Legislature(2009 - 2010)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/14/2010 08:30 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB230 | |
| SB144 | |
| SB269 | |
| SB235 | |
| HB317 | |
| HB69 | |
| SB305 | |
| HB69 | |
| HB421 | |
| SB219 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 230 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 144 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 219 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 235 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 269 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 305 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 69 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 317 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 421 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE BILL NO. 235
"An Act relating to charter school approval and
funding."
10:00:23 AM
Co-Chair Hawker MOVED to ADOPT Work Draft HCSSB 235(FIN),
Version 26-LS1256\E as a working document before the
committee.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
SENATOR KEVIN MEYER, SPONSOR, explained that the bill would
help charter schools get started. He discussed the
challenges charter schools experience in finding affordable
buildings. Senate Bill 235 would amend existing state
statute to allow the Department of Education and Early
Childhood Development (DEED) to compete on behalf of Alaska
charter schools for facility maintenance and start-up
grants nationally available to the U.S. Department of
Education. Currently, Alaskan charter schools are not
eligible. The bill would first remove the statutory cap of
60 charter schools (there are currently 26 charter schools
in Alaska). Second, the bill would create a statute
requiring some sort of state mechanism to comply with the
federal grant program, amending current law to establish
the per person facilities aid program required under the
U.S. Department of Education eligibility requirements.
Senator Meyer noted that the cost would be nominal ($1.00
per pupil) in order to keep overall costs down. He believed
minimal state involvement would maximize local incentive.
He emphasized that local school district would have the
final say regarding which charter schools are accepted. The
bill would improve the state's ability to secure federal
start-up funds, make charter schools eligible to compete
for federal grants, reduce a major barrier in the
development of charter schools, and increase educational
choices for parents and opportunities for students. He
requested the committee's support.
JOMO STEWART, STAFF, SENATOR KEVIN MEYER, spoke to the CS.
He pointed to a clarification on page 2, lines 19 through
25, regarding the 90/10 split between federal funding,
state funding, and the obligations of the school districts.
Line 22 clarifies through language. The phrase reads: "The
department shall provide a participating share that is
equal to the difference between the allowable costs of a
project and the combined available federal funding and
state aid provided." He stressed that the obligation
regarding the match is the remainder after accruing federal
and state funding.
Representative Gara queried the $1.00 per pupil amount.
Senator Meyer replied that some state contribution was
required; since the amount was not stipulated, the sponsors
tried to do the minimum.
Representative Gara affirmed that the contribution was
necessary to participate in the federal grant program. He
asked whether the federal grant program was dedicated to
charter schools. Senator Meyer replied that charter schools
would be allowed to apply through DEED for federal grants
for charter school facilities.
Representative Gara asked whether there was a grant program
specifically for charter schools. Senator Meyer answered in
the affirmative.
Representative Gara supported providing state funds for
charter schools. He asked whether a state match would be
required. Senator Meyer responded that the only state match
was the $1.00 per student; the rest would come from the
federal government.
10:07:01 AM
Vice-Chair Thomas queried the drop-out rate in high
schools. Senator Meyer did not know.
Representative Fairclough believed the number was around 40
percent but has been on the decline. She noted that the
drop-out rate was much lower for charter schools.
Vice-Chair Thomas thought there would be a bigger
difference. Senator Meyer thought the rate was typically
less in charter schools.
Co-Chair Stoltze reported that charter schools in the Mat-
Su Borough have the highest rate of achievement. He added
that not all charter schools go through grade 12, but he
believed the drop-out rate was very low in charter schools
ending in the eighth grade.
Vice-Chair Thomas stated that he had not originally been a
fan of charter schools but that he had come to support
them. Senator Meyer concurred that he had been skeptical
but now believed they served a good purpose.
Representative Joule asked Representative Kelly whether the
charter school in Fairbanks had affected the drop-out rate
there. Representative Kelly answered that the rate was
better but he did not know the number.
Representative Gara elaborated that there were two kinds of
optional schools in Anchorage, optional schools and charter
schools. He thought charter schools provided an option for
parents; however, he pointed out that the most actively
involved parents tended to opt for charter schools, and
that affected the graduation rate. He stated support for
the charter school system and the legislation.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that optional and charter schools
are not the same as far as funding goes.
10:11:35 AM
Representative Kelly asked whether conforming to the
national model to get federal funding would negatively
impact charter schools. Senator Meyer replied that he had
had similar concerns about possible strings attached to
federal money. He believed the program wanted charter
schools to remain autonomous. He assured the committee that
the local school district still has the final say about the
charter schools.
Representative Kelly verified that Alaska was under the cap
by about half.
Representative Salmon remarked that there had been no
options in earlier days in rural communities. He believed
improving charter schools would benefit young people who
could not thrive in regular schools. He supported the idea.
Co-Chair Stoltze spoke in support of providing more money
for charter school facilities. He believed charter schools
had been effective.
10:15:07 AM
Representative Foster queried the interest in charter
schools in rural communities and whether schools have said
they would go after the federal funds. Senator Meyer
answered that he had not heard from all 26 charter schools,
but the more active schools were very interested in and
supportive of the bill. He had not heard from the Nome
charter school.
Mr. Stuart pointed out that there had been much response
throughout the process.
Co-Chair Hawker remarked on the fiscal note for $150,000 to
administrate the program. He communicated concerns about
the increment to state costs and wondered whether the
fiscal note could be program receipts rather than general
funds.
SAM KITO, SCHOOL FACILITIES ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, detailed that 5 percent
would be allowed for administrative costs if the grant were
received. He provided more information about the grant.
Competition for a federal program implemented in 2001
through the No Child Left Behind program resulted in two
recipients, California and Indiana. In 2009, the U.S.
Department of Education offered another grant competition
for four grants between $2 million and $10 million for a
charter school assistance program, but there was no funding
provided.
Mr. Kito told the committee that SB 235 would increase
DEED's ability to get competitive facility funding. He
noted that there was no guarantee that the state would
receive the funding. The bill would establish the structure
of a program that would not function until federal money
was received. In order to have the ability to receive the
money, regulations would have to be established, which
would cost an initial $150,000. He estimated that
additional staff of one and one-half employees would be
necessary to administer the program for five years until
the sunset date. He based the estimate on experience with
other federal grants.
Co-Chair Hawker asked whether the fiscal note summarized
costs for a grant that had yet to be awarded. Mr. Kito
responded that the Senate Finance Committee had modified
the fiscal note so that in the first year the department
would develop regulations and would not apply for the grant
program. He stressed that personnel would not be hired
until the state successfully competed for the grant
funding. The initial cost would be to establish regulations
to administer the program.
10:21:49 AM
Co-Chair Hawker summarized that the regulations would be
written, the grant would be applied for, and people would
be needed to administer the program if the grant were
received. He asked for more information. Mr. Kito answered
that the amount would be for reimbursable services to the
Department of Law for promulgating the regulations.
Co-Chair Hawker thought contractual services would be more
correct than personal services. He asked why it was
necessary to write the regulations before applying for the
grant. Mr. Kito believed that the regulations had to be in
place before funding could be received.
Co-Chair Hawker was still uncomfortable.
10:23:46 AM
Representative Kelly described concerns regarding federal
control coming with federal money. He thought there were
too many regulations. He asked whether the federal
government could be charged back for the cost of writing
regulations. Mr. Kito responded that that there was no
guarantee that Alaska could win a competitive grant; he
pointed out that if the grant money was won there might not
be enough time to write the regulations.
Representative Kelly asked whether there were regulations
already existing that could apply. Mr. Kito responded that
the state does not have a program with a competitive
process that matches the requirements. Regulations would
have to be written to describe a process for prioritizing
project applications for charter school facilities in the
event that there is not enough money between the state,
local, and federal sources.
Representative Kelly reiterated his frustrations.
10:27:18 AM
Co-Chair Hawker asked whether the time needed to write the
regulations could be part of the process instead of trying
to implement the program immediately; the administrative
money could be requested as part of the regular budget
cycle after the grant was awarded. Mr. Kito replied that he
was not comfortable relying on funding that may not be
available. Co-Chair Hawker stressed that he was also
uncomfortable relying on money that might not be available.
Representative Gara suggested using the same process
municipalities use when they get capital money from the
legislature. He suggested writing a provision stating that
the department would allow charge-backs to the extent
permitted by federal law to recoup the on-going costs of
grant administration. Mr. Kito thought the course of action
could work for the five years the program would be in
effect. The federal program is intended as a step-up or
start-up program. He believed the intent was that the
federal program would participate at decreasing levels of
funding as the state funding levels increased, until the
state had a viable facilities program for charter schools.
10:30:38 AM
Representative Fairclough suggested changing the debate.
She proposed zeroing out the additional staff for the out
years and keep the $150,000 for the regulations period. She
maintained that charter schools had proven successful
already, and there should be a mechanism to fund such
success as there is currently funding inequity. She spoke
in support of the legislation.
Vice-Chair Thomas agreed that charter schools were a
success and supported a fiscal note that allowed for the
writing of the regulations and went out two more years.
Co-Chair Hawker asked committee to consider a zero
appropriation in FY 11 and then indeterminates for FY 12 to
FY 16; if a significant grant is received, more money might
be needed.
Representative Doogan thought the first $150,000 in FY 12
was to write the proposal and subsequent increasing fiscal
notes were for the costs of running the program in the
event that the grant was received. Mr. Kito responded that
the first $150,000 was to write the regulations that would
establish the program. He noted that the department would
still be able to apply for the grant if there were no
appropriation this year, but would not be able to start the
regulation process until the grant was successfully
received.
Representative Doogan queried the advantage of the original
proposal. Mr. Kito responded that the program would be
established and the funding could immediately be used for
school district projects. Representative Doogan understood
that the issue was timing.
10:36:57 AM
Representative Joule queried the mechanism already in place
with the public school districts. Mr. Kito responded that
currently districts can apply for grants that can cover all
facilities, but charter schools have not received much
support related to facilities.
Representative Joule established that charter schools are
under the umbrella of the school district in which they
reside. Mr. Kito explained that there are charter schools
that are the responsibility of the school districts but
charter school facilities are not getting much attention.
Representative Foster asked whether having the regulations
in place would enhance the state's ability to get the
federal funds. Mr. Kito responded that the more robust the
program, the better the applicant scores. He thought that a
program in regulation might affect the scores in a
competition.
Mr. Stuart added that some of the eligibility requirements
are universal. He stated that writing the regulations now
would enhance the state's ability to pursue other grants.
10:40:13 AM
Representative Kelly suggested that the school districts
apply to prove motivation at the local level. Mr. Kito
supported opening up the opportunity for additional
funding. He noted that currently schools would be competing
against all other state projects. He had not seen charter
school applications through the existing grant program and
thought a specific program would be good.
Representative Kelly wanted to send a signal of support for
the program and for taking off the cap. He also wanted
local communities to do the work of selling the need to
local districts. He stated that he supported either a zero
or indeterminate fiscal note. He stressed his frustration
about the need to fund a person for a year to write
regulations.
Senator Meyer agreed that the charter school process has
been frustrating as some school districts do not embrace
the idea. He believed that the program could get dropped
without adequate funding. He supported Co-Chair Hawker's
proposal of the indeterminate fiscal note.
Representative Kelly stated his support of charter schools
and agreed with Co-Chair Hawker's plan.
Co-Chair Hawker requested a new fiscal note with a zero for
FY 11 and indeterminates for FY 12 through FY 16 to
emphasize the expectation that schools would get involved
and drive the program.
10:45:00 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze did not want the costs to be forced back
on school districts that did not support charter schools.
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, the CS (Version 26-LS1256\E) was
ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Stoltze closed public testimony. He emphasized his
support of charter schools.
Vice-Chair Thomas MOVED to report HCSSB 235(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HCSSB 235(FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with attached new fiscal note by
the Department of Education and Early Development and
previously published fiscal note: FN1 (EED).
10:47:20 AM RECESSED
11:21:02 AM RECONVENED