Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 106
03/15/2010 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB350 | |
| HB413 | |
| HB393 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 413 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 393 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 350 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 393-CHARTER/ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL FUNDING
8:47:37 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 393, "An Act relating to charter school approval
and funding."
8:48:16 AM
JIM POUND, Staff, Representative Wes Keller, Alaska State
Legislature, paraphrasing from a prepared sponsor statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Over the years, this legislature has continually
searched for answers to improve the quality of the
education our children receive. We have promoted both
verbally and financially many ideas. Some of those
have worked while others have failed.
One area that continues to show promise in a
traditional classroom scenario are charter schools.
Charter Schools succeed because of efforts by the
school district, principals, teachers, and especially
parents. This team effort has proven to be extremely
effective.
House Bill 393 will continue to show our support for
these successful education programs by creating a
grant program within the Department of Education for
charter school construction, leases or major
maintenance. The Department will create a five year
program of grants based on existing per pupil
formulas. The legislature will be able to gage the
success of the program annually by reviewing and
providing the necessary funding.
HB 393 rewards the success of the program by allowing
more school districts to open and maintain charter
schools. Your support will ensure that one of the
successful education programs we have approved of in
the past will continue to prosper.
MR. POUND indicated that HB 393 would assist charter
schools in obtaining federal grants, by ending the
restriction on the number of charter schools. It would
provide for a Supplemental Charter School Facilities
Program, through a combination of federal and state grants,
charter schools would be able to apply for state grants.
8:50:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked for clarification. She asked for the
specific cite in HB 393 that removes the limit on the number of
charter schools.
MR. POUND referred to page 1, lines 6-9, of Section 1 of HB 393.
8:50:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ referred to the percentage of funding
allowances for federal funding and asked if the intent is that
the local district be required to fund the balance.
MR. POUND related that HB 393 would set up a program in which
the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) would
apply to the federal grant program, which would be cultivated,
and the local district would apply for grant funds.
8:51:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ noted the school would be eligible for a
percentage of allowable costs. She asked which entity would pay
the additional percentage of costs to make the project viable.
MR. POUND related his understanding that the local school
district would pick up the additional costs.
8:51:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER remarked that the intent is to establish a
policy that demonstrates the state has a vested interest in
obtaining facilities for charter schools. The cap seems
insignificant to him, he stated. The Alaska Charter School
Association (ACSA) asked the state to make a contribution of
state funds to charter schools in order to meet federal grant
eligibility requirements. If the charter schools receive $1.00
per student per year, it would cost approximately $1,000 per
year. That amount represents minimal state funding with the
balance to be picked up by the local school district.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ expressed concern that there would be no
guarantee that a charter school would receive local support.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER agreed. He commented that there is a
companion bill in the other body. Additionally, charter schools
are public schools with an option for local bonding. He agreed
that funding is difficult in some districts.
8:54:21 AM
CHAIR SEATON read from page 2, line 2, which read as follows:
(b) The department shall apply for available federal
funding and award federal funding made available under
the grant program established under (a) of this
section for not more than five years for approved
projects for charter school facilities construction,
lease, or major maintenance as follows:
CHAIR SEATON also referred to page 2, line 10, which read,
"(3) 60 percent of the allowable costs for the third fiscal
year for the approved project;." He said that in the third
year, 60 percent of the allowable costs would be absorbed
by the community. He then referred to page 2, lines 19-22,
which read:
(d) A school district or regional educational attendance
area that submits an application for a proposed project
under AS 14.11.011 for funding under this section that is
approved for funding by the department shall provide a
participating share that is equal to the difference between
available federal funding and the state aid provided under
AS 14.11.126.
CHAIR SEATON interpreted that to mean the school district would
absorb 40 percent of the cost and the next year would absorb 60
percent of the cost. He clarified that the funds would come
from the school district for construction project, which would
"bypass the vote of the people in the district." Thus, a
municipality could take on a significant funding liability for
building new schools and the voters would not decide if they
want to assume the bonding authority. He asked for an
explanation.
8:56:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER stated that the assumption is that
construction project would be happening. The link to the local
voters is "very real." He pointed out that the school board
would approve any construction project. He interpreted that the
intent of the language is not to obligate a district, community,
or a borough to pay for a construction project. He stated that
if the community decides to build a charter school, this bill
would provide the structure. The intent is to "leave the state
harmless: and ensure that the state general fund is not the
funding source, unless the legislature decides to do so." He
related that in every district the participation will vary. He
offered his view that his district would be very supportive of
building charter schools; in fact, his district has already done
so since as a "nice facility" exists in Palmer.
8:57:58 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he understood the bill's intent, but in
reviewing page 2, lines 19-23, he related that it stipulates
that the school district or the REAA will provide a
participating share that is equal to the difference between
available federal funding and the state aid provided. Under the
bill, the school district would be 100 percent liable for the
project and in the third year would be liable for 60 percent of
the cost; and in the fourth year would be liable for 80 percent
of the cost. He stated that this bill provides a mechanism for
the school district to circumvent the will of the people, since
it will not require a vote. He remarked that this may not be
the sponsor's intent.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered that HB 393 applies to charter
schools, which operate on a contract with the local school
district, but are also public schools. Charter schools exist in
the "good graces" of the school district, he stated.
MR. POUND offered that essentially the intent is to "get them
going."
8:59:58 AM
CHAIR SEATON emphasized that he is not speaking about the
intention, which is understood. However, the bill may require
amendments to clarify who will own the building and will be
responsible for the funding to build the charter school. He
underscored that the bill's language must support the intent.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER responded that the community would be
liable for a building that it agrees to build.
CHAIR SEATON maintained that under the structure of HB 393 the
municipality is not required to vote to adopt bonds to build a
school facility. He referred to page 2, line 2, which
stipulates that the department "shall" apply for available
federal funding. He surmised that the district is liable for
the funds, but the building would be owned by the municipality.
He suggested that perhaps there is another way to analyze this
language.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered to examine the provisions more
closely and try to provide a more definitive answer.
9:02:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked what would happen if a federal grant
covered 100 per cent of the cost. She thought the current
language seems to be limiting.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered his belief that the program is a
statewide program, so if one charter school is fortunate to
receive 100 percent federal funding, funds would be distributed
among other districts.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ suggested insertion of "pursuant to local
support" somewhere in the paragraphs that pertain to local
participation.
9:03:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER referred to page 2, line 4, and read:
(b) The department shall apply for available federal
funding and award federal funding made available under
the grant program established under (a) of this
section for not more than five years for approved
projects for charter school facilities construction,
lease, or major maintenance ..."
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked what mechanism would be used to
approve the projects.
9:04:04 AM
MR. POUND answered that "approved projects" would be a local
decision. However, a local school district or REAA would
determine the approval requirements for a charter school. The
state does not normally establish the requirements for charter
schools, he stated.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether an automatic application
would be made for a building to house a charter school that is
approved by the local district.
MR. POUND responded that there is no requirement for an
automatic application from the district, since only the
department is required to apply for federal funding. He said it
is up to the school district to decide whether to make an
application. He said, "We're not forcing the districts to apply
for this."
9:04:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked for the mechanism that a local
community or a school district would use to determine which
charter schools would apply for the funding.
MR. POUND answered that no rules would apply as to the
disbursement of funds. He surmised that it may be covered in
the grant. It said, "It's strictly up to the local district how
and which charter schools they want to apply money to."
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related that some charter schools have
satisfactory buildings, some do not, and there must be a
mechanism to make that decision.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER related that typically a charter school
operates under a contract with the local school district,
including for its facilities. Many charter schools may
experience minimal space issues. The decision would be made via
the local decisions in the community at the local school board
level.
9:07:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ recalled having helped form a charter
school and said it is an arduous process. She agreed it is a
contract between the charter school and the school district and
must also be approved by the Board of Education. She said that
the federal awards are not limited by a percentage of the
project. Thus, she asked why the bill limits the granting of
the awards.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER replied that he has had a similar
question. He related that he has been working to mirror the
language in the companion bill. He also had questions on the
fiscal note since the bill requires $1.00 contribution per
student per year, yet it translates to $150,000 in the fiscal
note. He deferred to the department to answer her question.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ stated that based on her experience in the
past, the charter schools' facilities have been paid for using
the BSA. She pointed out the difficulty it poses for charter
schools to pay for the facility in addition to the curriculum
strictly using the BSA. She said, "I really support this
legislation. I think you are on the right track, but I do think
there are some opportunities to make it even better."
9:09:24 AM
CHAIR SEATON referred to page 2, line 21. The language on lines
19-25 read, as follows:
(d) A school district or regional educational attendance
area that submits an application for a proposed project
under AS 14.11.011 for funding under this section that is
approved for funding by the department shall provide a
participating share that is equal to the difference between
available federal funding and the state aid provided under
AS 14.11.126. Allowable costs for a project approved under
this section shall be based on the adjusted student count
for a charter school calculated under AS 14.17.450(a) and
(c), as determined by the commissioner.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER again deferred to the department. He
interpreted that the department makes its decisions on where to
distribute the funds in the program, but that the DEED is not
providing approval for a construction project. The DEED's
decision is whether the department is "sending the money" to the
district.
9:10:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to page 2, line 30, which read
as follows, "...amount that is not less than one dollar for each
pupil enrolled in the charter school." She asked if that
language is to obtain the federal grant.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER answered yes. He stated that the
eligibility requires that the local school district have a
specific statute that establishes a charter school program. The
intent of this bill is to provide access to federal funds. The
Alaska Charter School Association determined that its charter
schools are not eligible for federal funds since the program is
not established by statute. This bill would address that
matter.
9:12:05 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether the state needs to set up a BSA
formula for charter school students or if the school districts
are allowed to have a separate allocation for charter school
students within their districts.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER related his understanding that the federal
requirement is for a state program to support charter schools,
in statute, but is not connected to the BSA. He restated that
the state statute must have a program for assisting charter
schools to obtain facilities.
CHAIR SEATON said that this would establish a new per student
allocation specifically for every charter school student, which
is basically a BSA. He pointed out the amount could be $500 per
student or any amount. He offered his view that the $1.00 is
merely a place holder. The intent of the federal requirement is
to direct more funding to charter school students, he stated.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER responded that is it is "per student" in
the sense of what the state contributes, and not a guarantee.
The funding is designated to a program that would provide
facilities for charter schools. The dollar figure is per
student, but is a merely a means to achieve the funding. He was
not certain if the requirement is based on federal regulations.
CHAIR SEATON suggested the questions are merely placed on the
table for consideration. He understood this bill is based on
language contained in a companion bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he appreciated the questions.
9:15:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related her understanding that charter
schools often struggle to stay open. She asked what would
happen if a charter school received funding, built a building,
and then the charter school was dismantled. In that scenario,
the respective school district would have a building that it may
not have be able to use since the charter school was dissolved.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered his belief those issues would be
part of the contract and the district would own the building as
an asset.
9:16:19 AM
SAM KITO, III, Engineer, School, Finance, and Facilities
Section, Department of Education and Early Development, stated
that the EED has done some research on charter schools. He
reported that that federal legislation passed several years ago,
which was funded at a small level for charter schools. Indiana
and California applied and received funding. The past two years
the program was not funded, but there has been renewed interest
with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to
encourage development of facilities for charter schools, which
has resulted in renewed interest in the program. The process is
that states apply to the federal government for participation
and based on the competitive responses, the schools are granted
funding. The Congress has not currently appropriated any
additional funding for this program. However, the applications
are handled in a competitive manner. One scoring criteria is
the level of per student funding related to facilities. While
per student funding in HB 393 would meet the federal
requirement, it does not necessarily meet the intent. Thus,
since Alaska would compete with other states, the $1.00 per
student may not help the application score particularly high.
Once the federal application is granted, a "stair-step" process
is used, beginning with a 90 percent level of funding for the
first year. The intent is for the federal government to help
stair-step a facilities funding program for charter schools, but
funding is uncertain, he stated.
9:20:15 AM
CHAIR SEATON related the intended purpose of the federal funds
is to "ramp up" a state facilities program based on a "per
student" cost and other factors, including a per student funding
for charter schools. It is likely that the administration would
need to demonstrate the state is initiating a program for
charter school facilities. The state needs federal funding to
establish the state's program.
MR. KITO agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER clarified that the federal intent is to
"ramp up" a facilities program for the states. He related his
understanding of the federal intent was to provide start-up
costs for schools.
9:21:46 AM
MR. KITO responded that it is for "ramping up" a state
facilities program. He explained that the state has not scored
well on the two components the state uses to obtain operating
funds for charter schools. This is not addressed in the bill.
The department expresses concern on whether these items can be
effectively implemented in the state. First, the charter
schools are administered under the local education agencies.
The competitive process requires that the charter schools have a
statewide appeals process if the local education agency is
responsible for establishing charter schools; or that the
charter schools are administered through a statewide program and
not through the local education agencies.
9:23:19 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether the reason that some states are not
eligible for operating costs is that their charter schools are
administered by the local school district.
MR. KITO answered that is correct. He explained that Alaska has
been applying for federal funding through the federal charter
school program for operational funding. Alaska has not scored
well enough to receive those funds, but the state does apply
each year.
CHAIR SEATON stated that the federal government is attempting to
leverage state regulation and state operation of charter schools
via grant qualifications as opposed to having charter schools
under local control.
MR. KITO agreed.
9:24:17 AM
CHAIR SEATON recapped that the federal program requires a state
appeals process be in place to conduct appeals in the event that
a local district turns down a local charter school application.
MR. KITO replied that is correct. In further response to Chair
Seaton, he agreed to provide the application criteria for the
committee to review.
MR. JEANS responded that the specific criteria will not be
outlined in the scoring rubric. However, in the federal
comments it is quite apparent that a state will score very low
unless it has a separate appeals board to allow charter schools
to appeal the local education agency decisions. Additionally,
this is not limited to state charter schools, but charter
schools could operate independent of local school districts. He
reported that Alaska has a cap of 60 in our state, and due to
that cap, the state scores low. These three areas are ways the
federal government asserts its agenda via the application
process for charter school funding. In further response to
Chair Seaton, he offered to provide copies to the committee.
9:27:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered his belief that there is some
confusion. He explained that the criteria that "we don't live
up to" in our charter school statutes does not relate directly
to the facilities being built. The operating grants have not
been granted to Alaska and the applications are scored low
because the federal government does not view the structure as
appropriate for "a good charter school." He viewed this as
"mixing apples and oranges". He said he supports having an
appeal process for approval for initiating a charter school but
it is not a requirement for the facilities grant.
MR. KITO offered his understanding that some overlap exists, but
to be competitive the state must meet the criteria for charter
school operations.
CHAIR SEATON suggested that it will be helpful for the committee
to receive the information.
9:29:59 AM
MR. KITO, in response to P. Wilson, answered that it is not that
the charter schools must be stand alone facilities, but charter
schools must exercise financial independence and control their
own curriculum.
9:30:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ offered her belief that the topic is
broader since the federal law touches on hiring and other
things.
MR. JEANS cautioned the committee that these requirements will
not be indicated in the federal regulations or law, but rather
it is a policy issue. These policy requests come via the
evaluation of the state applications of the federal grant
program for charter schools. Thus, these items appear in the
evaluator's scoring sheets and Alaska receives very low scores
due to the lack of components the federal government would like
to see in charter school legislation. This equates to the
federal policy asserted via the grant process, he stated.
9:31:56 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if the process is similar to "Race to the
Top."
MR. JEANS agreed the process is similar.
9:32:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER commented that the issues on evaluation of
charter schools began some time ago. The reason for the
requirements is the success of the charter school students. He
acknowledged that Alaska does score low in the federal review of
states' charter school governance. However, he offered his
belief that the standards arise from the associations and not
the federal government. He asked for further clarification of
the $150,000 appropriation request.
9:33:53 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified that a fiscal note does not appear in the
packet.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked why there is not a fiscal note from
the DEED.
MR. KITO responded that a fiscal note was prepared as an
identical fiscal note to the one provided for the companion
bill.
CHAIR SEATON related the fiscal note will be distributed.
MR. KITO explained that the fiscal note for HB 393 is identical
to the one prepared for the companion bill. The fiscal impact
is based on the actual cost of administering the program. The
federal funding is based on the state's program being approved.
The state's program would need to take into consideration all of
the items in the bill, but would also need to be a
prioritization program. Thus, currently the state has a grant
program and a funding program for debt. If the state receives
applications from charter schools for facilities the state would
need to establish a program for prioritizing those projects. He
said it is not anticipated that the state will receive enough
federal, state, or local funding for all the projects. Thus,
the state would need to develop a program to prioritize
applications for facilities projects.
9:36:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER pointed out that the fiscal note indicates
$150,000 but the Charter School Association is not anticipating
receiving this much. He said he thought that 1.5 employees
seemed high. When the original charter school enabling
legislation passed, there was a fulltime position approved to
work in EED as an advocate for charter schools. That person has
had performed duties beyond the charter school responsibilities.
MR. KITO explained that he reviewed the current program to
manage debt projects, which he thought was over $100 million in
grant projects annually. This grant program and grant debt
function is administered by 3 of 4 of the DEED's staff. He
anticipated that based on the anticipated number of charter
school applications by the DEED, the cost would be about $20
million for one project. He discussed the prior administration
of federal grants with other staff and determined at least a
fulltime person would be needed to administer the program, plus
clerical work, and arrived at 1.5 positions. He pointed out the
necessity to meet reporting requirements to the federal
government. He wanted to ensure appropriate staff was available
to administer the state's grant program, he stated.
Additionally, after the program terminates in five years, the
grants are active and the length of time included "the wind down
process" to close out the grants. However, staff would be
required for one to two years beyond the program completion.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER requested a report on the fulltime person
that has been functioning as the charter school advocate. He
recalled the person had other duties. An accounting of the
positions function would be helpful for the committee. He
expressed disappointment that the position may be performing
other projects.
CHAIR SEATON appreciated his comments. He clarified the intent
of the new grant program delineated in HB 393. He suggested
that this relates back to the fiscal note, but he wanted to stay
on track.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER related his intent is to "reason with the
department" and negotiate a smaller fiscal impact.
9:42:29 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated it is a reasonable and relevant question.
It is useful to know the time the DEED spends on prioritizing
maintenance of its grants. Additionally, this bill would
require a priority list for statewide grant applicants and for
leasing, which would need to be discussed. He did not recall
the DEED currently having a grant leasing program in place. He
suggested that the duties of the new position might be "rolled
into" the existing position, although he acknowledged the
position might be totally different.
MR. KITO offered to provide a report on the charter school
position.
9:44:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to an article in members'
packets that indicated some objections from the home school
community. She asked for input from that segment.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked for a position from the Department
of Education and Early Development (DEED).
MR. KITO stated the DEED does not currently have a position on
the bill.
9:45:18 AM
MR. KITO explained that if the legislature decides to move
forward with this bill, the goal would be to craft a program
that will work throughout the state. Additionally, the program
should be stable, since this program is only effective for five
years and is contingent on the federal program participation.
9:45:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked how many students are being served
in the 25 charter schools in Alaska and whether introducing
additional schools to compete for scare educational dollars
would result.
MR. KITO answered at this time there are 2,500 charter school
students and are housed in 24 independent facilities.
CHAIR SEATON suggested a summary report on the existing charter
schools.
MR. KITO agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked the report to also include the
number of charter schools that were created but are not longer
operational.
9:47:23 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked how the facilities will be owned and
operated, such as by the school district or the municipalities.
He asked whether this would establish a new classification of
ownership.
9:48:18 AM
MR. KITO answered that the charter school facilities would
operate in a fashion similar to the current charter school
operation. The DEED currently requires that a school district
must have adequate interest in a facility to receive public
funding. He described a scenario in which a leased facility
would be improved by public dollars and the lease lapsed. Thus,
a greatly improved building would be returned to the owner.
Additionally, use of federal funds could require an agreement to
grant assurances, which require the facility be operated for the
public's interest for a certain period of time. He expressed
concern that if a charter school was built and no longer used,
that the facility would need to be used or maintained by the
school district until the grant assurance expired. He recalled
a similar experience in rural Alaska on a school facility.
MR. KITO, in response to Chair Seaton, explained that twenty
years has been the norm for grant assurances.
CHAIR SEATON related that in the Homer district, the charter
school is not in a school facility. He asked whether it would
be the school district and not the municipality that would be
affected.
MR. KITO explained that the school district receives adequate
title interest, but it can be a facility that is owned by a
municipality, although an agreement must exist between the two.
The DEED considers ownership by the municipality as adequate
title interest, he stated.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether HB 393 would allow for the
construction of a school, including assuming liability, without
a vote of the people. He inquired as to whether this would
violate the requirements for incurring general obligation bonds.
MR. KITO said he was unsure. He offered his belief that by
submitting an application, the school district is obligating
itself to the future expense. However, he further understood
that subject to the regulation process, the application would
need to indicate the support of the local Board of Education.
This is similar to how the Board of Education approves the six
year plan for the DEED's grant program. Thus, the Board of
Education would acknowledge it is applying for charter school
funding. He stated the application would be clear and indicate
the potential school district's liability in regard to the
program.
9:52:55 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if the facilities are owned by the
municipality, does HB 393 allow for the school district to make
application, without being subject to voter approval. He asked
whether the DEED has considered this issue.
MR. KITO stated that he has not evaluated that issue and was
unsure of how to approach that issue. He said that he would
"take a look" at it.
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that is an area of the bill that
requires clarification from the Legislative Legal Services, or
Department of Law. He said he knew it was not the sponsor's
intention to disenfranchise voters. He said he did not want to
have an unintended consequence. He related that school
districts want bonds but the voters do not always approve them.
He stated that the application would initiate several "shalls"
on the DEED and indicate an obligation that is unclear.
9:54:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked for clarification on the $1,000 per
year, based on the 2,500 students in charter schools.
MR. KITO estimated that 40 percent of the schools would
participate in the program based on his own intuition.
9:56:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER highlighted that the advocates for HB 393
consider this to be a modest request.
9:56:35 AM
KIKI ABRAHAMSON, Lead Teacher, Fireweed Academy Charter School,
stated she is also a former president of the Alaska Charter
School Association. She indicated her understanding that only
three charter schools have closed their doors in the past 14
years. She said she did not think that more than 40 percent of
schools would apply for this funding. Many existing schools
have already established support in their communities, including
adequate facilities, through their school boards. She thought
that the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and Anchorage may not have
adequate facilities and would likely apply for the funds. She
recalled an evaluation of charter school law that outlined
criteria. She reported that Alaska has been "at the bottom" but
she disagreed that the federal government is pushing its agenda
via the grant program. However, she did think that the state
scores so low that it indicates the state does not support
charter schools at a level acceptable to the federal government.
She related that charter schools must meet or exceed the test
scores and academic progress of all schools in the state, but
have the handicap of lacking funding and access to facilities.
She offered to provide further information to the committee.
10:00:28 AM
CHAIR SEATON welcomed further submission of information. [HB
393 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 393 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/24/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/29/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/31/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 393 |
| HB 393 Charter School statutes.pdf |
HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/24/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 393 |
| back up AMYA.pdf |
HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 413 |
| HB413-EED-ESS-3-10-10.pdf |
HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 413 |
| sponsor statment HB413.docx |
HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 413 |
| HB 393 Charter School Background.pdf |
HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/24/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 393 |
| Support ltr fed dir.pdf |
HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 393 |
| Per pupil fac aid.pdf |
HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 393 |
| Fed Funding.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 393 |
| Discret Grants.pdf |
HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 393 |
| AK Grade 10.pdf |
HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/29/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 393 |
| Support public.pdf |
HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/31/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 393 |
| FY02-11LocalEffortAssessed&educationWithMills-2Pager_10-22-09.xlsx |
HEDC 2/19/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/3/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 350 |
| HB350-EED-ESS-2-18-10.pdf |
HEDC 2/19/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/3/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 350 |
| current program flow chart.docx |
HEDC 3/3/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 350 |
| Sponsor Statement HB 350.doc |
HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 350 |