03/16/2016 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SCR1 | |
| HB102 | |
| HB156 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SCR 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 102 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 156 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 16, 2016
8:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Wes Keller, Chair
Representative Liz Vazquez, Vice Chair
Representative Jim Colver
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative David Talerico
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1(EDC)
Relating to a legislative task force on civics education.
- MOVED HCS CSSCR 1(EDC) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 102
"An Act providing for funding of educational services for
students in residential psychiatric treatment centers."
- 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."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SCR 1
SHORT TITLE: CIVICS EDUCATION TASK FORCE
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) STEVENS
01/21/15 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/15 (S) EDC, FIN
02/26/15 (S) EDC AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/26/15 (S) Heard & Held
02/26/15 (S) MINUTE (EDC)
03/12/15 (S) EDC AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/12/15 (S) Moved CSSCR 1(EDC) Out of Committee
03/12/15 (S) MINUTE (EDC)
03/16/15 (S) EDC RPT CS 4DP SAME TITLE
03/16/15 (S) DP: DUNLEAVY, STEVENS, HUGGINS, GARDNER
03/25/15 (S) FIN AT 2:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/25/15 (S) CLEAN AIR ACT PLAN
04/09/15 (S) FIN AT 1:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/09/15 (S) Moved CS SCR 1(EDC) Out of Committee
04/09/15 (S) MINUTE (FIN)
04/10/15 (S) FIN RPT CS (EDC) 5DP 2NR
04/10/15 (S) DP: KELLY, MACKINNON, BISHOP, DUNLEAVY,
HOFFMAN
04/10/15 (S) NR: MICCICHE, OLSON
04/13/15 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/13/15 (S) VERSION: CSSCR 1(EDC)
04/13/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/13/15 (H) EDC, FIN
02/03/16 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/03/16 (H) Heard & Held
02/03/16 (H) MINUTE (EDC)
03/16/16 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 102
SHORT TITLE: RESIDENTIAL PSYCH CTR; EDUC. STDRS/FUNDS
SPONSOR(s): EDUCATION
02/11/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/11/15 (H) EDC, FIN
03/20/15 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/20/15 (H) Heard & Held
03/20/15 (H) MINUTE (EDC)
04/08/15 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/08/15 (H) <Bill Hearing Rescheduled to 4/10/15>
04/10/15 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/10/15 (H) Heard & Held
04/10/15 (H) MINUTE (EDC)
04/13/15 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/13/15 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/15/15 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/15/15 (H) Heard & Held
04/15/15 (H) MINUTE (EDC)
02/01/16 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/01/16 (H) Heard & Held
02/01/16 (H) MINUTE (EDC)
02/10/16 (H) EDC AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 106
02/10/16 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/16/16 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 156
SHORT TITLE: SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES; FED. LAW
SPONSOR(s): KELLER
03/20/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/20/15 (H) EDC
03/30/15 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/30/15 (H) Heard & Held
03/30/15 (H) MINUTE (EDC)
04/08/15 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/08/15 (H) Heard & Held
04/08/15 (H) MINUTE (EDC)
04/10/15 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/10/15 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/13/15 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/13/15 (H) Heard & Held
04/13/15 (H) MINUTE (EDC)
03/14/16 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/14/16 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/16/16 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
TIM LAMKIN, Staff
Senator Gary Stevens
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the proposed committee substitute
(CS) for CSSCR 1(EDC).
JANET OGAN, Staff
Representative Wes Keller
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the proposed committee substitute
(CS) for HB 102, on behalf of the House Education Standing
Committee, which Representative Keller chairs.
EVELYN ALSOP, Education Director
North Star Behavioral Health
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing
on HB 102.
CAELA NIELSEN, Parent
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 102.
ED GRAFF, Superintendent
Anchorage School District (ASD)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 102.
KATHIE WASSMANN, Executive Director
Special Education
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with concern for HB 102.
JOSHUA BANKS, Staff
Representative David Talerico
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an amendment to HB 102, on behalf
of Representative Talerico.
DR. SUSAN MCCAULEY, PhD
Interim Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with concern for HB 156.
POSIE BOGGS
Alaskans for Reading Proficiency
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered comments on the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for SCR 1; testified on HB 156, Version 29-
LS0566\I.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:03:19 AM
CHAIR WES KELLER called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:03 a.m. Representatives Keller, Talerico,
Seaton, and Colver were present at the call to order.
Representatives Drummond, Spohnholz and Vazquez arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
SCR 1-CIVICS EDUCATION TASK FORCE
[Contains discussion of HB 89.]
8:03:59 AM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the first order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1(EDC), Relating to a
legislative task force on civics education.
8:04:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for CSSCR1(EDC), labeled 29-LS0237\I, Glover,
3/11/16, as the working document. Without objection Version I
was before the committee.
8:04:52 AM
TIM LAMKIN, Staff, Senator Gary Stevens, Alaska State
Legislature, presented the CS, with the incorporated changes and
notations of the requesting member, which read:
Change 1:
Page 1, Line 8, following "knowledge," INSERT:
"based on an understanding of the values of our
founders that are revealed in our founding documents,"
Intent: Requested by [Chair Keller], to give specific
reference to the U.S. founding documents.
Change 2:
Page 2, Lines 1, following "help":
DELETE: "ensure that schools"
INSERT: "encourage schools to"
Page 2, Line 2, following "for all students":
DELETE: "through"
INSERT: "in such a way so as to compliment"
Intent: Representative Seaton requested this to
clarify that the task force would not be adopting new
state standards for civics education.
Change 3:
Page 2, Line 14-20, following (4):
INSERT: "(5) Evaluate the merits of and implementation
requirements for requiring high school seniors to take
and satisfactorily pass the civics portion of the
naturalization test used by the United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services under 8 U.S.C.
1446(b) as a contingency of graduating from high
school;
(6) Review the merits of and consider ways to best
implement the Federal Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA), as it pertains to civics education in Alaska;"
Result: Adds two subsections to the duties of the task
force.
Intent: Incorporates the goal behind HB 89, and
considers new federal policy in the field of civics
education under ESSA.
Change 4:
Page 3, Lines 8-9:
DELETE: "one member of the National Education
Association [(NEA)] who is a"
INSERT: "one current or retired high school
teacher with significant teaching experience in civics
or social studies education in the state"
Intent: Chair's request to remove explicit reference
to the NEA.
8:09:41 AM
CHAIR KELLER expressed support for the bill and gratification
for inclusion of the specific language inserted on his request.
He stressed the importance for including the reference, and
paraphrased the proposed language from page 1, line 8, which
read:
... develop civics knowledge based on an understanding
of the values of the nation's founders as revealed in
the nation's founding documents, including knowledge
of our system of government and how it works, ...
8:10:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER turned to the fiscal note, and asked
whether civic groups, or other non-profits organizations, have
been solicited to cover the costs of the task force.
MR. LAMKIN indicated the frugality incorporated into the fiscal
note and that costs will be borne by members of the task force.
The fiscal note was previously zeroed out, he reported.
8:12:23 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:12 a.m. to 8:13 a.m.
8:13:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER moved to report the CS for CSSCR 1(EDC),
labeled 29-LS0237\I, Glover, 3/11/16, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
notes.
8:14:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for discussion, and upon
receiving clarification that the motion was on Version I,
removed his objection.
CHAIR KELLER without further objection HCS for CSSCR 1(EDC) was
reported from the House Education Standing Committee.
8:15:14 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:15 a.m. to 8:27 a.m.
HB 102-RESIDENTIAL PSYCH CTR; EDUC. STDRS/FUNDS
8:27:01 AM
CHAIR KELLER pointed out there have been a number of versions to
the bill with concerns the committee has tried to accommodate,
and the at ease was to ascertain a possible understanding.
8:27:28 AM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 102 "An Act providing for funding of educational
services for students in residential psychiatric treatment
centers." [Before the committee, adopted as a work draft on
2/1/16, was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 102,
Version 29-LS0519\I, Glover, 1/29/16.]
8:27:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 102, labeled 29-LS0519\S, as the working
document. Without objection Version S was before the committee.
8:28:29 AM
JANET OGAN, Staff, Representative Wes Keller, Alaska State
Legislature, described the changes contained in Version S, which
include: page 2, line 20, "may" was removed, and "shall" was
inserted; page 2, line 23, "school board" was eliminated, as it
will now apply to a proposed contract; page 4, line 19, the term
of the contract was extended from "one" year to "three" years,
to accommodate this pilot program.
8:30:01 AM
EVELYN ALSOP, Education Director, North Star Behavioral Health,
on request of Chair Keller, confirmed the proposed changes in
the new version, as described.
8:31:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to the CS page 2, line
20, to ask the intent behind the insertion of "shall", and what
mandate it places on districts for contracting with a licensed
provider.
MS. ALSOP responded that the "shall" was inserted to allow for
an appeal process.
8:32:36 AM
CAELA NIELSEN, Parent, stated support for HB 102, paraphrasing
from a prepared statement, which read [original punctuation
provided]:
I am writing this letter in support of HB 102. My
name is Caela Nielsen and I am the parent of a child
who has received mental health treatment in both the
long term and short term facilities at North Star.
The stress created in a family and a child when they
enter treatment is great and can often exacerbate the
already pre-existing conditions requiring treatment.
This is multiplied many times over when your child
does not receive education that is equivalent to the
education he would receive in his regular school
setting. My child has fallen behind in his schooling
and struggles to reintegrate into the public school
system due to this. Can you imagine being a child who
just received help for a serious mental health problem
and then being told you are now one year behind in
high school? This causes even more stress to the
family when trying to convince the child to continue
their education rather than drop out. My family
received the appropriate transition material for my
child to return to the community, however the struggle
was in getting the educational records needed for him
to transition back into school. Many of the classes
he took while in treatment did not align with classes
being offered at his high school. The treatment
facilities are in need of support in order to properly
meet the educational goals of all children. My son
has often times wanted to give up, but I have
advocated for him and he will return to school
however, it took a full week after we left North Star
to transition back into the public education system,
so he will now have even more educational material he
has missed. The current system for educating this
population does not work. I believe by passing HB102
the education and school transitions for children
receiving mental health treatment in Alaska will
greatly improve. North Star has the ability to
incorporate education with mental health, and when
working through the treatment team process create a
sound, supportive educational and transition plan for
each child. Please support this population of children
and pass this bill to support their educational
undertakings.
8:41:57 AM
ED GRAFF, Superintendent, stated opposition to HB 102,
paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read [original
punctuation provided]:
The Anchorage School District is committed to working
collaboratively with other organizations for the
benefit of our students. We have enjoyed strong
partnerships with Providence Hospital, Alaska
Psychiatric Institute, Alaska Child and Family,
Volunteers of America and Office of Children Services
to name a few. Through collaboration with clinical
care providers, we have continued to increase our
educational service and supports for our children with
the most complex mental health and behavioral needs.
The Anchorage School District agrees with most of the
legislative findings set forth at Section 1 of this
bill. Students admitted to residential treatment
facilities are entitled to educational services and
those services should not be compromised by virtue of
the fact that a student needs psychiatric treatment.
Where ASD disagrees is with paragraph (3) of Section
1, which provides that a treatment center, in some
instances, is able to provide more effective
educational services to a student than a school
district can provide. Additionally, ASD disagrees
with paragraph (7) that there is a demonstrated need
to provide uniform requirements to allow school boards
to enter into contracts for treatment centers to
provide educational services.
School districts exist to meet the educational needs
of students. That is their primary role. ASD is
unaware of any statistics or anecdotal information
supporting the premise that psychiatric treatment
centers are more able to provide educational services
to students than the public school district.
ASD believes that a strong working relationship with
these treatment centers is critical so that the
corresponding needs of students for education and
treatment can be accomplished. However, ASD also
believes that this bill is not premised upon a need of
students; but rather, upon a desire of certain private
treatment centers to take over educational services at
public expense. For this reason and others, ASD does
not support HB 102.
The Anchorage School District has several psychiatric
treatment facilities within its geographical
boundaries. Under current law, ASD is obligated to
and does serve all students who are admitted to these
treatment facilities, regardless of whether they are
ASD students or students from other Alaska school
districts. These current laws include both state law
(AS 14.30.186, AS 14.30.340, and AS 14.14.090) and
federal law (34 CFR 300.323).
Because of the presence of treatment facilities in
Anchorage, ASD serves a large number of Alaskan
students who are in need of residential psychiatric
treatment. For decades, ASD has met the general
education and special education needs of these Alaskan
students and intends to continue doing so. ASD
provides direct instructional support to students
through qualified teachers, administrators, and
support personnel. In Anchorage, where most students
are served, there is not a need for residential
treatment centers to provide educational services, nor
does ASD agree that such a center can provide more
"effective" educational services.
HB 102 has been compared to the charter school laws.
The "contract" provided for in HB 102 is comparable to
the charter school application required to be
submitted by charter school applicants. There is an
important difference, however, Charter schools are
public schools. They are not private treatment
centers.
Additionally, the charter school laws allow public
school districts to carefully consider the need for an
educational program like that proposed by the charter
school applicant. Under the law, the School Board has
broad authority and discretion to approve or deny a
charter school contract. Unlike the charter school
laws, HB 102 removes all discretion from school boards
because it requires a school district to execute a
contract so long as the contract meets the
requirements of the law. ("A school board shall enter
into a contract to provide payments to a residential
psychiatric treatment center ..." HB 102, Section 2.)
ASD believes that HB 102 is unconstitutional. Article
VII of the Alaska Constitution prohibits the
expenditure of public funds for the direct benefit of
a private educational institution. The Alaska Supreme
Court has stated that "the direct benefit prohibition
involves government aid to education conducted outside
the public schools." Sheldon Jackson v. State, 599
P.2d 127, 130 (Alaska 1979). HB 102 does exactly what
Sheldon Jackson v. State prohibits - it establishes a
system of education to be provided by a private
organization.
The fact that the private entities at issue also
provide treatment services does not mean that the
educational services they provide can be supported
with public funds. There's been some testimony that
by providing ancillary services these treatment
centers may not run afoul of the Constitution. This
is not accurate. Even if non-educational services are
provided, these private treatment centers would still
be accepting public funds for providing educational
services. The "contract" requirements of HB 102 are
designed to ensure that the educational services
comply with the same requirements in existence for
public schools.
The Alaska Supreme Court has also found that even
indirect support of private schools (such as providing
bus transportation to students) violates Alaska's
constitutional prohibition of using public funds for
private education; Matthews v. Quinton, 362 P.2d 932
(Alaska 1961). Here HB 102 provides for direct
payment of a local school district's educational funds
to a private treatment center for the sole purpose of
allowing that private center to provide educational
services to students.
Finally, ASD believes the appeal process provided for
in HB 102 is inappropriate. The proposed law provides
a private vendor with a statutory right to appeal the
district's decision to the Commissioner and the State
Board of Education. No other private vendor is
afforded this type of appeal in Alaska's system of
public education. This represents yet another example
of how public funds will be expended to support
private institutions.
Thank you to members of the committee for your
consideration of our written comments about HB 102.
We would welcome and appreciate an opportunity to
address the committee and describe in further detail
our program to support students in treatment
facilities, our record of success meeting these
students where they are and keeping them on track to
meet their educational goals, and our commitment to
serving these students now and into the future.
8:47:05 AM
KATHIE WASSMANN, Executive Director, Special Education,
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District, testified with
concern for HB 102, pointing out the individualized education
program (IEP) needs and requirements that the bill has not
addressed. The lack of an IEP becomes a liability to the school
district, not the contractor. Additionally, a means for
tracking student funding is not clearly stated in the bill, and
she provided several anecdotal scenarios for how special
education funds are determined and the administrative issues
that may arise. Solving the administrative concerns will incur
costs as a tracking system will need to be established. As a
parent with a daughter who has been in treatment, she said, when
a student falls behind in school issues can arise and the IEP
becomes crucial.
8:54:10 AM
CHAIR KELLER closed public testimony.
8:54:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ inquired what the procedure is for a
student to receive an IEP.
MS. ALSOP described the collaborative process that is entered
into when a student arrives. Parent's, certified teachers, the
designated oversight administrator from the district, and other
care providers, are included in meetings with the North Star
staff when addressing/modifying an IEP.
CHAIR KELLER confirmed that the parent is involved in the
process.
MS. ALSOP stressed that parental involvement is imperative.
8:56:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER noted that federal law holds a school
district responsible for providing special education services to
students. He asked about the school district's ability to
contract for those services, and how the districts
responsibilities are satisfied.
MS. ALSOP the intent of HB 102 is for the contractor to work
closely with the district to develop the IEP, with the parents
or other agencies involved with the student.
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER commented that this is a highly litigious
area and parents may become dissatisfied and bring charges
against any/all of the agencies involved.
CHAIR KELLER pointed out that the concept of an education is
held under the constitution.
9:00:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted that a number of changes have
recently been made to the North Star facility. She asked for an
updated overview from the contractor, as well as ASD.
9:02:14 AM
MS. ALSOP reviewed the situation beginning in September, and the
beginning of the school year. An immediate increase in
allocated time allowed for additional teaching staff, and the
hiring of an administrator to oversee the special schools
department was completed. Committee members visited in the
succeeding two months and during that time several issues were
apparent, some in the area of high priority needs, which
included: absence of computer equipment for accessing on-line
education; clear transitions between the neighborhood schools,
the treatment facility, and re-entry to school; oversight by the
administrator was not clear and apparent; transcripts were not,
and are still not, being aligned; and other lingering high
priority leads. She said that although the district has put
forth a good faith effort, to try to meet these needs, it is
still not possible for students to [matriculate] forward, as
expressed in the previous testimony, and continued:
It is our belief, she stated, that if we are allowed
to be able to integrate mental health with education,
we can provide a system that will help that child be
able to move forward and go back into their
neighborhood residential school and be on the same
track with their like peers. We also, do belief that
we have the ability to be able to provide a much
clearer transitional process.
9:05:32 AM
MR. GRAFF reported on the improvements, paraphrasing from a
prepared statement [subsequently made part of the committee
packet], which read [original punctuation provided]:
In order to support students in psychiatric treatment
and provide educational services at NSBHS in
Anchorage, ongoing conversations with the local
Educational Director and the Vice President of
Specialty Education of United Health Services of
Delaware, Inc., have occurred and resulted in the
following improvements;
1. Updated registration process with current ASD
enrollment packet;
2. Enhanced communication with parents of students
in psychiatric treatment at enrollment including
personal calls by the transitional counselor to ensure
appropriate course placement, IEP goals are addressed,
and accurate contact information is shared;
3. Facilitated communication with parent or guardian
and the receiving school to discuss transition plans
upon student discharge;
4. Scheduled weekly meeting between ASD Counselor
and NSBHS clinicians;
5. Purchased and installed technology upgrades by
ASK for NSBHS facility: 92 new computers; ten radio
controllers; complete reinstallation of an Anchorage
School District wireless network;
6. Increased staffing:
a. Sue Doherty was recently named as Principal of
Special Schools upon the death of Jerry Koetje in
December. Ms. Doherty has thirty years of special
education experience as a resource teacher, transition
specialist, department chair, supervisor of special
education, and an administrator. Most recently, she
served as an assistant principal at a comprehensive
high school transitioning students from residential
treatment facilities back to their neighborhood school
programs.
b. Transition Counselor position increased from .5
FTE (half time) to 1.0 FTE (full time).
c. Teacher positions increased from 6 FTE to 10
FTE.
7. Created Special Schools Office in ASD Education
Center as home base for ASD Special Schools Principal
and non-teaching staff;
8. Scheduled and conducted monthly staff meeting
with Special Schools personnel;
9. Conducted daily site visits to NSBHS by the
principal, counselor or special education department
chair;
10. Increased communications between ASD Special
Schools Principal and the hospital staff;
11. Established weekly meeting between the NSBHS
Education Director and ASD Special Schools Principal;
12. Affirmed all teachers are "Highly Qualified" in
relevant core areas of instruction;
13. Increased instructional day for acute care
students from a half-day to full day program at the
request of the NSBHS Director;
14. Established regular progress meetings with NSBHS
staff Mike Lyons and Evelyn Alsup, and ASD staff Mike
Henry, Executive Director of Secondary Education and
Sue Doherty, Special Schools Principal;
15. Scheduled quarterly progress meetings with NSBHS
staff Mike Lyons and Evelyn Alsup, and ASD staff Mike
Graham, Chief Academic Officer, Linda Carlson,
Assistant Superintendent for Instructional Support,
Mike Henry, Executive Director, Secondary Education
and Sue Doherty, Special Schools Principal;
16. Addressed reported staff shortages experienced by
North Star Behavioral Health System that result in
relocation of classrooms and increased class sizes,
without prior notice and on any given day, by
remaining flexible and committed to serving our
students.
In addition, ASD has responded to a list of priority
areas in need provided by NSBHS in December of 2015.
Because we are committed to serving all students and
enhancing our services through communication and
collaboration with community providers, we have
accommodated every request made by North Star
Behavioral Health System through United Health
Services of Delaware, Inc.
The Anchorage School District enjoys strong
partnerships with Providence Hospital, Alaska
Psychiatric Institute, Alaska Child and Family,
Volunteers of America and Office of Children Services
to name a few. Through cooperative engagement with
clinical care providers, we have continued to increase
our educational services and supports for our children
with the most complex mental health and behavioral
needs.
Anchorage School District is providing a supportive
educational program for students with acute
challenges. ASD disagrees with the premise that a
treatment center is able to provide more effective
educational services to a student than a school
district can provide. School districts are in the
best position to provide high quality public
educational services.
Given all that has been accomplished in providing
comparable general and special educational services to
students in psychiatric treatment, we believe this
bill is unnecessary legislation and could negatively
impact the school district's ability to support our
special needs students. As noted during the meeting,
the bill raises concerns about accountability under
IDEA, a highly litigious area, opening the door for
future conflicts.
HB 102 has been compared to the charter school laws.
Charter schools are public schools. They are not
private treatment centers. HB 102 abrogates the local
control of school boards to determine the need for
educational programs and circumvents school board
authority and discretion for approving or denying a
charter school contract. HB 1202 removes all
discretion from school boards because it requires a
school district to execute a contract so long as the
contract meets the requirements of the law.
HB 102 has far-reaching implications for districts
across Alaska. ASD has consistently expressed
concerns about HB 102. The Anchorage School District
cannot support HB 102 because districts will not
maintain control over the quality of education
delivered, there is potential for conflict over
accountability under IDEA a highly litigious area, and
the bill strips local school boards of the authority
to determine what educational programs are needed in
their districts.
For decades ASD has met the general education and
special education needs of Alaskan students in need of
residential psychiatric treatment and intends to
continue doing so. We appreciate the opportunity to
share these accomplishments and express our concerns
relative to HB 102.
9:09:51 AM
CHAIR KELLER closed public testimony.
9:09:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO offered Conceptual Amendment 1, labeled
29-LS0519\S.1, Glover, 3/15/16, which read:
Page 1, line 1, following "Act":
Insert "relating to school districts;"
Page 2, line 20, following "(a)":
Insert "A school district may enter into a contract to
provide payments to a residential psychiatric
treatment center that provides an educational program
for a student admitted to the center. If a school
district and a residential psychiatric treatment
center are unable to agree on a proposed contract on
or before April 1 immediately preceding the first
school year for which the residential psychiatric
treatment center is seeking funding, the school board
where a student who is admitted to the center is
enrolled shall enter into a contract with the center
as provided in (b) of this section.
(b)"
Page 2, line 7:
Delete "(b)"
Insert "(c)"
Page 2, line 26:
Delete "(b)"
Insert "(c)"
Page 3, line 6:
Delete "(b)(21)"
Insert "(c)(21)"
Page 4, line 14:
Delete "(a)"
Insert "(b)"
Page 4, line 23:
Delete "(c)"
Insert "(d)"
Page 4, line 24:
Delete "(a)"
Insert "(b)"
Page 4, line 27:
Delete "(d)"
Insert "(e)"
Page 4, line 30:
Delete "(e)"
Insert "(f)"
Delete "(a)"
Insert "(b)"
Page 5, line 7:
Delete "(f)"
Insert "(g)"
Page 5, line 12:
Delete "(g)"
Insert "(h)"
Page 5, line 15:
Delete "AS 14.30.800"
Insert "AS 14.30.800(f) - (g)"
Page 5, line 17:
Delete "AS 14.30.800(b)"
Insert "AS 14.30.800(c)"
CHAIR KELLER objected for discussion.
9:10:58 AM
JOSHUA BANKS, Staff, Representative David Talerico, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that Conceptual Amendment 1 is offered on
request of Legislative Legal Services due to concerns regarding
potential constitutional conflicts by setting different
standards for school districts which had entered into a contract
prior to January 1, of a given school year.
9:13:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO expressed concern for schools that have
working contracts in place with a treatment center. Without a
provision for them to continue the relationship, it will cause a
disruption in services in order to recreate a working system.
CHAIR KELLER removed his objection. Without further objection
Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
9:14:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ clarified the intent of the amendment,
and asked for comment from the contracting agency.
9:16:30 AM
MS. ALSOP stated support for the amendment as adopted.
9:17:03 AM
CHAIR KELLER REPRESENTATIVE offered Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Conceptual Amendment 1, to wit:
page 1, line 8:
following "contract"
insert "with the provision in (c)"
[No objection was voiced and the motion was treated as
withdrawn.]
9:18:13 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:18 a.m. to 9:21 a.m.
9:21:24 AM
CHAIR KELLER moved to rescind action on the adoption of
Amendment 1. Without objection Amendment 1 was withdrawn.
CHAIR KELLER announced HB 102 as held.
HB 156-SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES; FED. LAW
[Contains discussion of SCR 1]
9:22:25 AM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 156 "An Act relating to compliance with federal
education laws; relating to public school accountability; and
providing for an effective date." [Before the committee,
adopted as a work draft on 3/30/15, was the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 156, Version 29-LS0566\I, Glover,
3/28/15.]
9:22:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 156, labeled 29-LS0566\Y, Glover,
3/11/16, as the working document. Without objection Version Y
was before the committee.
9:23:08 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 9:23 a.m.
9:23:40 AM
CHAIR KELLER described the changes proposed in Version Y
beginning with Sec. 1, page 1, lines 7-13, and continuing on
page 2, lines 1-6, which read as follows:
*Section 1. AS 14.03.120(f) is amended to read:
(f) By January 15 of each year, beginning in 2001, the
department shall provide to the governor and make
available to the public and the legislature a report
on the performance of public schools in this state.
The report must be entitled "Alaska's Public Schools:
A Report Card to the Public." The report must include
(1) comprehensive information on each public
school compiled, collected, and reported under (d) and
(e) of this section for the prior school year;
(2) a summary of the information described in (1)
of this subsection; the summary must be prepared in a
manner that allows school performance to be measured
against established state education standards; and
(3) for a report due by or after January 15,
2005, the most recent performance designation under AS
14.03.123 received by each public school and by the
state public school system.
CHAIR KELLER explained that the inserted language is intended to
generate a report on the entire school system.
9:26:18 AM
CHAIR KELLER turned to page 2, lines 17-19, which read as
follows:
(2) a comparison of the state public school system to
public schools in other states, including a comparison
of student participation in standards based
assessments and student performance on the
assessments;
CHAIR KELLER explained that this language directs the State
Board of Education to compare the performance of Alaska's
students with that of students across the nation.
9:27:04 AM
CHAIR KELLER continued on page 2, lines [24]-29, which read as
follows:
(5) [(4)] additional measures that may be
progressively implemented by the commissioner to
assist schools or districts to improve performance in
accordance with this section; [AND WITH FEDERAL LAW;
TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO CONFORM TO FEDERAL LAW,]
the additional measures may be unique to a certain
school or district if that school or district receives
federal funding that is not available to all schools
or districts in the state.
CHAIR KELLER said the removal of this language is to conform
with a change made later in the bill, and indicated that he
would refer back to this section, when the other modification is
noted.
9:28:05 AM
CHAIR KELLER turned to Sec. 4, page 3, lines 6-9, which read:
The improvement plan must, to the extent possible,
include measures that increase local control of
education and parental choice and that do not require
a direct increase in state or federal funding for the
school or district.
CHAIR KELLER said this is a response to the new federal
regulations being instituted under the Every Student Succeeds
Act (ESSA) and to provide local accountability.
9:29:15 AM
CHAIR KELLER continued with Sec. 5, page 3, lines [11]-14, which
read:
(e) The department shall establish a program of
special recognition for those public schools that
receive a high performance designation, based on the
accountability system under (f) of this section, that
demonstrates an improvement over the school's
performance designation for 15 the previous year.
CHAIR KELLER said this is the aspect of the bill that requires
the state to establish a system of special recognition for the
schools that receive a high performance designation. The
recognition will be based on improvement, rather than status
quo. A school maintaining the standard, for many years, will be
incentivized to improve beyond the bar, he said, and there is
always room for improvement.
9:30:10 AM
CHAIR KELLER remained on page 3, lines 18-19, to indicate the
deleted Sec. 6 language, which read:
(1) [IMPLEMENT 20 U.S.C. 6301 - 7941 (ELEMENTARY AND
SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965), AS AMENDED;
CHAIR KELLER emphasized the importance of this change, as it
serves to remove the federal code, including ESSA, and ensures
district control. The interpretation of the language being
deleted, may be construed in a manner that would inhibit the
state legislature from establishing policy, as well as district
involvement in the process. He pointed out that the EED
attorneys do not consider this deletion to be a significant
change or threat.
9:31:54 AM
CHAIR KELLER continued with Sec. 6, page 3, lines 23-25, which
read:
(A) measures of student performance on standards-based
assessments in language arts and mathematics; the
assessments must be selected with the input of
teachers and school administrators and minimize
disruption to classroom instruction;
(B) measures of student improvement and academic
achievement; and
CHAIR KELLER said this language assures that the measures of
achievement are based on student improvement and actual
performance.
9:32:22 AM
CHAIR KELLER moved to Sec. 7, page 4, lines [5-10], which read:
(2) study the conditions and needs of the public
schools of the state, adopt or recommend plans,
administer and evaluate grants to improve school
performance awarded under AS 14.03.125, and adopt
regulations for the improvement of the public schools;
the department may consult with the University of
Alaska to develop secondary education requirements to
improve student achievement in college preparatory
courses;
CHAIR KELLER said the inserted language is intended to insure
that EED works in concert with the University of Alaska to
improve student achievement and provide appropriate preparatory
courses.
9:32:48 AM
CHAIR KELLER turned to Sec. 7, page 5, lines [16-20], which
read:
(12) provide educational opportunities in the areas of
vocational education and training, and basic education
to individuals over 16 years of age who are no longer
attending school; the department may consult with
businesses and labor unions to develop a program to
prepare students for apprenticeships or internships
that will lead to employment opportunities;
CHAIR KELLER explained that the insertion here is to address
businesses and labor union collaboration for the same purpose as
the language inserted in the previously reviewed paragraph (2).
9:33:08 AM
CHAIR KELLER pointed out page 6, line 5, and the reference
change, inserting AS 14.03.123(f)(1)(A) and removing [AS
14.03.123(f)(2)(A)]. He said this relates to the inclusion and
consideration of the classroom teachers and local districts.
9:33:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND returned to page 2, lines 17-19, to
express support for the added paragraph and ask for further
elaboration on the proposed language.
CHAIR KELLER replied that it changes the accountability segment
of law. He anticipates that the comparisons will be made via
assessments such as the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP). The assessments will not be named in the bill
as it will be up to the board to make those determinations, he
said, and added that it may also consider the inclusion of
international standards.
9:35:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ directed attention to page 2, lines 1-3,
which read:
(2) a summary of the information described in (1) of
this subsection; the summary must be prepared in a
manner that allows school performance to be measured
against established state education standards; and
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ suggested amending this to include "and
national education standards," to remain consistent with the
page 2, lines 17-19 language [paragraph (2)].
9:36:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER asked if the CS contains opt-out
provisions for parents who object to testing.
9:37:22 AM
CHAIR KELLER directed attention to Sec. 8, page 6, lines 13-31,
and continuing on page 7, lines 1-3, which read:
* Sec. 8. AS 14.07 is amended by adding a new section
to read: Sec. 14.07.175. Development of statewide
assessment plan; review of education laws and
regulations. (a) Notwithstanding AS 14.03.078,
14.03.120, 14.03.123, 14.03.300, 14.03.310, AS
14.07.020, 14.07.030, 14.07.165, or a provision of
federal law to the contrary, the department may not
require a school district or school to administer a
statewide standards-based assessment after July 1,
2016, and before July 1, 2018. The department and the
board shall create a plan for working with school
districts to develop or select statewide assessments
that are approved by school districts. The plan must
provide for the first administration the assessments
not later than the school year that begins in 2020.
(b) The department shall review state education laws
and regulations to identify unnecessary laws or
regulations and areas where the laws or regulations
may be changed to provide school districts with
greater control over public education policy in light
of the enactment of the Every Student Succeeds Act,
P.L. 114-95.
(c) On or before January 1, 2018, the department shall
submit a report to the senate secretary and chief
clerk of the house of representatives and notify the
legislature that the report is available. The report
must describe
(1) the final plan for developing or selecting
statewide assessments as 3 required under (a) of this
section; and
(2) recommendations for changes in laws or
regulations as required under (b) of this section.
(d) In this section, "school district" has the meaning
given in AS 14.30.350.
CHAIR KELLER termed this to be the most important section of the
bill, and said notwithstanding the existing statutes that apply
to assessment and performance standards, this section
establishes that EED may not require a school district to
administer a standard based test assessment, after July 1, 2017.
The language is not stated as an opt-out provision, but it
creates a timeframe when tests will no longer be required. The
current reauthorization of NCLB to ESSA will take some time to
assimilate, and the bill provides the time-out to accomplish
that task. The assumption is that the commissioner of education
will be in conversation and negotiation with the U.S. Department
of Education to ensure that federal funding remains secure.
This is a reasonable action, he opined, and reported that
California has paved the way with similar, successful,
negotiations. Further, he stated his belief that the bill
provides an important tool for the governor/commissioner for
negotiation purposes and provide adequate time for the state to
review Title 14 and establish clearly defined accountability and
assessment requirements and standards.
9:41:05 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:41 a.m. to 9:43 a.m.
9:43:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked whether a legal opinion is
forthcoming.
CHAIR KELLER responded that an earlier version is under legal
review, and comments, thus far, indicate that federal funds may
be at risk, but the constitutionality is not under question.
9:45:36 AM
DR. SUSAN MCCAULEY PhD, Interim Commissioner, Department of
Education and Early Development (EED), turned to page 2, lines
17-19, and said the ability for Alaska to accomplish the stated
comparison requirements would depend on two situations. First,
the ability to leverage results of like assessments that are
administered by both Alaska and other states. Or the board
would need to determine other factors that constitute a
sufficient comparison of Alaska's state system to that of other
states; such as graduation rates. Alaska currently utilizes a
unique, custom designed, assessment: the Alaska Measures of
Progress (AMP). The proposed language suggests that AMP will be
replaced and an alternative assessment adopted which would align
with that of other states. However, other than the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), there is no other
uniform assessment administered by all of the states. Every
state is free to choose assessments, and some do as Alaska did,
and administer unique assessments.
9:48:55 AM
CHAIR KELLER passed the gavel to Vice Chair Vazquez.
9:49:01 AM
CHAIR KELLER said the intent of the bill is to require an
assessment comparison, but not to mandate a specific type of
test for the state. In the past NAEP has been specified, but
has received resistance. He acknowledged that the proposed
language may need to be clarified.
9:49:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked for elaboration on NAEP.
COMMISSIONER MCCAULEY offered that NAEP is also referred to as
the Nation's assessment, as it's the only assessment required by
the federal government. The test is administered to a sampling
of students, in two grade levels, and national comparisons are
drawn from the statistics.
9:50:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked if it is possible to administer the
NAEP to every child in the state.
COMMISSIONER MCCAULEY stated her understanding that the sampling
system used is a prescribed and exclusive methodology and she
offered to confirm her statement.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND opined that NAEP is a thorough, grade
specific, assessment, and the results have continued to prove
useful.
9:54:02 AM
COMMISSIONER MCCAULEY moved to Sec. 8, page 6, lines 13-31, and
continuing on page 7, lines 1-3, to address the timeframe and
proposed deadline. Currently, the state is under contract with
the Achievement and Assessment Institute (AAI) [University of
Kansas] to deliver and administer AMP. It was decided in
February [2016], that the department would issue a request for
proposal (RFP) to replace the AMP assessment. Federal and state
law requires that an annual assessment be administered to all
students in grades 3-8 as well as all high school levels. She
said completing the proposal process by next spring constitutes
a "tall order," and described the steps involved, which include:
issuing the proposal, receiving and reviewing responses,
selecting viable proposals, and formulating a new assessment.
Whether the assessment chosen is custom designed, or off the
shelf, she said aspects will need to be tailored to include
elements that pertain specifically to Alaska. Checks and
balances will need to be considered in the areas of cultural
bias and sensitivity of items given the unique demographics of
the state. The job must be done right, she stressed, and doing
it fast, although possible, may compromise the outcome. Thus,
the challenge is doing it right, as well as fast, at the same
time. There may be an opportunity, and some wiggle room, she
conjectured and directed attention to page 6, lines 15-17, which
read:
Notwithstanding AS 14.03.078, 14.03.120, 14.03.123,
14.03.300, 14.03.310, AS 14.07.020, 14,07.030,
14.07.165, or a provision of federal law to the
contrary, the department may not ...
COMMISSIONER MCCAULEY opined that it would be beneficial to
negotiate an understanding of state requirements, with the U.S.
Department of Education; given the reauthorization transition.
The ESSA law is very different than NCLB, and an enormous
transition is occurring throughout the field of education on a
national level. Alaska has already begun the transition and the
confluence might provide room for negotiation by establishing
what the federal government will minimally require by the spring
of 2017. She opined that it's improbable that the U.S.
Department of Education would grant a two year reprieve from
administering a statewide assessment. Additionally, the state
may question the wisdom in not collecting assessment data on the
students for a period of two years. However, quality is a
concern, and to have all of the conditions previously stated,
met by the spring of 2017, will make that a difficult period,
she underscored.
9:59:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER cautioned that rushing to prepare an
assessment may not prove beneficial, and the superintendents
need to be heard. The elements of the bill address reform that
is necessary, he opined, and a hiatus would be appropriate. He
agreed that being prepared with a new regimen by spring of 2017
may not be plausible. He then referred to the CS page 6, line
17 to point out the term "may" and opined that "shall" could be
more appropriate in this section.
10:02:44 AM
POSIE BOGGS, Alaskans for Reading Proficiency, offered comments
on SCR1 and HB 156, from a prepared statement, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
I'm involved now in six advocacy groups focused on
reading proficiency for Alaskan children for example
Literate Nation Alaska and the Alaska Branch of the
International Dyslexia Association.
I would like to testify on SCR 1 and HB 156.
First, I would simply like The Civics Education Task
Force to know a couple of little details that I think
are important to their work. I would like them to
know the grade level reading required for the United
States original or founding documents. The
Declaration of Independence requires a 12th grade
reading ability, the Federalist papers require an 18th
grade, college graduation reading ability, and the
Constitution of the United States requires a 17th
grade reading ability. Given that only 30% of Alaskan
students graduate high school able to read at the 12th
grade level, I think we have a little bit of a
problem. School districts are not meeting the needs of
our students.
Second, I would like to testify on HB 156. However,
my testimony can also be related to HB 102. You just
heard from a mother on HB 102 and the effects of low
reading proficiency on mental health.
In HB 156, I'm very much in support of item number
five, line 6 in page 2 [CS for HB 156, 29-LS0566\I,
Glover, 3/28/15, previously adopted 3/30/15].
That states the methodology used to assign the state
public school system of performance designation that
compares the state public school system to public
school systems in other states and countries. I
believe that this the most important drivers that can
in proof Alaska's dismal reading proficiency levels.
Rep. Keller thank you very much for supporting
matching the rigor of National standards because we
can do it. I would further recommend that on page 3,
line 23 be changed to assess English language arts
that reports reading proficiency as a unique and
separate result. What the heck is English Language
Arts anyway is the question asked by parents.
However, on page 2 line 16 where it gives preference
to measures that increase local control.
I have some concerns. My main concern is that reading
instruction is scientifically evidenced but our
teachers and their own educators often do not have
this knowledge because the research about reading
occurs outside of education. Many do not even know
that it exists. If we continue to leave reading
instruction up to local control this means that a
school or district or school board can continue
choosing to ignore and discount scientific evidence
from over 35 National Institutes of Health reading
research centers for over 40 years. If we do allow
schools, districts, and school boards to continue
current practices, Alaskan children are doomed to
ridiculously low reading proficiency levels. I want
the legislature to make a plan to uphold their
responsibility per the Moore Case to ensure our
children are proficient readers. My masters is in
Educational diagnostics and Section 8 taking a break
is a good idea however, in the mean time I would also
recommend that there are quick standardized reading
assessment tools that schools and districts could give
to students that would provide a very accurate reading
proficiency score so that parents know while this
transition period happens. They are low cost and
group administered.
10:09:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ returned the gavel to Chair Keller.
10:09:16 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:09 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SCR1_CivicsEd_BillText_VersionI.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2016 8:00:00 AM |
SCR 1 |
| Work Draft for {versioni} 3/16/2016.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2016 8:00:00 AM |
|
| SCR1_CivicEd_VersionI_Summary_of_Changes.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2016 8:00:00 AM |
SCR 1 |
| SCR1 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2016 8:00:00 AM |
SCR 1 |
| Work Draft for {version s HB102} 3/16/2016.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 102 |
| 6 HB102 Fiscal Note EED-SS 3-13-15.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 102 |
| HB 102 ASD Opposition House Education Committee Letter 031516.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 102 |
| HB156 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2016 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 1. HB156 Work draft Y.pdf |
HEDC 3/14/2016 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/16/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| HB102 North Star Response to Kenai Peninsula School District.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 102 |