Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
03/14/2016 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 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 156 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 14, 2016
8:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Wes Keller, Chair
Representative Jim Colver
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative David Talerico
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Liz Vazquez, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
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."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 156
"An Act relating to compliance with federal education laws;
relating to public school accountability; and providing for an
effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 89
SHORT TITLE: SCHOOLS: PARENT RTS; ABORT. PROVDRS LIMITS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) DUNLEAVY
03/25/15 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/25/15 (S) EDC, STA
03/31/15 (S) EDC AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/31/15 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/02/15 (S) EDC AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/02/15 (S) Heard & Held
04/02/15 (S) MINUTE (EDC)
04/07/15 (S) EDC AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/07/15 (S) Heard & Held
04/07/15 (S) MINUTE (EDC)
04/09/15 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/09/15 (S) <Pending Referral>
04/09/15 (S) EDC AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/09/15 (S) Moved CSSB 89(EDC) Out of Committee
04/09/15 (S) MINUTE (EDC)
04/10/15 (S) EDC RPT CS 3DP 1DNP NEW TITLE
04/10/15 (S) DP: DUNLEAVY, GIESSEL, HUGGINS
04/10/15 (S) DNP: GARDNER
04/14/15 (S) STA AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/14/15 (S) Heard & Held
04/14/15 (S) MINUTE (STA)
04/15/15 (S) STA RPT CS 3DP 1AM NEW TITLE
04/15/15 (S) DP: STOLTZE, COGHILL, HUGGINS
04/15/15 (S) AM: WIELECHOWSKI
04/15/15 (S) STA AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/15/15 (S) Moved CSSB 89(STA) Out of Committee
04/15/15 (S) MINUTE (STA)
02/24/16 (S) RLS RPT CS 4DP 1DNP NEW TITLE
02/24/16 (S) DP: HUGGINS, COGHILL, KELLY, MEYER
02/24/16 (S) DNP: GARDNER
02/24/16 (S) BILL REPRINTED 2/24/16
02/24/16 (S) RLS AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/24/16 (S) Moved CSSB 89(RLS) Out of Committee
02/24/16 (S) MINUTE (RLS)
02/29/16 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/29/16 (S) VERSION: CSSB 89(RLS) AM(EFD ADD)
03/04/16 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/04/16 (H) EDC, JUD
03/14/16 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
CHRISTA MCDONALD, Staff
Senator Mike Dunleavy
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 89 on behalf of Senator
Dunleavy, prime sponsor.
ANNA MERIDETH, Manager
Youth Health and Education Program
Kachemak Bay Family Planning
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with opposition to SB 89.
MARY LOU KELSEY, Certified Nurse (CN)
Midwife
Homer Medical Center
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with opposition to SB 89.
KATE FINN, Registered Nurse (RN)
Nurse Practitioner (NP)
Midwife
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with opposition to SB 89.
ALYSON CURREY, Representative
Planned Parenthood Votes
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with opposition to SB 89.
MELISSA ENGLE, Reverend
Douglas Community and United Methodist Church
Juneau Youth Ministry Cooperative
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with opposition to SB 89.
ALICIA NORDAN, Student
University of Alaska Southeast (UAS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with opposition to SB 89.
TAYLOR MORGAN
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with opposition to SB 89.
SAMANTHA SAVAGE, Student
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with opposition to SB 89.
MARJORIE RICHARDS, Registered Nurse (RN)
Board Member
Resource Center for Parents and Children
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with opposition to SB 89.
BUTCH MOORE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with opposition to SB 89.
CINDY MOORE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with opposition to SB 89.
ERIC GLATT, Attorney
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with opposition to SB 89.
CATHY GIRARD
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with opposition to SB 89.
ELIJAH VERHAGEN
Nenana, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 89.
SCOTT NORD
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 89.
DAVID LUNTZ
Delta Junction
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with opposition to SB 89.
TOM LAKOSH
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with opposition to SB 89.
HENRY SCHILDBACH, Student
Highland Tech Charter School
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with opposition to SB 89.
JOSEPH LEWIS, Student
Eagle River High School
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with opposition to SB 89.
GARY SNYDER, Teacher
Anchorage School District (ASD)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with opposition to SB 89.
JAMES PRIMM
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with opposition to SB 89.
AURORA HOEFFERLE
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with opposition to SB 89.
NITHYA THIRU
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with opposition to SB 89.
KAREN WARNER
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with opposition to SB 89.
ROBIN SMITH
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with opposition to SB 89.
VINCENZA MARRARI
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with opposition to SB 89.
CAROLYN CLIFT, Teacher
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with opposition to SB 89.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:01:29 AM
CHAIR WES KELLER called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:01 a.m. Representatives Keller, Seaton,
Drummond, Talerico, Spohnholz, and Colver were present at the
call to order.
SB 89-SCHOOLS: PARENT RTS; ABORT. PROVDRS LIMITS
[Contains discussion of SB 191]
8:02:12 AM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the first order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 89 "An Act relating to a parent's right to
direct the education of a child; and relating to questionnaires
administered in schools."
8:03:03 AM
CHRISTA MCDONALD, Staff, presented CSSB 89(RLS) am(efd add),
paraphrasing from the sponsor statement, which read [original
punctuation provided]:
The purpose of CSSB 89 Parental Rights in Education,
is to codify in state statute the inherent rights of
parents to direct the upbringing and education of
their children. As parents are the ultimate authority
regarding their children, this bill requires local
school boards to adopt policies which promote the
involvement of parents. A child's parents (be they
biological or not) are, in most cases, best suited to
understand what is in their child's best interest. It
may seem unnecessary that this would need to be re-
stated in law. However, too often we see parents
pitted against government in decisions regarding
children's education and upbringing. I am thus
sponsoring this bill to re-balance that relationship.
I feel it essential to ensure that our educational
system acknowledges the essential rights of parents,
and that schools adopt policies to encourage parental
involvement. These policies must accommodate the
following:
Parents will be given the chance to review content
of any activity, class, performance standard, or
program
Parents can object to and withdraw children from any
standards-based assessment or test required by the
state, and the absence cannot be counted as unlawful
If parents have a concern about any activity, class
or program that covers human reproduction or sexual
matters, or which inquiries into personal or private
family affairs, they can object and keep their child
out of that particular activity, and the absence
cannot be counted as unlawful
Parents will be allowed to withdraw children for
religious holidays, and the absence cannot be counted
as unlawful
Parents must provide written permission before
children may attend each human reproduction or sex
education instruction or presentation
Existing law requires parents to provide written
permission before students take part in certain
questionnaires and surveys administered by schools.
This bill extends that requirement to all
questionnaires and surveys administered by schools. As
the stewards of their children, parents must be
guaranteed the right to make the decisions they feel
are best for their children's education. I request
your support for CSSB 89.
MS. MCDONALD paraphrased from the sectional analysis, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
Section 1. Requires local school boards to adopt
policies allowing parents to withdraw their children
from any activity, class, program, or standards-based
assessment required by the state to which the parent
objects. Requires written permission from parents
before activities, classes, or programs on human
reproduction or sexual matters are provided to a
child.
Section 2. Clarifies that "human reproduction or
sexual matters" does not include curricula or
materials for sexual abuse and sexual assault
awareness training required under AS 14.30.355 or
dating violence and abuse awareness and prevention
training as required under AS 14.30.356.
Section 3. Prohibits a school district from
contracting with an abortion services provider.
Section 4. Prohibits school districts from paying the
costs of physical examinations for teachers.
Section 5. Prohibits school districts from permitting
abortion services providers to offer, sponsor, or
furnish course materials or instruction related to
human sexuality or sexually transmitted diseases.
Section 6. Provides an effective date of June 30,
2017.
8:06:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted that Sec. 1 addresses policies
pertaining to student withdraw requests from state required
assessments, and asked if it applies to district required
assessments, as well.
MS. MCDONALD said the intent is to ensure parental rights, and
allow parents to consider permission for singular activities.
8:07:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the bill page 1, lines 13,
which read:
... object to and withdraw the child from a standards-
based assessment or test required by the state;
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for clarity regarding how an
assessment might be required by the state, but under this
language the test isn't required. He questioned whether the
state policy should be to suggest administering an assessment.
MS. MCDONALD offered that a school district is required to
administer certain state tests, such as the Alaska Measures of
Proficiency (AMP), but parents aren't compelled to have their
child attend during the assessment period.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked:
The question is then, if students are required to take
the test, then this doesn't override. But if only the
districts are required to administer a test, but the
student's aren't required to take the test by state
law, then this bill, as you're saying, will not
override the requirement that the students take the
test.
MS. MCDONALD responded that it does not propose to override a
state requirement for a district to provide an assessment. She
conjectured that there are no laws requiring parents to have
their child take a state assessment.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the bill page 2, lines 4-7,
which read:
(3) providing for parent notification not less than
two weeks before any activity, class, or program that
includes content involving human reproduction or
sexual matters is provided to a child and requiring
written permission from the child's parent before the
child may participate in the activity, class, or
program;
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON questioned why the topic of human biology
is acceptable in the classroom, but the curriculum covering
human reproduction is singled out to allow a student to be
withdrawn.
MS. MCDONALD cited constituent requests to be notified when
human reproduction, and sexual matters, are covered in the
classroom. Although notification is already a practice at some
schools, it's the sponsor's intent to expand the policy
statewide.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed with the appropriateness for
parental notification, however, requiring written permission
prior to a student participating in a basic human biology class
seems incongruent, and he questioned having it segregated in the
bill.
MS. MCDONALD responded that the intent is to allow parent's a
preview of what is being offered in the classroom, rather than
after the fact.
8:11:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked if evidence exists that students
are taking part in sex education without parental knowledge.
MS. MCDONALD reported that calls have been fielded from upset
parents indicating that it has occurred. She noted that some
districts do a better job than others, and this bill will ensure
that all districts comply equally.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked whether the schools that are not
upholding good practices are undergoing policy review regarding
parental notification.
MS. MCDONALD answered yes, but practices vary due to the lack of
a state standard, which underscores the need for the bill.
8:13:31 AM
CHAIR KELLER indicated interest in knowing what the state
standard is, if one exists, for notification of parents
regarding all curriculum. Parents should have an opportunity to
review curriculum for each grade level. He posed the question:
What is the process for disseminating curriculum information.
MS. MCDONALD deferred.
8:14:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the bill page 2, lines 11-12,
which read:
(5) providing a parent with an opportunity to review
the content of an activity, class, performance
standard, or program;
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if parental, subject review is being
proposed as a once per year opportunity, or would individual
activity plans, for any class, need to be provided throughout
the year.
MS. MCDONALD answered that the schedule isn't specified in the
bill and departmental regulation would need to be promulgated.
The language is meant to ensure that parents are allowed an
opportunity to review curriculum, and possibly plan for opt-out
situations.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that it could create a burden on a
district in administering the withdrawal requests. He suggested
that the proposed language may be too broad in scope to
implement effectively and may need refinement.
8:16:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND referred to the bill page 2, lines 11-12
[previously read on the record]. She reported having reviewed
the K-12 policies for the Anchorage School District (ASD), and
paraphrased from the policy, which read:
At the secondary levels, explicit parent permission is
not required, but notice, access to advance review of
materials and an opt-out opportunity is to be
provided.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND opined that the proposed language may
become onerous, and paraphrased from the bill page 2, lines 23-
25, which read:
The policies adopted under (a)(3) of this section must
require written permission from the child's parent
before each separate activity, class, or program is
provided to a child that includes content involving
human reproduction or sexual matters.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND inquired whether this means that a
series of five lessons, covered over a two week period, would
require five notices, not less than two weeks in advance, for
each of the five lessons.
MS. MCDONALD responded that the described scenario would be
considered a class, and require only one notice.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND maintained her concern that it will be
an onerous requirement on school districts to track the opt-in
forms and make determinations regarding the absence of a student
on a given day.
8:18:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the bill page 2, line 13,
where the truancy and attendance standards will be effected. In
an opt-out withdrawal situation, he asked whether the child
would be expected to attend school on that day, and only be
excused from the one class.
MS. MCDONALD said the intention is for a student to be withdrawn
for the specific class, but attend school for the day.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for clarity on the practicality, and
facilitation, of a student excused on an opt-out waiver for a
specific class. Would the school provide other activities for
any and all students that are attending on an opt-out waiver, he
questioned, and pondered that they may be opting out of a
lengthy assessment scheduled for the bulk of the day.
MS. MCDONALD offered to provide additional information on the
workings of the current policy.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said notwithstanding the current policies,
it's important to understand how the proposed language would
change the practice.
8:20:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked what the withdrawn students might
be engaged in doing, while sitting out a specific class.
MS. MCDONALD offered to provide additional information.
8:21:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that SB 89 enumerates a variety of
reasons for approved withdrawal of a student from class, but the
bill doesn't include parental rights language for a child not to
be enrolled in public education. He asked whether it was
inadvertently excluded. There are a number of reasons that
parents can refrain from sending their student to school,
including religious reasons, and he pondered whether this bill
might generate an additional list of reasons that a student may
not attend school.
MS. MCDONALD offered to provide additional information.
8:23:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked for clarity regarding the intent
of the bill.
MS. MCDONALD identified two distinct aspects of the bill:
allowing parents the opportunity to object to certain class
content, which is a reiteration of current parental rights
available via the opt-out policy; and requiring parents to opt-
in, as an additional measure of notification.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ referred to the bill page 2, lines 23-
25, [previously read on the record], which specifies that
individual, separate permission slips would be required. The
bill appears to be establishing a high standard for permission
slip usage on the part of both the parents and the school
districts. If the intent is to ensure the opportunity for
parents to opt-out, additional attention may need to be focused
on [lines 23-25].
MS. MCDONALD said the expectation is not lofty, given the
permission slip usage already practiced for a myriad of
situations. The opt-in could be satisfied at the beginning of
each year, she suggested.
8:26:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that two phrases in the bill
may conflict, and directed attention to page 2, line 6,
paragraph (3), and page 2 line 23, subsection (b), which read
respectively:
(3) ... and requiring written permission from the
child's parent before the child may participate in the
activity, class, or program;
(b) The policies adopted under (a)(3) of this section
must require written permission from the child's
parent before each separate activity, class, or
program ...
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed interest in understanding how
one permission form would be sufficient to cover a course of
five classes that are given over a two week period, as
previously testified, given that this language requires that
"each separate activity," must be noticed. He asked for further
clarity on the sponsor's intent.
8:28:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the bill page 3, lines 14-19,
which read:
Sec. 4. AS 14.30 is amended by adding a new section to
read:
14.30.075. Physical examinations for teachers. (a) A
school district may require physical examinations of
teachers as a condition of employment. A school
district may not pay the cost of physical examinations
for teachers. This section does not affect the
coverage of any health insurance benefits that a
school district provides to teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to Sec. 4 and asked whether it is
meant to establish a policy for teachers to pay for a background
check, and fingerprints, during the employment process. The
language only mentions the physical exams, which are presumed to
be for the same employment reasons. He noted that the fiscal
note doesn't indicate costs to the state, and he requested
further details, including what the physical examination as a
condition of employment would encompass.
MS. MCDONALD agreed to provide further information.
8:30:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ said the bill specifically does not
allow abortion services providers to supply sexual education
information to school districts, and asked whether a
comprehensive list of sexual education providers has been
compiled. She clarified that if specific sexual education
providers are excluded, what providers are allowed that are
equally qualified to deliver the curriculum, as required by many
districts in the state.
MS. MCDONALD answered that several districts use public health
nurses, which would not be effected by the bill, and she agreed
to provide a comprehensive resource list.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked if it is the sponsor's intent
that public health nurses be the sex education providers
throughout the state.
MS. MCDONALD said the intent is to disallow outside
organizations from entering classrooms and providing information
that may advocate for a certain viewpoint. A teacher or a
school nurse would both be considered appropriate and the
districts would make that decision for their schools.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ noted that, although the fiscal note
indicates zero costs, funds may be required for redistributing
the responsibility for this area of education, and asked to have
a list of sexual education providers throughout the state to
understand the scope of the potential expense.
8:33:48 AM
CHAIR KELLER clarified the language that the member was
addressing, and asked whether she is requesting that all
districts be polled; to wit bill page 3, line 12, which read:
(e) A school district and an educational services
organization that has a contract with a school
district may not contract with an abortion services
provider.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ confirmed subsection (e) had prompted
her questions. She said a complete polling is not necessary,
however, it would need to be a large enough sample to attain a
sense of practical solutions that may be implemented versus
using the existing contractors.
8:34:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the bill page 3, lines 21-25,
which read:
Sec. 5. AS 14.30.360 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(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 asked how SB 89 is not a bill of
attainder. [The text of the U.S. Constitution, Article I,
Section 9; Clause 3 is: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto
Law shall be passed". The constitution of every state also
expressly forbids bills of attainder.]
MS. MCDONALD offered to provide further information. She stated
that it is well within the legislature's responsibility and
authority to determine what is provided to students, and cited
AS 14.03.090, which reads:
Sec. 14.03.090. Partisan, sectarian, or
denominational doctrines prohibited. Partisan,
sectarian, or denominational doctrines may not be
advocated in a public school during the hours the
school is in session. A teacher or school board
violating this section may not receive public money.
8:36:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that a bill of attainder is
unconstitutional, and explained how it relates to this bill,
recalling scenarios from the early days of confederacy.
Although Planned Parenthood is no longer named in the bill, the
language is specific to that group, and it may become a federal
issue. He asked to have the concern addressed.
8:38:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND, regarding the question of who might
facilitate classes and information on human sexuality and
reproduction, conjectured that it may be a public nurse. She
asked whether a nurse would be questioned on their personal
perspective regarding abortion, and would that information be
made a requirement for providing of the course.
MS. MCDONALD responded that the bill does not require an
individual teacher's views to be assessed, or those of other
providers of sex education information.
8:39:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the bill page 1, line [12],
which read:
(1) recognizing the authority of a parent and allowing
a parent to object to and withdraw the child from a
standards-based assessment or test required by the
state;
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether it the intention of the
sponsor to exercise override of federal requirements. He
queried whether the opt-out provision includes state assessments
that are administered in compliance with federal requirements.
Non-compliance, may result in loss of federal funding, he
recalled.
CHAIR KELLER offered to have EED present at a subsequent meeting
for questioning.
CHAIR KELLER opened public testimony
8:42:10 AM
ANNA MERIDETH, Manager, Youth Health and Education Program,
Kachemak Bay Family Planning Clinic, stated opposition to SB 89,
and said her work is handled in conjunction with professionally
trained peer education teams who facilitate school presentations
on a variety of topics, including: sexuality education,
bullying, suicide prevention, resiliency and adverse childhood
experiences, depression and mental health, and many other youth
development subjects. She said the opt-in permission note
requirement presents a significant problem. Over 250 students
are currently completing sexual education training in Homer.
The opt-out provision was available to their parent's, and
worked well for the 2-3 students whose families made that
choice. Reversing policy to an opt-in requirement, means that
the other 248 students would have needed to provide staff with a
signed parental permission note, which would result in a
burdensome oversite situation, she predicted. A large majority
of the teenagers would be unable to benefit from the class under
the requirement, particularly teens who are homeless, in
transition, or those whose living situations present an unsafe
parental relationship, she said.
8:45:16 AM
MARY LOU KELSEY, Certified Nurse (CN), Midwife, Homer Medical
Center, stated opposition to SB 89, and relayed her 35 year
history for delivery of children, reproductive health
counseling, parenthood planning, and as a volunteer school
sexual education provider. The bill could result in
criminalizing the activity she engages in as a medical provider,
as well as depriving students of accurate, non-biased,
comprehensive, and essential information.
8:47:21 AM
KATE FINN, Registered Nurse (RN), Nurse Practitioner (NP),
Midwife, stated opposition to SB 89, and echoed the previous
witness's sentiments, and added that a movement referred to as
denying Americans the right to know (DARK) is sweeping the
nation and causing concern. Students have the right to know
their options, she stressed, and make personal choices drawing
on an informed knowledge base. If they don't know what is
available and all the options, the situation is DARK.
8:49:39 AM
ALYISON CURREY, Representative, Planned Parenthood Votes, stated
opposition to SB 89, paraphrasing from a prepared statement,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Alaska has an epidemic of sexually transmitted
infections as well as sexual assault and abuse, and
our youth need access to medically-accurate
information to make healthy decisions about their
lives. Planned Parenthood has been a trusted expert
and provider of medically-accurate sexual health
education in Alaska for more than 20 years and
throughout the country for 100.
When invited, Planned Parenthood works closely with
some schools and other social service organizations in
communities across the state, including Fairbanks,
Juneau, the Kenai Peninsula, Anchorage and the Mat-Su
Valley. We provide direct education to over 2000
youth each year and have also provided training and
skill building for staff working with youth around
healthy sexuality and prevention. This has included
teacher training and school based nurse training.
Our curriculum has been vetted and approved by the
Office of Adolescent Health for medical accuracy and
reviewed by local school staff for curriculum
alignment, as well as age and cultural appropriateness
to fit the needs of each community. Additionally, our
education programs aim to complement the conversations
that happen at home with families, they do not replace
them.
SB 89 purports to be about parental rights, but it
strips the rights of parents and communities who want
their children to receive accurate, unbiased,
evidence-based information from expert educators.
This bill unfairly targets providers of abortion, who
are also trained sexual health educators, and would
cut many Alaska students off from the education they
need to stay healthy and safe.
Instead of creating more barriers to education and
limiting districts' options for local programming, we
should be working together to ensure that our youth
have the resources and information needed to lead
healthy and productive lives-SB 89 does the opposite
and I respectfully ask that you oppose this bill.
8:52:28 AM
MELISSA ENGLE, Reverend, Douglas Community and United Methodist
Church, Juneau Youth Ministry Cooperative, stated opposition to
SB 89, and said she finds it dangerous for two reasons. First
she said it is an attack on Planned Parenthood, which is an
agency that the serves as a partner in ministry for the teens of
the congregation. The conversations that the Planned Parenthood
Teen Council facilitated with the teens of the church, could not
have happened without the partnership. Workshops cover topics
from puberty through comprehensive medically accurate sex
education. She described her own experience, based on a fear
based video to ensure an abstinence agreement that was presented
in the sixth grade. Fifteen years later, as part of her
ministry work, she was trained in the Our Whole Lives
curriculum, not unlike the age appropriate, comprehensive,
medically accurate, approach that the Teen Council provides.
The difference would be the spiritual supplement of the
religious training. She relayed that, because of a recent
training course, she realized that what she had thought she was
practicing as abstinence wasn't, rather it was an example of the
inappropriate instruction she had initially received in school,
which required spiritual reconciliation on her part. Planned
Parenthood appropriately teaches abstinence, as a vital option
and important facet to protect. She stressed that many young
people live on the margins, and the parent's may never see the
permission slip, which would cause the student to miss out on
this vital education. Whatever choice a young person makes
about their body, she said, let's support them being informed.
8:55:44 AM
ALICIA NORDAN, Student, University of Alaska Southeast (UAS),
stated opposition to SB 89, citing her personal experience of
speaking with students from across the state who lack essential
sexual education. The bill will make it more difficult for
students to receive sex education, by imposing the opt-in
requirement; as well as by requiring teachers to purchase
materials. Further, she concurred with the testimony of the
previous speakers.
8:56:46 AM
TAYLOR MORGAN stated opposition to SB 89, and pointed out the
high rate of sexually transmitted infections (STI's) in the
state. The education she received, as an Alaskan student, was
delivered by the physical education teacher. She reported that
it was biased and non-comprehensive, versus receiving an
unbiased, medically based curriculum. Additionally, she opined
that the bill places a burden on educators by restricting the
use of community resources for providing a respected sex
education curriculum.
8:57:47 AM
SAMANTHA SAVAGE, Student, stated opposition to SB 89, and said
that, as someone who received sex education in Alaska's public
school system, efforts should be directed towards creating
higher sex education standards and for ensuring that the courses
are comprehensive, evidence based, and medically accurate,
rather than working to impose restrictions on students, parents,
and school districts. She said:
The state of Alaska suffers from epidemic rates of
sexually transmitted diseases, high pregnancy rates,
and a devastatingly high rate of intimate partner
violence and sexual assault. Senate bill 89 puts
barriers between students receiving education that is
very clearly needed for our population to be healthy
and free from violence. Teachers should feel
empowered to use their professional judgement to
invite the most qualified individuals into their
classrooms, to speak to their classes about special
topics, such as sexual education. Local schools and
teachers should be in control of who they believe
should be allowed in schools, not the state
legislature. The opt-in requirement of this bill
unravels a key component of the Alaska Safe Children's
Act, which is highly disturbing as our state suffers
from high rates of child sexual abuse. Passing this
bill would put the most at-risk children at an unfair
disadvantage of receiving key information to protect
themselves and others and cause administrative stress
on already cash strapped school districts.
8:59:32 AM
MARJORIE RICHARDS, Registered Nurse (RN), Board Member, Resource
Center for Parents and Children, stated opposition to SB 89, and
said, as a nurse who has worked with a doctor of obstetrics and
gynecology (OB/GYN), it would be ideal if there were no
unexpected pregnancies, no one contracted STD's, sexual abuse
did not occur, and abortions were never necessary. However, in
order for young women and men to make good decisions regarding
sexual health, expert education and resources are imperative.
Most families do not provide the bulk of education that young
people need, she ventured to say. She stated agreement with the
concerns expressed for the opt-in permission slip requirement,
and said that it would preclude the participation of many teens.
Currently less than a quarter of Alaska's secondary schools are
able to provide the recommended prevention courses covering
human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), sexually transmitted
diseases (STD's), and pregnancy prevention topics. She said:
The [State of Alaska], you and I, pay for most of the
cost of the teen births in Alaska, through the
Medicaid program. Local communities and parents
should have the right to invite trusted partners, like
Planned Parenthood, into the classroom, if they
choose. Until the state steps up in providing
medically accurate sexual health education to all
students, communities will rely on Planned Parenthood
to provide that information. I feel that SB 89, and
SB 191, go too far in restricting medically accurate,
evidence based, non-judgmental, sexual health
education to its constituents in Alaska.
9:02:30 AM
BUTCH MOORE stated opposition to SB 89, and opined that the bill
is a poison pill. He suggested that the intent of the bill is
to eliminate the presence of Planned Parenthood from public
schools. He agreed that abortion should not be taught in public
schools. The curricula of every school district is determined
at the local level, and having made inquiries, he assured the
committee that abortion is not being taught in any Alaskan
schools. Parents already have the right to opt their student
out of any class, and changing it to an opt-in requirement would
be costly as well as illegal and prove unconstitutional;
requiring that a fiscal note be attached to cover litigation
costs, which would be pursuant to passage of SB 89 and SB 191.
The Alaska Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has issued a statement
[contained in the committee packet] which he recommended the
committee review. To not allow abortion service providers, or
their volunteers, to present education in any schools in Alaska,
is like saying that a liquor store that also sells groceries is
barred from food services to any schools in Alaska; a practice
of some major grocery stores that also sell liquor. In order
for a minor to obtain an abortion, in Alaska, parental consent
is required, he pointed out. Both bills single out and
eliminate the use of an agency that provides a free service,
thus putting an undue fiscal burden on schools, as well as
shifting a medical education curricula to a medically
unqualified class teacher.
9:07:31 AM
CINDY MOORE stated opposition to SB 89, and asked the rhetorical
question of whether this bill will provide more or less safety
to children. She conjectured that it would make them less safe.
The current STD levels in Alaska are the highest in the nation
among teenagers. Parental review of curriculum is already
available, and a choice can be made to opt-out of any class.
However, the rights of teens is being circumvented and, she
said, their rights should be a major consideration.
9:09:52 AM
ERIC GLATT, Attorney, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of
Alaska, stated opposition to SB 89, and opined that the bill is
unconstitutional. Although not regulating the content of sex
education classes, it does restrict the providers.
Additionally, teachers who offer sex education would have their
free time restricted, as they would be disallowed from
volunteering at a clinic or other subjective venue.
9:13:39 AM
CATHY GIRARD stated opposition to SB 89, and relayed the
impracticality of the early sex education that she received.
The minimal information that she was privy to was what brought
her to seek support from Planned Parenthood and to refrain from
becoming sexually active as a teen. She said that as a
grandparent she supports unbiased sexual education, provided by
qualified professionals, for her grandchildren. Although
proposed as a no cost bill, it will certainly create a cost for
schools to take over providing the information, which is
currently free to districts. Finally, parents already have the
right to exercise the opt-out provision.
9:17:10 AM
ELIJAH VERHAGEN stated support for SB 89, paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, which read [original punctuation provided]:
I'm very grateful to the sponsor of this bill who took
this critical and heated issue on. I'd like to start
off by pointing out to the committee members that
almost every single person that I've heard testify
before me today has either a special
interest/connection they mentioned, was a Planned
Parenthood employee or retired nurse that's worked
with them and thus are Planned Parenthood
sympathizers. These were not your average private
sector individuals and parents taking off work and
calling in because they are concerned for their kids.
Most of your average constituents never hear about
these bills being up in committee until it's too late
and even if they did, most would not be able to take
off work from 8-10am to testify. I only heard about it
because I used to work in Juneau and still have
friends there that let me know when important bill
hearings are. So for those of us that do take off work
and call in, our testimony should have a lot more
weight than these PP advocates, ACLU lawyers and
whoever else these third party abortion agencies can
afford to get here to testify. You know and I know
(having worked in Juneau for five years) that most of
them receive mass email notifications of when to
testify and many are paid to call in or are flown into
Juneau to defeat good bills like this that benefit our
kids and society.
I'm frankly appalled that Planned Parenthood has been
allowed to come into our public schools as a third
party and teach sex education. Where was this in the
newspapers? Sex education needs to be taught to our
children in an unbiased, mature and trustful way
primarily by parents. The government should be
encouraging parents to do so, not stripping their
parental rights away and leaving it up to Planned
Parenthood or any other third party, unfamiliar
source. Of course not all parents care sadly to teach
their kids sex education or would rather the school
does, that's fine and their choice and there are many
kids without parents who are in public schools that
will learn sex ed from their teachers. But this is
where the kids can learn from a teacher they know, not
a third party official who they've never met, who then
hands out material that links them to abortion
agencies. Like this bill allows, having an opt-in
signature required from parents at the beginning of
the school year or later before sex ed is taught to
their children is leaving the authority with the
parents.
Finally to get my point across and the severity of the
bill I will share an analogy of what it's like
allowing Planned Parenthood to teach our kids sex ed.
Planned Parenthood is known for providing abortions
and even if abortions only make up 3% of their
services like they claim, they still are providing
abortions which is murder, there is no sugar coating
it. So allowing them to teach sex ed and then give out
their info in our schools is like allowing a murderer
into our house to babysit your kids because 97% of the
time, the murder isn't killing anyone and is doing
good things. Well 3% of the time they are committing
murder. You would never let them babysit and we also
must never let Planned Parenthood teach in our
schools.
I urge the committee members to seriously consider
what I'm saying, reach out to your real constituents
and pass this bill out of committee for our society
and children's sake.
9:20:58 AM
SCOTT NORD stated support for SB 89, opining that parents should
be responsible for their children's sexual education. Families
are the most important part of society, and to suggest having
government take on the responsibility represents a gross error,
he opined. Without passage of SB 89 families will lose control
and power.
9:23:23 AM
DAVID LUNTZ stated opposition to SB 89, and said the opt-in
requirement will be costly, and reinforce lazy parenting. He
said it is disturbing that the legislature is placing the name
of an organization in the bill, which could set a precedent for
other organizations to be named in subsequent bills. Because
someone is a member of an organization, does not mean that a
professional would impose personal bias on students in a
classroom. He said:
I think we need to stop trying to impose religiously
based ideas into legislation ... keep it clean, and
... not incur more legal fees.
9:26:57 AM
TOM LAKOSH, stated opposition to SB 89, and said given the
fiscal situation of the state, this bill does not represent a
responsible move; it will lead to litigation. Additionally,
restricting sexual education may serve to increase the STD and
abortion levels in the state.
9:28:27 AM
HENRY SCHILDBACH, Student, Highland Tech Charter School, stated
opposition to SB 89, and said he is a member of Teen council,
which is a group of teenagers who are dedicated to providing
comprehensive, medically accurate, sexual education to teens at
the Highland Tech Charter School, as well as to schools within
the district. The members of the [peer led sex ed] program
receive extensive training for how to educate other teens and
how to talk to them about sexual and reproductive health, as
well as healthy relationships. The goal of the education is
prevention, and to enable people to live healthy, happy lives.
Alaska lacks a standardized sexual education curriculum, and
less than a quarter of the schools teach the recommended HIV,
STD, and pregnancy courses, he reported. Alaska is ranked 47,
with only three other states receiving less sexual health
education in public schools; however, the state does rank first
in levels of chlamydia. Teen pregnancies are also on the rise,
he said, which indicates that Alaska's approach to sex education
is unacceptable. Teacher's invite Teen Council, and Planned
Parenthood, into their classrooms to supplement lessons, filling
in a gap at no cost to the school district. Studies have
consistently shown that comprehensive sex education is effective
in reducing the levels of STI's, delaying the start of sexual
activity, and lowering teen pregnancy rates. The solution to
Alaska's status for STD's and teen pregnancies is more education
not less, he reiterated. Also, SB 89 turns an established opt-
out system into an opt-in system, he stressed, destroying any
hope of Erin's Law and comprehensive sex education from reaching
those who need it the most. For a state with child sexual abuse
rates six times higher than the national average, he said the
senate should be ashamed to introduce a bill such as this in
Alaska. Teachers, students, and communities rely upon Planned
Parenthood and Teen Council to provide sex education
information, and its end will be disastrous to both teens and
communities already struggling with education. As a teen, a
constituent and a voice for his peers, he said he was expressing
opposition to SB 89 and SB 191.
9:31:21 AM
JOSEPH LEWIS, Student, Eagle River High School, stated
opposition to SB 89, and said he is grateful for the sexual
education classes, which he has received. Further, he is
supportive that his younger brother will be receiving similar
education. Abortion is not taught in the sex education classes,
the focus is on prevention and protection. The Planned
Parenthood representatives are helpful in prevention.
9:34:04 AM
GARY SNYDER, Teacher, Anchorage School District (ASD), stated
opposition to SB 89 and said his goal as a teacher is to help
improve the lives of his students, assisting them in becoming
productive members of society. Additional sexual education, not
less, is necessary, he opined, and SB 89 will serve as a barrier
to that end. He said, as a sex education teacher, he is
responsible for the parental notifications, receiving the opt-
out notices, blogging with parents, and other necessary actions
for course implementation, thus, he is intimately familiar with
the time and effort necessary to administer the class. The bill
will only add to a teacher's work load, and discourage them from
taking up the curriculum. Having spoken with hundreds of
students, he said the majority get very little information from
their parents. During informal annual student polls, taken in
class, he reported that 80 percent of the students indicate that
they do not receive sex education from their parents, but do
resort to on-line information, and other inappropriate sources.
He offered national statistics: 11 is the average age for males
typing porn into the internet, first intercourse age averages
between 16 and 17, and 60 percent of American students are
sexually active by age 18. The proposed bill will not change
these figures, but sex educators like himself are trying to by
providing students with information and answers. Sex education
in schools, serves to fill in the gaps between the foreign world
and real sexual activity. Important topics that are covered
include: consequences of personal sexual decisions, human
anatomy, hormonal functions, pregnancy facts, consent, assertive
communication, how to articulate personal values regarding sex,
and contraceptives. Viewing porn, will not teach students
appropriate behavior, he stressed, and stated the quote:
"People learning about sex from porn, is like learning to drive
by watching [the movie] FAST AND FURIOUS." Comprehensive sex
education in the schools is necessary, he underscored, and
pointed out that parents may review curriculum and choose to
remove their student from any lesson.
9:37:52 AM
JAMES PRIMM stated opposition to SB 89, and said it represents
out-of-touch legislation, that will not allow students to
receive necessary education. As a father, he looks forward to
educating his daughter, however, many students don't have the
same parental support, and he conjectured that the bill targets
the poor.
9:40:30 AM
AURORA HOEFFERLE stated opposition to SB 89 and said she looks
forward to becoming a teacher and supporting the students in a
similar way in which she was supported as a student. Sexual
education in the home was not available in her community, nor
something that her parents considered necessary or important.
The children coming of age with access to the internet do not
necessarily access the best information. The opt-out option is
already available, and an opt-in requirement is unnecessary, she
opined.
9:43:37 AM
NITHYA THIRU stated opposition to SB 89, paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, which read [original punctuation provided]:
In high school, I was in a sexually abusive
relationship. It was my first relationship, and I
stayed in it for four years. My parents are from South
Asia, and cultural barriers prevented me from being
able to approach them for information about healthy
relationships. They had no concept of what American
dating might look like, having had an arranged
marriage themselves.
I was provided very few resources at school.
It wasn't until graduating from high school that I
became aware of the resources available, and was able
to gain the knowledge and strength I needed to leave
my abusive relationship.
Planned Parenthood, as well as schools can provide
valuable support to those faced with abuse. Especially
in a place like Alaska where abuse is so prevalent,
limiting access to such resources is a disgrace to our
state, and is a grave disservice to young people who
are currently suffering and need our help. Planned
Parenthood offers professional counseling, support,
and resources where families cannot. A parent's
ability to help can often fall short due to a lack of
objectivity.
The abuse I suffered stripped me of my sense of self.
Had my school provided more resources regarding
sexuality, and healthy relationships, I believe I
would not have waited so long to leave the
relationship that I was in.
We need to empower and inform our youth, and not strip
them of their ability to make informed decisions about
their personal health.
Please stand against SB89, and don't perpetuate the
cycle of abuse.
9:45:39 AM
KAREN WARNER stated opposition to SB 89 and said access to
medically accurate, evidence based, non-judgmental, sexual
health education, for the youth of Alaska, should not be subject
to political or legislative gatekeeping. The reportedly high
rates in Alaska for STD's and child abuse make sex education a
necessary school subject. Allowing Planned Parenthood to
provide a free and sound program, will keep the children and
youth safer and healthier.
9:47:38 AM
ROBIN SMITH stated opposition to SB 89 paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, which read [original punctuation provided]:
Parents find dealing with their teen's sexuality
difficult. We don't want them hurt or find themselves
in difficult situations having an unintended
pregnancy. Girl or boy STIs including HIV can be life
changing.
Many parents simply ignore it or barely touch the
surface. That is why over the past 20 years, in
survey after survey, local, state or national, 80 to
85 percent of parents indicate they want their
children to receive comprehensive, medically accurate,
age-appropriate sex education. Parents see such
courses and content as supplementing, not supplanting,
their discussions at home. They say that their
children need both to be taught about delaying the
onset of intimate sexual relationships until they are
mature and responsible and also given the information
and skills they need to use condoms and contraception
when they do choose to become sexually active. It's
not either/or, but both.
Studies consistently show that comprehensive sex
education is highly effective at reducing STIs,
delaying initiation of sexual activity, and lowering
teen pregnancy rates. The state of Alaska has failed
to do its job by not providing comprehensive, accurate
evidenced based sex education. We have no state
standard curriculum, no requirement for even providing
it. And now--no money to offer it even if we wanted
to.
Teens report that their main source of information
about sex, dating and sexual health comes from what
they see and hear in the media. That includes TV,
movies music videos, reality shows, beer ads, on line
porn, and video games.
Social media is another problem. Girls are pressured
to send naked selfies to boys. We are appalled to
hear that oral sex has become the new kissing. We
pray that isn't true in Alaska. We simply want to
lock our kids up until they're adults. But we can't
and we mustn't be blind to what is actually happening.
These are some of the national facts from
GreatSchools.org and CommonSenseMedia.org:
72% of teens think watching TV with a lot of sexual
content influences their peers' behavior somewhat or a
lot.
Programs with sexual content average 4.4 scenes per
hour.
On average, music videos contain 93 sexual situations
per hour, including 11 hard-core scenes depicting
behavior like intercourse and oral sex.
Between 1998 and 2005, the number of sexual scenes on
TV nearly doubled.
1 in 5 children will be approached by a sexual
predator online.
15-to 24-year-olds account for nearly half of all STD
diagnoses each year.
Watching a lot of sexual content on TV and listening
to sexually explicit music lyrics increase the chances
that a teen will have sex at an earlier age.
60% of female video game characters are presented in a
sexualized fashion.
The biggest users of online pornography are 12-to 17-
year-old boys.
Schools are already overwhelmed by state mandates.
Now we have a [physical education] teacher or biology
teacher attempting to teach sex education. They can
barely say the word vagina and breast, let alone
answer question about how to set boundaries, what's
normal and if they are going to have sex what are the
contraceptive options. It's not simple.
Planned Parenthood has been a trusted provider of
sexual health education in Alaska for more than 20
years and throughout the country for 100 years.
Communities turn to us for nonjudgmental, unbiased,
medically accurate curriculum on reproductive health
and relationships.
We should not deny our teens important sexual
education simply because some legislators do not
approve of legal abortion or those who provide it.
Please oppose SB89.
9:52:37 AM
VINCENZA MARRARI stated opposition to SB 89, and as a previous
Planned Parenthood employee, offered how sex education is
handled in the public schools to stress that abortion is not
included in the curriculum. The opt-out policy, during her 5
year tenure, was enacted only once.
9:57:25 AM
CAROLYN CLIFT, Teacher, stated opposition to SB 89 and said the
bill discriminates against a single agency, Planned Parenthood,
which provides a free and necessary service. Parents certainly
should be involved in family planning with their children, she
agreed, and relayed a scenario that her family worked through
involving one of her sons. She maintained that appropriate
sexual education/family planning classes are essential for
teaching young people how to be responsible for their actions
and not become a burden on state resources. The opt-out aspect
of the bill is important, particularly regarding mandatory
administration of tests that involve special education students.
CHAIR KELLER closed public testimony.
10:01:06 AM
CHAIR KELLER opined that SB 89 is a means to establish policy to
support parental rights and provide transparency in the system.
Many businesses and organizations have restricted access to
public schools, he pointed out, and the bill is not unique in
that regard. The question for the committee to consider regards
the potential financial conflict of interest, he suggested.
CHAIR KELLER announced SB 89 as held, and adjourned the meeting.
10:02:31 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:02 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 2. SB 89 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 3/14/2016 8:00:00 AM |
SB 89 |
| 3. SB 89 - Sectional Version F.A.pdf |
HEDC 3/14/2016 8:00:00 AM |
SB 89 |
| 4. SB 89 - Version F.A.PDF |
HEDC 3/14/2016 8:00:00 AM |
SB 89 |
| 5. SB 89 - Fiscal Note.PDF |
HEDC 3/14/2016 8:00:00 AM |
SB 89 |
| 6. SB 89 - Letters of Support.PDF |
HEDC 3/14/2016 8:00:00 AM |
SB 89 |
| 7. SB 89 - What it Does & Doesn't Do.pdf |
HEDC 3/14/2016 8:00:00 AM |
SB 89 |
| 8. SB 89. ACLU Concerns. 2016.03.14.pdf |
HEDC 3/14/2016 8:00:00 AM |
SB 89 |
| 1. HB156 Work draft Y.pdf |
HEDC 3/14/2016 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/16/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| HB156A.PDF |
HEDC 3/30/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/13/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/14/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| HB156 Sponsor Statment.pdf |
HEDC 3/30/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/13/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/14/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| HB156 FY 16 proposed ed budget.pdf |
HEDC 3/30/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/14/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| HB156 FED LAW REVISE.pdf |
HEDC 3/30/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/13/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/14/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| HB156 Ed Week stories.pdf |
HEDC 3/30/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/13/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/14/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| CSHB156 Workdraft I.pdf |
HEDC 3/30/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/13/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/14/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| CSHB156Fiscal Note.pdf |
HEDC 3/30/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/13/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/14/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |