Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 106
03/15/2013 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB142 | |
| HB93 | |
| HB151 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 93 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 151 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 142 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 93-CHARTER SCHOOLS
8:13:51 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 93, "An Act relating to the authorization,
monitoring, and operation of charter schools."
8:13:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to adopt the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 93, Version 28-LS0354\O, Mischel, 3/11/13, as the
working document. There being no objection, Version O was
before the committee.
8:14:31 AM
ERICK CORDERO-GIORGANA, Staff, Representative Lynn Gattis,
Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Gattis,
prime sponsor, presented the committee substitute (CS) for
HB 93. He said the purpose of HB 93 is to establish a process
to allow for multiple authorizers of public charter schools.
Currently, local school districts authorize public charter
schools through a two-tiered process: A community group of
parents first applies to the local school board, and then the
application must be ratified by the state board of education.
This presents difficulties when applications are not decided on
merit but on the "politics of the day." He defined an
authorizer as an entity that would review, approve, reject,
monitor, terminate, or renew a charter school contract. In
Alaska, all charter schools are public schools. He continued to
explain that the authorizer will ensure that a charter school
application meets the standards of local, state, and federal
laws and that the school will meet the needs of the children it
serves. Mr. Cordero-Giorgana advised that charter schools are
innovative and produce quality outcomes for students.
Furthermore, not enough charter schools are available for those
who wish to attend and sometimes enrollment must be through a
lottery process.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA presented a brief sectional analysis.
Section 1 describes an authorizer and that the local districts
can also approve charter schools. As an aside, he noted that
Alaska has twenty-seven public charter schools in eight school
districts. Section 2 adds an appeal process before the state
board of education after the denial of a charter school
application. Section 3 gives the Department of Education and
Early Development (EED) an opportunity to establish the rules
and procedures for authorizers and who can be an authorizer; for
example, an authorizer can be a college or university, some
nonprofits, and some government agencies that have expertise in
finance, management and/or education. Also, EED will ensure
that authorizers perform their duties. Section 5 requires an
authorizer of a charter school or the local school board to
operate under a contract known as a charter, and describes the
terms required to comply with local, state, and federal laws.
Section 6 requires EED to establish the charter school's budget.
In current law, charter schools have autonomy in budget,
curriculum, program, and textbooks; however, they must follow
state and local public school policies. Section 7 limits the
applicability of a negotiated or collective bargaining agreement
with a school district. Section 8 authorizes charter schools to
hire teachers and other employees outside of a negotiated or
collective bargaining agreement, but teachers are required to be
certified in the state. Section 9 provides for the
applicability of the bill to charter school applications for
approval or renewal submitted on or after the effective date.
Monitoring the school's progress would be one of the duties of
the authorizer. Mr. Cordero-Giorgana concluded, saying that a
charter school is held to higher standards because it must renew
its contract and parents can withdraw students if desired.
8:23:49 AM
KARA KERWIN, Vice-President, External Affairs, Center for
Education Reform (CER), informed the committee CER was founded
in 1993 and is the leading voice in American education to
improve educational outcomes for students. She charged that
only 25 percent of Alaska's fourth-graders read at grade level -
in spite of high per-pupil funding - and the educational policy
in Alaska is not working. In addition, she said the current
Alaska charter school policy, enacted in 1995, is not working;
in fact, her organization judged Alaska's charter school policy
to be the sixth weakest in the U.S. Ms. Kerwin commended the
committee for addressing proven reform efforts during this
legislative session.
MS. KERWIN continued, saying that strong laws result in strong
schools and states that have independent and multiple
authorizers, which afford charter schools autonomy and equitable
funding, nurture high-quality schools. On the other hand, state
laws that are unclear about authority, funding, and freedom
compromise the quality of schools. She read from a prepared
statement [original punctuation provided]:
Permitting the creation of independent authorizers is
one of the most important components of a strong
charter school law. The data shows that states with
multiple chartering authorities have almost three and
a half times more charter schools than states that
only allow local school board approval. About 80
percent of the nation's charter schools are in states
with multiple authorizers or a strong appeals process.
These states are also home to the highest quality
charter schools, as evidenced by state test scores,
numerous credible research studies and ongoing
observation.
Independent authorizers are better able to hold
charter schools accountable because they have sole
control over how they evaluate charter schools and
they have their own staff, management team, and
funding stream. A strong charter authorizer must be
diligent is monitoring its charter school portfolio,
without becoming an over bureaucratic policing agent.
Years of analysis prove local school boards are often
unable or unwilling to have fair and impartial
processing of a charter school, and many that do
approve charter schools create friction between the
school and entities. And yet, when Alaska passed its
law in 1995, it insisted that school boards be the
only authorizer, despite the natural tension caused by
citizens requesting a better educational option for
their children, from the people who actually believe
they have already provided that. A recent report from
Columbia University Teacher's College upholds CER's
assertion that independence from traditional systems
result in higher student performance. This study is a
comparison between the performance of local school
district authorized charters and charter schools
authorized by independent authorizers in Milwaukee.
We found that more autonomy translates into higher
student performance. Those charters authorized
independently from the district also do not have to
hire teachers from the union. The study predicts that
in two years students from independent charter schools
would read at grade level higher than similar students
in district authorized charter schools. Those states
that are more likely to have high numbers of
accountable, high quality charter schools tend to have
more independence from conventional education
bureaucracy, while still being held to high standards
and to follow clear roles in state regulations
governing all other public agencies.
Louisiana's recent experience is proof that not all
efforts to improve laws are created equal. Strong
charter school laws do not require new groups to apply
to become authorizers. It's actually a disincentive
to do so and therefore, not one organization has
applied to be an authorizer in that state. Strong
laws permit universities and other publically
accountable non-education entities become authorizers
without asking permission and hold them accountable
for the outcomes of their schools. That's because the
purpose of independent multiple authorizers is to
establish new pathways for school creation and
oversight separate from existing state and local
education agencies. States that allow for truly
independent authorizers, granted by law to operate
with unbridled freedom, yield greater charter school
growth and quality. The charter law for the District
of Columbia ranks first by the Center for Education
Reform and has created a separate and distinct agency
over which neither the mayor, state superintendent or
city council has any legal authority. The DC charter
board has enrolled nearly 46 percent of all DC
students in successful charter because of it is
independent and because the law limits the imposition
of work rules, allows school leaders the freedom they
deserve and the accountability they embrace, provides
facilities assistance, and nearly equitable funding
streams. It puts trust in authorizing an
accountability system that removes the entrenched bias
of traditional school administrators. In most cases,
universities have proven to be the best authorizers,
combining existing higher education entities with an
infrastructure accustomed to public and legislative
scrutiny. They stand as a blueprint in model
legislation. Michigan, ranked fourth by CER permits
its public universities such as the highly regarded
Central Michigan University to authorize and oversee
most charter schools, although districts may do the
same. While most state laws are strong to average,
the majority of states lack the components necessary
for successful charter school policy and
implementation. As you deliberate this issue, please
keep in mind that there is a direct correlation
between states with multiple authorizers and higher
student achievement. Documented evidence confirms
that the models for charter school law of New York,
Minnesota, Michigan, and DC, for example, give rise to
increased student achievement, surpassing all
comparable public schools in those states. The Center
for Education Reform is willing to continue its work
with Alaska to ensure the strongest charter school law
possible is passed.
8:31:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the Center for Education Reform
is affiliated with other organizations.
MS. KERWIN said CER is a national nonprofit organization and two
of its partners are the American Federation for Children and the
Black Alliance for Educational Options.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether CER has conducted
research on what can be done to improve schools within the
existing school system.
MS. KERWIN stated a substantive structural change is necessary
in order to improve education in traditional public schools.
Charter schools have found that when administrators have the
option to choose teachers, teachers are able to innovate.
Charter schools are a great model to show what really works to
provide students a better education.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired as to the possibility of
improving Alaska's school system for the benefit of the
"children left behind."
MS. KERWIN advised the best change is to create new
opportunities so that healthy competition will help all schools
improve.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked for proof that improvement in all
schools can be attributed to competition from charter schools.
MS. KERWIN said it is an absolute fact that students in charter
schools show vast improvement when compared to their peers in
traditional schools. She offered to provide further evidence
and research to substantiate her statement, such as the
improvement in schools in Washington D.C.
8:36:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned testimony about the grading of
charter schools in Alaska.
MS. KERWIN clarified that the Alaska state law on charter
schools is weak and the law received a "D" rating.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX heard testimony that charter schools in
Alaska are doing well, and asked how can that be if the law is
weak.
MS. KERWIN opined Alaska has a robust charter school movement -
despite a bad policy environment - and more opportunities are
needed.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for CER's assessment of Alaska's
funding mechanism for charter schools.
MS. KERWIN suggested committee members look at CER's web site
located at "reforms.com," which has a parent power index related
to school choice, charter schools, on-line learning, teacher
quality, and transparency. An analysis and comparison of
Alaska's policies can be found there, and the ranking - in terms
of student funding - indicates that Alaska's charter school law
is vague, and it is unclear as to whether the funding of charter
schools is equitable because funding decisions are left to the
school district.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for the most common authorizer for
charter schools in other states.
MS. KERWIN responded that universities have proven to be the
best independent charter school authorizers in states where they
operate independently from the state department of education and
from local school districts. In addition, university
involvement to improve K-12 education is a way to avoid costly
remediation of future students.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for further details about
universities as authorizers.
MS. KERWIN noted that states that allow university authorizers
include Minnesota, New York, Missouri, Indiana, Wisconsin, and
Ohio, and she offered to provide further information.
8:44:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether there is any sectarian
element to the authorizers in other states.
MS. KERWIN said no.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether the bill would allow
religious organizations to be authorizers.
CHAIR GATTIS said no.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to Section [9, Version O] of the
bill, which allows charter schools to employ nonunion teachers
and employees. She expressed her belief that some charter
school teachers receive wages significantly lower than those
paid by public schools. Representative LeDoux asked whether
this is the intent of the sponsor.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA answered the purpose of [Section 9] is to
allow charter schools to utilize their funds in a way that meets
their budget. The intent is that charter schools can hire
teachers certified in the state, and other professionals, to
meet their needs. Currently, an exemption in the statute allows
charter schools to hire outside of a bargaining agreement only
if the local school district and bargaining unit agree.
However, this exemption has created some problems. In addition,
wages and salaries would have to be determined by the charter
school and its board at the time of the execution of the charter
school contract.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pointed out that all schools - not only
charter schools - may have similar problems that would be
addressed during the negotiation process between teachers and
school districts.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA said negotiations vary by district and
opined that charter schools would ultimately be bound by the
negotiations between the [bargaining] unit and the district.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for confirmation that the above
referenced section allows charter schools to hire teachers at
less than the public school wage.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA said "hypothetically, it would."
8:49:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON observed most of the examples given by CER
are from large urban areas with many multiples of schools.
However, Alaska has many districts with a single school site,
and he asked for information on the center's experience with
very small school districts. For example, an authorizer might
want to place a charter school in a location that would divert
enough students to cause the closure of the public school.
MS. KERWIN opined if all the parents choose for their children
to attend the charter school that would provide them the
opportunity to improve educational outcomes. She said CER sees
no difference between large urban areas and those that have one
school. In fact, in one case, parents and the community became
more engaged in public education in their area.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON expressed her concern about the impact
of charter schools on small schools in Alaska that are not on
the road system. She said she would like to contact small
schools known to CER that have been closed after charter schools
became available.
CHAIR GATTIS clarified the question.
MS. KERWIN suggested that the focus should be on improving
education outcomes, not on a certain building or on one system.
If a new system is created, that is an improvement to the
educational system in a village. She said she understood the
situation, but protecting schools is "not doing us a favor."
8:56:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX cautioned that the reality is that a
village school in Alaska must maintain an enrollment of at least
ten students or it must be closed. If a charter school is
established and the parents of five students choose the charter
school, the five remaining students lose their school.
MS. KERWIN suggested other options may be considered, such as
on-line classes or a collaborative effort between both schools.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised the proposed bill allows single-
site schools to become charter schools in order to be exempt
from scheduling, curriculum, and other requirements. One of the
major components of the educational gains made by charter school
students is due to parental involvement, and sometimes parents
are required to volunteer a specific number of hours at the
school. He asked how that might work in a local school district
that converts to a charter school to exempt itself from all
state requirements except for competency testing.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA advised the purpose of HB 93 is to provide
a second mechanism so that community members can apply to become
a new charter school. One of the requirements to become a new
charter school is that the school must be viable in its
community. Therefore, if the proposed charter school is not
viable, or good for children, the school would not be approved.
He reminded the committee that in addition to approval by the
local school board or the local authorizer, the school must be
approved by the state board of education. Mr. Pearson expressed
his understanding that a local school may convert to a charter
school at the request of the local school district if it fails
to meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) for a certain number of
years, however, that is an issue separate from HB 151.
9:02:25 AM
SUSAN MCCAULEY, PhD, Director, Teaching and Learning Support,
EED, agreed that the proposed bill does not address the
conversion of public schools to charter schools. Although,
through current federal language, one of the options available
to a traditional public school that is restructuring in
improvement status, is conversion to a charter school. The
bill, however, is addressing the availability for alternative
authorization options for a charter school: to continue to be
authorized by the local school board or whether they can be
authorized by another authorizer not currently permitted by the
language in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said it seems that permitting authorizers
in addition to local school boards, especially in smaller areas
across the state, establishes two school boards within the same
area. He questioned why HB 151 is a better idea than having the
local school district function as the authorizer so there is
coordination between the public schools.
9:05:09 AM
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA advised the duties of an authorizer are
limited to reviewing the charter school application and, if the
school is approved by the authorizer and the state board of
education, monitoring the charter school for compliance with
local, state, and federal law. The authorizer does not act in
the capacity of a local school board to set educational policy
for the entire district. In current law, charter schools already
have some exemption areas including textbooks, program
curriculum, and scheduling requirements. He concluded that an
authorizer is not a school board.
9:06:15 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked for clarification on the role of the Academic
Policy Committee (APC) related to the governance of charter
schools.
DR. MCCAULEY recalled the language currently in statute and
regulation requires establishing an APC for all charter schools
to act as the school board for the charter school. The APC
maintains a contract with the local school board, in terms of
what the school plans to do. Further, the daily, weekly, and
yearly governance of a charter school is by its APC, including
hiring decisions, fiduciary responsibilities related to the
school's budget, and its facilities.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON warned of the "disconnect" in the
relationship between a local school board, which will have
certain responsibilities to the charter school, and the
authorizer. Obviously, if there were not disagreements over the
functions or mechanisms of the charter school, the charter
school would have been authorized by the school board.
CHAIR GATTIS agreed that there is tension between a school
district's responsibility to the charter school and its lack of
authority over the charter school.
DR. MCCAULEY acknowledged tensions sometimes exist because
districts are charged with educating children in an efficient
and effective manner across many schools. Charter schools exist
to provide something that is not otherwise available, thus the
charter schools are offering an alternative educational program.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether that would be the case with
the authorizer as well, because the authorizer may approve a
school that is separate, but not that different from what the
local school offers. "A charter school must be offering a
different experience than the local school district, or can it
be a group of parents that just want a separate school?" he
asked.
DR. MCCAULEY responded that an authorizer other than the local
school board would be permitted to authorize "whatever kind of
charter school it wished to authorize."
9:11:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON turned attention to Section 1, page 1,
line [5], of the bill and read:
If an application for a charter school is approved by
an authorizer under AS 14.03.253 ...
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired as to the identity of the
authorizer.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA said the authorizer is defined in Section
3, page 2, lines 15-22, and he paraphrased:
The department shall establish a procedure for the
approval of authorizers of charter schools
authorizers, and in order to be approved, the
authorizer has to demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the department that they are capable of fulfilling
their duties, and it can be a governmental entity; a
private nonprofit entity that has expertise in
education, finance, or administration, or any
combination of those areas; or an accredited
postsecondary institution in the state.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA added that the CS also identifies the local
school [board] as an authorizer in Section 1, because the
sponsor wanted local school districts to retain approving
authority for charter schools if they wish to do so. In further
response to Representative P. Wilson, he stated the local school
is not an authorizer.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON cautioned that there may be bias on the
part of the local school district.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA stated one of the purposes of the bill is
to eliminate some of the bias and hostility from the local
school district that can be present toward charter school
applications.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON restated her question regarding
authority over the charter school.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA explained that the charter school is
supervised by its APC and not by the traditional local school.
Furthermore, charter schools have autonomy in most areas.
9:17:23 AM
DR. MCCAULEY added that the terms of the charter school contract
state the performance that is expected from a charter school,
and the local school board has the ability to approve the terms
or discontinue the contract. However, that action would not be
arbitrary, and would be based on whether or not the charter
school has met the obligations as defined by a legally binding
contract between the APC and the school board. Although the
school board has the ultimate decision about the ability of the
charter school to operate, it does not address daily operations.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to page 4, line 20,
which read:
other requirements or exemptions agreed upon by the
charter school and the authorizer or local school
board.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out the authorizer can exempt the
charter school from other policies imposed by the local school
district because the charter is written between the authorizer
and the charter school. He urged for further review on the
intent of [Section 5, subsection (c), paragraph 14].
Additionally, he directed attention to page 2, line 20, which
read:
a private nonprofit entity ...
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether an authorizer can be a
private nonprofit entity from out of state.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA, in response to Representative Seaton's
first question, answered that the "other requirements or
exemptions agreed upon by the charter school and the authorizer
or local school board" language implies other contractual
exemptions. The language on page 3, lines 15-25, specifies the
areas in which charter schools have and do not have autonomy.
In response to Representative Seaton's second question, he said
the bill does not specify that an entity would have to be an
Alaska nonprofit.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether the bill, or state law,
contains a provision for an appeal of a decision by a local
school board or authorizer to close a charter school.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA stated that Section 2 [subsection (d)]
refers to an appeal after the denial of a charter school
application. He said an appeal of closure would have to be
specified in the contract or charter.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER observed that at this time, charter
schools are somewhat under the control of local school
districts, which is frustrating to parents. He asked whether a
charter school established under an authorizer's approval holds
all liability for student safety, health, and educational
achievement, or if liability remains with the local school
district beyond its contractual agreement.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA responded the responsibility rests with the
authorizer and details of liability are part of the contract.
[Chair Gattis opened public testimony.]
9:24:47 AM
DAVID BOYLE, Representative, Alaska Policy Forum, informed the
committee the Alaska Policy Forum is Alaska's only free market
think tank. Mr. Boyle described the process to establish a
charter school in Alaska as follows: get permission from the
local school district; abide by collective bargaining
agreements; hire maintenance and teaching staff and an
administrator from the local school district pool; pay for a
school building; and hire a "union janitor." An effective
charter school is tied to a small community group or headed by
an administrator with vision. The school can be headed up by a
Native corporation, chamber of commerce, trade union, religious
community, or educational entrepreneur, and there must be
flexibility for success. The Anchorage School District (ASD)
has many charter schools and over 1,000 students are on waiting
lists hoping to enroll. He questioned why ASD is unable to meet
the demands of parents. Mr. Boyle said ASD has a lengthy
policy for charter school set-up, operation, and closure, but
the neighborhood schools do not have to meet stringent rules and
never close even after failing to meet No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001 (NCLB) requirements for eight years. He said when only
local school boards are charter school authorizers there is a
conflict of interest because school districts want to maintain
control. In Anchorage parents must furnish transportation to
charter schools despite state transportation funds that are paid
to the school district, thus poor families cannot attend. Also,
charter schools must pay for their facilities. He advised that
in the Lower 48, charter schools benefit low income, disabled,
and minority students; however, in Anchorage this is not true.
9:30:34 AM
BOB GRIFFIN said he is an education advocate and reported that
he has had the opportunity to visit a number of charter school
models across the country. Four of the models were of high-
performing charter schools, but none were able to establish a
school in Alaska because the charter school laws are too
restrictive to allow the models to function properly; in fact,
the National Alliance of Public Charter Schools rates Alaska
41st out of 43 states that authorize charter schools, largely
because multiple authorizers are not allowed. Mr. Griffin said
he is in support of HB 93 because charter schools need the
proven models of the large, successful charter schools that are
available in other parts of the U.S.
9:33:13 AM
TERRY SNYDER stated her opposition to HB 93, saying that it is
offering a solution to a problem that does not exist. She said
enrollment in Matanuska-Susitna Valley charter schools is down,
and charter schools are advertising for students, thus there is
no need for expansion there. She questioned the accuracy of the
waiting lists for enrollment in Anchorage. Also, in Alaska the
disparity of school success between students in charter and
neighborhood schools is less than in the Lower 48 for many
reasons. Recently, funding for reading coaches has improved
reading scores. Ms. Snyder pointed out that the bill will
encourage the proliferation of charter schools that will compete
for public education dollars. In fact, the Mat-Su Valley also
has small schools that if closed, will eliminate choice for
parents. School boards will lose local control, and there is no
evidence that allowing nonunion workers to replace unionized
employees will result in a better outcome. Ms. Snyder urged for
more investigation and deliberation of the bill, especially by
members new to the education committee.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether more parents would actually
enroll their children in charter schools if transportation were
provided.
MS. SNYDER advised that transportation is being provided to some
Mat-Su charter schools, but transportation needs to be funded.
She opined charter schools succeed due to parent involvement;
however, one-third of Mat-Su residents work in Anchorage and may
not have time to volunteer at school. She cautioned that Alaska
is "building a[n education] system of disparity," and encouraged
the committee to continue asking good questions.
CHAIR GATTIS advised a current copy of the Charter School
Enrollment Capacity wait list data will be provided to committee
members.
9:38:35 AM
DAN LORING said his neighborhood schools are considered
chronically underperforming and are located in a lower
socioeconomic neighborhood. He said his experience serving on
public school committees for about eight years has shown that
Alaska's schools in general are performing at a very low level,
and he praised the current conversation about education. He
urged the committee to support HB 93, and suggested that the
issue has surfaced because neighborhood schools are performing
at a very low level, with little evidence of intervention from
the state board of education to facilitate improvements. The
charter schools are successful - not due to parental involvement
- but because they provide good instruction, high rigor,
accountability, transparency, and culture. Neighborhood schools
perpetuate a culture of status quo, social inequities, and
power; charter schools provide high expectations and
instruction.
9:42:16 AM
BARBARA GERARD, Principal, Academy Charter School, informed the
committee she has been the principal of Academy Charter School
for 16 years. She stated that over the years the local school
district environment has varied from volatile to great, due to
changes in district administration and the administration's
beliefs about charter schools. Charter schools must watch to
protect their funding and the freedoms granted by the charter
school law. She said charter schools should be protected from
changes in the school district's administration. Ms. Gerard
noted that charter schools are open to all students and the
Academy's school population largely reflects that of traditional
elementary and middle schools in its district, including
students with an individual educational plan (IEP), or a
behavioral plan. Students of charter schools succeed because
charter schools empower hard-working students to give them the
skills needed for success.
9:45:16 AM
SCOTT MCKIM said he is a public school teacher who supports HB
93. He disclosed he is a founder of a proposed charter school
in Anchorage. He stated he and his co-workers work hard in the
classroom but acknowledged that the current system of education
is not world-class. As a professional educator, he said he
believes one way to improve education is through charter
schools. Charter schools are the research and development
branch of public education, where cutting edge education
practices and pedagogies are implemented and tested; however, in
Alaska, charter schools are not given much freedom. In fact,
local school boards and district administrations actively limit
how charter schools operate, keeping them in the category of
magnet and optional schools in the Lower 48. Alaska's charter
school law severely discourages the implementation of new
charter schools. Mr. McKim opined charter school law was
designed to end the exclusive franchise held by local school
boards to deliver public education. Alaska's charter school law
must give educators, parents, and schools the freedom to operate
outside of the existing educational system. Allowing an
authorizer outside of the local school district will lead to
Alaska's charter schools reaching their full potential.
9:48:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON requested that the witness submit
further written comments to the committee, with suggestions to
help improve public schools.
9:49:40 AM
ELLEN VAROSI stated her support for HB 93, saying the U.S.
education system needs drastic change and charter schools are
part of the solution. She cited studies that have shown U.S.
students rank low globally in reading, math, and science. The
1995 Alaska charter school law is at the "bottom of the barrel
nationally." The intent of charter schools in Alaska is to fill
a space unfilled by local school districts, and to provide
opportunities for students through their autonomy and unique
collaboration. Further, charter schools should not be
influenced or regulated by a failing school system. She opined
the educationally successful nations of Singapore, Korea, and
Hong Kong use collaboration in their school systems, similar to
charter schools which start building schools with missions,
goals, and curriculum, followed by funding, land, and
infrastructure. Better charter school law leads to more
schools, more choice, more competition, and more success.
Lastly, Ms. Varosi suggested the term "timely" in Section 3,
subsection (c), paragraph 2, should be defined.
9:52:33 AM
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards (AASB), reminded the committee that in 1998 the
legislature addressed the desire to open the state to charter
schools, using Arizona as a model. The result was Senate Bill
88, which intended to ensure a level of accountability and
responsibility, and to limit the liability of school districts.
That is why the bill directed that the authorizing body would be
school boards; subsequently, the environment has changed and
current testimony is somewhat relevant. Although AASB strives
to be open, he advised that the rationale behind AASB's position
supporting school board authority is the possible liability and
accountability factor for state funds tied to student
performance, and for the cost associated with a diversion of the
student population. Mr. Rose said: "What I'm hearing here
today, what this bill is designed to do, is to ensure that ...
state dollars provide state outcomes with state oversight." He
assumed this provision relieves school boards from some of the
responsibility. Further, the bill is an attempt to address that
if there are alternative authorizers, EED will be responsible to
provide oversight to ensure that the schools are not operating
unto themselves. However, AASB remains neutral on the bill at
this time, recognizing the need to ensure that the transfer of
responsibility and authority is covered by the state, and also
recognizing the difficulty that AASB has with school districts
in working out the fixed costs.
9:57:18 AM
LORI BERRIGAN stated her support for HB 93 as her experience
founding a charter school revealed the need for an appeal
process, which is covered by the bill. An appeals process will
also allow the state to qualify for federal grants. In response
to Representative Saddler, she said she is a founding member of
Birch Tree Charter School.
9:58:27 AM
CHAIR GATTIS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 93.
9:58:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER understood testifiers' frustration at the
limited capacity of the charter schools, but he said he still
has more questions and possible modifications for the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said she still has questions on the
effect of charter schools on the funding formula.
10:00:24 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced HB 93 was heard and held.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HB 93 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 02 HB 93 v. A - Bill Text.PDF |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 03 CSHB 93 v. O.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 04 HB93 Changes from HB93 to CSHB93 v. O.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 05 HB 93 FAQ.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 06 HB 93 Fiscal Note - EED-TLS-3-6-13.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 07 HB 93 Sectional Summary v. A.PDF |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 08 HB 93 Backup Charter Schools Basic Information EED.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 09 HB 93 Research CERP Primer Multiple Authorizers 12-11.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 10 HB 93 Research ECS - What Policymakers Need to Know about Charter Schools.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 11 HB 93 Research Legislative Research Services.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 12 HB 93 Research Material - AYP Data for Charter Schools.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 13 HB 93 Letter Support NAPCS 3-13-13.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 14 HB 93 Letter Oppose NEA.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 15 HB 93 Letter Oppose Eagleton.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 16 HB 93 Letter Oppose ESSA.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 17 HB 93 Letter Oppose NAACP.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 18 HB 93 Letters Oppose.PDF |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 19 HB93 Letter Support - Covey.PDF |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 01 HB 142 Bill Text.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 142 |
| 02 HB 142 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 142 |
| 03 HB 142 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HEDC 3/13/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 142 |
| 04 HB 142 Fiscal Note - EED.pdf |
HEDC 3/13/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 142 |
| 05 HB 142 Background Data - Residence Life Costs FY 11 - FY 13.pdf |
HEDC 3/13/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 142 |
| 06 HB 142 Background Data - Communities Spring 2013.pdf |
HEDC 3/13/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 142 |
| 07 HB 142 Background Data - Offerings Spring 2013.pdf |
HEDC 3/13/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 142 |
| 08 HB 142 Background Data - Graduating Classes.pdf |
HEDC 3/13/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 142 |
| 09 HB 142 Background Data - White Paper 3-3-13.pdf |
HEDC 3/13/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 142 |
| 10 HB 142 Letter Support - Cook Inlet Tribal Council.pdf |
HEDC 3/13/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 142 |
| 11 HB 142 Letter Support - Nenana School.pdf |
HEDC 3/13/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 142 |
| 00 HB 142 Bill Text.pdf |
HEDC 3/13/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 142 |
| 01 CS HB 142 Version C.pdf |
HEDC 3/13/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 142 |
| 11.1 HB 142 Letter Support - Chugach School Dist.pdf |
HEDC 3/13/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 142 |
| 11.3 HB 142 Letter Support - North Slope Leadership Team.PDF |
HEDC 3/13/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 142 |
| 05 HB 142 Fiscal Note Simplified.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 142 |
| 11 HB 142 News Article - AK Dispatch - Revolution in Rural AK.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 142 |
| 12 HB 142 AFN 2012 Resolution.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 142 |
| 16 HB 142 Cook Inlet Tribal Council - Talking Points.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 142 |
| 19 HB 142 SB47 Letter Support - Iditarod Area School District.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 142 SB 47 |
| 20 HB 142 Talking Points - Jerry Covey.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 142 |
| 01 HB 151 Sponsor Statement v. A.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 02 HB 151 v. A Bill Text.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 03 HB 151 Sectional v. A.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 04 HB 151 Fiscal Note v. A - EED-TLS-3-8-13.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 05 CS HB 151 ver. O.PDF |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 06 HB 151 Information Packet.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |