Honorable Robert Bunda

President of the Senate

Twenty-First State Legislature

Regular Session of 2001

State of Hawaii

Sir:

Your Committee on Education, to which was referred H.B. No. 946 entitled:

begs leave to report as follows:

The purpose of this measure is to establish the Pearl City high school cultural center reserve account in the state treasury, require moneys in the reserve account to be used for the repair and maintenance of the cultural center, including the purchase of equipment and supplies, and transfer excess moneys to the state general fund.

For the purposes of a public hearing, your Committee circulated a proposed S.D. 1 version that used this measure as a vehicle to address the issue of charter school reform. Discussion on the measure continued in a subsequent decision-making, during which these salient points of a revised S.D. 1 were agreed upon by your Committee:

Your Committee heard testimony in support of the proposed S.D. 1 from the Board of Education and a private individual. Your Committee heard testimony in opposition to the proposed S.D. 1 from the Hawaii Association of Charter Schools and South Maui Learning Ohana.

Your Committee finds that charter schools continue to be a very exciting and innovative idea in education reform. However, as with most new enterprises, many challenges remain to be fully addressed as theory is translated into reality. One such challenge can be found in the application, review, and approval process. Many charter schools and prospective applicants have represented that the board of education often does not make approval or denial decisions in a timely manner.

In the defense of the board, however, it should be noted that the present law does not authorize the board to make provisional approvals of applications. Therefore, the board must necessarily take an extended period of due diligence to ascertain whether or not applicants are in full and complete compliance with all relevant laws at the time of application.

This often creates "catch-22" situations in which an applicant, for instance, cannot receive a certificate of occupancy without a charter and a charter cannot be granted without a certificate of occupancy. This obstacle is eliminated by providing the board under the revised S.D. 1 with the authority to grant provisional approvals, an authority requested in testimony by the board.

In the revised S.D. 1 as a whole, your Committee attempted to balance the undeniable need for accountability of the public financial investment in charter schools with the expeditious decision making and flexibility that are vital if charter schools are to continue to be such a vital and promising area of educational reform.

As affirmed by the record of votes of the members of your Committee on Education that is attached to this report, your Committee is in accord with the intent and purpose of H.B. No. 946, as amended herein, and recommends that it pass Second Reading in the form attached hereto as H.B. No. 946, S.D. 1, and be referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.