SENATE SUBSTITUTE:

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE AS PASSED THE HOUSE:

It would add a new code section to include:

1. Definitions of “student,” “substantial hardship,” “variance,” and “waiver.”

2. It would allow the SBOE to grant variances or waivers to students who demonstrates that the purpose of a law behind a state rule has been met by another method and that application of the rule would result in a hardship for the student.

3. A petition from a student for a variance or waiver would require:

   1. Statement of the rule;

   2. Action requested;

   3. Facts of the hardship and why it would justify a waiver, and the alternative method to meet the requirement;

   4. Reasons why the waiver would serve the purpose of the underlying statute.

4. The SBOE would have 60 days to issue a decision in writing with reasons for approval or denial.

5. The SBOE decision could be appealed to the judicial process.

6. No variances or waivers are possible for rules related to federal programs.

7. An aggregated report of all waivers, names redacted, would go to the General Assembly in the first 10 days of the next session.

   Further revisions to existing code would include:

1. Addition of computer equipment and software for curriculum, instruction or administration would be added to capital outlay.

2. Definition of “local school system” as any entity so defined by the DOE.

3. Elimination of state funds and assistance in administering nationally norm-referenced tests.

4. Revision and upgrade of state mandated content standards and award of contracts to develop state criterion based tests for these standards with features similar to other comparable states for comparison purposes would be permissible, but only with sole control by Georgia.

5. Tests in ELA and math would be given in grades one through eight, and tests in social studies and science would be given in grades three through eight.

6. It would eliminate the high school graduation test.

7. Reassignment of writing tests to accompany the new testing program. Writing assessments would be required in at least one grade at elementary, middle and high school levels and may be administered in more than one grade at each level as designated by the SBOE.

8. It would add that the newly developed state criterion based tests provide results comparable on a national level.

9. Development or adoption of alternative assessments for students with significant special needs unable to take regular tests even with accommodations would be required. It would eliminate using the IEP as an alternative assessment.

10. Addition of state board regulations to federal IDEA regs for IEP’s and the committee’s determination of appropriate participation in assessments and accommodations for them.

11. Elimination of the paragraph that granted waivers from state tests until FY 2003 (obsolete).

12. It would add a COMPASS score approved by the SBOE as a factor for consideration in a student’s waiver or variance request for a portion of the high school graduation test.

13. Elimination of required grade levels for middle school programs and the specific requirements that previously delineated the difference in middle grades and the middle school program.

14. It would add to the credentials for hiring a school administrative manager satisfactory business experience.

15. Reassignment of the honors program from SDOE to OSA.

16. Elimination of requirement to publish annual report regarding expenditures and participation rates for gender and other characteristics, but still allowing same.

17. Elimination of “state funded” regarding internet courses and eliminating “no cost to the student” and shifting costs to the state grant to pay for those costs as the General Assembly allots for home study programs and private schools.

18. Addition of a requirement that would shift the cost of on-line courses to the student if he/she enrolls in more than the allowable number per day, not to exceed $250 per student per semester course.

19. Home study programs and private school students may enroll in Georgia Virtual Academy free, if the General Assembly appropriates funds. If sufficient funds are not appropriated, they may enroll when there are available slots if they pay, not to exceed $250.00 per semester course.

20. Students would access the virtual school courses through the clearing-house.

21. A LEA can contract with a provider for a full-time or part-time program, or the LEA can contract with another LEA to participate in an approved virtual program provided by another LEA, if the contract provides for transfer of funds.

22. The DOE no longer would provide a list of providers nor would they evaluate and approve them—the clearing-house replaces that process.

23. Each contract with a provider would have to specify and demonstrate methods to ensure that state mandated content standards are met.

24. It would add a provision to bar parents from offering a home study program with a court order.

25. Parents would have to name the local system where the home study program is offered in their declaration of intent.

26. It would require the SBOE to withhold with reasonable promptness funds for health insurance and to transmit those funds directly to DCH .if an employer has failed to pay on time.

27. If an LEA intends not to renew a teacher, it would extend notice of non-renewal to May 15 and would automatically deem a teacher non-renewed if he/she does not serve notice in writing by June 1 of the third consecutive school year that the contract is not accepted.

28. The same would apply to first year teachers in a system.

29. It would add to provisions for appeal of disciplinary hearing decisions to the SBOE the option to refer the matter to mediation.

30. It would clarify the definition of “charter authorizer” to include the SBOE, the State Charter Schools Commission, a LBOE, or any other entity in the state so authorized.

31. It would change the timeline for approval or denial of a state charter school from 60 to 90 days after its submission (following denial by a LBOE).

    The bill would add a new subsection to include:

1. It would provide an expedited petition for renewal, replication, or expansion of a high-performing school’s design, but it would have to include evidence of academic success and demonstrate resources necessary to replicate, renew or expand the design.

2. Charter petition applications would be allowed to be submitted May 1 and November 1.

3. Conversion charter and startup charter applications would have to be submitted concurrently to the LBOE and the SBOE.

4. The SBOE would have 90 210 days from the date a LBOE approves a charter to approve or deny. If denied, a 60 day timeline would be in place to respond with the SBOE’s rationale for denial. That would also apply to a state chartered special school from the date the petition is received.

5. Once the SBOE approves a petition, the charter would have to be executed no later than 240 days after the original submission.

   The bill would add another new code section to include:

1. The bill specifies the philosophy/expectations of charter authorizers:

   1. To ensure that school have autonomy and public accountability;

   2. To be guided by:

      1. Demanding high standards;

      2. Upholding school autonomy; and

      3. Protecting student and public interests;

2. It would require the SBOE to develop policies and procedures to require authorizers to develop and annually publish a policy statement based on national best practices.

   1. Presents the strategic vision, including preferences to petitions that help at-risk students;

   2. Includes or directs petitioners to the performance framework for oversight and evaluation;

   3. Includes criteria to guide the authorizer in the decision to approve or deny;

   4. States clear, detailed questions and guidelines for the format and content expected for a successful charter school; and

   5. Requires petitioner to provide or describe thoroughly all the contents of the petition.

3. It would require an authorizer to thoroughly evaluate each written petition, hold an in-person interview with the petitioner, and offer a public meeting for information and contents on the petition, unless the authorizer finds serious defects. The interview and public meeting could be postponed until the defects are resolved.

4. An authorizer would have to monitor the performance and legal compliance of a charter school it oversees, including collecting and analyzing data for ongoing evaluation. The authorizer would have authority to conduct inquiries and investigations, as long as charter terms are followed and the school’s autonomy is intact.

5. An authorizer would have to publish a performance report for each charter school it oversees, and it may consist of each school’s report to the authorizer;

6. If the charter school’s performance or legal compliance is unsatisfactory, the authorizer would have to notify the charter school in writing and provide reasonable opportunity for remedy of the problem, unless it warrants termination, which would proceed according to legal provisions. A corrective action plan could be required for the remedy, and sanctions short of termination would be allowable.

7. The SBOE would have to identify authorizers that fail to satisfy the above requirements in its annual report to the General Assembly.

   The bill goes on to revise exiting law as follows:

1. It would no longer specify allotment of funds to charter schools from “QBE formula earnings; applicable QBE grants, applicable non-QBE state grants” and replaces those items with a generic “state funds.”

2. It would eliminate the distinction between conversion and start-up charter schools.

3. It would eliminate current sections on the distribution of funds to all classifications of charter schools and replaces them with the following requirements for an LBOE to fund a charter school:

   1. QBE formula earnings and QBE grants based on enrollment, school profile, and student characteristics to include:

      1. The salary portion of direct instructional costs with T&E and non-salary portions of direct instruction costs;

      2. Earnings for psychologists and SSW’s;

      3. School and district administration;

      4. Facility M&O;

      5. Media centers;

      6. Additional days of instruction; and

      7. Staff development, as determined by the DOE; and

      8. A proportional share of earned categorical grants, non-QBE state grants, transportation grants, school nutrition grants, and all other state grants except equalization grants, as determined by DOE.

   2. Local revenue to be distributed to charter schools would have to be equal to the average amount of the total revenues less federal revenues, less state revenues other than equalization divided by the system FTE.

   3. LBOE’s could still specify a greater amount of local revenue in the charter to go to the charter school if agreed upon by all parties to the charter.

4. It would eliminate the statement regarding capital outlay funds in light of the above requirements and also would eliminate the statement regarding calculation and distribution of funds for a “start up” school’s first year.

5. The per student funding formula based on the above requirements would be binding on the LBOE.

6. By April 1 each year, charters would have to notify their authorizers of funding estimates calculated by the above requirements for any new charter school or those having additional grade levels or enrollment growth. The authorizer would have to calculate and distribute, no later than July 1, the initial funding payment to the charter school based on that estimate.

7. It would define “underutilized facility” to mean any school building or building owned by the LBOE in which less than 40% of the square footage is used for direct instruction or critical administration purposes and for which no purchase offer has been executed.

8. It would define “unused facility” as an excess or surplus school building or other LBOE owned facility that is or could be appropriate for school use.

9. It would then give to a charter school the right of first refusal to purchase or lease at or below fair market value one of those facilities, unless the LBOE has a plan to reuse the facility within 12 months. The exclusion could be reported only once in the annual report to the DOE that would be required so the DOE could post a list of unused and underused facilities on its web site.

10. The DOE would have to establish an application process for lease or purchase of such facilities, but the LBOE would receive any funds received from the sale or lease.

11. If more than one charter school applies for such property, a competitive bidding process would be used, and the bill specifies criteria for judging the bids.

12. It would replace current enrollment procedures of state charter schools with a statement that any student that lives in the charter attendance zone may apply, and if applications exceed capacity, a random selection process would be utilized. However, the bill adds to existing procedures that a state charter school could give preference to:

    1. Students who reside in a specified political subdivision within the charter attendance zone. (A specified political subdivision would be defined as a local school system, county, municipal corporation, consolidated city-county government or other political subdivision with the state, any local authority, local body corporate, or local public corporation created by or pursuant to the Constitution, or any general, local, or special Act of the General Assembly, or any special district or community improvement district of the state); [This statement is added to conversion charter enrollment preferences and adds the following criteria to state charter schools.]

    2. A sibling of a currently enrolled student;

    3. A sibling of a student enrolled in another local school designated in the charter;

    4. A student whose parent is a member of the governing board of the state charter school, or is a full-time teacher, professional or other employee of the state charter school;

    5. A student matriculating from a local school designated in the charter; and

    6. A student matriculating from a pre-kindergarten program associated with the state charter school, including programs which share common facilities or campuses with the school or partnership programs with the school.

       A new subsection would be added related to charter school funding. The LBOE would be required to ensure that the charter school receives the proportional level of state, local and federal funding, as specified in the charter petition. The school would be funded based on projected enrollment no later than July 1 of each year.

       The bill defines “unused facility” one that is or could be appropriate for schools use in which less than 40% of the direct student instruction and critical administration space is being used. A local charter school would have right of first refusal to purchase an unused facility at or below fair market value. If there are plans to use the facility within 18 months, then the facility would not have to be reported annually to the SDOE for advertisement on its website. The LEA could exclude that facility only once. It goes on to specify how such facilities could be sold.

       The bill goes on to add the following changes:

1. The State Charter Commission would be able to establish deadlines for applications to include a minimum of June May 1 and December November 1 of each year.

2. It would add to the requirements for commission approval a school in a physical location or that solely provides virtual instruction;

3. It would extend the LBOE’s timeline for approving or denying a petition coming to the commission from 60 to 90 150 days, and eliminate the provision for the petitioner to request an extension. The charter would have to be executed within 240 days of submission of the petition.

4. Should the LBOE deny the petition from the commission, the commission would have 90 days to consider the LBOE’s reasons for denial and then approve or deny the petition.

5. The commission could reduce funds to a school that offers virtual instruction on a proportional basis if the school cannot give documentation that proves its capital expenditures per FTE are greater than or equal to the state average.

   The bill would include a new Code section to include:

1. Granting authority to the commission to incorporate a nonprofit corporation that could qualify as a public foundation under IRS code to aid the commission in carrying out its powers and in accomplishing its purposes. They would be subject to the following provisions:

   1. Prohibition of governmental functions or regulatory powers;

   2. Upon dissolution, reversion of all assets to the commission or its successor, or to the State of Georgia;

   3. Prohibition of use of donations from private sources for direct employee costs of the commission;

   4. Subjection to open meetings and public records laws;

   5. Legal immunity of the commission for actions or omissions of the nonprofit corporation;

   6. No obligation of the State of Georgia for a nonprofit corporations’ indebtedness;

   7. No fee simple interest in any real property of any kind;

2. The commission could establish a nonprofit corporation of the above kind designated at the State Charter Schools Foundation to actively seek supplemental revenue and in-kind goods and services to promote state charter school and any other purpose of the commission. They could be used as competitive grants, and the General Assembly could also contribute funding beginning in FY 2015.

3. Any non-profit corporation for this purpose would have to provide a public annual report of the identity of all donors and the amount contributed, as well as all expenditures or other disposal of money or property donated to the Governor, Lt. Governor, Speaker of the House, chairs of the House and Senate education committees. It would also have to provide them a copy of all corporate filings with IRS.