Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 106
03/28/2014 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB233 | |
| HB93 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 233 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 93 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 93-CHARTER SCHOOLS
9:15:59 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 93, "An Act relating to the authorization,
monitoring, and operation of charter schools." [Version O was
before the committee, adopted as a work draft on 3/15/13.]
9:17:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 93, Version R, labeled 28-LS0354\R,
Mischel, 3/20/14 as the working document. There being no
objection, Version R was before the committee.
9:18:10 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
9:19:15 AM
CRYSTAL KENNEDY, Staff, Representative Lynn Gattis, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Lynn Gattis, prime
sponsor of HB 93, presented the committee substitute (CS) for HB
93, Version R, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
All of the changes made in this CS incorporate the
portion of the Governor's bill, HB 278, regarding
charter schools and the amendments that this committee
made to HB 278 so that this bill now is the stand
alone bill that mirrors the charter school portion of
the CS to HB 278.
The first section requires that a district make its
decision to deny or approve a charter school
application within 60 days of that application being
submitted. This section also allows the Commissioner
of the Department of Education and Early Development
to approve a charter school that was initially denied
by a local district and provides for the State Board
of Education to become the operator of the charter
school.
The second section lays out the appeal process through
the Commissioner's office.
Section Three is the Committee amendment on securing a
charter school right of first refusal for leasing of
available space of school district facilities and that
the district can charge a reasonable fee that reflects
the true operational costs of that facility.
9:20:35 AM
MS. KENNEDY, paraphrasing from a prepared statement,
continued to read [original punctuation provided]:
Section 4 limits the amount that a district can charge
in indirect cost fees to 4% and includes language that
state funding that is generated for special needs,
vocational and technical instruction and construction
or major maintenance should be part of the funding
directed to charter schools.
Section 5 requires that school districts formulate
policies and thoughtfully address the transportation
challenges of their charter school students.
Districts would be charged with coordinating
transportation routes and transportation availability
as best they can within their current transportation
plan to provide transportation where and when
feasible. If not, the districts will have to forfeit
the portion of their transportation funds generated by
the number of students attending the charter school
and hand that money over to the charter school. It
does not require the district to specifically provide
transportation for students but they do have to allow
charter school students to take advantage of normal
bus routes whenever reasonably possible.
Section 6 addresses bonding by a municipality or
borough for construction, additions and major
rehabilitation projects for charter schools. This
will allow for a 70% debt reimbursement of bonds for
charter school projects.
9:22:00 AM
MS. KENNEDY, paraphrasing from a prepared statement,
continued to read [original punctuation provided]:
Section 7 decreases the minimum number of students
required for establishing the funding rate for a
charter school within its first three years, and
allowing the adjusted student count to be counted at
the same rate as for 150 students.
Section 8 speaks of the repeal of the HSGQE and
Section [9] provides for an effective date of Sept. 1,
2014.
CHAIR GATTIS, in response to a question, reminded members
that the committee is working from Version R.
9:23:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III added clarification that Section 8 will
repeal the sunset for the charter school facilities program and
not the HSGQE [Section 3, ch. 91, SLA 2010].
MS. KENNEDY offered to provide the information.
9:24:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 9, line 21 of Version R,
to paragraph (18) relating to the 70 percent reimbursement for
schools. He expressed concern from two districts that this
language creates a differential between the alternative schools
and the charter schools since the charter schools can obtain
bond reimbursement rates at a higher rate. Under certain
circumstances, alternative schools may need to be eligible for
the same bond reimbursement rate as charter schools.
CHAIR GATTIS asked Representative Kito III to respond.
9:26:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III clarified the issue he had intended to
address is that charter schools are often located in leased
facilities, but alternative schools are typically located in
district facilities. The amendment for the 70 percent
[reimbursement of payments on tax-exempt bond] provision was to
allow for a pathway to charter schools to be built and
incorporated as a district facility to avoid onerous lease
costs.
CHAIR GATTIS agreed and said in her district the charter schools
are in leased buildings.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON acknowledged that he had supported the
amendment. He pointed out that alternative schools are often
focused on recapturing student attendance and are separate from
charter schools. If a school district chose to bond and build
an alternative school the bonding would be at the 60 percent
reimbursement level and not the 70 percent reimbursement ratio.
A specialized mission may need to be defined to include other
alternative facilities, along with charter schools. It was not
considered previously.
CHAIR GATTIS disagreed, and said the Matanuska-Susitna Borough
School District's (MSBSDs) alternative school, Valley Pathways,
is being built and bonded under the 70:30 bonding structure.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON acknowledged that the MSBSD is the only
area that is expanding and allowed to operate under the 70:30
percent bonding structure but no other district would be able to
obtain that bond structure.
9:30:37 AM
CHAIR GATTIS stated her understanding that schools could obtain
the 70:30 bonding structure if the charter school had sufficient
students, but if not, one option would be to offer alternative
school, but it wouldn't be eligible for the reimbursement at
70:30.
9:31:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER suggested this measure will be
appropriate, particularly if districts are shrinking and space
is becoming available in the current facilities.
9:31:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III reiterated the difference is that many
charter schools are leasing existing space. He offered his
belief that with declining enrollment the school could still use
the 70:30 bonding reimbursement provision to renovate an
existing building to accommodate an alternative program. If the
school is overbuilt for the district, the charter school
wouldn't qualify to build a small alternative school using the
70:30 bonding; however, the bill was written to assist charter
schools paying lease payments to be placed in a district
facility.
9:32:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed with the goal to equalize the
opportunity for charter schools. However, it might
disenfranchise some alternative schools who can't qualify for
the reimbursement at 70 percent, except in some districts such
as the MSBSD, since the overall vacancy space in a district
might be due to vacancies in a number of communities.
9:34:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON turned to the charter school denial
process in Section 1 that allows the Alaska State School Board
to authorize and become the school board for that school. She
suggested that statute would need to be amended to allow for
that action.
9:35:50 AM
MS. KENNEDY offered her belief that she might be referring to
page 2, line 17, of HB 93, Version R. which 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 applications 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.
9:37:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether AS 14.03.255 has been
amended since it doesn't currently allow them to operate.
MS. KENNEDY deferred to the EED to answer.
CHAIR GATTIS preferred to hold the question.
9:37:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III said EED operates the Mt. Edgecombe
boarding school as a public school. In addition, the department
has the ability to take over operations of schools that are
underperforming. He indicated the department could expand on
this but he believed the department has the ability to operate
as a school.
9:38:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to proposed Sec. 7, [beginning
on page 9, line 31 through page 10, line 2 of Version R], which
read, "(d) If a charter school has a student count of more than
74 [120] but less than 150 for the current year and is in the
first three years [YEAR] of operation or had a student count of
at least 75 [150 OR MORE] in the previous year of operation,".
She interpreted this to mean the school could use a count for
three years if under 75 students. She explained that in small
districts it is difficult to begin a charter school given the
demographics of the classroom such that some K-6 charter schools
wouldn't ever be able to reach 150 students. She suggested
reducing the figures to allow smaller charter schools to
operate.
9:40:04 AM
CHAIR GATTIS restated the question is whether to change the
count that a charter school needs to a lower number than the
bill indicates. Although she didn't object, she acknowledged
that there are usually financial implications.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III deferred to the department, but
expressed concern that the operating cost for charter schools
being established with too few students would be excessive in
comparison to the number of students being served. Further, it
would be difficult to operate with the amount of money received
in the BSA although he was unsure of the dividing line for the
minimum number of students.
CHAIR GATTIS remarked that if a school can't afford to operate
it may be self-limiting.
9:41:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related the effect that changes for
charter school size has had on the Kenai Peninsula School
District (KPSD). In one instance, the district needed to
transfer $200,000 more per year than anticipated due to the
small size of the charter school, which is less efficient to
operate. He said that reducing the size means the districts
will face more per student costs due to the inefficiencies.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:41 a.m. to 9:49 a.m.
9:49:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1,
on page 10, line 1, to delete "three years" [YEAR] of operation"
and to delete "150" and replace it with "75." She said this
would assist small charter schools working to grow to K-6.
CHAIR GATTIS objected for discussion purposes.
9:50:55 AM
SUSAN MCCAULEY, Director, Teaching and Learning Support,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), answered
that this is not her area of expertise, but it is a school
finance consideration with a potential fiscal note implication.
She understood the intent of Conceptual Amendment 1, to remove a
potential barrier that charter schools face. She reported that
four charter schools have been operating under the 150
attendance requirement that affect the districts. She was
unsure of the fiscal implications of the Conceptual Amendment 1.
9:52:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III stated he was also unsure of the fiscal
impact. He offered that the fiscal formulas being impacted are
shown in AS 14.17.440. He said that student population base
numbers between 75 and 150 equals a base amount of $122.85 and
with student size range of 150-250, that the base amount is
$218.00.
9:53:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked for ramifications to Conceptual
Amendment 1 that would change the number of students required in
a charter school from 150 to 75 since the smaller school
districts have difficulty reaching 150.
9:54:47 AM
ELIZABETH SWEENEY NUDELMAN, Director, School Finance and
Facilities Section, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), stated her understanding the average daily
membership of 75 is for charter schools to receive increased
funding and have an opportunity to grow.
9:56:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON clarified that it would be limited to
the first three years of operation.
MS. NUDELMAN read," ... in the first three years or had a
student count of at least 75 [150 OR MORE] in the previous year
of operation. She related her understanding that once the
charter school attains and maintains a student count of 75, the
charter school would be funded at a higher level than currently
established in law.
9:57:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1.
9:57:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether funds would be made
available if the founders intentionally want to have a small
school.
MS. NUDELMAN answered yes; that charter schools of any size are
supported through a number of opportunities allowed under the
funding chart. The lowest funding for the charter school would
be an increase of 1.18 per average daily membership (ADM), she
said.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether a charter school of 25-50
could exist.
MS. NUDELMAN answered yes; that the formula for the ADM would be
adjusted by a 1.18 increment. She acknowledged some practical
considerations would come into play.
9:59:30 AM
CHAIR GATTIS closed public testimony on HB 93.
10:00:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to adopt [Conceptual] Amendment 2
to change the effective date from September 1, 2014 to July 1,
2014.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected for discussion.
10:01:18 AM
MS. KENNEDY explained that [Conceptual] Amendment 2 is necessary
since certain dates work better for school districts. It would
align the district with the budget year on July 1 of a given
year instead of September 1, 2014, since at that point the
school year would already have started.
10:02:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether [Conceptual] Amendment 2
would allow the department much time to write regulations to
comply with statute. She referred to page 10, line 19, to the
effective date clause.
MS. KENNEDY referred to language on page 10, proposed Sec. 10,
which read, "This Act takes affect September 1, 2014." The
proposed Amendment 2 would change the effective date to July 1,
2014.
10:03:28 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
CHAIR GATTIS acknowledged concerns were raised on the date.
10:05:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to withdraw [Conceptual] Amendment
2.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for discussion purposes. He
asked whether the change is an application to the formula and
may not require separate regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON withdrew his objection.
There being no further objection, [Conceptual] Amendment 2 was
withdrawn.
10:07:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to report HB 93, Version R, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 93(EDC) was
reported from the House Education Standing Committee.