Legislature(2021 - 2022)DAVIS 106
03/23/2022 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB312 | |
| HB350 | |
| HB108 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 108 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 312 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 350 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 23, 2022
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Harriet Drummond, Co-Chair
Representative Andi Story, Co-Chair
Representative Tiffany Zulkosky
Representative Grier Hopkins
Representative Mike Prax
Representative Mike Cronk
Representative Ronald Gillham
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 312
"An Act relating to dress codes and natural hairstyles."
- MOVED HB 312 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 350
"An Act relating to school bond debt reimbursement; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 350 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 108
"An Act relating to concurrent vocational education, training,
and on-the-job trade experience programs for students enrolled
in public secondary schools; relating to child labor; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 108(EDC) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Professional Teaching Practices Commission
- HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 312
SHORT TITLE: ALLOW NATURAL HAIRSTYLES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TARR
02/09/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/09/22 (H) EDC, L&C
03/11/22 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
03/11/22 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/14/22 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
03/14/22 (H) Heard & Held
03/14/22 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/23/22 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
BILL: HB 350
SHORT TITLE: SCHOOL BOND DEBT REIMBURSEMENT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) DRUMMOND
02/22/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/22 (H) EDC, FIN
03/04/22 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
03/04/22 (H) Heard & Held
03/04/22 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/14/22 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
03/14/22 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/16/22 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
03/16/22 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/23/22 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
BILL: HB 108
SHORT TITLE: CONCURRENT SECONDARY & TRADE SCHOOL
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MCCARTY
02/22/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/21 (H) EDC, L&C, FIN
04/09/21 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
04/09/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/09/21 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
02/23/22 (H) EDC AT 3:30 PM DAVIS 106
02/23/22 (H) Heard & Held
02/23/22 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/04/22 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
03/04/22 (H) Heard & Held
03/04/22 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/14/22 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
03/14/22 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/16/22 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
03/16/22 (H) Heard & Held
03/16/22 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/23/22 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, answered questions and
provided information on the proposed CS for HB 108, [Version W].
DEBORAH RIDDLE, Division Operations Manager
Innovation and Education Excellence
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 108, [Version W].
JIM ANDERSON, Chief Finance Office
Anchorage School District
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions and provided information
during the hearing on HB 108, [Version W].
JAMIE BURGESS, Superintendent
Nome Public Schools
Nome, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony on HB 108,
[Version W].
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:04:24 AM
CO-CHAIR HARRIET DRUMMOND called the House Education Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. Representatives
Hopkins, Gillham, Cronk, Prax, Zulkosky, Story, and Drummond
were present at the call to order.
HB 312-ALLOW NATURAL HAIRSTYLES
8:05:29 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 312, "An Act relating to dress codes and
natural hairstyles."
8:05:57 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY moved to report HB 312 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, HB 312 was reported out of the House
Education Standing Committee.
8:06:19 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:06 a.m. to 8:10 a.m.
[During the at-ease, Co-Chair Drummond passed the gavel to Co-
Chair Story.]
HB 350-SCHOOL BOND DEBT REIMBURSEMENT
8:10:14 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 350, "An Act relating to school bond debt
reimbursement; and providing for an effective date."
8:10:41 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND, as prime sponsor, stated that HB 350 simply
would open up the process for school districts to collaborate
with the governing bodies within their communities to create
school bonds for presentation to their voters. She added that,
according to the Department of Education and Early Development
(DEED), the process would take a couple of years before the
first set of bond issues would come before voters and the
legislature, thus the fiscal note would be indeterminate. There
would not be a funding commitment until 2024, when the
legislature and the governor could agree to return to the school
bond debt reimbursement promises, as made and fulfilled for
decades. She urged the committee to move the proposed
legislation to the House Finance Committee where future
implications could be discussed.
8:12:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX questioned whether Legislative Legal
Services has been consulted on the issue of one community
obligating the entire state to pay for school bonds. He
expressed the concern that the state would be committing to
bonds without a statewide vote.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND responded that the legislature is mandated to
spend a certain amount of funding on rural schools and
communities that do not have taxing authority. She asserted
that the Alaska State Constitution directs that a system of
public schools be maintained, which not only means paying
teachers and providing students with transportation, but also
maintaining school facilities. She argued that communities with
taxing authority contribute to the operation of schools through
the foundation formula and also contribute when a school is
built, repaired, or remodeled. She directed attention to a
spreadsheet from 2015, showing that when the school bond debt
moratorium was first put in place there were 21 school districts
around the state that had bond issues at various levels of
repayment, including all the urban school districts that had
passed a significant amount of bond issues. She said that in
2015 Senate Bill 64 [passed during the Twenty-Ninth Alaska State
Legislature] ended school bond reimbursement for new bond debt
from 2016 until 2020. In 2020 the legislature extended the
moratorium to 2025. Since 2015, only Anchorage and the North
Slope Burrough have put school bonds before their voters, taking
on 100 percent of the responsibility for paying off the bond
debts. She stressed that paying off the debt is expensive. She
said that before the moratorium the state reimbursed Anchorage
an average of 65 percent of school bond debt. She offered the
comparison that a property tax before the moratorium of $35
would equal a $100 property tax now. She deduced that the
proposed legislation would actually be a tax reduction on local
property taxes. She expressed appreciation for the support of
the proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX stated that he understands the history of
school bond debt in the state; he expressed the belief that the
problem would be that [a decision to build a new school would
force those who have no voice in the matter to pay for that
school]. He questioned whether Legislative Legal Services has
been asked for an opinion. He argued that the vote on school
bonds should be put to the legislature.
8:17:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS posed the question to Representative Prax
on how the proposed legislation would not conform to the Alaska
State Constitution, specially.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX explained that, in his opinion, it would be
unfair for certain communities to obligate the legislature. He
stated that the legislature is supposed to represent the entire
state, but the legislature would not get a vote on bond issues.
He said, "For four years I've watched bond elections and ...
their selling point is somebody else is going to pay for it."
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS stated that [school bond reimbursement]
was in effect for several decades before the 2015 cancellation.
He asserted that if school bond debt reimbursement was not
legally sound, then it would have been challenged decades ago.
He voiced his strong support of HB 350.
8:18:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK expressed the understanding that any new
bonds after 2015 would not be reimbursed, and HB 350 would
continue only what was in place before 2015. He requested
clarification that any bonds after 2015, up to this point, would
not be reimbursed.
8:19:08 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND stated that, prior to 2015, the state was
reimbursing school bond debt. She asserted that the proposed
legislation would simply return to the procedures in place
before 2015. She pointed out that the indeterminate fiscal note
for the proposed legislation relays that DEED does not know how
many municipalities would qualify under the program and when
they may seek voter approval for new school capital debt. The
school districts and municipalities would work with DEED to
determine projects that would qualify and to determine the
reimbursement amount. She stated that a new school building
would qualify at a different level of reimbursement than major
repairs of school facilities. She stated that DEED maintains a
list of priority capital projects that is currently around $200
million. She added that every school district in the state has
projects which qualify for reimbursement. She said that capital
funds should be applied to those projects "because the state may
stop reimbursing, but the kids don't stop trooping through the
schools ... and the buildings continue to wear and tear and need
repair." She argued that the state is way behind on this.
8:22:02 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY observed that once new school bond debt
reimbursement is approved, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough would
have more new bonds; because of the increase in student
enrollment, new buildings would be needed. She expressed the
opinion that it is the state's responsibility to help, and this
is a way to help.
8:22:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to report HB 350 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 350 was reported out of the
House Education Standing Committee.
8:23:09 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:23 a.m. to 8:31 a.m.
[During the at-ease, Co-Chair Story passed the gavel to Co-Chair
Drummond.]
HB 108-CONCURRENT SECONDARY & TRADE SCHOOL
8:31:36 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 108, "An Act relating to concurrent
vocational education, training, and on-the-job trade experience
programs for students enrolled in public secondary schools;
relating to child labor; and providing for an effective date."
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND announced that [Amendment 1] was adopted [on
3/4/22]. She stated that the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED) generated a new fiscal note in advance,
confirming there would be no change to the zero fiscal note for
the Department of Public Safety (DPS). She notified the
committee that the fiscal note and the accompanying memorandum
from DPS were provided in the committee packet. She stated
that, although there has been no updated information, the
amendment would unlikely change the previous zero fiscal note
for Department of Labor and Workforce Development. She said
that the proposed committee substitute is accompanied by a
memorandum from Legislative Legal Services, of which the bill
sponsor is prepared to address. She stated that the memorandum
and the draft of the committee substitute are also included in
the committee packet.
8:33:02 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute
(CS) for HB 108, Version 36-LS0345\W, Klein/Marx, 3/17/22, as a
working document. There being no objection, Version W was
before the committee.
8:34:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, answered questions on the proposed CS for HB 108,
Version W. He directed the committee to the last two sentences
in the memorandum from Legislative Legal Services that
questioned whether DEED would continue to establish eligibility
standards for agencies that contracted with school districts.
He stated that in Version W school districts would have more
authority in contracting and monitoring career and technical
education (CTE) programs, while DEED would maintain eligibility
standards by requiring agencies to have type M Certificates,
pass background checks, and continue standards of education
which already exist. He stated the school districts would
manage the remainder of the CTE programs, as written in the
bill.
8:36:26 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 8:36 a.m.
8:36:49 AM
DEBORAH RIDDLE, Division Operations Manager, Innovation and
Education Excellence, Department of Education and Early
Development, responded to the question in the memorandum from
Legislative Legal Services on HB 108, Version W. She stated
that DEED would continue to establish eligibility standards as
set out in the legislation.
8:37:44 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY reviewed that, in accordance with Version W, the
school districts would have the responsibility to coordinate
with industry partners so the DEED's [education specialist]
position and the $100,000 in funding would be removed from the
fiscal note. She expressed interest in [what would happen with]
the $1,000 per student, represented by $260,000 in the fiscal
note. She questioned whether a [new] fiscal note would give
this funding to districts, as they would be charged with making
contracts with providers. She then pointed out Version W would
give school districts the responsibility to create and monitor
individual learning plans (ILPs). She expressed the
understanding that this effort would be a collaboration between
parents and school counselors. She questioned the process of
creating ILPs.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY deferred Co-Chair Story's questions to
Jim Anderson and Jamie Burgess.
8:41:21 AM
JIM ANDERSON, Chief Finance Office, Anchorage School District
(ASD), responded that he did not have an answer for Co-Chair
Story's question concerning the $1,000 per student on the
original fiscal note. Addressing CTE programs in ASD, he stated
that, before the COVID-19 pandemic, the programs were stronger.
He added that ASD had partnerships with over 93 different
businesses and programs covering 21 distinct career fields. He
stated that ASD is rebuilding and strengthening pathways again
for students, as [industry partners] are looking for a future
workforce. He expressed the belief that many businesses realize
there will be a competition for skilled employees. He stated
that there has been little cost to the district for the
partnerships to be arranged. He allowed that the district may
have to pay to transport students to [CTE locations].
MR. ANDERSON stated, [per Version W], ASD would contract with
CTE providers through a memorandum of agreement (MOA). He
explained that if there are several businesses which have the
same skill needs, ASD would not be obligated to make an MOA with
every business. He continued that some businesses may require
ASD to pay a sum of money, while other programs would be free.
He stated that the MOA would be made with the business which
offers the best value for the district and for the students. He
outlined that if a program has a guaranteed entry into the
workforce, but costs money, this program may provide the best
value and opportunity for students. He expressed the opinion
that there are not enough students in the area to meet
Anchorage's skilled-labor needs. He said that, from past
experience, the district has not had to pay for contracts, as
there are many businesses in the area looking for future
employees. He said there are career fields such as bio-medical,
telecommunications, carpentry, horticulture, vet-assistant,
welding, art design, and more. He suggested that, because of
its size and scope, ASD would provide more [CTE] opportunities
than other districts. He maintained that the cost has not been
a focus for ASD in the past. He stated that the vast majority
of high school students do not graduate college, and the
district's focus has been on career, life-ready preparation so
students can enter the workforce. He indicated that this
approach has been very successful.
MR. ANDERSON, in response to a follow-up question from Co-Chair
Story, stated that ASD already has programs in place, and course
credit cannot be given without an ILP. He stated that, because
he is not an educator, he does not know the details of the ILPs,
and can only offer what he has been told: in order to get course
credit for hours spent in CTE, an ILP would be required.
8:46:14 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND stated that the Alaska Vocational Education
Center (AVTEC) in Seward offers postsecondary education, but the
program does not produce enough students to fill all the job
requests. She indicated that this speaks to the job market in
Anchorage. She observed that ASD is prepared to meet the
challenge.
8:46:47 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY stated that the legislation reads that school
districts "shall" negotiate contracts with businesses. She
offered the understanding from Mr. Anderson's comments that
school districts would not be required to contract with every
business which may have interest.
MR. ANDERSON replied that this is his understanding of the
legislation, as it would be unrealistic for every business that
approaches the district to have a contract and receive $1,000
per student. He expressed the belief that districts are
required to develop MOAs in accordance with students' needs. He
stated that he does not read the bill as a mandate to allow
businesses to demand money from school districts. He offered
that, whether it is Volunteers of America or a business, ASD
would negotiate an MOA. He speculated that some of the
businesses in Anchorage would not want to meet the requirements
to provide fingerprints, background checks, and industry-
standard trainers. He stated ASD would focus on student needs
and find the best value. He deferred to the bill sponsor.
CO-CHAIR STORY referenced page 7, line 23 of [Version W] and
questioned in what circumstance a district would pay tuition in
a contracted CTE program.
MR. ANDERSON responded that there could be a unique CTE program
with only one business available. In this case there could be a
cost, but [Version W] does not create a mandate to meet the
desires of businesses. He stated that the process would require
a joint negotiation. He explained that all over Anchorage
businesses are having problems filling positions, as businesses
everywhere are looking for a future workforce and these students
would already be ready to work, so this would be an investment
in the future. He stated that, just like all contracting,
entities look for a win-win situation, and ASD would approach
the MOAs with CTE providers this way.
CO-CHAIR STORY offered her support of the legislation but
expressed concern that not all districts have counselors. She
voiced that she would like assurance that districts would have
resources needed for the programs, and the [proposed
legislation] would not result in an unfunded mandate.
8:52:14 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND stated that ASD has already developed 21
different career fields. She questioned whether this
development has been through the Martin Luther King, Jr.
Technical High School ("King Tech") and CTE programs in the
other high schools.
MR. ANDERSON answered in affirmation. He stated ASD has been
working with industry partnerships for quite a few years and
Missy Fraze is the "CTE-expert guru" leading the effort. He
stated it would take time to create MOAs that conform to the
proposed legislation's requirements, but it would be worth the
effort to have students able to get jobs. He pointed out that
Dr. [Deena] Bishop did a nationwide study indicating 90 percent
of all the students who did not graduate high school remain
within 10 miles of where they lived. He expressed the opinion
that either students [in Alaska] are promoted to become
successful members of society, or "we're going to deal with it
for a long time." He expressed the opinion that more than just
English and math need to be [taught] in order to build the
future. He observed that students in CTE programs finally
understand the importance of math and other required subjects,
and all these subjects help make the education experience
stronger.
8:54:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX offered the understanding that [Version W]
enables school districts to establish contracts, but specific
contracts are not required, and the school districts are not
required to pay contractors.
MR. ANDERSON answered in agreement. He indicated that, even
though ASD has not done the types of MOAs required by the
legislation, the district would be willing. When ASD developed
partnerships in the past, as with any good business officer, it
looked for the best value. He expressed the belief the
legislation does not impose districts to be at the demand of
industries. Instead, the district would be the initiator of
partnerships. He said, "When you are the initiator, you have
the high road." In response to a follow-up question, he stated
that currently ASD is not paying any fees to CTE contractors.
He stated that there have been some minor fees for certification
tests and exams in the past, which the district has paid. He
suggested that if a student wanted to develop a skillset and the
provider asked the district to pay the $250 fee for the
certification test, the district would do that.
MR. ANDERSON, in response to a follow-up question, stated that
the fee would come out of the district's general fund, but
hypothetically, it could also come from the Carl D. Perkins
Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006 ("Perkins
IV"). He continued that grants do not really provide enough
funding and the foundation formula has its own challenges with
CTE. He argued that, per the $250 certification fee, during the
time industry partners would be providing services, ASD would
not be paying for the student's supervision, training, or
material costs. These costs would not be absorbed by the school
while a student is job shadowing or involved in on-the-job
training. He stated that ASD has intentionally not partnered
with providers who would charge an exorbitant fee because the
district can find partnerships without costs. He suggested that
if a student and his/her family is struggling financially, the
district would help with transportation, as the Municipality of
Anchorage would provide free busing. He stated that when the
Municipality of Anchorage gives a discounted rate and high
school students learn public transportation is a viable option,
a future ridership would be built. He stated that this would be
a win-win partnership with not much monetary outlay, and
students who have gone through CTE programs become viable,
employable adults. He continued that he would not be testifying
[in favor of the legislation] if there was concern about the
money.
9:01:08 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND questioned whether students working and
learning in local Anchorage businesses are paid by the
businesses or whether this would be free labor.
MR. ANDERSON responded that he does not know if students are
paid while they are receiving course credit. He added that [CTE
programs] would open up opportunities for summer jobs where they
would receive pay. He stated he would confer with Ms. Fraze and
send her answer to the committee and bill sponsor. He stated
there had been a discussion some time ago, of which he had the
understanding that no pay would go through the district.
9:03:04 AM
MR. ANDERSON responded to Representative Hopkins that, whether
the bill passes or not, ASD would still utilize MOAs, as defined
in the legislation, and reach toward this process as a goal. He
stated that ASD agrees with what the bill proposes, as it
further strengthens the legitimacy of training programs.
Knowing most of the students [in the state] do not graduate
college, he said training programs and career readiness are good
for students, and ASD would move forward whether the bill passes
or not. In response to a follow-up question, he stated that the
district is not paying any private employers who are currently
contracted to provide CTE.
MR. ANDERSON, in response to a follow-up question, stated that,
up to this point, the agreements made with the providers have
not required the instructors to be credentialed. He suggested
that [if the legislation passes] it would be a new start, but
this would not mean an immediate obligation to have fully
worked-out MOAs with credentialed partners. He stated that ASD
would probably still have job shadowing, and if a student goes
into a field with no confirmed standard, the student would still
be allowed to participate. He maintained that, most likely,
there would be a combination of job shadowing and on-the-job
training with business partners who are credentialed and with
those who are not. He insisted that the opportunities for
students would not be limited, even if an industry standard
could not be confirmed, as in something like art design. He
stated that for some programs new partnerships may have to be
developed, but either way, ASD's path would be a career-ready
approach. He stated that, as for the prediction on how many
partners would not be able to meet the need, this would be
unknown until the path is taken.
MR. ANDERSON, in response to a follow-up question, expressed the
expectation that Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District
(MSBSD) is providing the same effort and programs as ASD. He
stated that MSBSD has been providing medication-assisted
treatment (MAT) training, and ASD has bussed students there for
MAT training. He stated that MSBSD has reached out to ASD
looking for future MAT operators, with no charge to the district
other than transportation to the training site.
9:09:37 AM
JAMIE BURGESS, Superintendent, Nome Public Schools (NPS),
provided invited testimony on HB 108, [Version W]. To begin a
general discussion of ILPs, she stated that these plans ensure
students are meeting requirements for graduation. She stated
when a student spends time outside the classroom [in CTE or
other learning programs] an ILP would be set up to make sure
elective hours are fulfilled. The ILP also would ensure the
student is meeting all the academic graduation requirements and
taking state assessments. If the student is in an industry-
certification plan, the ILP would help make sure those
assessments are taken at the appropriate time. She stated that
some rural districts do not have counselors. In these
situations, a registrar, itinerate counselor, or principal would
have the responsibility of putting together the learning plan.
She asserted that someone would monitor a student's credits to
make sure graduation requirements are met and classes are
entered appropriately into the student information system. She
said that ILPs look different depending on the district and the
availability of a counselor. She expressed confidence that the
process does not have to be complicated. She stated that a
student in a nontraditional program would be monitored to make
sure the appropriate graduation requirements are met, on-the-job
learning experiences are recorded as electives, and transcripts
reflect graduation requirements.
MS. BURGESS stated that rural districts are significantly
different from Anchorage. She related that there is not a large
list of employers who provide CTE training in Nome, but the CTE
partners that are in Nome are very active. She stated that for
the proposed legislation, agreements between NPS and the CTE
providers would become formalized, especially with the Northwest
Arctic Career and Technical Education Center (NACTEC)
partnerships. She emphasized that NPS would work to retain
[industry-certified instructors] for the students as soon as
possible.
MS. BURGESS stated that NPS's budget has funds set aside to
cover the tuition for dual enrollment programs for college
credits. She maintained the opinion that CTE programs working
toward student certification are equal to programs for dual
college credits. She stated dual enrollment funds could
potentially be used towards certification exams or other small
costs associated with CTE program participation. She expressed
the belief that these programs are equal and [these funds]
should be balanced between the students. She stated that NPS
has on-the-job training programs where, depending on the
employer, students could possibly be paid while receiving high
school credit. These opportunities work well for high-risk
students. She described that some students are in a position
where, if they are not able to work to actively support their
family, they would drop out of school. She said that, in these
situations, the district provides structure so students would
not be getting class credit "just for having a job," but their
hours would be monitored. These students would be required to
maintain workplace standards and keep weekly journals on their
learning experiences. She stated that she would provide
support, in whatever way, to encourage students to learn skilled
trades. She expressed the belief that rural communities would
benefit the most from the proposed legislation. She stated that
[Nome] sorely lacks skilled tradesmen, as they are brought in
from Anchorage, Fairbanks, and the Lower 48 to meet the
community's project needs. She provided that NPS would be very
supportive of anything that bolsters these programs.
9:18:57 AM
MS. BURGESS, in response to Co-Chair Drummond, stated that
NACTEC is a joint venture between the Bering Strait School
District (BSSD) and NPS. She stated that the Nome-Beltz Middle
High School was built in the 1960s and was originally a Bureau
of Indian Affairs boarding school for Alaska Native youth ages
16 through 24. She provided the opinion that the school
probably has one of the largest, well-equipped shop facilities
in Alaska. She indicated that there is a welding shop,
construction shop, and automotive shop. There is also an
office, classrooms, and residential housing next to the school.
She stated that NACTEC offers CTE classes to NPS students, but
NPS also has a fulltime CTE instructor for metal and woodshop
classes. Students from the BSSD are brought in for intensive
residential programs during the school year and summer. She
stated that both NPS and BSSD fund NACTEC from their general
funds and Perkins IV. She stated that there are also
residential funds and large grants which focus on engineering,
aviation, health care, and other trades. She described the
program as very busy and complex. She stated all students are
expected to keep up with regular classes, and in the evenings
work on their assignments. She described NACTEC as a unique
experience.
9:23:40 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY expressed the understanding from Ms. Burgess's
testimony that ILPs already exist in NPS, and anything new from
the proposed legislation would be incorporated in the current
process. She expressed the understanding that graduation
requirements would be reviewed by an advisor and the parent.
She questioned whether a parent's participation would be
required, per the legislation.
MS. BURGESS stated that, according to her interpretation of the
proposed legislation, students doing CTE courses, whether in or
outside of the school setting, would be monitored to make sure
academic classes needed for graduation are completed. Students
would be monitored on state assessments and the certification
assessments, if required. Monitoring would be annual, so
students are not off track. She expressed the belief that, in
most cases, a system is already in place, but an agreement would
need to be made ahead of time for how hours of concurrent
education classes would equate to elective credits. This would
make sure there are no surprises close to graduation time.
CO-CHAIR STORY recalled that, in a previous letter of support to
the committee, Ms. Burgess cautioned that resources may not be
available to deliver all the requirements of the legislation.
She questioned whether this was still true.
MS. BURGESS stated that for many rural districts the challenge
would be obtaining certified instructors; however, many school
districts have partnerships already, either within the district,
with a larger district, or with a district on the road system.
She stated that it has been discussed to possibly have DEED help
facilitate partnerships. She posited that the greatest
challenge would be for the smaller districts that do not have
resources. However, smaller districts tend to be ingenious at
collaborating with each other to deliver CTE. She stated that
to fulfill the requirements in the legislation districts would
probably build on existing partnerships and programs already in
place.
9:29:06 AM
MS. BURGESS, in response to Representative Prax, stated that her
understanding of [Version W] is, if school districts can, they
would try to make CTE available. She stated that an industry
instructor would have to be available with the appropriate
certification, but districts may be able to partner to create
programs. She noted that this is how BSSD and NPS made their
programs possible; otherwise, it would be a challenge to
individually build robust CTE programs which would significantly
benefit students in both districts. She indicated that most
instructors in the NPS and BSSD partnership possess industry
certifications. If [the instructors are not certified] NPS
would help them move towards those certifications.
MS. BURGESS offered her interpretation that the legislation
directs districts to work towards providing CTE, whenever they
can, but in some cases if [certified instructors] are not
present, or there are no local organizations willing to work
with students, then districts should continue to look and build
towards providing a program. She posited that in Nome there may
be small businesses interested in working with the district, but
they might not hold the industry certification. She stated that
NPS would work with the entity that meets the requirements. She
asserted that NPS would continue to actively work to formalize
MOAs with entities that meet the requirements set forth in the
bill. If they do not meet the requirements, the district would
be creative and look outside the district.
9:32:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS reviewed that NPS already has programs in
place for on-the-job training. He questioned whether NPS has
ever encountered an instructor who would not work with the
district unless he/she receives compensation.
MS. BURGESS responded that this has not been an issue, as most
industry partners have not asked for money. She stated NPS
mostly reaches out to industry partners, and the discussion
usually is about whether internships would be paid or unpaid.
In some cases, NPS has partnered with organizations that have
provided pay to the students, similar to a three-party
agreement. She reiterated there has not been an entity that has
requested pay in order for the student to be in its program. In
response to a follow-up question, she stated that the proposed
legislation would request districts to run background checks.
The legislation also requests that districts would
preferentially work with entities that have industry standards
and help students work toward receiving their own
certifications.
9:35:15 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY noted that on page 7, line 7 of [Version W] it is
indicated students would not receive compensation from DEED or
the district for program participation. She added this does not
mean students could not be compensated from the industry.
9:35:50 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY, concerning the districts creating ILPs,
questioned Ms. Riddle whether DEED expects to review the ILPs
and whether the plans would be flexible.
MS. RIDDLE responded that ILPs are a process created by
districts to follow a student's progress within a program. She
said the process would not be reported to DEED. In response to
a follow-up question, she stated that, in the original fiscal
note, the $1,000 was an arbitrary amount used as an incentive to
promote [CTE providers] to work with DEED and the districts and
help defer tuition costs. She acknowledged that the districts
are better suited to find industry partners in their areas. She
reiterated that most of the time there would be no tuition cost
associated with the student. She stated that when DEED's
responsibility for contracting was removed from the bill, all
the pieces associated were removed. She stated that [Version W]
is more aligned with what districts are currently doing.
CO-CHAIR STORY commented that many districts may not have
counselors. She expressed hope the legislature would provide
more resources for districts to expand CTE programs. She
speculated that when districts are asked to [implement programs]
without an increase in funding, [the programs] may go to the
wayside. She expressed hope the committee would consider
putting an increment into the foundation formula that would
point to students in CTE programs. She conceded that money is
limited, and Perkins IV has not been increased. She suggested
that resources would need to be increased strategically to make
sure the programs develop and flourish. She stated that, for
the record, it is her understanding the school districts would
need to provide the resources to enter into contracts with CTE
providers and pay for the programs, and that the CTE programs
are not mandated. Even though the language in the legislation
states districts "shall" pay for the programs, she acknowledged
that testimony pointed out CTE providers are not asking
districts to pay. She suggested Legislative Legal Services
offer an opinion on whether districts are obligated to provide
the programs and pay for them. She argued that the districts
would need funding. She offered her support for the intention
of [Version W] but would like to know that the districts would
have the resources.
9:43:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM commented that if the Alaska Performance
Scholarship (APS) is reinstated it could be made available to
ninth graders and alleviate the financial concerns.
9:44:03 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND stated that both the APS and the Alaska
Education Grants were funded from the Higher Education
Investment Fund, but this fund has been swept into the
constitutional budget reserve and can no longer produce revenue.
She stated that this fund was slated for recipients for
postsecondary education, not high school. She added there are
many interwoven bills before the committee and thanked
Representative Gillam because the issue is important. While the
Alaska Education Grants could be applied to trade schools, she
expressed uncertainty about the APS. She stated that
Representative Story introduced a bill [HB 48] that would
include CTE in high school graduation credits and could overlap
with [Version W].
9:45:07 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY stated that [HB 48] proposes a change in the APS
that would allow credits earned in CTE to count towards
qualification for the scholarship. She stated that currently
the scholarship is not available to students who take a year in
an internship. She stated that CTE would count as part of the
curriculum if the APS were expanded.
9:45:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM expressed the belief that the APS should
begin in the freshman year of high school, because many students
do not go to college. If these students could spend four years
in high school working towards a technical career, then they
would be ready to go to work once they graduate. He asserted
that the students would not have to wait until their senior year
to apply for a grant or a scholarship and then spend time in
college. He stated that the entire country lacks employees, and
students coming out of high school could be prepared to enter
the workforce. He expressed the opinion that there are high-
paying jobs and students could be prepared.
CO-CHAIR STORY suggested that students would have to begin in
the ninth grade to satisfy the APS's rigorous curriculum. She
stated that if students began in the ninth grade, this would
allow them to use scholarships for CTE and industry
certification.
9:47:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referenced that both ASD and NPS already
have CTE programs in place. He expressed the understanding from
testimony that employers are currently not receiving pay for CTE
programs. He pointed out that page 7, line 15 and line 21, of
[Version W] conveyed that the districts "shall" pay the tuition
for enrolled students. He questioned Ms. Riddle on how this may
limit the ability for districts to continue the programs already
in place if employers are not currently paid. He questioned
whether contracts would need to be renegotiated. He expressed
concern that the program may be limited because of this
language.
MS. RIDDLE voiced the understanding that the legislation implies
"if" there would be a tuition, and currently there is not. She
deferred the question to the bill sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS, in a follow-up question, pointed to the
language in the proposed legislation that conveyed districts
"shall" negotiate with industry-standard providers. He
questioned whether this language would limit what a district
could supply to a student. He provided the example of a student
who would like to study museum design, but there is not an
industry standard for this program of study. He questioned
whether this would limit the ability of that student to work in
an art gallery to understand this career. He inquired whether
the district could provide a contract if there is not an
industry standard.
MS. RIDDLE stated that there are multiply ways for a career
pathway, and there are many ways to get to the certification
within ILPs. She deferred to the bill sponsor on the intent of
the language.
9:50:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX commented that he is not concerned about
funding for the programs, as businesses would realize this is a
win-win relationship. He offered his support for the
legislation.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND stated that the proposed legislation would
next go to the House Labor and Commerce Committee and then from
there to the House Finance Committee. She recommended moving HB
108, Version W to next committee of referral.
9:55:15 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY asked if the bill sponsor intended for ILPs to be
flexible or had different expectations.
9:56:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY responded that the districts should have
the responsibility to create the ILPs for CTE training as they
have done for concurrent college enrollment programs. He
offered the opinion that school districts know best. Responding
to a follow-up question, he stated that the intention would not
be to put school districts in a bind and for the industries to
[abuse school district funding].
9:57:12 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY moved to report HB 108, Version 32-LS0345\W,
Klein/Marx, 3/17/22, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND objected, then removed her objection. There
being no further objection, CSHB 108(EDC) was reported out of
the House Education Standing Committee.
9:58:02 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:58 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Draft CS for HB 108 versionW.pdf |
HEDC 3/23/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 108 |
| HB 108 Version W Legal Services memo.22-150mjt.pdf |
HEDC 3/23/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 108 |
| FN HB108CS(EDC)-EED-SSA-3-17-22.pdf |
HEDC 3/23/2022 8:00:00 AM HL&C 4/4/2022 3:15:00 PM |
HB 108 |