Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ale Online Providers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee weighs limits on for‑profit online providers and ALE funding changes
Summary
SB 6,320 would restrict OSPI approval of online/remote Alternative Learning Experience (ALE) providers to public or nonprofit entities and would remove local effort assistance (LEA) funding for remote/full‑time online enrollments except for narrow medical or safety exceptions; districts and providers warned of potential closures and large funding impacts.
Senate Bill 6,320 would revise ALE statutes to allow online and remote ALE provision only by public or nonprofit organizations, require OSPI to rescind approvals of private or for‑profit providers by August, and exclude remote/online ALE full‑time equivalent (FTE) from local effort assistance (LEA) unless districts successfully petition to restore LEA for students who reside in the district and provide a signed medical certification (e.g., immunosuppression, severe chronic illness, severe injury, or severe bullying resulting in documented medical condition).
Staff described roughly 47,000 ALE FTE statewide but said records do not distinguish online from site‑based ALE. Sponsor Senator Hansen said the policy aims to prevent public dollars from funding for‑profit full‑time remote schools (the same rule applied historically to charter schools) and to incentivize in‑person schooling while preserving narrow exceptions for medically fragile or severely bullied students. He estimated roughly $100 million per year is spent on remote online schools and said the bill removes LEA while allowing districts to petition for restoration in rare circumstances.
District superintendents, online providers and advocacy groups urged the committee to slow down, raise transition timelines and consider carve‑outs. Witnesses said the bill could displace thousands of students, create fiscal shortfalls for property‑poor districts that rely on LEA, and close programs that serve at‑risk students (youth reengagement, medically fragile students, rural learners and others). Graduation Alliance and several virtual academy representatives described programs that reengage at‑risk students and argued the change would eliminate proven options for vulnerable learners.
Multiple speakers asked the committee to exempt specific programs (for example, open doors youth reengagement), allow multi‑year phase‑ins, or preserve LEA restoration pathways beyond restrictive medical certification. Staff and sponsor acknowledged data gaps in tracking provider tax status and suggested further work to refine bill language.
The committee concluded the hearing after extensive testimony and asked for additional written materials from stakeholders.
