Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Virtual Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
LESC flags rapid virtual‑school enrollment; staff, PED asked to clarify $35M supplemental request
Summary
Committee staff said two programs enrolled about 3,000 out‑of‑district virtual students this year, prompting questions about accountability, funding and whether a $35 million supplemental is needed; members urged quick data from PED.
LESC staff told the committee that PED has signaled a potential supplemental request of up to $35 million after two providers—identified in testimony as CHAMA and Santa Rosa—enrolled roughly 3,000 students from outside their districts into a joint virtual program this year.
"CHAMA and Santa Rosa have created some sort of a joint virtual program that has enrolled about 3,000 students from outside their districts," Daniel said, describing how the two districts ‘‘essentially quadrupled their total enrollment in 1 year.’’ Staff did not include a supplemental in the LESC recommendation because it said it lacks enough data to size a request and to understand accountability implications.
Several committee members described the situation as urgent. Representative Garrett said the $35 million figure generated strong reactions in LFC and that the committee must track whether the program is a district‑run virtual program or a virtual charter model. Representative Sarandona raised concerns about instructional quality, noting the virtual program that moved from Gallup had a very low proficiency rate in math: "the one that was in Gallup... had a 6% proficiency rate in math," she said.
Staff told the committee PED is investigating and LESC will wait for more information. Members pressed for clarity on whether virtual students would be held to the same accountability and funding rules as in‑person students and whether the state should define a statewide virtual option or new statutory guidelines for virtual programs. Staff highlighted two separate questions: short‑term fiscal implications for this year and longer‑term policy questions about quality, accountability and funding methodology.
Next steps: LESC staff will follow up with PED to get enrollment and funding details and report back to the committee. Members signaled interest in moving swiftly on policy changes if the data show funding or accountability gaps.
