Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS 519
03/16/2020 09:00 AM House FINANCE
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 | |
| HB185 | |
| HB24 | |
| HJR15 | |
| HB181 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 185 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 181 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 181
"An Act relating to mental health education."
9:38:21 AM
Co-Chair Johnston asked for a brief reintroduction of the
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, SPONSOR, provided brief
remarks. He believed updating the health education
standards to include mental health was long overdue. The
bill would not establish a required curriculum and would
allow local school districts to determine whether they
wanted to go down the path included in the bill. The bill
provided guidelines for work taking place in many districts
across the state.
Representative Claman shared that he had two concerns about
the fiscal note. First, he believed the notion the bill
would require bringing in 20 to 30 people in twice by
airplane to conferences in Anchorage to come up with
updated health curriculum to include mental health seemed
like far too much money and had no justification. He
explained that much of the work could be done remotely. He
thought the fiscal note seemed unusually high. Second, he
was troubled the department had included $6,000 for
regulations and needed legal support for the regulations.
He explained that the Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) only
included one section related to education standards - AAC
4.04.140. He detailed that AAC 4.04.140(b) specified that
the content standards for physical education was set out in
the department's publication entitled Alaska Physical
Education Standards as revised or adopted by reference. He
did not believe that equated to $6,000 worth of legal
support for regulation. He recognized there may be some
costs associated with the bill, but he thought the
department's fiscal note was much too high and out of touch
with reality.
Co-Chair Johnston asked to hear from the Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED).
LACEY SANDERS, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR (via teleconference),
addressed the sponsor's comments on the fiscal note. She
explained that historically each bill requiring DEED to
work with the Department of Law (DOL) on regulations cost
$6,000 to go through the process based on DOL's standard
billing. She explained that anytime DEED had to deal with
regulations it cost the department money. She spoke to the
travel costs in the fiscal note. She detailed that the
bill's intent language outlined several representatives
DEED would work with to develop the guidelines for
instructions. She elaborated that DEED worked via
teleconference as often as possible and it had determined
that in order to bring the involved voices together to have
the best conversation about what was being developed, two
in-person meetings were required. The cost was based on the
number of people identified in the bill.
9:42:28 AM
Representative Wool asked if the number of people that
would participate in the roundtable policy discussion was
30.
Ms. Sanders replied that the fiscal note identified between
20 and 30 representatives of mental health organizations.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked for more detail on the stated need
to have two in-person meetings. He asked why the in-person
meetings were necessary.
Ms. Sanders answered that she was new to the department.
Her understanding was that in the past not all voices may
be heard when meetings were held only via teleconference.
She relayed that a colleague was available and may have
more information on the need for the two meetings.
9:44:02 AM
TAMARA VAN WYHE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF INNOVATION AND
EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY
DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference), relayed that DEED had a
structure for gathering stakeholder input when it came to
the development and revision of standards. She highlighted
how important it was for Alaskans to have a voice at the
table. She elaborated that when discussing standards for
students and learning it was critical to have voices from
across the state representing many of the state's school
districts of various sizes and in different regions. She
confirmed that virtual communication was doable and was
utilized frequently by DEED. She highlighted that the
current experience [with COVID-19] may change the way
things were done in the future, but historically it had
been important to have stakeholders together in the same
room to discuss standards face-to-face and ensure that all
of the educators understood the standards. She elaborated
that it was important for educators to have an opportunity
to learn from content area experts and work with
facilitators to result in standards that had significant
buy-in. She explained that the standards would not be
implemented in the school districts if they did not have
buy-in. The goal was for standards to be meaningful when
they reached the classroom where student learning occurred.
Co-Chair Johnston noted that the process described had less
to do with the standards and general outcome and more to do
with involving the educational community as a whole in
order to ensure "the wheels on the bus are all going the
same direction." When she first saw the bill, she thought
that perhaps the development of the curriculum could be
contracted out and then discussed with communities.
However, she believed DEED was saying it took all the
communities to be part of the development of the curriculum
to work statewide.
Ms. Van Wyhe agreed. She explained that it was not just a
document or a set of standards that mattered; it was the
process that mattered. She elaborated on the importance of
allowing educators to play a role in developing and vetting
those standards before the standards went to the state
board for approval and to school districts for
implementation.
9:47:15 AM
Co-Chair Johnston considered that there may be a need to
develop new forms of communication. She asked if it would
be fair for the fiscal note to reflect one in-person
meeting and one follow up teleconference meeting.
Ms. Van Wyhe answered that things had changed dramatically
over the past couple of weeks related to distancing
practices. She explained that the fiscal note was based on
the department's current practice (two in-person meetings
and virtual meetings in between), which had worked very
well over many years. She believed people globally would be
reconsidering the way they gathered (e.g. the way DEED
gathered to obtain stakeholder input). She considered that
it was possible to convene one face-to-face meeting
followed by additional distanced conversations. She
reiterated that the note was based on the department's
existing practice that had worked well for many years.
Co-Chair Johnston looked at the $35,000 for a one-year
contract, $60,000 for travel, $6,000 for legal costs, and
$12,000 to print booklets. She surmised that the committee
could consider reducing the fiscal note by $30,000. She
asked if the remaining funds would meet the one-time
meeting commitment.
Ms. Van Wyhe deferred to Ms. Sanders.
Ms. Sanders replied that DEED could have an internal
conversation and follow up with a final response.
Representative Josephson remarked that the first time he
had seen a committee change a department's fiscal note he
had been surprised. However, he considered the $35,000
contract and remarked on the thousands of mental health
experts in Alaska. He did not mean to diminish the
seriousness of the work but surmised that a set of
standards could be developed over the course of a weekend.
He believed the two separate in-person meetings could be
cut to one meeting, which would cut the fiscal note in
half. He would vote in support for a motion to change the
note.
9:50:46 AM
AT EASE
9:52:01 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Johnston was pleased to hear the department was
willing to review the fiscal note. She announced an
amendment deadline for the following afternoon.
Representative Claman understood that DEED often received a
bill from DOL for $6,000 for regulatory work. However, he
found it hard to believe DOL would charge $6,000 to modify
one paragraph in regulation if there were not additional
regulations apart from the one he had identified. He
understood DOL may have standard rates, but he would like
DEED to find out more about what regulations needed to be
changed. He was skeptical of the $6,000 cost.
Representative LeBon stated that the language in the bill
specified that the mental health element to the health
curriculum a school district presented to students needed
to be established by DEED. He continued that the department
had two years to develop the material to present to school
districts. He asked if districts were expected to accept
the DEED recommendations. Alternatively, he wondered if
districts could look at the recommendations and adopt the
mental health component of the program based on their own
goals and objectives. He wondered if a school board would
be expected to give a stamp of approval without much input.
Representative Claman replied that he read the bill
language a bit differently. He pointed to Section 3(b),
where the board developed guidelines. He highlighted that
the current content standards for health guidelines were
two pages. He anticipated the guidelines that came back
from DEED would not be significantly longer, which would
leave curriculum development largely to local school
boards. He thought there would be some expectation the
department would provide some information beyond the
guidelines in terms of what school boards may look for in
their individual curriculum. He did not believe the
Fairbanks or Anchorage school boards started the curriculum
development process in a vacuum. He believed they looked to
see what information was available.
Representative Claman thought the school boards would look
to the state to see what resources were available, but he
believed it would be completely up to local school boards
to develop curriculum. He hoped that on a statewide level
there would be some similarity from one school district to
the next. He did not believe the state would dictate what
the curriculum would look like. Alternatively, he believed
the state would provide guidelines. For example, he
highlighted skills for healthy living guidelines that were
broad and left significant room for school districts to
decide what was best after consultation with parents and
faculty. He did not see the bill as imposing any specific
curriculum on any district. He believed the existing
guidelines supported the notion it would be easy to fit
within those guidelines.
9:56:36 AM
Representative LeBon could not help reading into things,
particularly if the topic would come before the school
board. He stated that if it was the expectation for school
boards to rubber stamp the DEED recommendations, the school
boards would want to see the recommendations as early as
possible. Additionally, school boards would want to see
what the content would look like, whether there was a
fiscal element, whether it crowded out other aspects of
their health program, and whether it fit in well. He
reasoned there were considerations that each school
district and each school board would have to weigh. He was
not reading into the bill that it would be mandated by the
state to all school districts.
Co-Chair Johnston stated that Representative LeBon may have
made the argument for the fiscal note. She pointed out that
DEED had talked about getting buy-in from all parties to a
certain extent.
Representative Claman pointed to Section 3 (AS
14.30.360(b)) and noted that the only thing being added to
existing law was mental health. He elaborated that
curriculum specialists were in existing law; therefore, the
presumption was that the position already existed. He
believed the fiscal note was only related to the guideline
development and not to the existing role of the specialist
in the department. He shared that his conversations with
school districts had consistently been that they had
significant leeway in what they wanted to do.
Ms. Van Wyhe clarified that the topic was standards. She
pointed out that there was a difference between standards
and curriculum. She relayed that DEED supported the work of
developing standards and the State Board of Education had
very high standards for the standards developed by DEED in
terms of the processes followed by the department and
ensuring there was significant stakeholder input. She
furthered that once standards were adopted - standards in
general were voluntary as were the standards in the bill -
the districts would take the standards and develop
curriculum, select instructional materials, and determine
precisely how the standards and expectations of the
standards rolled out in the districts. She noted there had
been a bit of confusion between standards and curriculum in
the past several minutes of discussion.
9:59:37 AM
Representative Wool looked at Section 3 of the bill and
noted that it specified that a school health education
specialist position shall be established and funded in the
department to coordinate the program statewide. He assumed
it was already in place for the physical health program. He
asked if the same person would be tasked with the mental
health program to eliminate the need to hire another
education specialist. He did not want to keep layering
specialists on if possible.
Representative Claman answered that it was existing law and
therefore, there should be an existing position. He
clarified that the bill did not call for adding another
position.
Representative Wool recognized that health education was
being broadened all of the time to include not only
physical health but topics like substance abuse, healthy
relationships, mental health including depression, mental
illness, suicide and other related topics. He asked if the
department envisioned another class. He remarked that often
times the physical education teacher was tasked with the
topic. He shared that at his kid's school the class
alternated between health and gym. He thought it seemed
like a significant amount to ask of a physical education
teacher.
10:01:55 AM
Ms. Van Wyhe answered that the decisions were completely up
to individual school districts. She highlighted that the
standards were voluntary, and it would be up to each
district to determine how to implement them, what the
course offerings would look like, and which staff would
teach the course. The department had no jurisdiction over
the decisions.
Representative Wool asked what the department envisioned
for implementation.
Ms. Van Wyhe deferred to the bill sponsor.
Representative Claman envisioned that the state board would
adopt new guidelines, which would be supportive of more
districts incorporating mental health into their health
education curriculum.
HB 181 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Johnston reviewed the schedule for the following
meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 24 ver. G 3.13.2020.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2020 9:00:00 AM |
HB 24 |
| HB 185 ver. E 3.12.2020.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2020 9:00:00 AM |
HB 185 |
| HB 30 public Testimony Red'd by 030920.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2020 9:00:00 AM |
HB 30 |