.
MS. MCCAULEY opined that no existing statute, or proposed
language, restricts such action, and said it is already a
practice of districts to impose these types of deadlines.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated support for the Amendment 2.
5:35:10 PM
CHAIR GATTIS removed her objection and, without further
objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
5:35:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved Amendment 3, labeled 28-
GH2716\U.3, Mischel, 3/10/14 [text provided at the end of this
document].
CHAIR GATTIS objected for discussion
5:36:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER explained Amendment 3, which seeks to
capture information on students of active-duty military
families. It requires the Department of Education and Early
Development (EED) to solicit and retain information on the
numbers, attendance, and performance of students enrolled in the
state whose parents are serving on active-duty as part of the
U.S. Armed Forces, U.S. Coast Guard, Alaska National Guard,
Alaska Naval Militia, and the Alaska State Defense Force. State
law already requires an annual report on school and student
performance including accreditation, achievement test scores,
retention, dropouts, graduation rates, and enrollment changes
due to transfers; however the department does not specifically
count or track military students. Approximately 37,000 military
dependents live in Alaska, which, he maintained, represents an
important subgroup. Further, he cited the benefits for
collecting this data as being helpful for a number of reasons,
and paraphrased from a list which included the following
[original punctuation provided]:
Help local school districts see how well they do for
military students.
Help local school districts design programs to help
address special challenges of military students
Improve the count of military students for purposes of
[payments in lieu of taxes] (PILT), and thereby
increase federal flow of funds to local school
districts
Provide guidance to incoming Alaskans as they consider
where they want their children to attend school
Help the [U.S. Department of Defense] (DOD) develop
policies to prioritize their programs and funding --
and identify and provide necessary resources -- to
help military families achieve better educational
outcomes.
5:37:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON questioned the removal of the "and"
from Version U page 4, line 30, as proposed in Amendment 3.
The committee took an at-ease at 5:39 p.m.
5:40:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER offered that, for sequential order and
drafting purposes, the conjunctive "and" serves to insert the
substantive language of Amendment 3.
5:42:50 PM
CHAIR GATTIS asked for comment from Department of Education and
Early Development and whether there is an associated cost for
implementing this requirement.
5:43:36 PM
LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), reported
that costs are anticipated but a fiscal note has not been
determined specific to Amendment 3. The collection of
additional reporting elements to ascertain military involvement
would need to be established; however, many districts currently
collect the information. The department would require a fiscal
note to change the reporting system. Information regarding
attendance and performance is collected on all students but
lacks any reference to military status. On request of Chair
Gattis, Mr. Morse provided that under similar legislation being
considered this session, the first year fiscal note is $80,000,
for data system adjustments, and $10,000 in succeeding years.
5:46:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the department has the
ability to distinguish the children whose parents serve the
Alaska Defense Force, or other military affiliation.
MR. MORSE responded that the data is not collected at the state
level and deferred comment regarding district information.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed concern for reporting on all of
the categories, stating that it may not be information easily
obtained for the various branches of the armed services.
5:47:34 PM
CHAIR GATTIS inquired about the impetus for Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER answered that the source of interest for
this stems from his participation on the Military and Veterans
Affairs Task Force, as a member of the [National Conference of
State Legislatures] (NCSL). The task force has identified a
suggested suite of legislative initiatives to support military
families, and one of the goals is to make Alaska military
friendly. Members of the military may consider Alaska a more
desirable post if educational information was available. The
U.S. government does a good job of tracking all personnel, he
pointed out, and the information of who is stationed in Alaska,
along with dependents, certainly resides within federal
agencies. He suggested that accessing the information could be
a matter of identifying connections to link the state and
federal computers.
5:48:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the intention is to maintain
the information for internal departmental use or to make it
available to the public.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER responded that the department is required
to make an annual public report regarding performance by school,
and this measure would add an additional line to parse the
military aspect. Additionally, he pointed out that Alaska is a
signatory to the Interstate Compact on Education of Military
Children; having better information on the educational
performance of military children in Alaskan schools could only
enhance compact membership.
5:50:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III questioned how the information would be
collected: directly by the department or through each district.
MR. MORSE indicated that currently student/school data is
collected by the districts and delivered to the department. The
department views data as being owned and cared for by school
districts. The department is considered an auditor, or third
party monitor.
5:50:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER stressed that local districts already
make an effort to collect military information, for on-base
residency, because of the PILT allotment from the U.S.
Department of Defense (DOD). He conjectured that the
information could produce enough of an advantage, due to the
PILT, to create an equal offset to the fiscal note.
5:51:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON interjected that every teacher will
know the situation of every class parent, and stated support for
Amendment 3.
5:52:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said there is national support for this
legislation, as indicated through the NCSL. Further, it will
support other national organizations involved in assisting
military families, and will prove a benefit to the DOD when
making policy and funding adjustments.
5:52:52 PM
CHAIR GATTIS maintained her objection to Amendment 3, and
expressed concern for the funding requirements.
5:53:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON commented that the military students
move around/between states, and the information could be very
helpful in ensuring that student needs are being met. She
opined that this type of data could prove valuable in a variety
of ways, and stated support for Amendment 3.
5:54:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated concern that including the Alaska
State Defense Force, which, unlike the other military branches
does not have federal standing, may prove problematic.
CHAIR GATTIS agreed.
5:54:54 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives LeDoux, Saddler,
Reinbold, and P. Wilson voted in favor of Amendment 3.
Representatives Seaton, Kito III (Alternate), and Gattis voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 was adopted on a vote of 4-
3.
5:56:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved Amendment 4, labeled 28-
GH2716\U.4, Mischel, 3/10/14 [text provided at the end of this
document].
CHAIR GATTIS objected for discussion.
5:56:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III said Amendment 4 addresses denial of a
charter school application and allows for an appeal at the state
level. If the state overturns the local school board it would
mean the charter school could be opened and operated by the
state separate from the local district and school board.
5:57:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON clarified that the result could be the
State School Board overseeing a charter school, similar to the
administration of Mt. Edgecombe.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III replied yes, and reminded the committee
that Mt. Edgecombe is a residential boarding school operated by
the state.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON opined that the State School Board may
be reluctant to take up the administration of charter schools.
5:58:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said having the State School Board
authorize and operate a charter school that represents a
philosophical alternative to the local school district is
entirely appropriate. It would be inappropriate, he opined, to
direct the local district to manage a school that it has
initially denied and he stated support for Amendment 4.
5:59:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX agreed with the previous member's opinion
regarding the appropriateness of administration, but expressed
concern for unintended consequences that could arise regarding
transportation funding.
6:01:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON interjected that the [average daily
membership] (ADM) funding could represent a loss to the district
and, thus, be the major concern of the local school board.
6:02:03 PM
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), reminded
the committee that this issue has been discussed before, during
the hearings regarding multiple authorizers for charter schools.
A state authorized charter school would become its own district,
much like Mt. Edgecombe, and the budget for the school would
become part of the EED budget. Statutory concerns would need to
be considered as currently the State Board of Education does not
have purview over charter schools. Further, he agreed with
Representative Wilson's opinion regarding the ADM, as the
charter school would be its own district and have total
autonomy.
6:03:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked how the funding is distributed to
the residential schools, such as Mt. Edgecombe.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that the [base student allocation]
(BSA) is paid directly to the residential school, not the
district.
6:03:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD offered support for the intent of
Amendment 4.
6:04:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III said Amendment 4 creates an authorizer
that is not the local school board; however, in the event that
an appeal results in the charter school being authorized, the
district could decide to assume operation of the facility.
CHAIR GATTIS recalled that in previous committee discussion it
was deemed that a hostile environment might arise if an
application were overturned on appeal to the state level and a
district forced to assume the responsibility.
6:05:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said a reversal on the state level should
not be considered an unsurmountable obstacle, and the
requirement for the local level to assume a required
responsibility should be an acceptable course of events.
6:06:10 PM
CHAIR GATTIS removed her objection to Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER objected.
6:06:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked for clarity of the language
allowing the local district to assume the operation of a charter
school that has had a denial overturned at the state level.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III directed attention to Amendment 4, page
1, line 8 and paraphrased the language, which read:
(g) A local school board that denied an application
for a charter school approved by the state board on
appeal may elect to operate the charter school ...
6:07:00 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Reinbold, Seaton,
P. Wilson, LeDoux, Kito III (Alternate), and Gattis voted in
favor of Amendment 4. Representative Saddler voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 4 was adopted by a vote of 6-1.
6:08:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved Amendment 5, labeled 28-
GH2716\U.5, Mischel, 3/10/14 [text provided at the end of this
document].
CHAIR GATTIS objected for discussion.
6:08:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III introduced Amendment 5, which addresses
the statute that allows school districts to bond for school
projects. In larger communities "most of their space has been
built out," he said, for purposes of accommodating the
neighborhood public schools. Bonding for purposes of
renovation, or to build new, for charter school purposes, is no
longer eligible or perhaps only at the 60 percent reimbursement
level. He explained that Amendment 5 adds a new section to
allow charter school bonding at the 70 percent reimbursement
level, and encompasses renovation costs as well as new building
endeavors. In responding to a request from Chair Gattis, he
shared that his recent work history includes over five years
with EED directly involved with the bond debt reimbursement and
grant programs.
The committee took an at-ease from 6:11 p.m. to 6:19 p.m.
6:19:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III pointed out that a bond debt
reimbursement could be sought for charter school purposes at the
70 percent level under this measure. Further, an incentive for
reconfiguration or renovation to provide charter school
facilities would be encouraged, he suggested, by repurposing
existing public buildings, as allowed under Amendment 5.
6:20:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD expressed interest in providing equality
for charter schools, and stated support for the Amendment 5.
6:21:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered that a problem may arise if a
district has attendance numbers that are declining and school
space exists, in which case bond eligibility may remain at the
60:40 ratios. He agreed that this proposal could be effective
for repurposing existing facilities; mentioned the Homer
neighborhood school sharing space with the local charter school
in an arrangement that works well; and stated support for
Amendment 5.
6:23:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER agreed with previous comments, and stated
support for Amendment 5.
CHAIR GATTIS withdrew her objection and, without further
objection, Amendment 5 was adopted.
6:24:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved Amendment 6, labeled 28-
GH2716\U.18, Martin/Mischel, 3/10/14 [text provided at the end
of this document].
CHAIR GATTIS objected for discussion.
6:24:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III introduced Amendment 6, which provides
sunset date changes for two statutes that allow the state to
maintain a place marker for participating in a federal funding
program pertaining to the operation of charter school
facilities. He explained that by extending the sunset date,
should federal reauthorization occur, the state would be in a
position to take advantage of the option and engage in the grant
program.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD stated support for Amendment 6.
6:26:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX clarified that the state has participated
in the past but the enabling legislation is due to sunset.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III concurred and said the state was not
able to participate in the past due to mitigating circumstances,
but it may in the future if Amendment 6 passes and the statute
remains active.
6:27:19 PM
CHAIR GATTIS stated her understanding that the statute has not
experienced sunset, but is in the process, and Amendment 6 will
"keep the door open" in the event that federal funds become
available.
6:27:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked about the authority for the
existing statute and whether it is a mandate.
6:28:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III said no mandate or directive exists, but
it would require the legislature to approve matching funds.
6:28:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD offered response, paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, which read [original punctuation provided]:
Section 3, Chapter 91, SLA (Session Law of Alaska)
2010 established a supplemental charter school
facilities construction, lease, and major maintenance
grant program.
This language was put in statute to require the
Department to apply for and award federal funding made
available under the grant program.
There was also a provision for the state to allocate
an amount not less than $1 for each pupil enrolled in
a charter school for a school district or regional
educational attendance area.
[Amendment 6] removes the July 1, 2015 sunset date to
allow for the continuation of this program.
While there have been no grants awarded under this
program, this will allow for the program to remain
once federal funds become available.
6:29:45 PM
MR. MORSE said the summary by Representative Reinbold was
entirely accurate and comprehensive.
6:30:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for a forecast on the possibility
for reauthorization and availability of funds.
MR. MORSE reported that there has been conversation, at the
national level, but nothing thus far on the horizon. To a
follow-up question, he said the state has received no funding to
date, under the grant program.
CHAIR GATTIS removed her objection and, without further
objection, Amendment 6 was adopted.
6:31:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved Amendment 7, labeled 28-
GH2716\U.19, Martin/Mischel, 3/10/14 [text provided at the end
of this document].
CHAIR GATTIS objected for discussion.
6:32:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III said Amendment 7 stipulates that a
charter school, housed in a repurposed public facility, will
operate under the caveat that local students retain a first
right of refusal option for attendance.
6:32:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD stated support for Amendment 7.
6:33:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX conjectured on the current obligation for
local school boards to provide neighborhood schools in a
district. She theorized what the outcome would be if a "thin
majority," 51 percent of the parents, decided to have the
neighborhood school be a Russian immersion charter school, and
49 percent oppose; would the school district be obligated to
provide an option for the dissenting families.
6:35:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III said the charter school application
process would address the neighborhood resident interests, thus
minimizing the possibility of a thin majority rule. Further, he
reminded that the state constitution requires an education be
provided to students; not necessarily via neighborhood schools.
6:36:19 PM
CHAIR GATTIS said it could be looked at from both directions and
questioned whether the state is required to provide for charter
schools.
6:36:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered an example of the Homer facility
that houses the neighborhood school and the charter school; both
technically public schools. He expressed concern for Amendment
7 line 16, which reads: "... shall transfer the operation of the
school," ... indicating an all or nothing approach and perhaps
disallowing the option for sharing a facility. A friendly
amendment may be forthcoming following further discussion, he
finished.
The committee took an at-ease from 6:37 p.m. to 6:45 p.m.
6:45:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III withdrew Amendment 7.
6:49:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved Amendment 8, labeled 28-
GH2716\U.6, Mischel, 3/10/14 [text provided at the end of this
document].
CHAIR GATTIS objected for discussion.
6:49:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD explained that Amendment 8 deletes [the
title language] "school application appeals and program
budgets".
6:50:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that Amendment 8 would allow
authorizers, possibly from outside the state, be named as the
responsible party for ensuring the implementation of state law
regarding the operation of charter schools. He referred to
Amendment 4, previously adopted, and opined that it represents a
better approach. With that in mind, he said he could not
support Amendment 8.
6:50:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said that Amendment 8, unlike Amendment
4, would allow for the possibility of multiple authorizers.
6:52:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed concern that Amendment 8 allows
an outside entity to approve a charter facility that has been
denied and upheld by the commissioner's office. She stated
reservation for supporting Amendment 8.
6:53:21 PM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY agreed with Representative LeDoux's concern
and said multiple authorizers could be sought, and having chosen
to authorize a school, govern it in as a unique district. The
district would not be defined by geographic location but by
authorization. He suggested that Amendment 8 does not provide
clarity on several points; however, Amendment 4 does include
authorization specifics.
6:54:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON theorized that, following two local and
in-state denials, a group of parents might seek, and find,
outside authorization and become an independent school district.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY agreed that it could be possible if a group
were simply searching for an entity that would finally say,
"Yes," to a proposal. He suggested the committee consider the
effort necessary for an outside entity to administer a school
within Alaska and the significant amount of statutory and
regulatory language that would be required.
6:56:14 PM
CHAIR GATTIS opined that multiple authorizers could be a means
to allow various entities within the state to govern schools
that best serve their area in a direct manner, such as Native
Corporations and organizations, and clarified that having
outside authorizers administering Alaskan schools is not an
approach that she intends to support. However, given a
dwindling state budget, options need to be considered and may
include multiple entities involved in the school system.
6:57:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER moved Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment
8, as follows:
Line 9:
Following: "is located in the state"
Delete: "or outside the state"
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD withdrew Amendment 8.
6:58:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved Amendment 9, labeled 28-
GH2716\U.7, Mischel, 3/10/14 [text provided at the end of this
document].
CHAIR GATTIS objected for discussion.
The committee took an at-ease from 6:59 p.m. to 7:01 p.m.
7:01:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS announced Amendment 9 withdrawn.
7:03:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved Amendment 10, labeled 28-
GH2716\U.8, Mischel, 3/10/14 [text provided at the end of this
document].
CHAIR GATTIS objected for discussion.
7:03:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to Version U page 13,
line 9, and said Amendment 10 inserts a subsection to require
reports from the various [Technical and Vocational Education
Program] (TVEP) facilities for evaluation purposes. He offered
that Amendment 10 will ensure that the legislature will receive
information on TVEP, in order to determine the efficiency and
efficacy of the programs and, thus, allocate funds
appropriately.
7:05:09 PM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said the governor added two components to
the TVEP section of the bill: require those institutions
receiving the TVEP funding to offer dual credits; and an
articulation agreement. He said Amendment 10 adds to the effort
by allowing the Department of Labor & Workforce Development
(DLWD) to ascertain whether the facilities are accomplishing
training goals. He deferred further comment to DLWD.
7:06:05 PM
CHAIR GATTIS opined that reporting needs to be beefed up and
stated support for Amendment 10.
7:06:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for an explanation of an
articulation agreement, as mentioned on page 13, line 9.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said it is a specific agreement, which in
this case details the partnership between a school and a TVEP
facility to allow a student to earn dual credits.
CHAIR GATTIS removed her objection and, without further
objection Amendment 10 was adopted.
7:09:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved Amendment 11, labeled 28-
GH2716\U.10, Mischel, 3/10/14 [text provided at the end of this
document].
CHAIR GATTIS objected for discussion.
7:10:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that Amendment 11 addresses how
the denial of a charter school application would be appealed to
the commissioner of EED and ultimately remanded or upheld.
Amendment 11 would allow the commissioner to act as the final
authority and, if remand is decided, also moderate the situation
at the local level. He said this would eliminate the need for
extensive statutory and regulatory review, the involvement of
outside entities, and eliminate the requirement for the State
School Board to administrate a charter school. He noted that
Amendment 4 had similar intent and asked for comment from the
department on how the two amendments compare for arriving at the
intended goal. In response to a protocol question from
Representative Wilson, he said that, should Amendment 11 be
adopted and having previously adopted Amendment 4, the committee
will choose the one which accomplishes the required intent and
rescind the other.
The committee took an at-ease at 7:14 p.m.
7:15:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked about the relationship between
Amendment 4 and Amendment 11.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that Amendment 4 and Amendment
11 both address the same section of the bill, and offer two
approaches to satisfy similar intent.
7:16:50 PM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY explained that Amendment 4 states that a
denied charter school application could be appealed to the
commissioner's office and, if approved, the Alaska State School
Board would become the multiple authorizers with the requirement
to establish a unique school district, and act as the
administrator. Statutory changes would need to be adopted for
the state board to assume administrative authority, as well as
the complex of other duties inherent to initializing a school
district. He explained his understanding that Amendment 11
reduces the ability of the commissioner when an appeal is
submitted, pointing out that HB 278 allowed the commissioner to
handle a denial via three options: confirmed, approved, or
remanded. Amendment 11 removes the option for approval, but
does provide for an additional level of review.
7:18:35 PM
CHAIR GATTIS stated that Amendment 4 is more appealing due to
the intent it proposes for invoking a higher level of local
involvement.
7:19:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that Amendment 11 does not appear to
allow the commissioner to reject the denial, only to remand it
back to the district, and directed attention to page 1, line 8,
to paraphrase the language, which read:
If the commissioner finds that the denial is supported
by substantial evidence and not contrary to law, the
commissioner shall uphold the denial of the
application.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for clarification for how the
department would expect to address this type of situation,
stating that it appears that the commissioner would have no
authority.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said a determination would need to be made
to ensure that the denial was fact based.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered a theoretical scenario and pointed
out that the language does not provide the commissioner with the
authority to make a final determination.
7:21:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER interpreted that Amendment 11 allows for
two options for the commissioner: uphold the school districts
denial, if it is legal and appropriately supported by evidence;
or request additional information from the school district or
charter school applicant. He said if the commissioner were to
find that the school district's denial was not supported by
substantial evidence, Amendment 11 language does not allow the
commissioner to uphold the denial.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said the members interpretations appear to
be clear and he deferred further comment.
7:22:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON stated her understanding that one of
the main differences is that, unlike Amendment 4, Amendment 11
does not require the establishment of a new school district,
which, she opined, "is a good idea." She agreed with the need
for the commissioner to have the authority to uphold a denial
that is contrary to law.
7:23:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III suggested that it would be important to
allow the commissioner to request additional information on an
application, and also to ensure that the commissioner would have
the authority for approval. He referred to Amendment 11, lines
12-13, and asked the sponsor whether an amendment to the
amendment, for the purpose of retaining subsection (e) proposed
for deletion, would be acceptable.
7:24:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said, "I don't think so." The
commissioner's role would be as the referee in the middle, not
granting approval. The local school board must submit a final
denial or approval to the Alaska State School Board. He pointed
out that, as adopted, Amendment 4 provides a route for
applications to follow, and opined that the two amendments are
not in conflict. The commissioner would become a mediator and
review information from the local school board; however, the
final authority would rest with the state board. He said
Amendment 4 language will also be included, and Amendment 11, if
amended, would still allow the commissioner to act as an
intermediary reviewing information and assisting with
negotiations. The expectation would be that, with the
commissioner and local school board working together, the state
board would receive approved applications, rather than denials.
7:27:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III offered [Conceptual] Amendment 1 to
Amendment 11, as follows:
Line 12:
Delete: "Page 6, lines 8-24:"
Line 13:
Delete: "Delete all material."
[Without objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 11 was
treated as adopted.]
7:27:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said it appears that, if the commissioner
denies the application, there is no appeal to the Alaska State
School Board, and directed attention to page 6, lines 5-7, to
paraphrase the language, which read:
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 of Education and Early
Development.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated her understanding that the state
Board of Education and Early Development and the Alaska State
School Board are separate entities, and questioned the role each
plays in the application appeals process.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that existing statute requires all
denials and approvals be directed to the [Alaska] State School
Board. As Version U addresses the process, he interpreted, the
state board does not receive it on appeal, but the denial would
have been submitted on an informational basis. The state board
requires the approval of the local district in order to also
provide approval; however, the state board would not look at the
application as an appeal item.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned whether the State Board of
Education and the State School Board are the same entities.
7:30:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that Amendment 4 alters how
the state board will be authorized to act on applications and
allows it to overturn denials; not on appeal but as a reversal.
7:31:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON offered her understanding of Amendment
4, which, if an application is denied by the local school
[board] as well as the commissioner, authority is granted to the
state board to approve the application and create a separate
school district.
7:31:52 PM
CHAIR GATTIS noted that her understanding would not include the
creation of additional school districts.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY clarified that following two denials, by the
local school board and by the commissioner, an application would
be presented to the state board as an information item, not on
appeal. However, if the commissioner determines that the
application is worthy of approval, the state board would receive
two opinions and may agree with the commissioner to approve. He
explained that Amendment 4 stipulates that, if the state board
provides approval under the aforementioned circumstance, the
state board will assume full responsibility for the school as a
separate entity from the local school district. To a follow-up
question from Representative P. Wilson, he confirmed that, under
Amendment 4, the state board would establish a new school
district in order to accommodate an approved school.
7:33:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER directed attention to Amendment 4 lines
8-9, to review the language, which read:
(g) A local school board that denied an application for a
charter school approved by the state board on appeal...
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER compared how Amendment 4 allows the state
board to consider an appeal, but the language of Version U page
6, indicates that it may not.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY offered that the language in Amendment 4
requires an appeal to first be approved by the commissioner
prior to it being submitted to the state board. The current
language indicates that two denials would be received by the
state board [one from the local school district and one from the
commissioner].
7:34:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III expressed his understanding that the
intent is for the state board to reaffirm the action of the
commissioner rather than act as an adjudicating party.
7:35:40 PM
CHAIR GATTIS maintained her objection to Amendment 11, as
amended.
7:37:01 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Seaton, P. Wilson,
and Kito III (Alternate), voted in favor of Amendment 11, as
amended. Representatives Reinbold, LeDoux, Saddler, and Chair
Gattis voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 11, as amended,
failed by a vote of 3-4.
Following is the text for Amendments 1-11:
Amendment 1, labeled 28-GH2716\U.1, Mischel, 3/10/14:
Page 1, line 5:
Delete "school application appeals and program
budgets"
Insert "schools and student transportation"
Page 7, line 14:
Delete "AS 14.17.420(a)(1),"
Insert "AS 14.17.420(a)(1) and"
Page 7, lines 15 - 16:
Delete ", and student transportation under
AS 14.09.010"
Page 9, following line 11:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 14. AS 14.09.010 is amended by adding new
subsections to read:
(e) A school district that provides
transportation services under this section shall
provide transportation services to students attending
a charter school operated by the district under a
policy adopted by the district. The policy must
(1) be developed with input solicited from
individuals involved with the charter school,
including staff, students, and parents; and
(2) at a minimum, provide transportation
services for students enrolled in the charter school
on a space available basis along the regular routes
that the students attending schools in an attendance
area in the district are transported; and
(3) be approved by the department.
(f) If a school district fails to adopt a policy
under (e) of this section, the school district shall
allocate the amount received for each student under
(a) of this section to each charter school operated by
the district based on the number of students enrolled
in the charter school.
(g) Nothing in (e) of this section requires a
school district to establish dedicated transportation
routes for the exclusive use of students enrolled in a
charter school or authorizes a charter school to opt
out of a policy adopted by a school district for the
purpose of acquiring transportation funding."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 11, line 25:
Delete "sec. 17"
Insert "sec. 18"
Page 11, line 28:
Delete "sec. 17 and 18"
Insert "sec. 18 and 19"
Page 21, line 10:
Delete "Sections 20 and 38"
Insert "Sections 21 and 39"
Page 21, line 11:
Delete "Sections 15, 16, and 17"
Insert "Sections 16, 17, and 18"
Page 21, line 12:
Delete "18, and 21 - 23"
Insert "19, and 22 - 24"
Page 21, line 13:
Delete "Section 19"
Insert "Section 20"
Page 21, line 14:
Delete "Sections 25, 28, 31, and 34"
Insert "Sections 26, 29, 32, and 35"
Page 21, line 15:
Delete "secs. 39 - 43"
Insert "secs. 40 - 44"
Amendment 2, labeled 28-GH2716\U.2, Mischel, 3/10/14:
Page 5, line 26, following "writing":
Insert ", must be issued within 60 days after the
application,"
Amendment 3, labeled 28-GH2716\U.3, Mischel, 3/10/14:
Page 1, line 4, following "students;":
Insert "relating to public school performance
reports;"
Page 4, line 30:
Delete "and"
Insert "[AND]"
Page 5, line 1, following "regulation":
Insert "; and
(10) information on the number, attendance, and
performance of students enrolled in the school whose
parents or guardians are on active duty in the armed
forces of the United States, the United States Coast
Guard, the Alaska National Guard, the Alaska Naval
Militia, or the Alaska State Defense Force"
Amendment 4, labeled 28-GH2716\U.4, Mischel, 3/10/14:
Page 6, following line 13:
Insert new subsections to read:
"(f) Except as provided in (g) of this section, the
state board shall operate a charter school that has
been approved by the state board on appeal of a denial
of the charter school application by the local school
board under the laws governing the operation and
maintenance of a charter school, as if the state board
were a school district.
(g) A local school board that denied an application
for a charter school approved by the state board on
appeal may elect to operate the charter school as
provided in AS 14.03.255 - 14.03.290."
Amendment 5, labeled 28-GH2716\U.5, Mischel, 3/10/14:
Page 1, line 5:
Delete "school application appeals and program
budgets"
Insert "schools; relating to school construction
bonds"
Page 9, following line 11:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 14. AS 14.11.100(a) is amended to read:
(a) During each fiscal year, the state shall allocate
to a municipality that is a school district the
following sums:
(1) payments made by the municipality during the
fiscal year two years earlier for the retirement of
principal and interest on outstanding bonds, notes, or
other indebtedness incurred before July 1, 1977, to
pay costs of school construction;
(2) 90 percent of
(A) payments made by the municipality during the
fiscal year two years earlier for the retirement of
principal and interest on outstanding bonds, notes, or
other indebtedness incurred after June 30, 1977, and
before July 1, 1978, to pay costs of school
construction;
(B) cash payments made after June 30, 1976, and
before July 1, 1978, by the municipality during the
fiscal year two years earlier to pay costs of school
construction;
(3) 90 percent of
(A) payments made by the municipality during the
fiscal year two years earlier for the retirement of
principal and interest on outstanding bonds, notes, or
other indebtedness incurred after June 30, 1978, and
before January 1, 1982, to pay costs of school
construction projects approved under
AS 14.07.020(a)(11);
(B) cash payments made after June 30, 1978, and
before July 1, 1982, by the municipality during the
fiscal year two years earlier to pay costs of school
construction projects approved under
AS 14.07.020(a)(11);
(4) subject to (h) and (i) of this section, up to 90
percent of
(A) payments made by the municipality during the
current fiscal year for the retirement of principal
and interest on outstanding bonds, notes, or other
indebtedness incurred after December 31, 1981, and
authorized by the qualified voters of the municipality
before July 1, 1983, to pay costs of school
construction, additions to schools, and major
rehabilitation projects that exceed $25,000 and are
approved under AS 14.07.020(a)(11);
(B) cash payments made after June 30, 1982, and
before July 1, 1983, by the municipality during the
fiscal year two years earlier to pay costs of school
construction, additions to schools, and major
rehabilitation projects that exceed $25,000 and are
approved under AS 14.07.020(a)(11); and
(C) payments made by the municipality during the
current fiscal year for the retirement of principal
and interest on outstanding bonds, notes, or other
indebtedness to pay costs of school construction,
additions to schools, and major rehabilitation
projects that exceed $25,000 and are submitted to the
department for approval under AS 14.07.020(a)(11)
before July 1, 1983, and approved by the qualified
voters of the municipality before October 15, 1983,
not to exceed a total project cost of (i) $6,600,000
if the annual growth rate of average daily membership
of the municipality is more than 7 percent but less
than 12 percent, or (ii) $20,000,000 if the annual
growth rate of average daily membership of the
municipality is 12 percent or more; payments made by a
municipality under this subparagraph on total project
costs that exceed the amounts set out in (i) and (ii)
of this subparagraph are subject to (5)(A) of this
subsection;
(5) subject to (h) - (j) of this section, 80 percent
of
(A) payments made by the municipality during the
fiscal year for the retirement of principal and
interest on outstanding bonds, notes, or other
indebtedness authorized by the qualified voters of the
municipality
(i) after June 30, 1983, but before March 31, 1990,
to pay costs of school construction, additions to
schools, and major rehabilitation projects that exceed
$25,000 and are approved under AS 14.07.020(a)(11); or
(ii) before July 1, 1989, and reauthorized before
November 1, 1989, to pay costs of school construction,
additions to schools, and major rehabilitation
projects that exceed $25,000 and are approved under
AS 14.07.020(a)(11); and
(B) cash payments made after June 30, 1983, by the
municipality during the fiscal year two years earlier
to pay costs of school construction, additions to
schools, and major rehabilitation projects that exceed
$25,000 and are approved by the department before
July 1, 1990, under AS 14.07.020(a)(11);
(6) subject to (h) - (j) and (m) of this section, 70
percent of payments made by the municipality during
the fiscal year for the retirement of principal and
interest on outstanding bonds, notes, or other
indebtedness authorized by the qualified voters of the
municipality on or after April 30, 1993, but before
July 1, 1996, to pay costs of school construction,
additions to schools, and major rehabilitation
projects that exceed $200,000 and are approved under
AS 14.07.020(a)(11);
(7) subject to (h) - (j) and (m) of this section, 70
percent of payments made by the municipality during
the fiscal year for the retirement of principal and
interest on outstanding bonds, notes, or other
indebtedness authorized by the qualified voters of the
municipality after March 31, 1990, but before
April 30, 1993, to pay costs of school construction,
additions to schools, and major rehabilitation
projects;
(8) subject to (h), (i), (j)(2) - (5), and (n) of
this section and after projects funded by the bonds,
notes, or other indebtedness have been approved by the
commissioner, 70 percent of payments made by the
municipality during the fiscal year for the retirement
of principal and interest on outstanding bonds, notes,
or other indebtedness authorized by the qualified
voters of the municipality on or after July 1, 1995,
but before July 1, 1998, to pay costs of school
construction, additions to schools, and major
rehabilitation projects that exceed $200,000 and are
approved under AS 14.07.020(a)(11);
(9) subject to (h), (i), (j)(2) - (5), and (n) of
this section and after projects funded by the bonds,
notes, or other indebtedness have been approved by the
commissioner, 70 percent of payments made by the
municipality during the fiscal year for the retirement
of principal and interest on outstanding bonds, notes,
or other indebtedness authorized by the qualified
voters of the municipality on or after July 1, 1998,
but before July 1, 2006, to pay costs of school
construction, additions to schools, and major
rehabilitation projects that exceed $200,000 and are
approved under AS 14.07.020(a)(11);
(10) subject to (h), (i), (j)(2) - (5), and (o) of
this section, and after projects funded by the bonds,
notes, or other indebtedness have been approved by the
commissioner, 70 percent of payments made by the
municipality during the fiscal year for the retirement
of principal and interest on outstanding bonds, notes,
or other indebtedness authorized by the qualified
voters of the municipality on or after June 30, 1998,
to pay costs of school construction, additions to
schools, and major rehabilitation projects that exceed
$200,000, are approved under AS 14.07.020(a)(11), and
are not reimbursed under (n) of this section;
(11) subject to (h), (i), and (j)(2) - (5) of this
section, and after projects funded by the bonds,
notes, or other indebtedness have been approved by the
commissioner, 70 percent of payments made by a
municipality during the fiscal year for the retirement
of principal and interest on outstanding bonds, notes,
or other indebtedness authorized by the qualified
voters of the municipality on or after June 30, 1999,
but before January 1, 2005, to pay costs of school
construction, additions to schools, and major
rehabilitation projects and education-related
facilities that exceed $200,000, are approved under
AS 14.07.020(a)(11), and are not reimbursed under (n)
or (o) of this section;
(12) subject to (h), (i), and (j)(2), (3), and (5) of
this section, 60 percent of payments made by a
municipality during the fiscal year for the retirement
of principal and interest on outstanding bonds, notes,
or other indebtedness authorized by the qualified
voters of the municipality on or after June 30, 1999,
but before January 1, 2005, to pay costs of school
construction, additions to schools, and major
rehabilitation projects and education-related
facilities that exceed $200,000, are reviewed under
AS 14.07.020(a)(11), and are not reimbursed under (n)
or (o) of this section;
(13) subject to (h), (i), (j)(2) - (5), and (p) of
this section, and after projects funded by the tax
exempt bonds, notes, or other indebtedness have been
approved by the commissioner, 70 percent of payments
made by a municipality during the fiscal year for the
retirement of principal and interest on outstanding
tax exempt bonds, notes, or other indebtedness
authorized by the qualified voters of the municipality
on or after June 30, 1999, but before October 31,
2006, to pay costs of school construction, additions
to schools, and major rehabilitation projects and
education-related facilities that exceed $200,000, are
approved under AS 14.07.020(a)(11), and are not
reimbursed under (n) or (o) of this section;
(14) subject to (h), (i), (j)(2), (3), and (5), and
(p) of this section, 60 percent of payments made by a
municipality during the fiscal year for the retirement
of principal and interest on outstanding tax exempt
bonds, notes, or other indebtedness authorized by the
qualified voters of the municipality on or after
June 30, 1999, but before October 31, 2006, to pay
costs of school construction, additions to schools,
and major rehabilitation projects and education-
related facilities that exceed $200,000, are reviewed
under AS 14.07.020(a)(11), and are not reimbursed
under (n) or (o) of this section;
(15) subject to (h), (i), (j)(2) - (5), and (q) of
this section, and after projects funded by the bonds,
notes, or other indebtedness have been approved by the
commissioner, 90 percent of payments made by a
municipality during the fiscal year for the retirement
of principal and interest on outstanding bonds, notes,
or other indebtedness authorized by the qualified
voters of the municipality on or after June 30, 1999,
but before October 31, 2006, to pay costs of school
construction, additions to schools, and major
rehabilitation projects and education-related
facilities that exceed $200,000, are approved under
AS 14.07.020(a)(11), meet the 10 percent participating
share requirement for a municipal school district
under the former participating share amounts required
under AS 14.11.008(b), and are not reimbursed under
(n) or (o) of this section;
(16) subject to (h), (i), and (j)(2) - (5) of this
section, and after projects funded by the tax exempt
bonds, notes, or other indebtedness have been approved
by the commissioner, 70 percent of payments made by a
municipality during the fiscal year for the retirement
of principal and interest on outstanding tax exempt
bonds, notes, or other indebtedness authorized by the
qualified voters of the municipality on or after
October 1, 2006, to pay costs of school construction,
additions to schools, and major rehabilitation
projects and education-related facilities that exceed
$200,000, are approved under AS 14.07.020(a)(11), and
are not reimbursed under (o) of this section;
(17) subject to (h), (i), and (j)(2), (3), and (5) of
this section, 60 percent of payments made by a
municipality during the fiscal year for the retirement
of principal and interest on outstanding tax exempt
bonds, notes, or other indebtedness authorized by the
qualified voters of the municipality on or after
October 1, 2006, to pay costs of school construction,
additions to schools, and major rehabilitation
projects and education-related facilities that exceed
$200,000, are reviewed under AS 14.07.020(a)(11), and
are not reimbursed under (o) of this section;
(18) subject to (h), (i), and (j)(2), (3), and (5) of
this section, 70 percent of payments made by a
municipality during the fiscal year in which a charter
school is operated, for the retirement of principal
and interest on outstanding tax exempt bonds, notes,
or other indebtedness authorized by the qualified
voters of the municipality on or after July 1, 2014,
but before December 31, 2017, to pay costs of school
construction, additions to schools, and major
rehabilitation projects for the purpose of operating
the charter school approved under AS 14.03.250;
projects reimbursed under this paragraph must exceed
$200,000 and must be reviewed under
AS 14.07.020(a)(11)."
Page 11, line 25:
Delete "sec. 17"
Insert "sec. 18"
Page 11, line 28:
Delete "secs. 17 and 18"
Insert "secs. 18 and 19"
Page 21, line 10:
Delete "Sections 20 and 38"
Insert "Sections 21 and 39"
Page 21, line 11:
Delete "Sections 15, 16, and 17"
Insert "Sections 16, 17, and 18"
Page 21, line 12:
Delete "18, and 21 - 23"
Insert "19, and 22 - 24"
Page 21, line 13:
Delete "Section 19"
Insert "Section 20"
Page 21, line 14:
Delete "Sections 25, 28, 31, and 34"
Insert "Sections 26, 29, 32, and 35"
Page 21, line 15:
Delete "secs. 39 - 43"
Insert "secs. 40 - 44"
Amendment 6, labeled 28-GH2716\U.18, Martin/Mischel, 3/10/14:
Page 20, following line 21:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 36. Section 3, ch. 91, SLA 2010, is
repealed."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 21, line 10:
Delete "Sections 20 and 38"
Insert "Sections 20 and 39"
Page 21, line 15:
Delete "secs. 39 - 43"
Insert "secs. 40 - 44"
Amendment 7, labeled 28-GH2716\U.19, Martin/Mischel, 3/10/14:
Page 1, line 5:
Delete "school application appeals and program
budgets"
Insert "schools"
Page 5, line 23, following "employees":
Insert ", provisions for conversion of an existing
school in the district to a charter school,"
Page 5, following line 30:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(d) A school district shall assist a charter school
applicant in converting an existing school operating
in the district to a charter school if the applicant
demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the district,
that a majority of the parents and guardians of
students enrolled in the school support conversion to
a charter school. On approval of the school board and
the state board under (c) of this section, the
district shall transfer the operation of the school,
along with furnishings, materials, and fixtures, to
the advisory body of the charter school for use by the
charter school for the duration of the charter. The
school district shall, however, continue to pay costs
associated with operating the facility from the
district budget and may not charge rent or other
expenses of the facility to the charter school."
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
Page 7, following line 20:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 10. AS 14.03.265(a) is amended to read:
(a) The program of a charter school may be designed
to serve
(1) students within an age group or grade level;
(2) students who will benefit from a particular
teaching method or curriculum; [OR]
(3) nonresident students, including providing
domiciliary services for students who need those
services, if approved by the board; or
(4) students who attended a public school that was
converted to a charter school under AS 14.03.250(d).
* Sec. 11. AS 14.03.265 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(d) Notwithstanding the requirements for admission
under (b) of this section, a charter school that was
converted from another public school shall accept
applicants for admission in the following order of
priority on a space available basis:
(1) students who were enrolled in the school before
the school was converted to a charter school;
(2) students who reside in the attendance area of the
school;
(3) all other applicants."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 11, line 25:
Delete "sec. 17"
Insert "sec. 19"
Page 11, line 28:
Delete "secs. 17 and 18"
Insert "secs. 19 and 20"
Page 21, line 10:
Delete "Sections 20 and 38"
Insert "Sections 22 and 40"
Page 21, line 11:
Delete "Sections 15, 16, and 17"
Insert "Sections 17, 18, and 19"
Page 21, line 12:
Delete "18, and 21 - 23"
Insert "19, and 23 - 25"
Page 21, line 13:
Delete "Section 19"
Insert "Section 21"
Page 21, line 14:
Delete "Sections 25, 28, 31, and 34"
Insert "Sections 27, 30, 33, and 36"
Page 21, line 15:
Delete "secs. 39 - 43"
Insert "secs. 41 - 45"
Amendment 8, labeled 28-GH2716\U.6, Mischel, 3/10/14:
Page 1, line 5:
Delete "school application appeals and program
budgets"
Insert "schools"
Page 6, following line 13:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(f) If the commissioner upholds the denial by the
local school board of a charter school application, a
charter school applicant may apply to another entity
that is located in the state or outside the state for
approval of the charter school in the state. The other
entity may approve the establishment of the charter
school under regulations adopted by the department."
Amendment 9, labeled 28-GH2716\U.7, Mischel, 3/10/14:
Page 1, line 8:
Delete "nonprofit agency"
Insert "for profit or nonprofit agency"
Page 1, line 18:
Delete "nonprofit agency"
Insert "for profit or nonprofit agency"
Page 2, line 5:
Delete "nonprofit agency"
Insert "for profit or nonprofit agency"
Page 2, line 15:
Delete "nonprofit agency"
Insert "for profit or nonprofit agency"
Page 2, line 25:
Delete "nonprofit agency"
Insert "for profit or nonprofit agency"
Page 3, line 4:
Delete "nonprofit agency"
Insert "for profit or nonprofit agency"
Page 3, line 14:
Delete "nonprofit agency"
Insert "for profit or nonprofit agency"
Page 3, line 24:
Delete "nonprofit agency"
Insert "for profit or nonprofit agency"
Amendment 10, labeled 28-GH2716\U.8, Mischel, 3/10/14:
Page 13, line 5:
Delete "and"
Page 13, line 9, following "agreement":
Insert "; and
(8) the performance and financial information needed
to verify the performance of the program as specified
by the department by regulation"
Amendment 11, labeled 28-GH2716\U.10, Mischel, 3/10/14:
Page 6, line 5, following "law.":
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(e) On appeal, the commissioner may request written
supplementation of the record from the applicant or
the local school board. The commissioner shall make
written findings regarding the application. If the
commissioner finds that the local school board's
decision is not supported by substantial evidence or
is contrary to law, the commissioner shall remand the
appeal to the local school board for further review
consistent with the findings. If the commissioner
finds that the denial is supported by substantial
evidence and not contrary to law, the commissioner
shall uphold the denial of the application."
Page 6, lines 8 - 24:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 11, line 25:
Delete "sec. 17"
Insert "sec. 16"
Page 11, line 28:
Delete "secs. 17 and 18"
Insert "secs. 16 and 17"
Page 20, line 31:
Delete "Sections 6 and 7"
Insert "Section 6"
Page 21, line 1:
Delete "apply"
Insert "applies"
Page 21, line 10:
Delete "Sections 20 and 38"
Insert "Sections 19 and 37"
Page 21, line 11:
Delete "Sections 15, 16, and 17"
Insert "Sections 14, 15, and 16"
Page 21, line 12:
Delete "18, and 21 - 23"
Insert "17, and 20 - 22"
Page 21, line 13:
Delete "Section 19"
Insert "Section 18"
Page 21, line 14:
Delete "Sections 25, 28, 31, and 34"
Insert "Sections 24, 27, 30, and 33"
Page 21, line 15:
Delete "secs. 39 - 43"
Insert "secs. 38 - 42"
[HB 278 was held over].
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|