Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 106
03/03/2014 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Understanding Charter Schools - Eed and Charter School Operators | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 3, 2014
8:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lynn Gattis, Chair
Representative Lora Reinbold, Vice Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Sam Kito III (Alternate)
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Harriet Drummond
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: UNDERSTANDING CHARTER SCHOOLS - EED and CHARTER
SCHOOL OPERATORS
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided background information on the
implementation of charter school law and answered questions.
JOEY ESKI, Chair
Academic Policy Committee
Aquarian Charter School
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the presentation on
charter schools.
BARBARA GERARD, Principal
Academy Charter School
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the presentation on
charter schools.
JACK WALSH, Superintendent
Craig School District
Craig, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the presentation on
charter schools.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:07:34 AM
CHAIR LYNN GATTIS called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:07 a.m. Representatives Reinbold, Seaton,
P. Wilson, Kito III (Alternate), and Gattis were present at the
call to order. Representative LeDoux arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
^PRESENTATION: Understanding Charter Schools - EED and Charter
School Operators
PRESENTATION: Understanding Charter Schools - EED and Charter
School Operators
8:07:58 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the only order of business would be
a presentation by the Department of Education and Early
Development (EED) and charter school operators. She indicated
that the committee would be hearing testimony on HB 278, in the
ensuing days [HB 278 was not on today's calendar].
8:09:11 AM
LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), informed
the committee the state has over six thousand students attending
twenty-seven charter schools, in eight school districts in
thirteen communities. Alaska charter school law was codified in
1995, directing that charter schools would be established by
submitting an application to the local school board, followed by
approval of the application by the State Board of Education and
Early Development (State Board). The State Board's role is
primarily to approve the application if it meets the legal
criteria. The local board is required to set policies and
procedures for charter school applications, however, the
application must include an academic policy committee consisting
of parents, teachers, and school employees working in the
school. Once the local board has taken action, the application
is forwarded to the State Board for final review and approval.
He pointed out that HB 278 proposes a change to the charter
school application procedure by allowing EED to act upon and
review the denial of an application, and either remand the
application back to the school district for further review, or
forward a denied application to the State Board to hear an
appeal. Mr. Morse turned to the organization and operation of
charter schools.
8:11:42 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked Mr. Morse to explain the purpose of a charter
school and the difference between a charter school and a
neighborhood school.
MR. MORSE said charter schools provide innovation and
opportunities for families and teachers to have a different
school structure than what may be allowed within a neighborhood
school in a public school district. Alaska law allows charter
schools to exist within a public school district, and charter
schools are public schools. However, charter schools are exempt
from using required textbooks, instructional programs,
curriculum, and scheduling requirements in place in its school
district. If requested, school districts can also exempt
charter schools from other policies and procedures, such as
testing, and these exemptions would be explicit in the contract
between the charter school and the local school board.
8:13:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned whether the parents, teachers
and principal of a neighborhood school could advocate for and
use alternative textbooks.
MR. MORSE responded that the school district makes the decision
as to whether a school can make choices, which becomes more
difficult in a district where students frequently change
schools; however, the decision is related to consistency and
efficiency in staff development and in purchasing materials, and
rests with the district.
8:15:55 AM
CHAIR GATTIS restated her question regarding the differences
between neighborhood and charter schools.
MR. MORSE explained that charter schools can choose completely
different instructional programs. Generally, school districts
adopt curriculum, textbooks, and instructional programs - with
some participation from teachers - which are used districtwide
for years. Individual schools do not have a choice to "opt
out," and each principal ensures that the teachers are
implementing the adopted materials and programs, unless they are
charter schools.
8:17:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON observed that schools have been introduced
to new innovations such as the Alaska 1 to 1 Digital Learning
Initiative (1 to 1) and the legislative appropriation for the
demonstration project in House District 6, "iPad for Literacy."
The philosophy behind these programs was to allow teachers more
flexibility at a much lower cost by using computers rather than
textbooks. He asked whether EED has seen an increase in the use
of technology in Alaska.
MR. MORSE responded that the use of technology is being
integrated into neighborhood and charter schools. An obvious
advantage to charter schools is that changes can be made at the
school level by the academic policy committee, whereas school
districts must make changes to an entire system.
8:19:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that the idea of mobile devices
being utilized to present the same textbooks that were adopted
by the district was not the intent of the legislature when it
funded the 1 to 1 initiative, and he asked for clarification.
MR. MORSE offered his belief the technology is capable of
broader use than for textbooks, for example, for research. He
was unsure as to whether this meeting was appropriate for a
discussion of the 1 to 1 initiative and other technology.
8:21:15 AM
CHAIR GATTIS stated that a discussion on technology would be
forthcoming.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that the committee has been
told one difference between charter schools and neighborhood
schools is that neighborhood schools are "locked" into a local
district's curriculum; however, the 1 to 1 initiative intended
that neighborhood schools would have flexibility also.
CHAIR GATTIS said that the process is more cumbersome for
neighborhood schools.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON restated that the intent of previous
education committees was to provide flexibility to neighborhood
schools regarding classroom curriculum.
CHAIR GATTIS offered her belief that any type of smaller
operation, school or business, is easier to govern, and said,
"which I think has very little to do with it being a charter
school or a neighborhood school ...."
8:24:48 AM
MR. MORSE assured the committee that innovation occurs in
neighborhood schools, but it must fall within the district's
textbook series, program and curriculum; a neighborhood school
can be very innovative, but innovation happens more easily at a
charter school. Mr. Morse returned to charter school law,
noting that another exemption allowed to a charter school is the
ability for its academic policy committee to appoint its
principal, although not all charter schools have principals. In
most neighborhood schools, the principal is selected by the
superintendent of schools. Regarding contracts, he explained
that the details of the operation of a charter school are set
out in a contract between the local school board and the charter
school's academic policy committee. The contract includes the
educational program description, the level of achievement
expected, its admission policy, administrative procedures, the
budget allocation, and any costs assigned to the charter school
program budget. Also in the contract are accounting procedures,
teachers, the charter school's pupil-teacher ratio and the
number of students, a termination clause, a compliance
statement, and the required 10-year time limit for the contract.
Other requirements in statute are that the charter school must
keep financial records, meet regularly with its parents, and
meet with its academic policy committee.
8:28:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether neighborhood schools are
required to have a termination clause.
MR. MORSE said the statute does not require a termination clause
for neighborhood schools; however, neighborhood schools are
required to serve the students in their enrollment area.
8:29:27 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked whether neighborhood schools have the same
type of requirements in statute, or if charter schools must meet
a higher standard.
MR. MORSE responded that most financial records are kept at a
district level for neighborhood schools; however, local schools
receive funding for activities and must follow district
procedures to continue funding. The main difference between
neighborhood schools and charter schools in this regard is the
structure of their governing bodies. Typically, the
superintendent - not the principal of an individual neighborhood
school - meets with the school board, which is its governing
body. In further response to Chair Gattis, he said it is not in
statute that neighborhood schools must meet with parents, but it
is in statute that charter schools do so.
8:31:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that governing body for a
charter school is the academic policy committee, and the
neighborhood school's governing body is the district.
MR. MORSE agreed, regarding meeting with the academic policy
committee; in terms of meeting with parents for a neighborhood
school, the requirement is prescribed on a local level, but not
on a state level. Mr. Morse continued, explaining that the
contract between the school board and the charter school also
includes facility issues, such as the needs of the charter
school and its choice for facilities. As an aside, he noted
that charter school laws state a charter school may exist within
a neighborhood school, or in a district-owned facility, if the
superintendent deems there is appropriate space available.
CHAIR GATTIS pointed out the significance of "may" versus
"shall."
MR. MORSE added another difference is that students must apply
to attend a charter school, therefore, charter schools must have
a procedure in place for a random selection by the drawing of
names, should there not be enough space for all of the
applicants.
8:35:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked how charter schools select students
from the applicants.
MR. MORSE said students must fit within the available grade
levels, and parents must agree to be heavily involved and meet
the transportation needs of the student.
8:36:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated in her constituency in East
Anchorage, many students may not have parents who are engaged in
their school. She asked whether an interested student is
prevented from attending a charter school if his/her parents are
deemed "not engaged."
MR. MORSE was unsure, and deferred to those who represent
charter schools.
CHAIR GATTIS said she has personal knowledge of charter schools
making accommodations.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX clarified that her concern is for students
whose parents do not wish to be engaged.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON described the situation in a charter
school known to her with less parental involvement. She related
his understanding charter schools individually set their own
rules.
8:39:45 AM
MR. MORSE returned attention to the statutory requirements for
charter schools, noting teachers that hold positions in a school
district must consent to being assigned to a charter school, and
all existing negotiated agreements between the teachers'
bargaining unit and the school district remain the same for both
the charter schools and neighborhood schools. Exemptions from
the teachers' contract are allowed with the agreement of the
bargaining unit leadership and the school district.
8:40:59 AM
CHAIR GATTIS questioned whether a teacher consenting to teach at
a charter school is any different than consent to transfer to a
neighborhood within the district.
MR. MORSE said in most districts, no. He explained that in most
districts teachers can be reassigned - within a school and
within a school district - in some order of priority such as
seniority, and under certain rules. In further response to
Chair Gattis, he said the reassignment of a teacher to a charter
school may be to ensure that the charter school has teachers to
fulfill its instructional program; however, a reluctant teacher
may not be helpful to the school.
CHAIR GATTIS observed that asking for a teacher's consent to be
transferred to a charter school, but not to a neighborhood
school, is lopsided.
8:42:56 AM
MR. MORSE turned to the subject of funding and said the charter
school law directs that charter schools are not to receive less
than the amount generated by the amount of students enrolled in
neighborhood schools, less administrative costs computed at the
approved indirect rate. He advised that EED feels this area
needs the clarification language provided by HB 278. Charter
school law also directs that budgets are to be used for
operating expenses, including purchasing textbooks, classroom
materials, instructional aids, and staffing. The budget items
concluded statutory language regarding charter schools, and
state regulations clarify that when districts approve or
disapprove a charter school application, the district must
inform the department within 30 days.
8:44:47 AM
CHAIR GATTIS returned attention to the method of funding charter
schools.
MR. MORSE read the following:
Not less than the amount generated by students
enrolled ....
MR. MORSE stated the amount of money generated by the students
enrolled could be different than that of a neighborhood school
because the money generated by students in the neighborhood
school goes to the district for districtwide functions. The law
seeks to make clear what money is "on the table" and that is the
money that is generated by the students. He provided an example
of how transportation costs may affect the funding of schools
that have the same number of students. Charter schools can also
be affected by transportation in some districts.
8:47:08 AM
CHAIR GATTIS pointed out other costs besides transportation
costs must be considered. She surmised that charter and
neighborhood schools start with even funding; however, the
neighborhood schools don't pay lease costs for their buildings.
MR. MORSE expressed his belief that the proposed legislation [HB
278] will clarify how much money is on the table, and the
charter schools look to their contracts with the school board to
determine lease costs, if applicable; he agreed that
neighborhood schools don't have to lease their facilities, but
they do have facility maintenance costs, which are handled
differently.
8:48:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD added that charter schools don't have
bonding ability for their facilities. In addition, she
expressed her understanding a $470 per student is generated for
transportation costs, although transportation is not provided
for charter school students in Anchorage. She asked for further
clarification on what happens to the charter school
transportation per student funding.
CHAIR GATTIS cautioned that the committee already spent
significant time at last Friday's hearing on this and she did
not wish to "go backwards" to discuss this further. She asked
for a "short" answer.
MR. MORSE, addressing the bonding ability comment, said local
school districts have the right to seek municipal bonding but
individual schools do not. If a charter school is located in a
building that is an asset to the school district, insured by the
district, they have the same right but the criteria may not be
met for bonding. However, he said that in a leased facility
problems may arise since bonding is for district assets that are
insured by the district.
CHAIR GATTIS reported on a charter school in her district that
has been attempting to bond, but it has not yet been possible.
She gave details of the lease situation and restrictions that
have held back expansion. She characterized the bonding as
being a "Catch-22" for charter schools.
8:51:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked for further clarification on
whether a charter school in a district building must meet
building codes.
MR. MORSE answered that building codes need to be met in order
to house students. The distinction he was trying to make was if
a charter school is using a facility in the district, the
superintendent would need to determine that the building can be
brought up to code. He reiterated that leased facilities in a
district must meet safety and health standards.
8:51:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that elementary school space
appears to be more available in the Anchorage area. The
repurposing of the space to charter schools might avoid the
necessity to build new schools or pay exorbitant rent for
charter schools. She expressed concern that a successful
charter school in her district that has been facing difficult
housing circumstances hasn't been rewarded by the district
despite its excellent educational results.
8:53:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether legislative legal has
provided a response regarding the transportation funding
changes. She noted discrepancies or disconnects between
Commissioner Hanley's interpretation and that of some
legislators.
CHAIR GATTIS answered she has not yet received a response. She
then referred to documents in members' packets from the Aquarian
Charter School.
8:55:42 AM
JOEY ESKI, Chair, Academic Policy Committee, Aquarian Charter
School, stated that she is the chair of Aquarian Charter
School's Academic Policy Committee, in Anchorage. She
personally thanked Chair Gattis for her recognition that charter
schools are innovative learning environments.
MS. ESKI explained that Aquarian Charter School means different
things for families. For her family it has represented a sound
education in a nurturing environment created by involved parents
and magical teachers. She described her family's decision to
apply to Aquarian Charter School, touting the open, comfortable
learning environment with a tailored approach to children's
learning that the school employs. The Aquarian Charter School
also uses a differentiated model for children and caters to the
child's highest level of achievement.
MS. ESKI related that Aquarian Charter School is one of eight
charter schools operating in the Anchorage School District. Two
charter schools are home-school programs, one is a German
Immersion Program. In addition, other charter schools include
an Alaska Native Cultural Charter School, a Waldorf-inspired
school, Eagle Academy, and Hiland Tec that uses a standards-
based learning model.
MS. ESKI had anticipated a middle school coming on line, Stream
Academy, with a focus on technology but the charter school could
not secure a building.
8:58:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX did not see the Spanish Immersion Program
listed. She asked for further clarification.
MS. ESKI identified it as an alternative school and not a
charter school, although it may have initially started as one.
8:58:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked her to identify the charter school
that had difficultly locating a building for its school.
MS. ESKI responded the middle school was the Stream Academy,
being started-up by a group of educators focused on technology,
mathematics, and outdoor learning interests.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD related that many elementary schools are
at 80 percent capacity and it seems the schools could be
restructured and the space repurposed to support other charter
schools. She said she was aware of several charter schools in
Muldoon and Eagle River that could benefit.
CHAIR GATTIS requested the Stream Academy information.
9:00:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX understood some transportation has been
provided to alternative schools but not to charter schools. She
asked whether all alternative schools receive student
transportation.
MS. ESKI answered no; transportation is only provided to the
Rogers Park Highly Gifted program.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX wondered what the reason was to limit
transportation to one school.
MS. ESKI was unsure. She turned to charter school purposes,
that they were initially started by inspired individuals,
typically parents who saw a perceived need in education. She
offered her belief that forming a charter school is the most
effective way to obtain an innovative education model in the
Anchorage School District (ASD) and probably in the state. Once
charter schools are started they are governed by parent Academic
Policy Committees (APCs), consisting of parents, teachers,
staff, and sometimes community members. The APCs are
responsible for making decisions related to budget and
curriculum. In instances in which the charter school has been
fortunate enough to have a principal, he/she is a district
employee; however, the APC retains the authority to hire and
fire and the principal reports to the APC. Thus, the principal
straddles between two authorities: the district and the APC.
9:03:11 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked for further clarification on the remark that
some charter schools are fortunate enough to have principals.
MS. ESKI said that whether or not to hire a principal is a
budget-driven decision at the charter school and sometimes a
lead teacher assumes the position. While charter schools must
have administration, it doesn't need to be a principal and is
often handled through parental support.
CHAIR GATTIS understood budget-driven decisions and appreciated
knowing that some charter schools or neighborhood schools that
don't have principals.
MS. ESKI responded that she couldn't speak to neighborhood
schools just to charter schools. She detailed the history and
description of the Aquarian facility. It was started in 1997 by
a group of parents who wished to create a stress-free
environment for high-achieving students, with differentiated
instruction, and high expectations delivered in a warm and
encouraging environment. The Aquarian school has since evolved
and is no longer exclusively a school for gifted students,
although it has maintained the requirement to challenge each
child at his/her individual level and reach the highest
potential possible. Students and teachers have complete
interaction and it is not uncommon to have four or five reading
and spelling levels occurring at the same time. The school uses
a "blocked math" period and curriculum, plus every single
teacher teaches math and all are highly-qualified math teachers.
The Aquarian charter school employs innovative techniques that
can be employed at neighborhood schools but it might be
difficult to replicate.
9:07:39 AM
MS. ESKI remarked that the Aquarian Charter School has operated
for 17 years so it has grown over this period of time. One of
the biggest challenges Aquarian and many charter schools have is
finding and funding a facility. She highlighted the balance
between growing enrollment to secure sufficient funds and having
sufficient space for the growing enrollment. She characterized
it as the balance of discovering the right size to be and what
the school can afford. She related that Aquarian Charter School
is housed in a once condemned, vacated, fully-depreciated
Anchorage School District (ASD) building. She described the
school building as basically portables combined without any
foundation, with a single multi-purpose room used for physical
education, lunches, and school assembly meetings. The school
has 383 enrolled students, with over 800 wait-listed students,
not including incoming kindergarten students.
MS. ESKI related Aquarian Charter School's rent and maintenance
costs of $350,000 per year, which she described as being the
best in the district. For example, the Alaska Native Cultural
Charter School pays $640,000 per year and is also housed in a
condemned building and Rilke Schule Charter School pays $750,000
per year, she said.
9:09:25 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked for further clarification on the condemned
buildings.
MS. ESKI responded that the Alaska Native Cultural Charter
School moved into the Pacific Northern Academy building, which
is an old reconditioned building that first needed to be brought
up to code.
9:09:46 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked for further clarification on whether a
neighborhood school moved out of the building and a charter
school moved in.
MS. ESKI answered that a private school relocated. She vaguely
recalled the school found it more cost effective to move rather
than bring the building up to code. The Alaska Native Cultural
Charter School obtained grants to upgrade the building and it
pays rent to the Northern Academy, she said.
MS. ESKI detailed that the Winterberry School, the Waldorf-
inspired charter school contracted with a private contractor to
build its school, pays $400,000 in rent, plus $50,000 in
property taxes, with an option to purchase after 20 years. She
emphasized that the $50,000 in property taxes has been difficult
for the school to meet.
9:11:26 AM
CHAIR GATTIS related her understanding that a portion of the
rent may allow for purchase.
MS. ESKI replied she was unsure. She understood the amount was
set at $3.1 million, but declined further comment.
CHAIR GATTIS understood that charter schools must do some
creative financing. She asked to put on the record one issue
for charter schools is that the private buildings they lease are
subject to property taxes, but neighborhood schools are not
subject to property taxes.
9:13:01 AM
MS. ESKI remarked that all schools in Alaska operate on a tight
budget. Anchorage charter schools receive a Base Student
Allocation (BSA) adjusted for enrollment and pay routine costs;
however, they also pay rent for facilities plus maintenance or
construction costs from operating funds, unique to charter
schools. Further, charter schools don't consistently receive
state grant dollars, local tax dollars, or capital project
funding, she said. She contrasted the 25 percent Anchorage
charter schools pay to cover facilities-related expenses with
the 10 percent average cost for facilities that the district
spends on [neighborhood] facilities. In addition, the district
can access capital funds and bonding to meet building,
acquisition, and major renovation needs for neighborhood
schools.
9:14:25 AM
MS. ESKI said that as a CPA she understood the complexity of the
issues the committee faces. She acknowledged the funding
formula is difficult to understand and administer. She
highlighted that equity and facility funding is the single most
significant challenge hindering charter school growth and
sustainability.
MS. ESKI offered recommendations that could assist and support
charter schools. First, charter schools would like to establish
an annual facility allowance based on district needs directly
from the state with a corresponding roll-over allowance. This
would support charter schools and allow them to save money for
schools. Secondly, she suggested that to reinstate and fund a
competitive state-funded grant program for facilities would
help. Third, charter schools would like statutory language
regarding first right of refusal to occupy closed, unused, or
underused public school facilities or property and the ability
to use these facilitates without rental payments. Certainly,
charter schools recognize the school and the district would need
to negotiate the maintenance and facility costs. Fourth,
charter schools would like to obtain an exemption from local
property taxes for facilities housing public charter schools.
Further, she understood contradictory language exists between
statutes and regulations necessary to make this happen.
MS. ESKI highlighted funding requests. First, charter schools
would like changes in state law requiring logical funding from
local, state, and federal sources to follow the public charter
school student. Again, the charter school receives the funding
formula whereas the district also receives funding from other
sources, including state and federal grants. Further, districts
have the discretion on whether to pass down the additional
funding and charter schools would like clarity and fairness
applied.
9:18:19 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked for further clarification on whether charter
schools pay property taxes but don't receive any share back.
MS. ESKI related her understanding that the state funding
formula is used to support the charter schools. Charter schools
receive the local required contribution, but municipalities
don't distribute any monies above the required contribution.
She related a scenario which illustrated that municipalities,
such as the MOA, distribute monies into the state funding
formula, which are distributed to charter schools on a per pupil
basis; however, additional funds passed through from local
property taxes are not distributed to charter schools. She
estimated the charter school receives about half of the local
funds.
MS. ESKI related the final recommendation would be a state-
mandated cap on indirect fees charter schools remit to the local
district. Although charter schools certainly agree to pay for
district services received, the district's fees currently
fluctuate from two to six percent in any given year, and are
assessed late in the process which also causes budgeting issues.
9:21:29 AM
MS. ESKI suggested a four percent cap for indirect fees is
reasonable; however, charter schools express a willingness to
work with the district to achieve logical or phased-in changes
to avoid drastic impacts to the district. Further, it would be
helpful to make changes in the charter school laws that further
define what districts should share. Despite Alaska's lackluster
national charter school ranking, the charter schools manifest
innovation in education and public choice for Alaska's families,
but not at the expense of accountability. Working with local
districts gives charter schools credibility and ensures high
educational standards, but positive changes could encourage
districts to work with charter schools and allow them to grow.
She noted that bills before the legislature, HB 278 and HB 93,
represent a good starting point and charter schools look forward
to working with the committee and the governor to strengthen the
provisions governing charter schools.
MS. ESKI said the charter schools' number one request is a
state-funded per pupil facilities allowance, with the main goal
of sustainable charter schools that can grow and meet the
demands of Alaska's students.
9:23:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood the funding above the
requirement of the cap. He referred to page 1 of the handout
entitled "Alaska Charter Schools Legislator Information" to the
request for federal dollars for military families. He asked for
clarification on the funding source.
MS. ESKI answered that the federal funds have a complicated
structure and minimally impact charter schools; however, charter
schools would like forthright sharing from the federal
government.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related his understanding this would be
pro-rata basis for students not a per-pupil basis. It would be
based on the number of students attending charter schools as
compared to the number of military students in the entire
district.
MS. ESKI answered that is correct; it would just account for the
students who attend and not all students in the district.
9:25:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said that the 800 waitlisted students
for Aquarian Charter School points to the obvious success of the
school. She emphasized her passion for charter schools.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON expressed an interest in further
information regarding retained budget savings and lapsed funds.
CHAIR GATTIS asked for further clarification on the difficulties
charter schools are experiencing related to lapsed funds.
MS. ESKI related her understanding that districts cannot retain
more than 10 percent of any unencumbered funds. The charter
school savings become part of that 10 percent rollover cap. Any
significant savings must be used or returned to the district.
Recently, one charter school purchased computers for the
Aquarian charter school in order to not return funds. The
charter schools report any encumbered funds, such as funds for
supplies, but must obtain special permission to retain savings
to pay expenses such as rent.
9:29:31 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked whether Aquarian Charter School must pay rent
through the summer.
MS. ESKI answered Aquarian charter school has a twelve-month
lease.
CHAIR GATTIS remarked the schools should be able to accrue
savings for anticipated expenditures.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested that since a lawsuit was an
impetus to create that 10 percent cap, it may be more
complicated to remedy. She stated support for amending the
statute in support of the charter schools being able to rollover
funds, but would like the EED to investigate this further.
CHAIR GATTIS acknowledged her remarks.
9:31:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for clarification on student
transportation for Aquarian Charter School.
MS. ESKI answered that the parents provide student
transportation to and from school.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether Aquarian Charter School
would be interested in the $459 per student transportation fees,
if these fees are passed.
MS. ESKI answered that Aquarian Charter School's goal would be
to work with the district to organize busing for all the
students, rather than receive the money directly. Further, she
supported access for children to attend if parents can't drive.
She clarified that the school requests parental involvement, but
do not require parents to volunteer and the school enjoys
significant parental involvement.
9:33:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD offered her belief that the $459 or more
student transportation funding should follow the student to
whatever school the student attends. It seems that it could be
paid directly to parents if necessary to support getting
students to charter schools. She offered her support for
transportation funding.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the document in members'
packets entitled, "Anchorage Charter School Facilities Analysis"
that lists Aquarian Charter School per student allocation at
$7,857.14. He asked for further clarification on the source of
the funding and whether it represents the BSA or if it is for
facilities.
MS. ESKI answered that it is the BSA funding, which is based on
the school size, the special needs factor, the head factor, and
the quality school grants, net of the indirect costs the
district withholds.
9:35:32 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked whether this amount is the adjusted daily
membership through the formula net indirect costs.
MS. ESKI answered yes. She prepared the spreadsheet based on
the district's website. The second handout highlighted revenues
charter schools receive and which ones they don't receive.
9:37:00 AM
BARBARA GERARD, Principal, Academy Charter School, thanked the
committee. She offered to review funding, facilities costs and
special education for the Mat-su Borough School District. With
respect to funding, she detailed that when the Academy Charter
School and Midnight Sun opened in 1997, they only received a
portion of the state funding. Senate Bill 36 passed, which
allowed for a basic need per student, which forced districts to
provide minimal state foundation funding for education, similar
to other public schools. However, charter schools also pay
indirect costs. In 2007, the Matanuska-Susitna charter schools
received about $5,300 per student and reimbursed the district
3.98 percent to cover indirect fees, which fluctuated each year
ranging from 4.85 percent to 3.42 percent the next. The
aforementioned fluctuation in indirect costs created difficulty
in budgeting. The charter schools did not receive the local tax
appropriation.
MS. GERARD related that in 2010, the Academy Charter School
families, along with the five other charter schools in the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough (MSB) joined together to approach the
MSB for the taxpayer portion to "follow the child."
Superintendent George Troxel and Assistant Superintendent John
Weetman agreed to reduce the indirect fee to .5 percent if the
charter schools did not seek the full local tax appropriation,
which the charter schools agreed to. Two years ago the charter
schools negotiated receiving the full local tax appropriation of
approximately $2,800 per student in exchange for paying the
current indirect fee determined by the Department of Education
and Early Development (EED). The Matanuska-Susitna charter
schools receive the BSA and local tax appropriation and pay a
percentage of the indirect costs, which ranges up to 6.96
percent, or $800,000 for the six charter schools.
9:41:24 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked for further clarification on how the indirect
fees are set.
MS. GERARD answered that the school districts submit a form to
EED and that the federal indirect rate is calculated each year.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON related her understanding the school
district uses those calculations to charge the charter school
indirect fees.
MS. GERARD answered that is correct; but the indirect rates
fluctuate, creating budgeting concerns from year to year. She
questioned whether indirect rates for charter schools should be
the same as for other schools. Further, the actual number used
is discretionary and a set fee would be more appropriate. She
suggested that setting indirect fees at three percent would be
fair and could alleviate annual budget needs and stabilize fees.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked to have the information forwarded to
the committee.
MS. GERARD said she obtained her information from Beck Wright,
Director of Finance, Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District,
and will forward it to the committee.
9:44:25 AM
MS. GERARD turned to the facility costs for charter schools.
She explained the lease situation in the MSBSD. Over $1 million
is paid into private hands to house charter school facilities,
along with local taxes, which are taken directly out of the
operational budgets and represent funds not being directed to
classrooms. Repurposing public facilities would be helpful, she
said, even if it was only during the first three years of
operation when charter schools are most vulnerable. Having an
"incubator" school facility would allow a charter school the
opportunity to practice, develop, and perhaps earn the right to
apply for 80:20 municipal bonds.
9:46:26 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked for further clarification regarding the
property taxes charter schools currently pay.
MS. GERARD answered that the charter schools pay their leases.
Charter schools are furnished tax bills as if they are building
owner; however it is basically a "pass through" from the private
owners.
CHAIR GATTIS asked for further clarification on the funds that
are passed through.
MS. GERARD declined comment since the Academy Charter School has
benefited from legislative direct appropriation and doesn't
lease its building.
9:47:47 AM
CHAIR GATTIS offered her understanding that the Matanuska-
Susitna Assembly has identified this inequality and have begun
the process of passing these tax dollars back, through the
district directly to the charter school. She acknowledged that
the MSBSD and the MSB Assembly have established good
relationships; however, this certainly is not in statute.
9:48:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON related her understanding the Anchorage
area is reluctant to have taxes deflected from the school
districts, but she is happy to hear the MSB is willing to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested that if a municipality is not
matching to the cap, since these are public schools the tax
could be forgiven. He suggested problems could arise if the
municipality is already funding to the cap.
CHAIR GATTIS commented that taxing to the cap, asking charter
schools to pay the property tax, then failing to refund that
portion to give the charter school equity with the neighborhood
schools creates an interesting dichotomy.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out this is a municipal decision
by municipal ordinance so a municipality could change exempt
charter schools from paying property taxes and it would not go
through the school district.
9:51:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to AS 14.08.101, which read, "A
regional school board may ... (6) establish, maintain, operate,
discontinue, and combine schools subject to the approval of the
commissioner; ...." Thus, she concluded that the commissioner
would be brought into these discussions.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO, III expressed surprise that a property tax
bill would be different than the lease payment. He further
suggested that the lease payment or rent payment for a building
is based on market rates. If property taxes are exempted for
private entities leasing facilities it represents a tax break
for these private parties. He asked whether they are required
to keep the costs separate.
CHAIR GATTIS stated that the MSB confirmed it has allowed the
MSBSD to return the money, but it hasn't been set aside. She
reported that the MSBSD wanted to go on the record that it
assists its charter schools.
9:53:19 AM
MS. GERARD resumed with the topic of maintenance. It would be
helpful for charter schools to have maintenance savings
accounts. Charter schools operate "one catastrophic event" away
from closing their doors. She related a scenario that
illustrated the difference between the neighborhood school and
charter school after a fire, noting a neighborhood school
wouldn't be expected to rebuild its school from operating funds,
but a charter school would. The charter schools would like a
per-pupil maintenance fund established for use in the event of a
catastrophic event to prevent the charter schools from closing.
MS. GERARD explained that the MSBSD's charter schools use a
lottery system for student selection which means any student can
attend, including special education students. She described the
wide range in the number of IEP students in schools and in the
additional human resources available to neighborhood schools.
She described the Academy Charter School with 26 active IEPs,
spanning a range of issues. Many of the students have IEPs and
resource teachers are brought on to assist and ensure students
are working at level. She reported on the various schools and
the number of IEP students being accommodated, along with
restrictions that have occurred. Because of the cost of
specialists, other positions are not filled, such as a school
nurse or a custodian. She emphasized that every student is
welcome to the charter school and receives the education that
best meets his/her needs.
9:57:04 AM
MS. GERARD finished by suggesting that a conversion charter
school option be undertaken. She hoped some type of incentive
could help traditional schools convert to charter schools if 65
percent of the staff at a neighborhood school chooses to do so.
The process improves opportunities for innovation. The process
allows charter schools foster an environment and atmosphere to
embrace new ideas, methods, and strategies to improve student
learning and achievement. She encouraged this to offer more
flexibility and to offer more opportunities.
MS. GERARD emphasized how supportive the MSBSD has been to
charter schools in the district. She summarized by saying that
charter schools would like full funding and that funding should
be attached to students. Some schools, such as the Academy
Charter School have worked with the district on creative
transportation arrangements to reduce parent transportation
distances. Indirect fees should be adjusted so the rates are
fair, equitable, and don't fluctuate. For example, setting the
indirect fee rate at three percent seems equitable. In
addition, it would be helpful to have an itemization of indirect
costs. Any legislative direct appropriation grant should have
an attached requirement that the pass-through government entity,
such as the MSB, can only retain 2.5 percent for overhead or
indirect costs. When the MSB took 5 percent from the direct
appropriation grant for the Academy Charter school, it
represented "a big chunk" that could have gone to the classroom,
she said.
10:01:00 AM
CHAIR GATTIS anticipated that the charter school aspect in HB
278 is perhaps the most cumbersome aspect. She said it is
important to have dispelled the myth that charter schools don't
accommodate special needs students.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the federal funding for
military students. He asked whether the percentage of military
students could vary widely in some charter schools. He asked
whether the charter school seek per-student percentage across
the district.
MS. GERARD stated that MSBSD is working to ensure funding follow
a student. For example, the Birch Tree Charter School has its
four intensive special needs students receive increased funding
based on a per-pupil amount for an intensive student. She
offered to provide further information.
CHAIR GATTIS said she would distribute it to members.
10:03:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether any charter schools have
100 percent of IEP students.
MS. GERARD answered that her school has individualized learning
plans (ILPs) for each student but she was not aware of active
IEPs for all students.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether charter schools treat
special education students the same by using an IEP.
MS. GERARD answered yes.
10:05:29 AM
JACK WALSH, Superintendent, Craig School District, commented on
charter school operations, noting charter schools do not operate
in all communities. He related when charter schools were
initially set up one concern was that teachers could be assigned
who might not be the ones the parents preferred. Another
concern was that teachers selected in language immersion schools
needed to have appropriate language ability to teach. He
related a scenario that illustrated a teacher, such as himself,
with high school Spanish experience would not likely be
successful.
10:07:06 AM
CHAIR GATTIS agreed. She related her understanding in terms of
teachers' bargaining unit rules applied and a teacher may be
assigned regardless. A language immersion school may end up
with someone who has no foreign language skills. She expressed
concern that teacher consent is different between neighborhood
and charter schools. She related that teachers assigned to
neighborhood schools don't have an opportunity to consent, but
charter school teachers must agree to the assignment.
MR. WALSH answered that the teacher assignments may vary between
districts and some changes may be necessary within the teachers'
bargaining unit to allow flexibility. Further, in terms of
transportation, it varies between charter schools and some
charter schools may not have transportation issues. He offered
his belief most districts are trying to provide support.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III thanked him for his comments.
10:09:10 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:09 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|