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.