03/20/2013 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB133 | |
| HB93 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 133 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 93 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 151 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 20, 2013
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lynn Gattis, Chair
Representative Lora Reinbold, Vice Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Harriet Drummond
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 133
"An Act relating to grants for school construction."
- MOVED HB 133 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 93
"An Act relating to the authorization, monitoring, and operation
of charter schools."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 151
"An Act establishing a public school and school district grading
system for purposes of improving accountability and
transparency; providing for Alaska strategic educators in public
schools; and providing for an effective date."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 133
SHORT TITLE: SCHOOL CONST. GRANTS/SMALL MUNICIPALITIES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) EDGMON
02/20/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/20/13 (H) EDC, FIN
03/11/13 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/11/13 (H) Heard & Held
03/11/13 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/18/13 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/18/13 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/20/13 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 93
SHORT TITLE: CHARTER SCHOOLS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GATTIS
01/30/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/30/13 (H) EDC, FIN
03/15/13 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/15/13 (H) Heard & Held
03/15/13 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/20/13 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
TIM CLARK, Staff
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 133 on behalf of the sponsor
of the bill, Representative Edgmon.
ELIZABETH SWEENEY NUDELMAN, Director
School Finance and Facilities Section
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of HB 133.
TOM BEGICH, Policy Director
Citizens for the Educational Advancement of Alaska's Children
(CEAAC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 133.
DAVID HERBERT, Superintendent
Saint Mary's City School District
St. Mary's, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 133.
BRUCE JOHNSON, Executive Director
Alaska Council of School Administrators (ACSA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of HB 133.
ERICK CORDERO-GIORGANA, Chief of Staff
Representative Lynn Gattis
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 93 on behalf of the bill
sponsor, Representative Gattis.
SUSAN MCCAULEY, Director
Teaching and Learning Support
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion on HB 93.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:04:22 AM
CHAIR LYNN GATTIS called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. Representatives Gattis, Drummond,
P. Wilson, Seaton, Saddler, and LeDoux were present at the call
to order. Representative Reinbold arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 133-SCHOOL CONST. GRANTS/SMALL MUNICIPALITIES
8:04:44 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 133, "An Act relating to grants for school
construction."
8:05:18 AM
TIM CLARK, Staff, Representative Bryce Edgmon, Alaska State
Legislature, presented a PowerPoint, titled "HB 133 School
Construction Grants/Small Municipalities." [Included in members'
packets] He read from slide 2: "HB 133 makes small municipal
school districts that meet certain criteria eligible for school
construction funding from the REAA fund. Five districts would
currently qualify. They are Saint Mary's, Tanana, Kake,
Klawock, and Hydaburg." He stated that the proposed bill
related to Willie and Sophie Kasayulie, et al., v. State of
Alaska, 3AN-97-3782 CI, (1999), which had identified inequitable
access to construction funding for rural schools. He explained:
Most municipal districts are able to bond for school
construction and subsequently access the state's debt
reimbursement program. However, Regional Education
Attendance Areas (REAAs) as well as some small rural
school districts lack taxable bases large enough to
make bonding for construction possible. Therefore,
REAAs and some small rural school districts can never
access the guaranteed state funding that exists in the
form of the bonding debt reimbursement program.
MR. CLARK read from slide 3, "The REAA Fund was established in
2010 to make a more reliable, consistent funding stream
available to REAAs, none of which can bond for school
construction," and he shared that they would not have access to
this guaranteed funding stream in the form of debt
reimbursement. He continued reading: "Some small municipal
school districts are effectively in the same circumstances as
REAAs." Moving on to slide 4, he stated that, "The Department
of Education and Early Development Capital Improvement Projects
School Construction Grant Fund List," which he declared would be
referred to as "The List," "plays a central role." Directing
attention to slide 5, "Paths to School Construction Funding in
the Capital Budget," he declared that these pathways were the
heart of the proposed bill and school construction funding. He
tracked the paths to receiving school construction funding in
the Capital Budget, and walked through the available means for
construction funding. He declared that bonding was available to
most municipal districts, as the State of Alaska subsequently
reimbursed 60 - 70 percent of that annual bond debt as
guaranteed by law. He described that the other path was through
the school construction grant list, which was open to REAAs,
small municipal school districts without bonding capability, and
those districts with bonding capability, if they so choose. He
explained that the Department of Education and Early Development
(EED) ranked all the projects on the grant list by priority, and
that the projects then awaited funding in that order of
priority. He explained that a non-REAA project was reliant on
legislative appropriation from the General Fund, with no
guarantee to any project on the list that funds would be made
available. He pointed out that an REAA project at the top of
the list would have access to designated funding in the REAA
fund by the legislature, with no other competition.
8:12:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked how schools would qualify to be
placed on the list.
MR. CLARK replied that there was an EED application process for
assessment and addition to the list.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON offered her belief that it was
necessary for an architect or engineer to review the project
prior to the EED.
MR. CLARK pointed out that school construction was not solely
defined as an entirely new structure, and could include
expansion of capacity.
8:13:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER directed attention to slide 5, and
clarified that the list for non-REAA projects was recreated
every year, so that there could always be higher priority issues
such that there are schools that edge out others.
MR. CLARK expressed his agreement, and explained that the set of
criteria by the department includes considerations for health
and safety issues, such that a natural disaster issue could
prioritize a project.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER pointed out that both ranking and a lack
of appropriation could mean that a project would never reach the
top of the list.
MR. CLARK agreed that was concern for any project on the Non-
REAA project list.
CHAIR GATTIS reminded the committee that the EED had a
representative available to answer any questions.
8:15:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX, offering an example for a number of
families settling in a remote area where there was not a school,
although there were ten children, asked if a school would
automatically be built to accommodate them.
MR. CLARK offered his belief that the area would need to
incorporate in some form of municipality in order to receive the
funding.
8:17:05 AM
ELIZABETH SWEENEY NUDELMAN, Director, School Finance and
Facilities Section, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), in response, said that the arrival of 10
students to a community would not automatically entitle a
school. She said that criteria for school construction would
need to be met, which included identification as an attendance
area, with an additional review for an area of less than 24
students.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX reflected on an earlier visit to a logging
camp where a school had existed in a trailer which did not
appear to be an EED approved building. She reported that the
logging camp had more students than many villages, and she asked
why this community had not been entitled to a school.
MS. NUDELMAN explained that modular units were provided to some
areas, but that any community requesting a school would need to
process an application for funding and construction through EED.
8:20:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted that a logging camp was, by
definition, a temporary location. She pointed out that the
Anchorage School District had supplied as many as 150 portable
classrooms. Referring to the statement on slide 5, "60-70
percent of annual bond debt, guaranteed by law," she stated that
the Anchorage School District never took that for granted, even
though millions of dollars were passed in bond issues. She
stated that there was always a final decision for funding by the
State Legislature.
MR. CLARK suggested that it would be better to state that the
reimbursement program was in law.
8:21:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, referring to the aforementioned "The
List," offered his belief that school districts were not able to
receive assessment grants from [Department of Commerce,
Community & Economic Development] to develop the criteria for
consideration by Department of Education and Early Development
(EED) to be placed on "The List." He asked if this information
was correct.
MR. CLARK deferred.
MS. NUDELMAN explained that she was not familiar with a grant
program for application development, but that school districts
had the opportunity to apply to EED for phased funding, which
included design funding for project development. She reported
that some of the applications were developed in-house at the
school districts, and that the application process was very
clear. She stressed that there were several avenues for the
school districts in preparation of the applications.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to non-REAA projects, and pointed
to a large re-build project in the Anchorage School District,
which the Alaska State Legislature had approved and funded.
8:24:53 AM
MR. CLARK, directing attention to slide 5, emphasized the
contrast in the funding avenues for projects that were eligible
for the REAA fund versus those that were non-REAA eligible. He
declared that an REAA project had a greater likelihood for
funding due to the availability of the fund.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked to clarify that the fund had been
created as a result of Willie and Sophie Kasayulie, et al., v.
State of Alaska, 3AN-97-3782 CI, (1999), which had determined
that rural school districts did not have the same opportunity
for construction as the municipal school districts.
MR. CLARK expressed his agreement that this provided a more
reliable funding stream.
8:26:25 AM
MR. CLARK read slide 6 which summarized the PowerPoint
presentation:
HB 133 makes small municipal school districts that
meet certain criteria eligible for the REAA fund.
Five districts would currently qualify. They are
Saint Mary's, Tanana, Kake, Klawock, and Hydaburg.
Like REAAs, these districts are not capable of bonding
and need access to the more consistent, reliable
funding source the REAA Fund creates. Making them
REAA Fund-eligible will further rectify the inequities
in rural school construction funding identified in
Kasayulie v. Alaska.
8:27:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked who could apply to the REAA fund.
MR. CLARK replied that every REAA in the state was eligible, and
that proposed HB 133 would add eligibility for these five small
municipal school districts which were currently in a different
category.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked to clarify that the limited fund
was being opened to more qualified school districts.
MR. CLARK explained that the practical effect on the fund was
small, as the fund was annually capitalized according to a
formula.
8:29:29 AM
TOM BEGICH, Policy Director, Citizens for the Educational
Advancement of Alaska's Children (CEAAC), explained that CEAAC
represented 21 of the 53 school districts in Alaska, and that
REAAs were the choice for highest priority of funding. He
declared that the members of CEAAC were in support of proposed
HB 133. He pointed out that the aforementioned five small
school districts had all been original members of the Kasayulie
lawsuit, but had not been included in the settlement language
for the REAA fund. He declared that proposed HB 133 would
correct this inequity.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked how many schools were included in
REAAs.
MR. BEGICH replied that he did not have the exact number.
8:31:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if there was any prospect for
future expansion.
MR. BEGICH replied that CEAAC did not intend to ask for
expansion, as the formula for REAA funding was very equitable,
and only allowed for school districts without the ability to
bond.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if proposed HB 133 would dilute the
availability of funds to the REAAs.
MR. BEGICH replied that there would be minimal dilution of
funding to the REAAs in the next five to eight years,
specifically as there were not a lot of projects currently on
the list.
8:34:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to the fourth paragraph of the
Sectional Summary [Included in members' packets} and read: "The
change provides that the percentage of municipal school
districts that are eligible for the REAA Fund will not be
included in the percentage of municipal school districts by
which the annual debt service is divided in the formula." He
asked for further clarification of the section.
MR. BEGICH explained that the five schools were being moved
"from one end of a divisor and putting them in the other end of
the divisor." He pointed out that the divisor was determined by
the total amount of bonding in any given year. He reported that
the current fund was a bit more than $35 million but could not
exceed $70 million. He said that this would add an additional
$600,000 to the fund.
8:35:51 AM
MS. NUDELMAN, referring to an earlier question, said that there
were 451 schools in the state, and that 136 schools were in
REAA's, while the remaining 315 schools were in the city and
borough school districts.
8:36:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked how many of the REAA's had a tax
base which could contribute locally to the schools.
8:37:07 AM
MS. NUDELMAN replied that as the REAA's are in unorganized areas
of the state they were not organized to assess taxes similar to
city and boroughs. She noted that these REAAs did occasionally
receive impact aid.
8:38:00 AM
MS. NUDELMAN, in response to Representative P. Wilson, confirmed
that 136 schools were eligible for the construction project list
and access to the REAA fund, and that proposed HB 133 would add
5 more schools.
8:38:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER offered his belief that the unorganized
boroughs would eventually become organized boroughs, and asked
if the REAAs would eventually become school districts.
MS. NUDELMAN replied that this was a state policy question and
she would not speculate on it.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if any REAAs had become school
districts.
8:39:49 AM
MR. BEGICH, noting that the history of the state was consistent,
explained that when a borough was formed the REAA became,
instead, a functioning school district with a tax base. He
pointed out that this decision was quite complex and was made in
conjunction with the Local Boundary Commission, although it was
based on the ability to have a sustainable tax base.
8:40:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, directing attention to the military
base in the area between Fairbanks and Tok, asked if there was a
tax base even though it was not a borough.
MR. BEGICH replied that many entities went through a long
process for determination of borough formation, and that there
was an initiative being considered in that area.
8:41:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the tax from oil and gas
production located in an REAA was paid to the State of Alaska.
MR. BEGICH replied that this was correct.
8:42:38 AM
DAVID HERBERT, Superintendent, Saint Mary's City School
District, provided historical background to explain that the
district had been excluded during the final settlement
negotiations of Kasayulie as it was not an REAA school district,
but a first class city school district. He explained that a
first class city school district required an annual local
contribution from the city to the school district to offset the
costs of its operation, whereas an REAA did not have this
mandatory local contribution. He pointed out that Saint Mary's
City School District was surrounded by REAA districts, all of
which benefitted from the aforementioned settlement for school
construction funds. He explained that the school district had
taken the necessary steps to improve its position on the school
construction list by writing a quality application, academically
outperforming the surrounding schools, and showing a frugal
fiscal responsibility. He said that it was the only small
municipal school district on the school construction list to
which the proposed bill would apply; therefore, the impact of
the proposed bill was minimal to the state but very important to
the school district.
8:45:31 AM
MR. HERBERT explained that municipalities which had bonding
capacity were eligible for reimbursement up to 70 percent of
construction expenses. He pointed out that the group of REAA
school districts now had access to funds for school construction
due to Kasayulie, with an equitable formula of funding with the
municipalities. He opined that, as Saint Mary's City School
District was surrounded by REAAs, it made sense for it to be
included in the funding mechanism. He declared that the St.
Mary's City School District had demonstrated its ability to
provide quality education in Rural Alaska, and ensured that its
students would become productive, contributing citizens. He
urged the passage of proposed HB 133.
8:47:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that Anchorage had an excess
of elementary school space due to the 70 percent reimbursement
for school funding, and that property taxes were "taxed to the
max." She asked if the current mandatory contribution would no
longer be required if the proposed bill passed. She said that
she was "a huge believer that the community needs to have skin
in the game. They need to help develop the resources and jobs
around them." She asked for a statement of support from the
community that it would work with the Legislature to sustain the
schools.
MR. HERBERT replied that proposed HB 133 had no impact on the
required mandatory annual local contribution, which was
currently about $35,000 in Saint Mary's.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked if this contribution was for one
school and how much was the school budget.
MR. HERBERT replied that that there was only one school and its
budget was about $3 million.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD mused that this mandatory contribution
was about 10 percent.
MR. HERBERT explained that the mandatory local contribution rate
was determined by the state.
8:49:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked why Saint Mary's City School
District had initially been a part of the lawsuit, but was then
not included in the settlement.
MR. BEGICH explained that the REAA Fund was created by the
Alaska State Legislature prior to settlement of the Kasayulie
lawsuit, which had allowed for settlement by a consent decree
that both parties would abide by this mechanism. He opined that
all of the schools at the time should have been included,
however the court had only named the top seven schools that were
listed in the suit.
MR. HERBERT added that these five school districts were in a
unique situation which needed to be addressed by the legislature
in order to create funding equality.
8:53:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned the process of the five school
districts' inclusion in the lawsuit and then removal from the
settlement. She said "that just doesn't make any sense to me."
8:54:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON stated that she was "a real stickler
for fairness," and she declared her support for the proposed
bill.
8:55:18 AM
BRUCE JOHNSON, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School
Administrators (ACSA), said that David Herbert also served as
the president of ACSA, and he expressed his agreement with the
testimony regarding the need for a solution to this difficult
situation for the five school districts.
8:56:04 AM
CHAIR GATTIS closed public testimony.
8:56:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that the proposed bill would provide
the opportunity for other major maintenance projects to be
prioritized.
8:57:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND stated her support for adding the small
school districts; however, she expressed concern for the
continued funding given the projected revenues. She questioned
whether the reimbursement was, indeed, "guaranteed by law."
8:58:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD corrected her earlier observation,
noting that Saint Mary's contributed one percent to the school
budget. She emphasized that local communities needed to
contribute more than this amount, and needed to create jobs and
develop resources in the community.
8:58:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to report HB 133, labeled 28-
LS0509\A, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HB 133
was moved from the House Education Standing Committee.
8:59:21 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:59 a.m. to 9:02 a.m.
HB 93-CHARTER SCHOOLS
9:02:55 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 93, "An Act relating to the authorization,
monitoring, and operation of charter schools." [Before the
committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 93,
Version 28-LS0354\O, Mischel, 3/11/13, adopted as the working
document on 3/15/13.]
9:03:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 93, labeled 28-LS0354\P, Mischel,
3/18/13, as the working document.
9:04:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected for discussion.
9:04:30 AM
ERICK CORDERO-GIORGANA, Staff, Representative Lynn Gattis,
Alaska State Legislature, explained that the changes to the
proposed CS, Version P, page 2, line 14, removed non-profits and
government agencies as authorizers and only allows accredited
postsecondary institutions in the state. He directed attention
to page 4, line 24, and reported that Department of Education
and Early Development (EED) had been removed after testimony
that EED was not eligible to receive any of the funds.
9:06:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked to clarify that the proposed CS,
Version P, did not allow certain authorizers, such as unions and
Native Corporations.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA replied that Version P only considered
post-secondary accredited institutions to be authorizers, and
removed the potential for non-profits and other entities.
9:07:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER pointed out that this change had been
made at his request, stating his belief that educational
institutions "by their very nature, they have some institutional
expertise and administrative capabilities necessary to perform
the responsibilities envisioned for them under this
legislation." He noted that these institutions also had
financial resources. He opined that an expansion of these
approved authorizers for charter schools would be a good first
step toward certification for other authorizers.
9:08:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if it was necessary for an approved
post-secondary educational institution to be in the State of
Alaska.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA directed attention to page 2, line 19, and
said that the institution was required to be in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what institutions would be included.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA said that he did not have a complete list.
9:09:20 AM
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA, in response to Representative Drummond,
noted that this language had been changed in Version P to only
include an accredited post-secondary institution.
9:10:15 AM
CHAIR GATTIS, speaking as the sponsor of the proposed bill, said
that the original version had allowed multiple authorizers, but
that Representative Saddler had concern with non-educational
authorizers. She stated that she "had no problem with just
moving it to educational institutions within the State of
Alaska" as presented in Version P.
9:10:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the intent to allow the
University of Alaska (UA) system to be an authorizer would
include all the campuses, as well as the skill center in Seward.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA explained that the proposed bill only
approved a process by EED to determine an authorizer, while the
details would still need to be finalized.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that the definition for an
authorizer was being placed in statute, and offered his opinion
that it was necessary for an accredited institution to be
recognized.
9:12:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked if there was pressure on the
charter school system from non-school district organizations to
create additional facilities.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA explained that there were more than 2,000
Alaskan students on waiting lists for Alaska charter schools,
which he determined to be a "tremendous demand." He explained
that charter schools, as public schools, had a duty for an
equitable enrollment process. He reported that there would be
advertisements in the community during enrollment periods for
applications. He clarified that parents had to re-apply for the
waiting list each school year.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND emphasized that a waiting list did not
confirm a request by a community for a new school. She declared
that many Anchorage optional and alternative educational
programs also had waiting lists. She questioned the need for
additional charter schools.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA replied that community members had made
requests for new charter schools, but had met resistance by the
local school districts as the current authorizers. He noted
that currently there was not an appeal process. He offered his
belief that there "was a natural inclination and a natural
conflict of interest by local school districts, and hesitation,
to allow for new charter schools."
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND questioned whether additional schools
would further the supervisorial responsibility for EED.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA expressed his agreement that the proposed
bill would increase the role of EED in determining the
authorizer's capability to approve, monitor, renew, or terminate
a charter. He noted that the actual operation of the school was
handled by the Academic Policy Committee (APC) at each school.
He said that the charter schools would maintain the current
autonomy for budget, schedule, calendar, and program.
9:16:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked to clarify that, under the
proposed bill, the Alaska State Board of Education and Early
Development would be the ultimate arbiter.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA said that the Alaska State Board of
Education and Early Development still had to ratify a local
charter school application. He reported that the proposed bill
created an appeal process, page 2, lines 8-12.
9:18:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON offered her belief that the limitation
for an authorizer in Version P "guts this whole bill." She
suggested a change to allow Native organizations the opportunity
to organize charter schools, with certain parameters, as "they
know how their kids learn, they could really do something with
this." She declared, "I don't like charter schools," and
offered her belief that charter schools were not the means for
upgrading the public schools.
9:20:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX, in response, said that UA was most likely
one of the only entities to qualify as an authorizer, and asked
if there is a UA representative present to testify regarding its
position on Version P.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA replied that there had not been a response
from UA.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if the Blaine Amendment would be
violated if there was an authorizer other than a public
institution.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA explained that the funds to educate the
students would go directly to the charter school, as a public
school.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if there had been a legal opinion
for this possibility.
9:23:02 AM
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA replied that the drafter of the proposed
bill had stated that the Blaine Amendment would not be violated
as there was no direct benefit to the private groups, as this
would be a public charter school. He noted that this was
similar to the performance scholarship program.
9:23:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER expressed that he liked the educational
choice offered by charter schools. He opined that, nationally,
universities were the most common authorizers for charter
schools, as they had an educational mission. He pointed out
that the proposed bill did not mandate or create new charter
schools, but merely "opens another vector for possibility." He
stated that a wait list was evidence of a desire for new charter
schools. He stated his support for Version P, and expressed his
appreciation that it was an opportunity, not a mandate.
9:26:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD stated her support for the original
bill, Version U, which was not restricted solely to the
University of Alaska as an authorizer. She reported that there
were long waiting lists for charter schools in her community,
and that many parents were frustrated. She declared that she
was a supporter for freedom of choice as "one size does not fit
all." She said that charter schools "have more skin in the
game, typically they have to pay a lot of their own facility
costs." She opined that charter schools had increased
graduation rates and higher test scores, in many incidences.
She declared that she did not support a monopoly by the state as
authorizers.
9:27:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted that the Anchorage School District
received an administrative fee from the charter schools' base
student allocation, and pointed out that there were
administrative fees to the authorizers, as well.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA concurred and directed attention to Version
P, page 4, line 20. He said that these fees varied with each
local school district, and that there was a cap to these fees.
He opined that the authorizer would be allowed to receive these
fees, as well.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND expressed her confusion, and asked for
clarification that the administrative costs were to be paid to
the authorizer of the school. She requested a list of
accredited post-secondary institutions in Alaska.
9:30:01 AM
SUSAN MCCAULEY, Director, Teaching and Learning Support,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), explained
that the indirect rate, or administrative cost, applied to the
local school district or the alternate authorizer permitted by
the proposed bill, and that it varied by district. She declared
that it was established by the school district and approved by
EED as a means to determine the permissible costs charged to a
charter school in association with the administration of federal
grants.
9:31:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to Version P, page 2,
lines 24-31, and asked if the intention was that authorizers be
required to review applications from any charter school in the
state, and it this encourage an appeal to the State Board of
Education because of locale. He noted that these authorized
charter schools would not have to fulfill the requirements to
public schools for the same union agreements, the same
textbooks, or any of the other exemptions listed in the proposed
bill.
9:34:18 AM
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA explained that charter schools currently
had these exemptions, except for labor agreements, and were not
granted any other exemptions beyond those in current statute.
He said that the intent was not to force new authorizers to
accept every application, but to maintain the current standard
statewide application process. He said that the local process
by an authorizer could change, similar to that of a local school
district. He pointed out that a local school district could add
to the standard, and require additional conditions.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his belief that a charter school
was authorized by the local school board for that local area.
He pointed out that the proposed authorizer was statewide, with
no constraint for local area. He opined that the use of
"shall," page 2, line 24, was not workable.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA said that the intent of the proposed bill
was not to force an authorizer to accept every application,
although there would be an appeal process.
9:37:23 AM
MS. MCCAULEY pointed to Version P, page 2, line 28, which
permitted an authorizer to deny an application. She offered her
belief that the proposed appeal process would require the
authorizer to provide reasons for the denial, although a process
had not yet been established for appeal to the Alaska State
Board of Education and Early Development.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER suggested that the appeal process was
described on page 2, line 9.
MS. MCCAULEY, in response, said that she was referring to page
2, line 28, in response to Representative Seaton.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER opined that the appeal was a two stage
process, and that an authorizer was obliged to receive and
consider an application, but was not obligated to grant them.
He suggested that it would be beneficial to give authorization
for the appeal process to the Alaska State Board of Education
and Early Development.
9:40:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether authorization shopping might
occur until an application was approved.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA replied that it could be technically
possible, but that the two tier process for approval would
require proof that it was a viable project with the EED before
ratification.
9:42:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that there was no evidence that
local school districts were denying charter school applications.
He asked for recent evidence that local school districts were
inappropriately denying the ability to form charter schools.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA replied that although they had heard from
parents, hard figures for denials were not available as people
were afraid to testify for fear of retribution. He said that
multiple authorizers were determined to be a best practice by
the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, as it forced
the approval process to be a serious process so that
applications were considered on their merit, and not conflict.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed his desire to get to the crux of
the problem. He stated that there was not any evidence, beyond
rumor, that the local school districts were inappropriately
denying charter school applications. He opined that the
proposed bill was merely solving a problem that only existed
through hearsay. He asked for more evidence of these denials.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA said that, while serving on the school
board, he had heard administrators state on the record that they
did not want new charter schools. He said there was not any
data because there was not an appeals process.
9:46:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND referred to a list of charter school
enrollment capacity and wait list data, which indicated that
over 2,000 students were wait listed for attendance. She then
referred to the listed Anchorage schools, which did not show any
wait list. She expressed her agreement with Representative
Seaton that there did not appear to be any pressing need for
more charter schools in Alaska. She said that the public
records for these school board meetings would reflect whether
statements of denial had been made. She asked to have further
information that would include the number of seats in charter
schools and whether charter school applications were being
denied. She requested more data, "not rumor and innuendo and
people pretending that they can't form charter schools."
9:48:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked to clarify that, currently, there
was not an appeal procedure. She asked if there was any
definite criterion for denial of a charter school application.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA replied that there was not an appeal
process at this time, and added that the application by the
Thunderbird Charter School in Matanuska-Susitna had been denied
by the local administration, and not even brought to the Alaska
State Board of Education and Early Development. He offered an
anecdote about a similar denial for a French immersion charter
school in Fairbanks. He said that the minutes might not reflect
this denial; however, stating that, without an appeals process,
it was difficult to find this data.
MS. MCCAULEY explained that the discretion for approval was at
the local level. In response to Representative Ledoux, she
reported that there were criteria for the information required
in a charter school application, which would document the
educational mission, the plans for facilities, the service to
special education students, and the intended programs. She
noted that the application would be forwarded to the Alaska
State Board of Education and Early Development for final
approval.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked to clarify that all of the criteria
needed to be met before the local school board would qualify the
application, and then forward it to the Alaska State Board of
Education and Early Development. She questioned that the local
school board could reject an application without record for any
reason the application was not accepted.
MS. MCCAULEY repeated that the local school board had the
discretion for approval or denial, and there would likely be a
public record the stated reasons for approval or denial.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered her belief that it would be
difficult to obtain any data for denial without an appeal
process, and she suggested the need for public disclosure of
reasons for denial which could be appealed.
9:53:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER considered that this "was a vector not a
mandate." He noted that, as the original impetus for charter
schools came from parents, the appeal of denied applications
would also come from parents. He opined that charter schools
required the same parental involvement and commitment which had
been declared to be "key to student success." He suggested that
a need for charter schools would allow parents to go to an
authorizer, and to have an appeals process. He summarized: "if
there's no need, no desire; no harm, no foul."
9:54:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD pointed out that the student population
for the Anchorage School District had remained at about 49,000
students, even though the city population had significantly
increased in the last 20 years. She said that many students
were now attending private schools, charter schools, and home
schools. She said that the graduation rate in the Anchorage
schools was about 70 percent compared to a statewide graduation
rate of 60 percent. She opined that it was necessary to
"harness local energy, and provide these opportunities, so we
can maintain some control." She offered her belief that charter
schools had "more skin in the game than anyone else that I know
beside home schoolers." She declared charter schools to be cost
effective, and often with better outcomes. She stated that
testimony on the proposed bill indicated that Alaska had "some
of the worst laws in the nation. That was an objective outside,
their unwilling to invest here in our state because of our laws,
are bad, we need to change this law." She declared that Alaska
had "issues with our public education." She opined that it was
necessary for immediate educational reform, "and anybody who's
willing to help create a charter school and have skin in the
game, I think we need to capitalize on that energy right now."
She expressed her support for the Alaska State Board of
Education and Early Development to review these applications.
She declared her desire for multiple authorizers. She
summarized: "we need to empower the locals and the people
who're passionate about education, and get this bill outta
committee, original version."
9:56:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reflected on the testimony that there was
not any data because there was not an appeals process. He
suggested that an appeals process would be appropriate for
collecting information regarding local school board decision
making. Instead of a new regulatory process for authorizers, it
would be much more effective and economical for an appeals
process. He explained that the regulatory process would require
"an entire panoply of regulations that are gonna have to take
place, because now there's a new relationship that's going to
exist." He stated that this would include contractual
requirements for record keeping, and an entire regulatory
framework. He affirmed that a mandate for an appeals process
requiring public disclosure from the reasons of approval or
denial would resolve the dilemma for any inappropriate denial of
charter school applications. He emphasized that creation of a
new regulatory system was not necessary to ensure that
reasonable and appropriate charter school applications were
approved.
9:59:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND expressed her agreement. She confirmed
that it was best to amend the existing charter school laws to
provide an appeal process. She suggested that discussion with
the local school districts could reveal the reasons for any
application denials.
10:00:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON maintained her objection to adopt the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 93, labeled 28-
LS0354\P, Mischel, 3/18/13, as the working document.
10:00:41 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Saddler, Seaton,
and Drummond voted in favor of adopting the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 93, labeled 28-LS0354\P, Mischel,
3/18/13, as the working document. Representatives LeDoux,
Reinbold, P. Wilson, and Gattis voted against it. Therefore,
Version P failed to be adopted as the working document by a vote
of 3-4. [The proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 93,
labeled 28-LS0354\O, Mischel, 3/11/13, adopted as the working
document on 3/15/13, was before the committee.]
10:04:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reminded the committee that information on
denials by school boards had been requested for discussion on
Version O.
10:05:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND requested additional data for charter
school authorizers and a complete list of charter schools, the
capacities, and the actual wait lists for the past year, as
requested earlier in the meeting.
10:06:15 AM
CHAIR GATTIS declared that HB 93 would be held over.
10:06:27 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:06 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HB 133 Bill Text.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 133 |
| 02 HB 133 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 133 |
| 03 HB 133 Sectional Summary.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 133 |
| 04 HB 133 ADMs and Full Values.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 133 |
| 05 HB 133 Kasayulie v. Alaska Consent Decree and Settlement Agreement.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 133 |
| 06 HB 133 DEED FY14 School Construction Grant Fund List.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 133 |
| 07 HB 133 PowerPoint.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 133 |
| 08 HB 133 Fiscal Note - EED-FundTransfer-3-13-13.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 133 |
| 00 CSHB 93 v. P.PDF |
HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 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 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 |
| 07 CSHB 151 Fiscal Note - EED-TLS-3-14-13.pdf |
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 |