Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/09/2003 01:45 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. 171
An Act repealing the charter school grant program; and
providing for an effective date.
EDDY JEANS, MANGER, SCHOOL FINANCE AND FACILITIES SECTION,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, explained
that the HB 171 would eliminate charter school grants. The
State grant program implemented in FY2002, allocates money
per ADM for each new charter school. The funding was
intended to supplement the federal start up grants for
charter schools.
The Alaska Department of Education and Early Development is
working closely with U.S. Department of Education to
increase the level of start-up grants provided by the
federal government therefore eliminating the need for the
State supplemental grant program beginning in FY 2005. The
State will allocate to new charter schools $150,000 a year
for the first three years and $45,000 in the forth year,
totaling $495,000 dollars start up funds over a four year
period.
The bill becomes effective July 1, 2004. The delayed
implementation will allow the State to fulfill its
commitment of start-up grants to the existing charter
schools. Any new charter schools approved to operate in FY
2004 would be eligible for the federal grant funds.
Co-Chair Harris asked if the State could anticipate more
federal money. Mr. Jeans replied that was the "bottom
line".
Co-Chair Harris asked what would happen without the money.
Mr. Jeans advised that with the one-year delay, if the
federal funds do not come through, the Department would be
back before the Legislature requesting reinstitution of the
program. However, he added that every indication from the
federal government indicates that the grant request will be
looked upon favorably.
Co-Chair Harris asked the benefits of a charter school to
students and the State of Alaska. Mr. Jeans noted the
amount of parental involvement in those schools. Charter
schools are "grass root movements" and the parents are very
involved in the classrooms. Charter schools have
flexibility in their regulations; however, they are required
to follow the same assessments as the regular public
schools. Charter schools are public schools and have a
contract with their local school district to operate the
program.
Co-Chair Harris inquired how much the State provides for
each student in the charter school. Mr. Jeans explained
that would vary depending on the program. Some of the
charter school programs are correspondence programs and are
funded at 80%. The main difference results from the student
population of the charter school. If there are less than
150 students, the current foundation statute requires them
to be added to the local school in that district.
Therefore, their funding would be reduced. If they have
over 150 students, they are allowed to go through the school
size adjustment table just as any public school in the
district.
Co-Chair Harris asked if there were less than 150 students
in the charter school, would they then get added to the
regular school system and counted as such. Mr. Jeans
explained that in statute is the "school size adjustment
table", which adjusts for the student economy of scale.
Within that section of statute, it stipulates that before a
charter school is counted as a separate, independent school,
there must be more than 150 students. If there were not
that many students, it would be added to the largest school
for funding purposes. Mr. Jeans reiterated that if there
are over 150 students, they are then counted as their own
separate school.
Co-Chair Harris noted that the correspondence program is
separate. Mr. Jeans acknowledged that was correct, pointing
out that there are a couple charter schools funded as a
correspondence program. Those programs will be funded at
80%.
Vice-Chair Meyer inquired if there had been a statewide
increase in the charter school programs. Mr. Jeans
acknowledged that charter schools are on an increase
statewide. That is directly related to legislation passed
in 2001, which expanded the number from 30 to 60 charter
schools in the State that can be operated by districts. He
added that the State Board of Education just approved four
new charter schools for this upcoming year; (1) in Mat-Su,
(2) in Anchorage and (1) in Ketchikan.
Vice-Chair Meyer asked how much additional money does a
charter school receive. Mr. Jeans explained that there is
not an easy answer and that it does depend on the size of
the student population. The formula adjusts for economies
of scale. If there is a small school of 150 students, there
will be fixed costs associated, which would increase the
amount. The formula adjusts for the economies of scales.
Representative Croft pointed out that the State expects
money for the FY05 budget, not this year. Mr. Jeans
corrected Representative Croft pointing out that the State
expects to receive the money this year. The effective date
is FY04 because the Department is attempting to make the
districts that are under the current State program "whole".
That request is in the FY04 budget. Mr. Jeans added that
once the federal grants are closed, they cannot be reopened.
All new charter schools will be under the new federal
allocation for charter school start up.
Representative Croft asked about moving the State system and
shifting it over to the federal area. He inquired why
language should be repealed.
Representative Croft voiced concern about the possibility
that only part of the federal money might come through. Mr.
Jeans explained that the Department does not intend to
continue operating the State grant program. If the federal
money does not come through, the Department will come back
to the Legislature to determine if they want to reinstitute
the State grant program. He noted that Senator Dyson shared
that concern as well and put contingent language in the
Senate version of the bill, which would address the
repealler.
Representative Croft maintained that if the State can fully
utilize federal money now, the statute should remain on the
books in case the federal funds are not guaranteed. He did
not understand the need for the legislation.
Mr. Jeans advised that the reason that the Department
submitted the bill is that under the proposal before the
federal government, the State will be able to allocated more
money to the school districts through the federal program
than they receive for both programs currently combined. If
the State statute remains on the books, the State allows the
entitlement program to remain on the books for districts and
schools to continue to apply in the future for the State
grant. That would send a clear message that the intention
is to transition from the combined system to a single
system.
Co-Chair Harris asked why the fiscal note does not indicate
federal revenues. Mr. Jeans understood that there would be
sufficient federal authorization in the Teaching and
Learning Division to absorb the grant request.
Representative Foster MOVED to report HB 155 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 171 was reported out of Committee with "individual"
recommendations and with fiscal note #1 by the Department of
Education & Early Development.
TAPE HFC 03 - 55, Side B
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|