Legislature(1999 - 2000)
01/31/2000 01:48 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. 191
"An Act relating to charter schools; and providing for
an effective date."
Members were provided with a proposed committee substitute
on May 17, 1999 (copy on file).
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, SPONSOR, noted that the proposed
committee substitute had not been adopted.
Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee substitute
1-LS0598\N, 12/17/99. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so
ordered.
Representative Dyson noted that the committee substitute
removed items from the original legislation that reduced the
fiscal cost. He maintained that the committee substitute now
contains 3 or 4 essential items. Section 1 would increase
the number of charter schools to 60, double the current
number. He observed that charter schools have had difficulty
obtaining leases and financing due to the five-year contract
limit. The committee substitute would extend the contract
period from 5 to 10 years. All of the charter schools have
struggled financially. Charter schools receive approximately
half of the per pupil funding available to school districts.
The legislation would require school districts to
demonstrate to charter schools where the funding is being
used. Charter schools would be allowed to negotiate with
school districts for services. For instance, the charter
school could negotiate with the school district to provide
its own library services or use other available library
services in order to reduce their cost of services. He
recounted a situation in which a charter school located next
to a public library opted to use the public library instead
of a school district library. The charter school also
contracted with a health club for the use of its gymnasium.
Co-Chair Mulder asked the primary mission of charter
schools. Representative Dyson stated that the mission is to
allow parents to set the primary direction for their
children's education. The faculty and parents decide the
emphasis, which surrounds the core information required by
state law.
Co-Chair Mulder questioned if operation of charter schools
would be enhanced by the amendments, which would assure a
fair share of the allocation of funds. Representative Dyson
stated that he could not demonstrate that charter schools
have not received a fair portion of pupil costs. He
acknowledged concerns by charter school members that they
have not received a fair share.
Representative Austerman questioned if charter schools would
have to follow standards such as exit exams.
WES KELLER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON clarified that
charter schools are public schools and are subject to the
same requirements as other schools. Charter schools would be
required to meet exit exam qualifications.
Vice Chair Bunde questioned if current charter schools are
nearing the end of their 5-year contracts.
Representative Dyson responded that he did not know of any
charter schools that had more than a 2-year (leasing)
contract.
Vice Chair Bunde asked if there is a minimal requirement for
operation of charter schools. Representative Dyson noted
that there is no requirement for continuation of a charter
school. He did not think that much effort was needed to
protect leaseholders. The most difficult issue for charter
schools is the start up cost.
In response to a question by Representative Williams,
Representative Dyson noted that the legislation would be
permissive and allow school districts and charter schools to
work out arrangements regarding services, such as library or
gymnasiums services.
Representative Dyson acknowledged that the Anchorage School
District is supportive of the contract extension and the
increase in the number of allowable charter schools. They
are not supportive of accounting requirements to identify
costs. The Department of Education and Early Development is
supportive of the cost accounting requirement.
Mr. Keller explained that one purpose of charter schools is
to provide a vehicle for reform of public schools and
innovation. Each charter school can work with the school
board of their area. Involved parents are passionate and
active.
Representative Dyson further explained that the intent of
(section 4) the legislation is to allow negotiations with
school districts to transfer funds from the school district
to the charter school for services not provided by the
school district.
Co-Chair Therriault observed that no fees are charged at
municipal libraries. He noted that some of the funding used
to operate schools comes from the local government
contribution.
Representative Dyson concluded that the amount of money
received from the school board would go up because they are
not utilizing the service.
Representative J. Davies observed that there would be a
problem if the majority of students utilized the municipal
library. He pointed out that there is an equity issue. He
referred to page 2. He noted that the name of the teacher is
required. He questioned why the teacher's name is part of
the contract.
Mr. Keller noted that name of the teacher is required under
existing law. Representative Dyson added that charter school
teachers are required to be members of the teachers'
bargaining unit and are considered employees of the school
district. He noted that Kansas City has merged its municipal
and public school libraries. He stressed that few charter
schools would have access to public libraries.
GREG MILLR, AQUARIAN CHARTER SCHOOL, ANCHORAGE testified via
teleconference in support of the legislation. He noted that
the Aquarian school supports 210 students in grades K-6.
This is the third attempt to improve the charter school law.
He emphasized that charter schools are still required to
meet academic and fiscal standards. He clarified that the
name of the teacher is only included on the start up
application.
Mr. Miller spoke in support of amending section five to
extend contracts to 10 years. He observed that it is
difficult to negotiate leasing contracts because many
landlords will not consider contracts of short duration. He
spoke in favor or deleting the sunset clause. He noted that
every charter contract comes up every year. Contracts can be
terminated for good cause. He maintained that checks and
balances are in place. He emphasized that charter schools
favor provisions to allow the use of other public buildings
as long as they meet code requirements.
Mr. Miller spoke in favor of other provisions in the bill.
He referred to section 4, which would require accounting of
services by school districts. The indirect cost is
established by the Department of Education and Early
Development. The Anchorage School District's indirect cost
is 4.39 percent. He stated that the indirect cost for school
administration services is reasonable. The use of this
amount would not require an increase of work by the school
district. The indirect cost could be higher in rural areas.
He acknowledged that it would cost school districts to do
the accounting, but emphasized that charter schools should
know what they are getting for their money. He stressed that
charter schools should not be assessed more than the
indirect cost of 4.39 percent and recommended that the
administrative costs be capped at the indirect cost. He
noted that their school has been successful at opting out of
services.
Mr. Miller noted that the Family Partnership Charter School
also supports the legislation.
(Tape Change, HFC 00 - 21 Side 1)
Vice Chair Bunde felt that it could adversely affect
students to be in a charter school that did not continue and
questioned if Mr. Miller would support a minimum requirement
for operation of charter schools. Mr. Miller responded that
administrative difficulties would be the only reason a
charter school would not succeed. He stressed that charter
schools are created to teach children. He suggested that the
only difficulty a charter school child would have if they
had to return to a regular classroom, would be that they
could be beyond the level of other students in their class.
Co-Chair Mulder noted that statutes do not contain a clear
definition of the mission or objective of charter schools.
He felt that charter schools have labored under the effort
to be everything to everybody. He spoke in support of
creating a concise mission statement for charter schools in
order to answer many of the questions being asked and
provide the answers that would help more clearly identify
hindrances to success.
Mr. Miller disagreed that current charter schools have tried
to be all things to all people. He noted that each charter
school has a different emphasis. He pointed out that the
mission statement could be found in the charter school's
application.
Co-Chair Mulder noted that everyone did not want charter
schools to succeed. He expressed support for more
educational opportunities or choice.
CAROL COMEAU, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT FOR INSTRUCTION,
ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ANCHORAGE testified that the
Anchorage School District supports section 1, which would
allow more charter schools. She noted that section 4 is the
most problematic to school districts. School districts are
concerned about the implementation of section 4. She agreed
with the elimination of the sunset clause. The space issue
is a major concern in Anchorage. She supported extending the
contract length to 10 years. She added that the biggest
challenge is meeting occupancy codes for facilities in the
city of Anchorage
Representative J. Davies asked if language in subsection (f)
would affect section 4. He asked if the charter schools
would receive more than their basic need.
JANET STOKES, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, ANCHORAGE SCHOOL
DISTRICT, ANCHORAGE responded to questions by Representative
J. Davies. She interpreted the reference to AS 14.17.410(c)
as additional local revenues above the 4-mil contribution.
Anchorage has implemented activity fees in lieu of reducing
programs. According to this section, charter schools
electing not to participate in these programs would receive
funds that would have gone to the program. She felt that
this would be problematic.
CYNTHIA HENRY, PRESIDENT, FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH
SCHOOL DISTRICT, FAIRBANKS testified via teleconference. She
stated that HB 191 would be problematic, especially in
regards to section 4. She expressed concern that section 4
could result in an adversarial relationship between the
school district and its charter schools. The district's open
policy includes charter schools. She cautioned that the
provision to account for services could create a
bureaucratic nightmare and increase costs and personnel.
Ms. Henry stated that the Fairbanks North Star School
District does not oppose the elimination of the sunset date.
Fairbanks received five charter school charters. Only two
have been awarded.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that it would not be difficult to
account for snow removal or rent. Ms. Henry agreed, but
emphasized that other services would be more difficult.
MIKE FISHER, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT, BUSINESS AND FINANCE,
FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT acknowledged
that the school district has mechanisms in place to account
for services such as snow removal and rent. They do not
currently charge the indirect rate to their charter schools.
It would be difficult to generate a true intergovernmental
cost allocation.
Representative J. Davies referred to subsection (f). Mr.
Fisher explained that their local contribution is
approximately $30 million dollars, $18 million dollars of
this comes from the required contribution. The additional
$12 million dollars would be prorated to the charter schools
based on their adjusted Average Daily Membership (ADM).
Ms. Henry felt that the School District's current
contribution would meet this level of contribution but
reiterated that accounting would be problematic.
Co-Chair Therriault acknowledged that the Fairbanks North
Star Borough School District is probably providing
assistance beyond the required contribution level, but
emphasized that the intent of the legislation is to address
districts that are not providing a fair allocation
DR. NICK STAYROOK, FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT, FAIRBANKS testified via teleconference. He echoed
comments by Ms. Henry and Mr. Fisher. He stated that he did
not know if allocation of the addition local contribution
would be considered as part of the basic need for charter
schools. He noted that additional sources of funds are
provided to charter schools in Fairbanks. He referred to a
proposed amendment regarding the use of public facilities by
charter schools (copy on file.) He pointed out that AS
14.03.255(d) states that the chief school administrator must
determine that the facility meets requirements for health
and safety applicable to other public schools in the
district.
Representative J. Davies asked if the school district would
retain liability if a charter school did not complete their
contract. Mr. Stayrook explained that the charter schools
operate on a 5-year term, however their contract is
negotiated annually. He anticipated that existing charter
schools would receive a new 5-year contract at the end of
their current term. He did not think that an increase in the
number of charter schools would have a negative impact.
LARRY SEMMENS, ACADEMIC POLICY COMMITTEE, AURORA BORELIS
CHARTER SCHOOL, KENAI testified via teleconference in
support of HB 191. He pointed out that basic need is the
minimum amount that a school district provides. He stressed
that their charter school could not function at the level of
basic need. He noted that their school has 90 students.
There are openings for 20 students in the next year with a
waiting list of 109 students. He did not want to see charter
schools receive less than they are currently receiving.
Representative G. Davis questioned if their charter school
is successful economically. Mr. Semmens noted that they have
had difficulty procuring a facility to house their charter
school. The school started in a church and paid $75 thousand
dollars a year in rent. They are now in a vacant elementary
school, which has been provided by the city and school
district without a fee. He noted that their teachers are new
to the district and at the lower end of the salary scale.
When teachers move to upper levels, funding will be more
difficult.
Representative J. Davies asked if they have had problems
with the issues that the provisions in section 4 are
intended to address. Mr. Semmens explained that the charter
school has been charged for services that they did not
receive, but that they had received sufficient funding. He
did not want to quibble over every item.
SEAN STRAUSS, PARENT, JUNEAU testified in support of HB 105.
He noted that there is only one remaining charter available
in Juneau. There are two applications for charter schools
pending in Juneau, a Montessori charter school and a Native
language charter school. He spoke in support of section 1
with no geographic restrictions.
Vice Chair Bunde noted without geographical restrictions
that the majority of schools could go to Anchorage. He
questioned if there should be geographic considerations. Mr.
Strauss emphasized that the increase in schools would allow
schools to be considered based on their merit.
EDDY JEANS, SCHOOL FINANCE MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT provided information regarding the
legislation. He discussed the additional local contribution
contained on page 2, line 22. This section refers to the
additional local contributions that municipalities are
allowed to make to school districts under the foundation
program. This is limited to two revenue sources, the value
of in kind services performed by the city or borough and the
tax appropriation.
Mr. Jeans referred to page 2, line 31: "A local school
board shall provide an approved charter school with an
annual budget. The budget shall be not less than the basic
need for the charter school as determined under AS
14.17.410(b)(1)(A) and (B) and must reflect the itemization
and per student value required under (e) of this section".
He noted that there is a proposed amendment to delete the
reference to (A) and (B). These are two of the four
components that make up basic need. He noted that schools
are given and adjusted ADM. This is multiplied by the
district cost factor and then multiplied by the special
needs factor of 1.20. There are other adjustments for
intensive student services and correspondence students. This
results in the school's adjusted ADM. This is multiplied by
the base student allocation of 3,940 to calculate basic
need. Basic need is divided into three components: state
funding, federal impact aid dollars and the four mil local
share. The basic need can be easily calculated for all
charter schools. The legislation lists the type of services
that can be provided by the school district. School district
and the charter school can negotiate for special needs and
intensive services.
Co-Chair Therriault clarified that charter schools would not
automatically receive the 20 percent for special needs. Mr.
Jeans noted that some charter schools are retaining the 20
percent and providing special needs services and some are
having their needs provided by the school district.
Co-Chair Therriault expressed concern that schools that do
not have special needs students do not receive part of this
funding.
Mr. Jeans pointed out that the calculation for special needs
is an adjustment to all the students across the district.
The charter school students will generate 20 percent for
special needs regardless of whether they special needs
students or get to keep the money.
Co-Chair Mulder concluded that the calculation for basic
needs is simple to make. Mr. Jeans agreed. Co-Chair Mulder
asked the Department of Education and Early Development's
role in relationship to charter schools.
(Tape Change, HFC 00 - 21, Side 2)
Mr. Jeans agreed that the legislation would diminish the
department's involvement in financial mediation. He
emphasized that the department's obligation in the
application process would remain. He thought that the
department would remain involved in some of the negotiations
for itemized services.
Co-Chair Mulder questioned if the department viewed its role
as an arbiter. Mr. Jeans responded that the department would
be a sounding board, not necessarily an arbiter. Co-Chair
Mulder questioned who would make the final decision. Mr.
Jeans concluded that the final decision would have to be
negotiated between the charter school and the school board.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Therriault, Mr. Jeans
clarified that impasses would not be "kicked back" to the
department. He added that the charter school community
relies on the department to look at some of the issues that
they do not understand. The department provides advice and
direction.
Representative J. Davies observed that the Board of
Education is involved by statute. Co-Chair Mulder questioned
if the Board "rubber stamps" decisions made by local school
districts. Mr. Jeans did not know if the Board had ever
turned down an application approved by a local school
district.
Co-Chair Therriault recalled that, during debate on the
charter legislation, the involvement of the state Board of
Education gave comfort to concerns that things might not
work out at the local level.
Representative J. Davies recounted that the charter school
legislation was a pilot program that allowed federal funds
for charter schools and that those funds are about to run
out. Mr. Jeans agreed that the charter school legislation
was a pilot program. He noted that the legislation would
institutionalize the program. There is a fiscal note for a
position to administer the program. He reiterated that the
department assists charter schools in the application
process.
Representative Dyson observed that many states have charter
school boards. He noted that there are people in the public
school movement that do not like charter schools, but are
willing to support them as an alternative to vouchers.
Representative Grussendorf referred to page 3, line 24,
allocation of local revenues. Mr. Jeans explained that the
local revenues cited are revenues made available by
municipalities under AS 14.17. There is a cap on the amount
municipalities can contribute. The legislation would take
the amount that is contributed above the required 4 mil
local effort and divide this by the total student population
and multiply this per student figure by the amount of
students in the charter school. This is the additional
revenue that would have to be appropriated to charter
schools above local need. Representative Grussendorf pointed
out that some school districts are already providing these
funds. Mr. Jeans noted that some districts provide
additional local revenues and others do not. Representative
Grussendorf noted that the legislature's desire to support
charter schools has put (financial) pressures on school
districts.
Representative Austerman questioned if the additional local
contribution would be tied to a specific need. Mr. Jeans
explained that under the funding is discretionary under the
current structure. The school board adopts a budget with a
requested local contribution. Then assemblies make their
appropriation to the overall operation. The funding is
discretionary.
BARBARA THOMPSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TEACHERS AND
LEARNING SUPPORT, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY
DEVELOPMENT provided information regarding the fiscal note.
She noted that the state of Alaska has received federal
funding to support charter schools for the past four years.
These funds are ceasing.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that the fiscal note requests $100
thousand dollars for Department of Education and Early
Development personnel. She explained that the legislation
would increase charter schools around the state. The
department anticipates an increase in workload. The
department currently has a part-time person that is paid
with 5 percent of the federal funds.
In response to a question by Representative Williams, Ms.
Thompson acknowledged that the department is requesting
funds for personal services, supplies, travel and
contractual costs. She emphasized that it is a state
program. She stressed that staff is needed to keep the
program running and help schools to get established.
Representative J. Davies asked if the disappearance of
federal funds would increase the demand on the department to
help prepare grants and implement programs. Ms. Thompson
indicated that the workload would shift, but did not
anticipate that it would lessen. The department would not
put out requests for grant proposals since they would not
have money to put out a grant program. However, the workload
in other areas could increase with additional charter
schools if the cap were eliminated.
Co-Chair Therriault observed that the fiscal note requests
one position, but that additional percentages of FTE (full
time equivalent) positions are included. Ms. Thompson
explained that the department would be losing some federal
grants. This will free one grant administrator to take on
the work of this program. She explained that only one
additional position is needed due to the ability to shift
personnel.
In response to a question by Representative Williams, Ms.
Thompson explained that charter schools are reviewed as a
real option for students' needs to be met.
Representative Dyson anticipated that there is interest in
charter schools that would be specific to professions or
language. He anticipated that poor exit exam results would
increase demand for alternatives.
Representative Austerman questioned if additional charter
schools would result in an increase in the cost of education
in Alaska. Mr. Jeans responded that there is not a fiscal
note for the foundation program. The anticipation is that
charter schools would draw off of the existing student
population. There would only be a shift from the formula.
Representative Austerman questioned if it would weaken the
existing system. Mr. Jeans emphasized that it would provide
additional education opportunities for the general public.
New programs would be incorporated within the existing
system. Co-Chair Therriault observed that it would challenge
the existing system to provide a new level of excellence.
Representative Dyson emphasized that students from private
schools or home schooling may opt into the system.
HB 191 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|