Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/10/2001 02:00 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 101
"An Act relating to charter schools; and providing for
an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, SPONSOR, testified in support of
HB 101. He noted that the legislation is nearly identical to
a bill, which nearly made it through the legislation in the
past year. He maintained that state of Alaska's charter
school law is among the weakest in the nation.
Representative Dyson discussed changes to the existing
charter school law in HB 101. He observed that the bill
eliminates the 2005 sunset clause. It also extends the
allowable contract length from 5 to 10 years and eliminates
the geographic distribution requirements. The legislation
clarifies that charter schools are not exempt from
competency testing.
Representative Dyson observed that the previous legislation
mandated that school districts provide an accounting
statement for student allotment and local contributions.
This has been eliminated. The new legislation also abandons
the attempt to mandate distribution of a pro-rated share of
local contributions to charter schools.
Representative Dyson explained that the legislation would
allow charter schools to be counted as a separate school if
the ADM is over 150 (AS 14.17.905). He emphasized that
charter schools tend to be small and that this would allow
them to receive the same funds as other schools in the
district per student. The legislation also provides a one-
time 'start-up" grant of $500 dollars per person and allows
for charter school use of safe public buildings with
district superintendent approval.
Vice-Chair Bunde observed that charter schools funds come
from the district's total state support. The legislation
would free funds for the district.
Representative Croft questioned if the legislation is a cost
shifting measure. Representative Dyson acknowledged that the
fiscal note would provide an additional $2 million dollars
to education.
REPRESESNTATIVE GRETCHEN GUESS emphasized that the
legislation would provide additional funds; funds would not
be shifted from one district to another.
Co-Chair Williams observed that the sunset would be in the
year 2005. He questioned if charters have to be for 5 years.
WESS KELLER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, explained
that current contracts could not exceed 2005. New contracts
would not exceed the sunset date.
Vice-Chair Bunde asked if the money would only go to
districts that have charter schools.
Representative Guess replied that the fiscal note has two
parts: the startup grant and a change to the foundation
formula. The funds would go to the school district. School
districts without a charter school would not receive funds.
Vice-Chair Bunde pointed out that a school district would
not be legally bond to provide the additional funds to the
charter school, but acknowledged the moral obligation.
Representative Dyson maintained that the State Board of
Education and Department of Education and Early Development
would track the funding. Vice-Chair Bunde observed that
accountability would come through parent feedback.
Representative Dyson acknowledged that there is no specific
report to the legislature, but emphasized parent
involvement.
Representative John Davies asked what the fiscal impact
would be if the number for full funding eligibility was
dropped from 150 to 100 students. Representative Dyson
understood that there would be three more schools added
under the change to 150 students. He estimated that this
would be increased by a multiple of 2 or 3. Representative
Guess interjected that it would result in a decrease in the
foundation formula.
Representative John Davies assumed that if the fiscal note
were approved, there would not be an objection to lowering
the number. Representative Dyson stated that he would not
object if the charter school legislation were not adversely
affected.
Representative Lancaster asked if there were a need to
double the number of charter schools to 60. Representative
Dyson maintained that the change is needed. He estimated
that there would be 45 or 50 schools in the next two years
if the legislation is passed. He observed that the
University of Alaska would like to start three schools to be
used as laboratory schools. He reviewed a number of
proposals with different emphasis such as preserving local
languages and addressing deaf students.
Representative Hudson referenced correspondence schools. He
asked if the legislation would affect correspondence
schools. Representative Dyson stated that there is concern
that students not "double dip".
Co-Chair Mulder referenced SB 36 and noted that the hard
count provides a name with a number, which makes it more
difficult to cheat.
Co-Chair Williams observed that charter schools have closed.
Representative Dyson noted that his daughter worked in the
Anchorage charter school, which recently closed. He
maintained that the school would have been successful with a
lower student count. Funding killed the school.
BRUCE JOHNSON, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, observed that the State Board
supports the mission of charter schools in assisting in the
general improvement of education. The Board supports efforts
to assure that charter schools receive a fair share of
funding, including reasonable startup funding and urges that
the startup funding be new money. The Board supports the
elimination of geographical restrictions and the designated
number of charter schools in urban communities. The Board
observed that it has taken 5 years to reach the current
number of 17 schools and does not believe that the number
needs to be expanded at this time. The Board noted that the
number could be expanded at a future time.
Vice-Chair Bunde referred to the fiscal note.
EDDY JEANS, MANGER, SCHOOL FINANCE AND FACILITIES SECTION,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, affirmed that
funding would go directly to the school district. Each
charter school negotiates a contract with the school
district for administrative overhead. The Department
calculates basic need for each charter school based on the
number students.
Vice-Chair Bunde clarified that a school district without a
charter school would not receive funding from the
legislation.
Representative John Davies agreed, but pointed out that
school districts would receive the same amount of funds per
student. Mr. Jeans pointed out that some of these students
would be home schooled without a charter school option.
Home-schooled students do not generate money for the school
district through the foundation formula. Funding depends on
school size. If a student were enrolled in a charter school
the funding would go to the district. The district and the
charter school would negotiate a contract to distribute the
funds. The statute, as it is currently written, allows the
school district to take indirect costs for administrative
expenses from the funding generated by the charter school.
Through the negotiation of the contract, the charter school
may elect to give the district additional money for services
such as special education and library services.
Representative John Davies questioned the fiscal cost
associated with a school size change of 100 students. Mr.
Jeans emphasized that he could only make a rough guess and
replied that the cost for the additional four schools
identified would be $2 - $2.7 million dollars. He explained
that the students are already in the charter school, but
because they are under the 200-student threshold they are
being counted in the largest school in the district, which
is the high school, which generates the least amount of
money. Below 100, the adjustment would be substantial.
Representative Hudson asked the positive and negative impact
of the charter schools. He observed that the funding flows
to the school district. He asked if the school district
would have responsibility for oversight to make certain the
educational program is qualified and performing as it
should. Mr. Jeans emphasized that the charter schools are
still public schools and school districts have juristic
diction over those schools. He added that the same students
would generate less money if they were added to the larger
school where they receive less per student. Charter schools
can generate more money per student if they meet the 200-
student level.
Mr. Johnson stressed that children are better educated when
their parents are involved in their education. There are
distinct educational advantages to having a choice.
Representative Hudson questioned if there is any requirement
for additional parental economic involvement in charter
schools. Mr. Johnson emphasized that charter schools are
still public schools and all students are entitled to a free
public education. Charter school students are not currently
provided with transportation through the state
transportation system. The State Board believes that
transportation should be provided so that the option is
available to every family regardless of their capacity to
get their child to the charter school. The lack of
transportation may result in a more select population.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Williams, Mr. Johnson
observed that parents are choosing charter school
opportunities for an entire host of reasons, such as school
size or special needs. All of the schools are "starved" for
money. He observed that the "dreamers" that start the school
become weary because they cannot buy relief from the seven
day a week commitment that they were willing to make for the
first three years. As the founders leave and others take
over the schools go into crisis if they do not have adequate
financial resources to buy services.
Co-Chair Williams noted the cost of providing charter
schools with a $500 dollar per person start up grant. Mr.
Jeans replied that startup cost would be $1.2 million
dollars for one-time grants. Grants could be used for rent,
books, desks and other costs. Mr. Johnson interjected that
some school districts can afford to assist with startup
costs and others cannot. The intent is to assist schools
with basic needs. Mr. Jeans clarified that every school
would be entitled to the one-time startup funds, including
those that are currently operating.
DEBBIE OSSINANDER, ANCHORAGE SCHOOL BOARD, ANCHORAGE, spoke
in support for the proposed legislation. Charter schools are
an important new direction that allows greater choice to
families and helps facilitate parent directed education. She
noted that charter schools have many challenges. She stated
that the bill would bring greater flexibility for housing
children. She stressed the challenges in providing starting
up costs. She noted that it is the Anchorage School Board's
intent to financially support charter schools.
DARROLL HARGRAVES, ALASKA COUNCIL OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS,
testified that superintendents do not oppose the bill. He
spoke in support of the extension to 60 schools statewide.
Charter schools would be subject to the same competency test
as the rest of the public school system. He testified in
support of the charter extension and noted that the original
five-year deadline was about up. The five-year sunset was
originally put in place to judge the success of the schools.
LARRY SEMMENS, AURORA BOREALIS SCHOOL, KENAI testified via
teleconference in support of the legislation. He noted that
their students perform well on tests. There is a 200-student
waiting list. The school plan is to expand to 200-students,
but classroom space is not immediately available. He noted
support for the contract term extension, elimination of the
sunset date and additional funding per student. He spoke
against the penalty for schools under 200 students. The 200-
student penalty adversely affects district funding; it costs
the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District up to $7,000
dollars a student. He maintained that parent involvement
results in success in education and that charter schools can
make a difference for education in Alaska.
Representative Lancaster referred to pupil transportation.
Mr. Semmens noted that parents transport their students,
some at great distances.
HB 101 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|