Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
03/23/2016 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB89 | |
| SJR2 | |
| HB156 | |
| HB298 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SJR 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 298 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 156 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 89-SCHOOLS: PARENT RTS; ABORT. PROVDRS LIMITS
8:04:45 AM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the first order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 89(RLS) am(efd add) "An Act relating to a
parent's right to direct the education of a child; prohibiting a
school district from contracting with an abortion services
provider; prohibiting a school district from allowing an
abortion services provider to furnish course materials or
provide instruction concerning sexuality or sexually transmitted
diseases; relating to physical examinations for teachers; and
providing for an effective date."
8:05:40 AM
SENATOR MIKE DUNLEAVY, Alaska State Legislature, introduced his
staff and availed himself for questions.
8:06:02 AM
CHRISTA MCDONALD, Staff, Senator Mike Dunleavy, Alaska State
Legislature, addressed a series of questions previously posed by
the committee, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which
read as follows:
[Question:] Would the provision "recognizing the
authority of a parent and allowing a parent to object
to and withdraw a child from a standards based
assessment or standards-based test required by the
state" put a school district in statutory
noncompliance with state law? Are we now saying that
tests are not required by the state but rather just
suggested by the state?
[Response:] Under current state regulation each
school district is required to administer a standards-
based test. In addition, schools are not allowed to
systematically exclude students from an assessment.
However, no law compels a parent to send a child to
these tests as they are not associated with student
grades or promotions.
8:06:55 AM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY added that the Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA) is in flux, and when the reauthorization was being
developed, he said, this is an area that many parents petitioned
congress to change. The original intent under No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) was to ensure that low performing groups were not
excluded systematically by schools to skew the school
performance scores. A number of parents that choose to have
their students excluded, actually have high performing children.
These parents are refusing to have their child participate, as a
form of objection to the data sharing and testing requirements.
8:08:16 AM
MS. MCDONALD continued:
[Question:] Will the language in Senate Bill 89
prohibit a school district from covering the costs of
a teacher's physical examination or suggest that they
may choose whether or not to cover this expense?
[Response:] The language in Senate Bill 89 prohibits
a school district from paying for a teacher's physical
examination. "May not" is used to be in compliance
with the Legislative Drafting manual, page sixty-five
which states: Use the words "may not" to impose a
prohibition upon someone.
[Question:] Would Section 4 of the bill dealing with
physical examinations include fingerprinting and
background checks as well.
[Response:] No, the requirements for fingerprints and
background checks are established in AS 14.20.020 and
would not be impacted by the passage of Senate Bill
89.
[Question:] If we state that a school district may
not pay for these physical examinations do we impact
the teacher's ability to be provided evaluations
through health insurance benefits funded by the
district.
[Response:] As stated in the bill, "This section does
not affect the coverage of any health insurance
benefits that a school district provides to teacher."
SB 89 will not impact any physical evaluations that
are covered under health insurance benefits.
8:09:29 AM
CHAIR KELLER moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 29-
LS0735\F.A.9, Glover, 3/22/16, which read as follows:
Page 3, line 23, following "provider":
Insert "who is acting on behalf of the abortion
services provider"
The committee took an at-ease from 8:09 a.m. to 8:12 a.m.
8:12:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for discussion.
8:12:22 AM
CHAIR KELLER said that the language serves to narrow the focus
of who may provide reproductive information in a classroom.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled testimony concerned with
impinging on the summer employment for a teacher who works at a
hospital, clinic, or other medical office.
8:14:04 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 8:14 a.m.
8:14:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection, and with no further
objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
8:14:54 AM
CHAIR KELLER moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 29-
LS0735\F.A.10, Glover, 3/22/16, which read as follows:
Page 3, line 15:
Delete "may"
Insert "shall"
8:15:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER objected, and said existing statute
requires districts to pay for physical examinations, and
changing it from "may" to "shall" represents a substantial
policy change. The decision should be left to the districts to
exert local control and whether or not to implement this measure
as a condition for employment. The background checks are still
required by state law, which are already a condition of
employment. The permissive term should be retained, he opined,
and stated opposition to Amendment 2.
8:17:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ commented that this measure addresses
public safety, and opined that it does not represent an unduly
burdensome task, as a condition of employment. She stated
support for Amendment 2.
8:18:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND stated opposition to Amendment 2,
echoing the concerns of Representative Colver. It is a major
policy change, she agreed.
8:18:59 AM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY declined further comment and deferred to the
committee's decision.
8:19:24 AM
MS. MCDONALD offered that existing Department of Education and
Early Development (EED) regulation, 4AAC 06.050, states that
physical examinations "shall" be required of the districts for
teachers, but it does not appear in state statute.
8:19:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER maintained his objection.
8:19:54 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Talerico, Vazquez,
and Keller voted in favor of Amendment 2. Representatives
Colver, Drummond, Spohnholz, and Seaton voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 3-4.
8:21:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed concern for the bill
particularly from the health and social services aspect stating
that, without the sex education programs currently provided to
schools, the levels of unplanned pregnancies and sexually
transmitted diseases (STD's) will increase. Additionally, it
removes local control of school districts, as provided on page
3, lines 22-25, which read as follows:
(c) A school district may not permit an abortion
services provider or an employee or volunteer of an
abortion services provider to offer, sponsor, furnish
course materials, or provide instruction relating to
human sexuality or sexually transmitted diseases.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that this language imposes
rulings over local school boards, and prohibits the use of
curricula that has been publicly vetted, adopted, and utilized
by many districts. The bill is a state usurpation of local
control, he opined, and said it may be the first time the state
has prohibited districts from identifying curricula for use in
meeting state standards and requirements. He stated opposition
to passage of SB 89.
8:23:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ stated that the opt-in requirement
creates a major barrier to children receiving a positive public
health curriculum. The parents already have the opt-out
elective to employ. Additionally, the administrative and
processing of an additional opt-in form is unnecessary.
8:25:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for SB 89 (RLS) am(efd add), as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON maintained his objection.
8:26:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered further objection to the bill,
specifically Sec. 4, which redirects the cost burden associated
with the physical examination requirements of teachers. The
local control currently exercised in this area is sufficient, he
opined.
8:27:00 AM
CHAIR KELLER stated support for the bill as a means to bolster
parental rights regarding an intimate and important aspect of a
child's development.
8:27:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER stated support for the bill, and said a
significant section of it recognizes the authority of a parent
to withdraw their child from standards based assessments. He
opined that this authority is important to have in statute, as a
vehicle to move away from future, federal assessment mandates.
8:28:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND stated her agreement with the previous
comments regarding the sexual health education aspect of the
bill; however, inclusion of the variety of components causes an
issue and should be addressed separately, particularly the
standards based test concerns. Parents have the right to opt-
out their student, to examine class curricula, and, through the
local school boards, be involved in the development and approval
of curriculum. Thus the proposed opt-in measure creates
additional unnecessary administrative paperwork and is of no
help to districts. Finally, she stated opposition to the bill.
8:30:11 AM
CHAIR KELLER commented:
There's no certification required for this contract
teaching, and that's kind of novel.
8:30:40 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Talerico, Vazquez,
Colver, and Keller voted in favor of CSSB 89 (RLS) am(efd add).
Representatives Drummond, Spohnholz, and Seaton voted against
it. Therefore, HCS for CSSB 89 (EDC) was reported out of the
House Education Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB298 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HEDC 3/23/2016 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/1/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 298 |
| CS HB156 Sponsor Statment.pdf |
HEDC 3/23/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |