Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/07/2000 01:50 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.
MIKE TIBBLES, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT, spoke
to Amendment #1, 1-LS0598\N.1, Ford, 1/31/00. [Copy on
File].
Vice Chair Bunde MOVED to adopt Amendment #1. Co-Chair
Therriault OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Vice Chair Bunde explained that that the amendment would
make the language of the bill more permissive. The current
language states that a charter school may not elect to
receive services. The amendment clarifies that the charter
school and the school district can negotiate over services
that are appropriate for the charter school.
Co-Chair Therriault asked if the charter school has no
"special needs" children, what would happen to the federal
dollar allocation. Vice Chair Bunde explained that during
negotiations, the school district would be responsible to
stipulate that the money be used for the "betterment of
all". Co-Chair Therriault WITHDREW his OBJECTION to the
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON foresaw no problem with inclusion
of the amendment. He stated that it was language that was
intended to be included. Inclusion of that language would
assume that there is a congenial relationship between the
two entities, however, he acknowledged that is not always
the case.
Representative Foster asked what would occur if the
relationship was not smooth. Representative Dyson replied
that the school boards would be the final entity to make
that decision.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment #1 was adopted.
Mr. Tibbles spoke to Amendment #2, 1-LS0598\N.2, Ford,
2/3/00. [Copy on File]. He noted that the amendment would
give charter schools more flexibility in the space in which
they could operate. Representative Foster asked if the fire
codes would be more restrictive. Co-Chair Therriault voiced
concern with the amendment.
Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to adopt Amendment #2. Co-Chair
Therriault OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Dyson explained that the school building
safety requirements are very stringent. What the charter
school people have found is that if they can not find public
school space, it is inordinately difficult to find a
building to lease that meets the school requirements. The
charter school people want to go with the same standards
that are used for "large groups of people who come
together". Representative Dyson pointed out that most of
the charter schools have small populations. He noted that
in the language of the amendment, it stipulates that the
safety codes for the children are met. He emphasized that
it has been very difficult for prospective charter schools
to find adequate facilities.
Co-Chair Therriault inquired if the same standards had to be
met by private schools. Representative Dyson replied that
they did not. Currently, private schools must have the same
standard as exists in public building facilities.
Representative Foster questioned how those standards would
apply to a public building. Representative Dyson explained
that each school administrator would have the final say on
that concern. He stressed that getting small children out
of a burning building is always a concern. He believed that
any superintendent would be capable of making the proper
decision. He noted that the amendment would extend the
contract period.
Vice Chair Bunde advised that he would support the amendment
because the chief supporting administrator would have the
final say and would ultimately be in charge. The liability
would be "personified" in that person. He stressed that the
language of the amendment does not provide a lot of
flexibility as the ultimate authority rests in that person.
Representative Grussendorf noted that he opposed the
amendment because it would require that the safety standard
rest solely on the school official. The standards for
public schools are always much more stringent because of
that responsibility. He emphasized that it would be a
mistake to incorporate the amendment.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that he would be more comfortable
knowing that school administrator was directly responsible
for the decision. Co-Chair Therriault WITHDREW his
OBJECTION to Amendment #2.
Representative Grussendorf OBJECTED to adopting Amendment
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Foster, Austerman, Bunde, G. Davis,
Therriault, Mulder
OPPOSED: Grussendorf, Moses, Williams
Representative J. Davies and Representative Phillips were
not present for the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (6-3).
Vice Chair Bunde MOVED to adopt Amendment #3, 1-LS0598\N.3,
Ford, 2/4/00. [Copy on File]. Mr. Tibbles explained that
the amendment was submitted by the Department of Education
and Early Development to clear up the statutes and reference
on basic need. He reminded members that there are four
factors which determine basic need. The Department believes
that it is important to reference all four of these
concerns.
WES KELLER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, replied that
the amendment was a housekeeping measure. Co-Chair
Therriault stated that from previous conversations with
Representative Dyson, he did not have an objection to the
amendment. There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment #3 was
adopted.
Vice Chair Bunde MOVED to adopt Amendment #4, 1-LS0598\N.4,
Ford, 2/3/00. [Copy on File]. Mr. Tibbles explained that
the amendment would delete the sunset clause. There being
NO OBJECTION, Amendment #4 was adopted.
BARBARA THOMPSN, DEPTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TEACHING AND
LEARNING SUPPORT, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY
DEVELOPMENT, spoke to the fiscal note. She stated that the
bill would expand the number of charter schools throughout
the State. The fiscal note would provide funding for that
endeavor. This legislation would institutionalize the State
program. Those people who intend to start a charter school
must have the expertise to help plan and implement that
endeavor and the fiscal note would provide for that. Co-
Chair Therriault questioned the need for a full time
education specialist at Range 21. Co-Chair Mulder added
that the Range 21 position would need a + time sectary. He
additionally, questioned the contractual $50 thousand
dollars requested to evaluate the effectiveness and success
of charter schools within Alaska.
Ms. Thompson advised that the contractual amount includes
funding for providing essential evaluations and covers costs
for the regular contractual agreement.
Representative Williams asked about the statewide acceptance
of the charter schools concept.
(TAPE CHANGE HFC 00 - 27, Side 2)
Ms. Thompson noted that there is a lot of interest in
concept of charter schools. She noted that it is obviously
indicated by viewing charter school applications from within
the Alaska schools districts. The bill will allow more
schools to start up.
Representative Williams observed that the bill would be
asking the State to spend more money. He questioned how the
additional funds would be spent and asked if there was
supporting material indicating that the charter schools are
doing well. Ms. Thompson replied that there has not been
funding available at any time to provide an extensive
evaluation.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that the legislation does
exist due to requests by constituents. Representative
Williams reiterated that there is additional funding
requested with the legislation. Co-Chair Therriault advised
that the fiscal concerns for the extra personnel would be
addressed at the end of session during Conference Committee.
Representative Grussendorf referenced Section 4(f). He
asked why would the school board approve another charter
school given the considerations of Section 4(f). He
believed that would curtail the growth of charter schools
throughout the State.
Mr. Keller replied that he did not think that would happen.
He commented that it is only fair that the local
contribution be distributed equitably. Most school
districts are distributing local contribution in excess of 4
mils.
Co-Chair Therriault agreed that Section #4 merited concern
with regard to compliance with federal guidelines.
Mr. Tibbles explained that at this time, he did not know if
Section #4 would cause complications with the federal
guidelines. Mr. Tibbles had not had an opportunity to speak
with the federal auditors regarding charging direct and
indirect costs. He noted that Section #4 would require that
the district itemize each service provided. In that each
service must be recorded, a potential exists that may
require itemization of the indirect costs. The problem with
that is the federal guidelines that determine how things
should be accounted for. It could be a problem if a charter
school "pushed" the school district to itemize the indirect
costs. Anchorage and Fairbanks school districts have
indicated that this could become an accounting "nightmare".
Without solid information from the auditors, Mr. Tibbles did
not know the scope of the problem this could cause.
In response to Co-Chair Therriault, Mr. Tibbles pointed out
that Legislative Legal has suggested options for language to
address this concern. He noted that language could be
included in the "exceptions" section for the indirect costs
by providing specific examples, or to add the language
"except for services that are not required to be itemized".
Representative Bunde asked if it should be included as an
amendment or simply stated through the intent of the
Committee. Co-Chair Therriault believed that it should be
placed in the "exceptions" section as recommended by
Legislative Legal.
Representative Austerman spoke to the library funds coming
to the charter school. Mr. Keller stated that the sponsor
assumes that the school district and the charter school
would be negotiating and that the final decision would be
decided at the local level between the charter school and
the school district.
Mr. Tibbles reiterated the suggestion provided made by
Legislative Legal Services which would place the information
either under the "exceptions" or on Page #3, Line 12,
following the word "itemized".
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED a conceptual amendment which would
add to the list of exceptions that the itemization not be so
specific that it would run counter to the federal
guidelines. Mr. Keller replied that Representative Dyson
would support that change. There being NO OBJECTION, a
conceptual Amendment #5 was adopted.
Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to report CS HB 191 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. Representative Austerman
OBJECTED. He stated that his understanding of charter
schools was that they were not suppose to cost the State any
more money than that based on the student count. He warned
that he was additionally, "nervous" about the Section #4
allocation.
Representative Williams OBJECTED to the amount of money
proposed to be spent. He added that the sunset clause
should have remained in the bill. Representative Williams
voiced concern that charter school students might not be
adequately educated, while at the same time spending more
money per student.
Co-Chair Therriault advised that he had indicated to the
Department that they should not begin spending the money as
proposed in the fiscal note. He foresaw a reduced fiscal
note. Co-Chair Therriault invited Representative Williams
to propose a reduction to the fiscal note at this time.
Representative Williams asked how that action would affect
the charter school system and how it could be tracked. He
recommended that the existing charter schools be more
closely watched for the next year or two to see how well
they are performing.
Representative Grussendorf stated that he did not know why a
school board would find any incentive to expand the charter
school system with the inclusion of Section #4.
Additionally, he warned of the repercussions of not giving
the Department adequate funding to cover the fiscal notes to
determine accountability. He stated that he could not
support the proposed legislation given these concerns.
Ms. Thompson echoed Representative Grussendorf's concern in
not funding the fiscal note to provide for the evaluation
effectiveness study. She emphasized that there are more
charter schools "coming on board" each year. The school
district must be providing more evaluation on the
effectiveness with the proposed increases to charter
schools. She stressed that it is important to have
expertise and evaluation at the State level.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to move the bill
from Committee.
IN FAVOR: Williams, Bunde, G. Davis, Foster, Mulder,
Therriault
OPPOSED: Grussendorf, Moses, Austerman
Representative Phillips and Representative J. Davies were
not present for the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (6-3).
CS HB 191 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do not
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note by the
Department of Education and Early Development.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|