Update on the Investigation of Alternative Learning Programs (ALPs)

Or better known as Parent Partnership Programs (PPP)

updated April 2006

In the 2004 legislative session a striker amendment was passed into law which allowed and funded an investigation of alternative learning programs (Chapter 276, Laws of 2004). The investigation was to be conducted by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) and the State Auditor’s Office (SAO), with JLARC designated to be the “lead agency.” The JLARC conducts performance audits, program evaluations, special studies, and sunset reviews for the legislature and the citizens of Washington State.

Public schools do not report ALP students separately from other public school students so trying to identify sites was a challenge in conducting this investigation. In 2003 CHN had conducted our own investigation and wrote a report on the programs. We had identified many of the sites and models, as well as determining the number of students and other information. We were able to provide this report, a comprehensive list of the sites, and other documentation to the JLARC and SAO staff, which proved to be very useful in their investigation. 

The State Auditor’s Office has completed phase one of their audit of the programs. This provided more information about the programs and validated many of our concerns. Prior to the first JLARC meeting (9/22/04) on this investigation, we provided JLARC members an updated copy of our 2003 report: www.chnow.org/id33.html. We were able to speak with some senators and representatives prior to their meeting.  As a result of our efforts, many of the committee members were able to ask more informed questions. They appeared to be concerned as to the scope of the problem, the exploitation of homeschooling, and the misuse of public funds. Many committee members offered their support and encouragement to the JLARC and SAO staff.

We do believe that a bill similar to HB2704 may be introduced in the 2005 legislative session since the distance learning programs will lose their funding in June 2005. Remember, this would not be an issue, if they would have received proper authorization to run their programs in the first place. Until this investigation is complete, how will anyone know what law or laws need to be made to fix the programs?

May 2005 update

Legislation was introduced as we had expected. SB 5828 was introduced during the 2005 session and passed into law. This bill gives authority to the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) to create rules for Digital Learning Programs. The OSPI has already begun this process. Digital Learning Programs will be funded under the Alternative Learning Experience rules found in WAC 392-121-182. Therefore, the OSPI plans to completely rewrite the Alternative Learning Experience rules. The hearing is set for May 24, 2005. Due to this rule change, JLARC now plans to release their final report in September instead of July. CHN attended the hearing and testified.

September 2005 update

JLARC, along with the SAO, presented their findings at the JLARC committee hearing. Rob Krell of JLARC testified along with Lou Adams of the SAO. The focus of their testimonies was on the Parent Partnership Programs operated under the Alternative Learning Experience (ALE) rules found in WAC 392-121-182. The JLARC report made eight recommendations to the committee.

1. The legislature should consider establishing ALE programs in statute. The legislature should consider whether minimum contact time requirements should be re-imposes.
2. The legislature should consider whether curriculum provided through ALE programs should be required to address state/district learning goals.
3. The OSPI should amend its rules to require districts that claim funding to submit an annual assurance that they are in compliance with all ALE rules.
4. The OSPI should develop program implementation guidelines.
5. The OSPI should incorporate its existing policy on instructional materials into its new program implementation guidelines and remind districts of their obligations.
6. The OSPI should require districts to report ALE program spending information for two years.
7. The legislature should consider whether spending requirements or restrictions should be placed on ALE programs.

(These recommendations were copied from the JLARC handout that was distributed at the September 14, 2005, committee meeting.)

The JLARC report validates many of the things CHN has been saying for years. We expect to see a bill in the 2006 session. Due to the abuses reported by the SAO and JLARC, we would expect this bill to impose more restrictions on the programs than are currently in place.

CHN spoke to Rep. Hunter, Chair of the JLARC committee after the hearing. He was shocked with what he had heard in the hearing and said that he hopes to see legislation proposed in the future. We expect this to happen in the 2007 session due to the recent rule changes.

NOVEMBER 2005 update

Final JLARC reports (together these reports make up the final report)

November 2005 report 05-17  http://www1.leg.wa.gov/reports/05-17.pdf

February 2005 preliminary report: http://www1.leg.wa.gov/reports/05-6.pdf

Recommendations to the legislature (from November JLARC report):

1. The Legislature should consider legislation to establishing ALE programs in statute.

2. The Legislature should consider whether minimum contact time requirements should be re-imposed for ALE programs, particularly those serving younger students.

3. The Legislature should consider whether curriculum and courses provided through ALE programs should be required to address state and district learning goals.

4. OSPI should amend its ALE program rules to require local school districts claiming funding for ALE students to annually submit to OSPI a written assurance that the district complies with all major program rules identified in WAC 392-121-182. For this purpose, OSPI should develop a self-assessment instrument that identifies all such rules and regulations. The assurance form should also include pertinent fiscal and spending information detailed in Recommendation 7 of this report. OSPI should also require by rule that districts provide copies of the annual assurance form to the State Auditor’s Office.

5.OSPI should follow through with its stated intent to develop written program implementation guidelines pertaining to its newly revised ALE program rules. The guidelines should include suggested templates for district recording and reporting of key program information.

6. OSPI should incorporate its existing policy related to instructional materials in ALE programs (i.e., the “Coolican Memo”) into the program implementation guidelines that it intends to develop for ALE programs. OSPI should also remind all school districts of their obligations under this policy.

7. To provide for future legislative consideration of overall program funding levels, OSPI should require local school districts to report spending information for each ALE program  the district operates, for at least a two-year period. The information should identify spending by category of expense, as deemed appropriate by OSPI, and should also identify each program’s total amount of spending as a percentage of the basic education funding received for that program. The information should be reported as part of the process identified in Recommendation 4.

8. The legislature should consider whether spending requirements and restrictions should be placed on ALE programs, which could include:

a) Overall minimum program spending requirements, as a percentage of Basic Education funding received for the program;

b) Maximum limits on what are commonly referred to as “parent accounts;”

c) Restrictions on types of expenditures (e.g., for services provided by or for family members, or for materials or activities not broadly available to all district students);

and

d) Limits on the amount of program funds that can be used on non-core academic areas.

In 2003, CHN conducted informal research on these programs, and wrote a report of our findings. We addressed three main issues.

Issue #1 PPPs are a new model of education with no direct approval by the legislature, and are often confused as homeschooling.

Issue #2 Public Schools should not receive full funding for part-time services. They exploit homeschoolers and homeschooling.

Issue #3  PPP programs are not fiscally responsible, and are a misuse of taxpayer monies. Many sites violate current laws and rules.

We are pleased that our three main issues have been addressed in the final JLARC report. Now it is up to the legislature to act.  Contact members of the JLARC committee and encourage them to act upon the recommendations made in the JLARC report.

Current members of the JLARC committee are:

Rep. Ross Hunter (D-48)- Chair

Sen. Linda Evans Parlette (R-12) -Vice Chair

Rep. Gary Alexander (R-20) Sectretary

Sen. Phil Rocketfeller (D-23) – Assistant Secretary

Rep. Glenn Anderson (R-5)

Sen. Brad Benson (R-6)

Rep. Kathy Haigh (D-35)

Rep. Jane’a Holmquist (R-13)

Rep. Fred Jarrett (R-41)

Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Wells (D-36)

Rep. Kelli Linville (D-42)

Sen. Bob Oke (R-26)

Sen. Debbie Regela (D-27)

Sen. Pat Thibaudeau (D-43)

Rep. Deb Wallace (D-17)

Sen. Joeseph Zarelli (R-18)

If you want to learn more about this issue, please visit the Alternative Learning Programs section of this website.  We will keep you updated  since this is an ongoing issue.

The following is a copy of the law that was passed to authorize the JLARC study.

Chapter 276, Laws of 2004, section 103 (5) states:

$100,000 of the general fund- state appropriation for fiscal year 2005 is provided solely for the joint legislative audit and review committee and the state auditor’s office to conduct a legal and financial review of alternative learning experience programs under WAC 392-121-182. The joint legislative audit and review committee shall be the lead agency in conducting the review. Prior to undertaking this review, the joint legislative audit and review committee and the state auditor’s office shall develop a mutually acceptable work plan for conducting the review, detailing the roles and responsibilities of the two agencies and the topics to be covered in the review. The topics should include, but not be limited to : (a) Numbers of students served, variations in programs types, and funding patters for alternative learning experience programs, including digital curriculum and online courses; (b) the adequacy of current rules, regulations, and  procedures to safeguard against the issue of public resources based on any deficiencies identified in the state auditor’s audit of alternative learning experience programs due to be completed in May 2004; (c) identification of policy and administration options to address and correct such identified deficiencies, and (d) the potential fiscal impacts of any proposed options for changes to alternative learning experience programs.  The staff of the joint legislative audit and review committee shall work with fiscal staff of the senate, and the house of representatives, and the office of financial management in identifying these potential fiscal impacts. The joint legislative audit and review committee shall provide an interim report by February 1, 2005 and a final report by July 1, 2005, of its findings and recommendations to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the legislature. School districts are authorized to operate digital learning curriculum and/or online courses of study under current district procedures and practices until June 30, 2005.  (emphasis added)

Preserving homeschool freedoms for today and tomorrow!

Prepared by the Christian Homeschool Network www.chnow.org

© 2006 CHN all rights reserved

Permission to copy and distribute if copied in its entirety, or contact chnow@msn.com

If you support the work of the Christian Homeschool Network, please join us at http://www.chnow.org/id14.html

This information is not intended to be and does not constitute the giving of legal advice.