Legislature(2015 - 2016)Anch LIO Auditorium
05/19/2015 11:00 AM Senate 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 | |
| HB44 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 44 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 44-SEX ABUSE/ASSAULT/DATING VIOL PREV. PROGS
[Includes discussion outlining that language from HB 80, SB 89,
and SB 102 has been incorporated into a proposed Senate
committee substitute (SCS) for HB 44.]
11:04:01 AM
CHAIR DUNLEAVY announced that the only order of business would
be CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 44(FIN), "An Act relating to sexual
abuse and sexual assault awareness and prevention efforts in
public schools; and relating to dating violence and abuse
awareness and prevention efforts in public schools." Included in
members' packets was a proposed Senate committee substitute
(SCS) for HB 44, labeled 29-LS0258\G, Glover, 5/18/15.
11:05:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CHARISSE MILLETT, Alaska State Legislature,
sponsor, remarking upon the high rate of sexual abuse of a minor
crimes occurring in Alaska, posited that HB 44 would help
educate Alaska's children about such crimes and how to get help
if they become a victim. Currently, only 21 of Alaska's school
districts provide any such training. Mentioning that no such
training was provided to her when she was a child, she relayed
that HB 44 attempts to remedy this lack of training in Alaska's
schools, thereby further raising public awareness of such
crimes, and positively impacting the lives of every child in
Alaska. She offered her understanding that such training would
come at no cost to the State, and that preventing sexual abuse
of a minor crimes in Alaska would reduce future costs.
SENATOR STEVENS characterized CSHB 44(FIN) as a good bill that
makes a lot of sense. He expressed concern, however, with the
proposed Senate committee substitute (SCS) for HB 44 - labeled
29-LS0258\G, Glover, 5/18/15 - included in members' packets, due
to the fact that it now contains language from [three unrelated]
bills.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT also expressed concern with the proposed
SCS, remarking that CSHB 44(FIN) addresses a stand-alone issue
and is focused on requiring that Alaska's youth be educated
about sexual abuse/assault prevention. Under the proposed SCS,
however, providing such training would no longer be mandatory
and this, she opined, essentially guts the bill passed by the
House. This makes her uncomfortable, she added, expressing a
preference for the language in CSHB 44(FIN).
11:14:16 AM
GRACE ABBOTT, Staff, Representative Charisse Millett, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf the sponsor, Representative
Millett, explained that Section 1 of CSHB 44(FIN) would
stipulate that the bill may be known as the "Alaska Safe
Children's Act". Section 2's proposed new AS 14.30.355 would
require the governing body of each school district to establish
a training program for staff and students regarding sexual
abuse/assault awareness/prevention, and provide parental
notification. Section 2's proposed new AS 14.30.356 would
require the governing body of each school district to establish
a training program for staff and students regarding dating
violence/abuse awareness/prevention, and provide parental
notification. The awareness/prevention training programs must
include age-appropriate information, warning signs, and
[referral] information; furthermore, a procedure allowing a
student to be excused from such training must be provided.
Section 2's proposed new AS 14.30.355 pertains to students
enrolled in grades K-12, and Section 2's proposed new
AS 14.30.356 pertains to students enrolled in grades [7]
through 12.
At ease from 11:16 a.m. to 11:25 a.m.
11:25:56 AM
CINDY MOORE, mentioning that her daughter Breanna Moore was
killed last summer by her boyfriend in what Ms. Moore referred
to as an incidence of dating violence, expressed favor with
CSHB 44(FIN). She noted that AS 14.03.015 reads:
Sec. 14.03.015. State education policy.
It is the policy of this state that the purpose of
education is to help ensure that all students will
succeed in their education and work, shape worthwhile
and satisfying lives for themselves, exemplify the
best values of society, and be effective in improving
the character and quality of the world about them.
MS. MOORE offered her belief that that statute reflects the
intention of CSHB 44(FIN), which, she opined, addresses a public
safety issue. Referring to Alaska's high crime statistics, she
proffered that [a training program] about dating violence could
be implemented in the schools at low or no cost, and noted that
such training programs already exist. She characterized the
proposed SCS as turning a well-manicured bill into a "junk
yard"; specifically, replacing the phrase "shall adopt" - in the
bill's proposed new AS 14.30.355 and AS 14.30.356 - with the
phrase "may adopt", would completely change the purpose of
HB 44, which, she opined, is to protect all of Alaska's
children, to provide them with all the information they need to
protect themselves. In conclusion, she opined that it is not
appropriate for only certain school districts to be providing
such training, and asked that CSHB 44(FIN) be the version of the
bill that moves from committee.
11:30:01 AM
BUTCH MOORE, mentioning that he is Breanna Moore's father, asked
that CSHB 44(FIN) be passed rather than the proposed SCS;
ventured that passage of the bill would save lives; and provided
some statistics regarding sexual assault, sexual abuse of a
minor, and domestic violence crimes in Alaska.
SENATOR STEVENS referred to CSHB 44(FIN)'s proposed new
[AS 14.30.355(b)(7) and] AS 14.30.356(b)(7) - providing that
upon written request, a student may be excused from the
aforementioned training and from receiving notifications - and
questioned why such provisions were included in the bill.
MR. MOORE expressed disfavor with those provisions, offering his
belief that they could be misused by a parent who is abusing
his/her child or knows that his/her child is being abused by
someone else in the family.
11:43:03 AM
LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), explained
that those provisions of the bill were included in order to
address the rights of parents to determine what their children
are being taught. In response to questions regarding the
language in proposed new AS 14.30.355(b)(7) and
AS 14.30.356(b)(7) stipulating that the written request must be
made by the student's parent or guardian, or by the student
himself/herself if he/she is either 18 years of age or
emancipated, Mr. Morse explained that it is the courts that
determine whether to emancipate a particular minor. Expressing
disfavor with those provisions of the bill, he acknowledged,
however, that their inclusion is a policy decision for the
legislature to make.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT concurred that those provisions were
included in order to address the rights of parents; for example,
she's heard from some parents who say they would prefer to
provide such training themselves. However, sexual assault,
sexual abuse of a minor, and domestic violence crimes are
continuing to occur in Alaska, and so something new must be done
to address the problem, and more students will receive the
necessary training if it becomes mandatory.
At ease from 11:53 a.m. to 11:55 a.m.
11:56:01 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS moved to adopt the proposed Senate committee
substitute (SCS) for HB 44, labeled 29-LS0258\G, Glover,
5/18/15, as the working document.
CHAIR DUNLEAVY objected.
11:56:36 AM
SHEILA PETERSON, Staff, Senator Mike Dunleavy, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Senator Dunleavy, Chair, explained
that the proposed Senate committee substitute (SCS) for HB 44
now contains language from HB 80, SB 89, and SB 102. Section 1
of the proposed SCS stipulates that Section 16 of the bill may
be known as the "Alaska Safe Children's Act". Section 2,
containing language from SB 89, would provide for the right of a
parent to withdraw his/her child from a state-required
standards-based assessment, or from a class, activity, or
program pertaining to human reproduction, sexual matters, or
personal or private affairs, or for religious holidays; and
would provide for parental notification of a class, activity, or
program addressing human reproduction or sexual matters not less
than two weeks but not more than six weeks before such class,
activity, or program occurs. Absences based on withdrawals
under this section shall not be considered unlawful, but each
withdrawal must be requested by the parent. Section 3,
containing language from SB 102, would limit who may challenge a
course and, if successful, obtain credit for it, to only
students enrolled in grades 9 through 12. Referring to Section
4, she said a school district would not be required to establish
an assessment tool for every course offered, and that the school
district itself could decide which courses to allow a student to
challenge.
12:01:49 PM
MS. PETERSON explained that Sections 5, 6, and 7 contain
language from SB 89. Section 5 would prohibit school districts,
and educational services organizations that have a contract with
a school district, from contracting with an abortion services
provider. Section 6 would prohibit a school district from
administering a questionnaire or survey without written
permission from a student's parent. Referring to Section 7, she
explained that it stipulates a parent shall know where the
results of a survey will reside and what the distribution system
will be for the results. She also offered that Sections 8, 9,
and 10 - containing language from SB 102 - would allow required
training to be provided once every five years rather than every
year. Required training, however, may be provided more often if
the governing body of a school determines that the number of new
employees warrants more frequent training. Section 8 pertains
to regional school boards, Section 9 pertains to city/borough
school boards, and Section 10 pertains to the State Board of
Education and Early Development as the administrator of Alaska's
state boarding schools.
12:05:52 PM
MS. PETERSON explained that Section 11 addresses the frequency
of training pertaining to [identifying sex-biased materials],
Section 12 addresses the frequency of training pertaining to
employee evaluations, and Section 13 addresses the frequency of
training pertaining to alcohol- and drug-related awareness and
prevention. Section 14 - together with a provision of Section
23, proposing to repeal certain statutes - would remove the
requirement that school districts provide for and require
students starting school to undergo a physical examination, and
would instead make any physical examinations of students, and
any cost reimbursement thereof, discretionary on the part of the
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS); these proposed
changes - initially included in SB 89 - address a concern raised
by school districts. Section 15 stipulates that a school
district may require teachers to undergo a physical examination
as a condition of employment, but will not pay for the cost of
such examinations. Section 16 states school districts "may"
elect to offer sexual abuse and sexual assault/dating violence
and abuse awareness and prevention programs. The previous
version of HB 44 required school districts to offer the
programs. Ms. Peterson mentioned that even without passage of
the bill, school districts can already choose to address such
crimes, and some school districts are.
12:10:27 PM
MS. PETERSON explained that Section 17, containing language from
SB 89, would prohibit school districts from allowing an abortion
services provider to offer, sponsor, furnish course materials,
or provide instruction relating to human sexuality or sexually
transmitted disease. Section 18 provides a conforming change
related to Section 23's proposed repeal of certain statutes.
Section 19, containing language from SB 102, addresses the
frequency of crisis response training. Section 20 addresses the
frequency of training pertaining to domestic violence. She said
that Section 21, containing language from SB 89, allows
certified teachers applying to work in a child care facility to
use their background check conducted by the Department of
Education to satisfy background-check requirements for the
Department of Health and Social Services. Section 22 addresses
the frequency of training for mandatory reporters of child
abuse/neglect; new staff shall receive training within 45 days,
and existing staff shall receive training at least once every
five years, or more frequently if necessary. Referring to
Section 23, she explained that the proposed repeal of
AS 14.03.075(a)-(c) and (e)(1) and AS 14.07.165(a)(5) and (b)
comes from HB 80, and would eliminate the statutory requirement
passed in 2014 that students undergo a college and career
readiness assessment in order to obtain a high school diploma;
and that the proposed repeal of AS 14.30.070(a) and AS 14.20.120
comes from SB 89, and would eliminate the requirement that
school districts provide for and require students starting
school to undergo a physical examination.
MS. PETERSON additionally offered that requiring college and
career readiness assessments did not seem to meet the intended
goal, and yet providing for the assessments cost the State
$525,000.
12:16:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN GATTIS, Alaska State Legislature, as the
sponsor of HB 80, concurred that Section 23 of the proposed SCS
for HB 44 would repeal the requirement - established via passage
of House Bill 278 during the Twenty-eighth Alaska State
Legislature - that all students undergo a college and career
readiness assessment in order to obtain a high school diploma.
She mentioned that testimony from school districts indicates
that administering and preparing for such assessments uses up
teacher/student time and creates an administrative burden.
Repealing the requirement will save teachers and students time,
and the State both time and money, but will not preclude
students from undergoing college and career readiness
assessments at their own expense should they so choose. In
response to comments and questions, she offered her
understanding that assessment-fee waivers are available for
students meeting certain criteria; and that because "exit" exams
are no longer required, once the bill passes and a college and
career readiness assessment is no longer required, a student
will be able to obtain a diploma simply by meeting the
graduation criteria established by his/her high school.
MR. MORSE added that for purposes of ensuring that the State's
education dollars are being spent wisely, "accountability
assessments" will still be required and conducted.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS noted that requiring students to undergo a
college and career readiness assessment does nothing to ensure
that Alaska's schools are doing a good job.
MR. MORSE offered his belief that the intent behind requiring
students to undergo a college and career readiness assessment
was to get students to start thinking about and planning for
what they wanted to do after high school. He, too, offered his
understanding that assessment-fee waivers are available for
students meeting certain criteria.
12:35:10 PM
NORM WOOTEN, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards (AASB), referring to the proposed SCS for HB 44,
expressed concern with Section 6, which would prohibit a school
district from administering any questionnaire or survey without
written permission from parents and legal guardians. He
explained that currently the AASB administers the School Climate
and Connectedness Survey (SCCS), an evidence-based tool that
helps school districts eliminate unhealthy behavior and instead
promote positive behavior and the success of students. Results
of a school's SCCS are directly linked to academic achievement;
for example, the higher a school's "climate and connectedness"
ratings are, the higher also are its rates of student-
proficiency in reading, writing, and mathematics. If school
districts had to obtain written permission from parents before
administering a survey such as the SCCS, it is likely, he
predicted, that school districts would simply forgo
administering it because obtaining and maintaining written
permission from every parent would be too labor intensive. In
2014 the SCCS was administered to 32,600 students.
MR. WOOTEN, in response to comments and questions, predicted
that if schools choose not to administer the SCCS as a result of
passage of Section 6 as currently written, then they couldn't
take steps to correct problems such as bullying and alcohol/drug
abuse; concurred that as currently written, Section 2 might also
be problematic for similar reasons - it would be too labor
intensive to obtain and maintain written permission from every
parent; and pointed out that parents already have the right to
prevent their children from engaging in certain activities at
school. He ventured that school districts could simply provide
parents with notice of upcoming assessments, tests, activities,
classes, programs, questionnaires, and surveys at the beginning
of the school year, along with information regarding how to
withdraw their children from any they choose to. This would be
much less onerous than having to obtain written permission for
all such things from all parents.
12:46:00 PM
SENATOR HUGGINS pointed out, however, that school districts
already obtain written permission from parents for things like
engaging in extracurricular activities, going on field trips, or
being administered medication.
MR. WOOTEN countered that the numbers involved are far less, and
thus, from an administrative standpoint, require far less
effort. In response to comments and questions regarding
surveys, he pointed out that it's important to have enough
students taking a particular survey to ensure that the results
and the assumptions based thereon are valid for a given
population; again predicted that under the SCS as currently
written school districts would simply forgo administering
surveys like the SCCS because obtaining and maintaining written
permission from every parent would be too onerous. He explained
that of the two types of parental permission sought by schools,
"active" permission requires parents to specify that they do
give permission, whereas "passive" permission requires parents
to specify that they do not give permission. Currently,
administering the SCCS involves the use of passive permission.
SENATOR STEVENS, noting how important testing can be in terms of
determining whether a school is succeeding in educating
students, questioned whether federal funding would be impacted
if too many parents refused to let their children take a
particular test.
MR. WOOTEN surmised that the Department of Education and Early
Development (EED) could better address that issue. He noted,
though, that a lack of sufficient data on each and every student
could have a detrimental effect on the decisions a school
district makes for its students.
SENATOR STEVENS surmised, then, that if too many parents refuse
to let their children take a particular test or assessment, it
could jeopardize a school district's education efforts.
CHAIR DUNLEAVY disagreed and cautioned that the approach was
coercive. He provided an example of a parent who was against
testing for their child and maintained that a school district
could make use of the data of students who did take the tests.
He spoke of problems with schools "gaming the numbers. He
stressed that the purpose of school is to educate, not
indoctrinate. He questioned the value of over-regulating public
schools. He emphasized that kids belong to parents, not the
state.
SENATOR STEVENS pointed out that testing and assessing students
is the only way to determine whether a school district is
succeeding in educating its students - whether public funds are
being well spent. He again asked whether federal funding would
be impacted by low participation rates.
MR. MORSE concurred that tests and assessments can provide
accountability if the results are valid due to a high
participation rate. He explained that although low participation
rates could result in a decrease in federal funds, it is not yet
known whether this will be the case in Alaska.
1:12:36 PM
SENATOR STEVENS expressed concern with Section 16 of the
proposed SCS due to the fact that under it, the bill's proposed
new AS 14.30.355 and AS 14.30.356 are discretionary rather than
mandatory. He expressed a preference for requiring all school
district to establish training programs addressing sexual
abuse/assault awareness/prevention.
MR. MORSE concurred that under both current law and the proposed
SCS, each school district can decide whether to provide teacher
training programs to address sexual assault, sexual abuse of a
minor, and dating violence crimes. Many school districts
currently choose not to, and nothing under either current law or
any version of the bill would require school districts to hold
public meetings to address the issue. He expressed a preference
for using the word "shall", surmising that it would do more to
eradicate the problem. In response to a question about the
fiscal note submitted by the EED for HB 44, he indicated that
school districts themselves would be responsible for funding any
training programs addressing sexual abuse/assault
awareness/prevention. In response to a question regarding
Section 15 of the proposed SCS, he said he would research
whether school districts are currently required to pay for
teachers' physical exams.
1:21:50 PM
JANE URBANOVSKY, Certification & Licensing Administrator,
Certification & Licensing & Background Check Program, Division
of Health Care Services, Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS), in response to questions, explained that
Section 21 of the proposed SCS for HB 44 was included in order
to allow the EED to share the background-check information of
its certified teachers with the DHSS.
MS. PETERSON indicated concurrence.
1:26:40 PM
LISA SKILES PARADY, Ph.D., Executive Director, Alaska Council of
School Administrators (ACSA); Alaska Superintendents Association
(ASA), referring to Section 16 of the proposed SCS for HB 44,
said that students must be kept safe, and that educators share
in that responsibility. She characterized that section of the
bill as originally written was unfair to the public school
system because training programs were to be implemented without
any support. The original proposal added one more thing to the
already-enormous list of items educators must provide
instruction for without taking into account the staff time lost
from the regular curriculum. School districts will have to
absorb the cost of creating and evaluating a new policy, and
writing or purchasing a curriculum and related materials for the
teachers. And given the very sensitive nature of the topics
addressed by Section 16, any curriculum chosen would need to be
fully examined by qualified professionals, and not just chosen
because it's short or can be obtained for free from the
Internet. School districts will have to provide training for
the teachers themselves, and this too comes at cost, as will the
curriculum materials for students and teachers, and the
notifications to students, parents, and teachers.
DR. PARADY, noting that the proposed SCS for HB 44 contains
language from SB 102, expressed the ACSA/ASA's support for the
provisions that eliminate what she termed "unfunded mandates."
She also expressed support for the fact that under Section 16 as
currently written, it would no longer be mandatory for school
districts to provide students with sexual abuse/assault
awareness/prevention training - this is a welcome change from
the original language. In some ways, HB 44 is trying to use
schools to fix the problems with families, law enforcement, and
child protective services throughout Alaska. Schools are a part
of that solution, and they will embrace it. But a legitimate
question is whether "this partial effort" is the right solution
to the underlying problems, she remarked, particularly given
anticipated forthcoming budget cuts. Adding more to the plates
of school districts, when they are already faced with making
deep cuts to existing programs, isn't right. If legislators are
going to pass legislation providing sexual abuse/assault
awareness/prevention training to students, then they should also
provide sufficient resources to ensure that such training
programs can be successfully implemented.
SENATOR STEVENS indicated a belief that since some school
districts are absorbing the cost of providing sexual
abuse/assault awareness/prevention training, that all school
districts should do so.
CSHB 44(FIN) was held over, with the motion to adopt the
proposed Senate committee substitute (SCS) for HB 44 - labeled
29-LS0258\G, Glover, 5/18/15 - pending.