HOUSE BILL REPORT

2SSB 5720

BYSenate Committee on Education (originally sponsored by Senators Gaspard, Patterson, Barr, Bailey, Bauer and Hansen)

Revising the authority for cooperative agreements between or among school districts.

House Committe on Education

Majority Report:  Do pass.  (20)

      Signed by Representatives Peery, Chair; Spanel, Vice Chair; Appelwick, Betrozoff, Butterfield, Cole, Cooper, Ebersole, Fuhrman, Holland, Holm, P. King, Pruitt, Rasmussen, Rayburn, Rust, Schoon, Todd, Valle and Walker.

House Staff:Susan Patrick (786-7111)

Rereferred House Committee on Ways & Means/Appropriations

Majority Report:  Do pass. (12)

      Signed by Representatives Locke, Chair; Braddock, Brekke, Brough, Butterfield, Grant, Grimm, Holland, Sayan, H. Sommers, Spanel and Wang.

House Staff:      Janet Peterson (786-7136)

AS PASSED HOUSE MARCH 2, 1988

BACKGROUND:

In 1985 the Legislature authorized the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to develop a program to establish five-year pilot projects for the joint operation of programs and services between small school districts.  For the purposes of the program, which shall expire September 1, 1990, the SPI is authorized to waive certain provisions of law which create financial disincentives to cooperation among small school districts.

SUMMARY:

The sunset date for the small schools cooperative projects program is repealed and the program is made ongoing.  Districts are encouraged to establish cooperative projects for the primary purpose of increasing curriculum programs and opportunities.

Small school districts eligible to participate in cooperative projects are districts which receive state funds as small high school districts.  Subject to rules adopted by the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), second class districts which are not small high school districts may also participate.

Districts must submit an application to the SPI for approval to implement a cooperative project.  The application must include a description of the project; expected improvements in curriculum offerings and educational opportunities; statutory requirements or administrative rules which may need to be waived; and other information.

Waivers granted by the SPI must be reviewed every five years and districts must reapply for waivers after five years if they wish to continue the cooperative project.

Districts participating in a cooperative project may adopt identical salary schedules and shall be considered a single district for salary compliance purposes if they adopt identical salary schedules. For purposes of computing fringe benefit calculations, districts may use the greater of the highest amount provided by the districts in the 1986-87 school year, or the amount provided in the state budget in effect at the time of the cooperative project.

A high school district which sends its students to another high school district under a cooperative project shall not be required to become a non-high school district if the cooperative project exceeds two years in duration.

Districts must submit reports to the SPI in the third and fifth years of the cooperative project.  SPI must submit a report to the Legislature on the cooperative projects program every third odd-numbered year.

The SPI may contract with other agencies to provide technical assistance to districts interested in developing and implementing a cooperative project.

CHANGES PROPOSED BY COMMITTEE ON WAYS & MEANS/APPROPRIATIONS:  None.

Fiscal Note:      Available.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    (Education) Nick Manring, Garfield School District Board Member; Mark Hegg, Palouse School District Board Member; Larry Warner, Superintendent, Garfield-Palouse School Districts; Darrell Bafus, Endicott School District Board Member; Louis White, St. John School District Board Member; Donald Simpson, Superintendent, St. John - Endicott Cooperative Schools; Ray Smith, Director, Rural Education Center, Washington State University; Dennis Carter, Raymond School District; David Spogen, South Bend School District; Bob Fisher, Washington Education Association; and Kris Van Gorkom, Washington Association of School Administrators.

(Ways & Means/Appropriations) Representative Nealey; Representative Peery; Representative McLean.

House Committee - Testified Against:      (Education) None Presented.

(Ways & Means/Appropriations) None Presented.

House Committee - Testimony For:    (Education) Cooperative agreements allow small districts to combine their resources to provide increased educational opportunities for their students.  In the Garfield - Palouse Cooperative this has meant twenty additional course offerings in the middle school and high school.  This is also important to the survival of the community.  Without additional money, districts cannot provide the variety of course offerings their students may need.  Cooperative agreements have had a long history of success in special education, vocational education, and transportation.  It is important that we recognize the significant benefits these arrangements offer to small school districts in their regular school program.

(Ways & Means/Appropriations) The existing cooperative projects have been very successful and popular with local communities, and they should be allowed to continue.  Cooperative projects help small schools provide wider course offerings to meet increased high school graduation requirements.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      (Education) None Presented.

(Ways & Means/Appropriations) None Presented.