Legislature(2023 - 2024)DAVIS 106
04/26/2023 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 | |
| HB111 | |
| HB106 | |
| HB105 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 106 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 111 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
April 26, 2023
8:00 a.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jamie Allard, Co-Chair
Representative Justin Ruffridge, Co-Chair
Representative Mike Prax
Representative CJ McCormick
Representative Tom McKay
Representative Rebecca Himschoot
Representative Andi Story
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Jennie Armstrong
Representative Zack Fields
Representative Ashley Carrick
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 111
"An Act relating to public school students who are deaf or have
a hearing impairment."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 106
"An Act authorizing lump sum payments for certain teachers as
retention and recruitment incentives; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED HB 106 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 105
"An Act relating to parental rights in a child's education;
relating to access to school records; relating to sex education,
human reproduction education, and human sexuality education;
relating to school disciplinary and safety programs; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 105(EDC) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 111
SHORT TITLE: EDUCATION FOR DEAF & HEARING IMPAIRED
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) ALLARD
03/13/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/13/23 (H) HSS, EDC
03/22/23 (H) HSS REFERRAL REMOVED
03/22/23 (H) BILL REPRINTED
04/24/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
04/24/23 (H) Heard & Held
04/24/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/26/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
BILL: HB 106
SHORT TITLE: TEACHER RECRUITMENT; LUMP SUM PAYMENT
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
03/08/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/08/23 (H) EDC, FIN
03/13/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
03/13/23 (H) Heard & Held
03/13/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/12/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
04/12/23 (H) Heard & Held
04/12/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/24/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
04/24/23 (H) Heard & Held
04/24/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/26/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
BILL: HB 105
SHORT TITLE: SEX/REPRODUCTION EDUCATION; SCHOOLS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
03/08/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/08/23 (H) EDC, JUD
03/13/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
03/13/23 (H) Heard & Held
03/13/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/29/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
03/29/23 (H) Heard & Held
03/29/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/30/23 (H) EDC AT 5:15 PM DAVIS 106
03/30/23 (H) Heard & Held
03/30/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/13/23 (H) EDC AT 5:15 PM BARNES 124
04/13/23 (H) Heard & Held
04/13/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/24/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
04/24/23 (H) Heard & Held
04/24/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/26/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
WITNESS REGISTER
CLARA BALDWIN, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave invited testimony in support of HB
111.
PAMELA MUELLER-GUY, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 111.
HEIDI LIEB-WILLIAMS, Chair
Governor's Council on Disabilities and Special Education
Department of Health
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 111.
AMY BOBICH, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 111.
HEIDI TESHNER, Acting Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
106.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:00:18 AM
CO-CHAIR JAMIE ALLARD called the House Education Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. Representatives
Ruffridge, Prax, McCormick, McKay, Himschoot, and Allard were
present at the call to order. Representative Story arrived as
the meeting was in progress. Also present were Representative
Jenny Armstrong, Representative Zach Fields, and Representative
Ashley Carrick.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:00 a.m. to 8:05 a.m.
HB 111-EDUCATION FOR DEAF & HEARING IMPAIRED
8:05:03 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 111, "An Act relating to public school
students who are deaf or have a hearing impairment." [Before
the committee, adopted as the work draft on 4/24/23, was the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 111, Version 33-
LS0504\S, Marx, 4/22/23, Version S.]
8:05:42
CLARA BALDWIN, representing self, gave invited testimony in
support of HB 111. [Ms. Baldwin signed her testimony, which was
spoken by an ASL interpreter.] She provided her background in
overseeing the Alaska State School for the Deaf and Hard of
Hearing (AKSDHH) and related that she is deaf. The reason she
is here today, she said, is that she was born in a deaf family,
which is rare. She shared that she is a fifth-generation deaf
person, which can be seen as an advantage, although she
indicated there is nothing wrong with a baby born to a family
who does not know sign language. She relayed that every deaf
child is unique. She acknowledged that from birth, she had an
advantage in that her parents were signing to her; therefore,
she learned social cues long before school began. Deaf children
who do not have that advantage must catch up starting in
kindergarten, but schools are not able to provide a full grade
curriculum. The proposed bill, she advised, would make deaf and
hard of hearing children's presence known and show that Alaska
"has their back." She reiterated that she had been privileged
and now wants the same for every deaf and hard of hearing
student and future generations in Alaska to have an accessible
experience, which would start with HB 111.
8:10:21 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD invited questions from the committee.
8:10:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT directed a question to Ms. Baldwin's
interpreter. [The interpreter, who was not fully identified for
the record, spoke briefly about the qualifications of
interpreters.]
8:12:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked Ms. Baldwin to speak on AKSDHH
and her experiences there.
8:12:38 AM
MS. BALDWIN responded that she is very proud of the school,
which currently is a self-contained program in a public school
building. She said it allows students to learn social skills
with their hearing peers during recess and during some special
classes. Counseling services are offered through a deaf
counselor, as well as additional language services to train
students appropriately. She added that ages 3 to 22 are
currently served, which includes the adult community transition
program. There are leadership opportunities for students,
clubs, theater, fundraising training, and every student can
engage in after school sports with their hearing peers. She
noted that interpreters are provided throughout.
8:15:15 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD asked Ms. Baldwin whether she felt the bill
would open up more doors.
MS. BALDWIN replied, "Yes, yes, definitely."
8:15:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY questioned how the state is doing with the
availability of interpreters for all students.
MS. BALDWIN replied that the state has an interpreter shortage.
Additionally, some people are getting ready to retire and
transition. The state has the minimum requirements, but she
said she wants more. She stated that her interpreter today is
also a program coordinator who hires and supervises all of the
interpreters and, through partnering with an agency, now has
five interns from the Lower 48. In response to a follow-up
question, she said there is a shortage in the area of
interpreters as a result of the challenge of scheduling and
serving such a vast state.
8:18:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT referenced children in rural Alaska and
recognized that there are more choices that must be made. She
asked whether it is more important for a student to be amongst
their family, peers, and culture, or more important to be in the
special school in Anchorage. She asked Ms. Baldwin whether, if
the bill addresses what the "least restrictive environment" is,
a child would have to leave their community and go to Anchorage.
8:20:05 AM
MS. BALDWIN replied that there is a program called Rural Deaf
Support Services (RDSS), which finds host families that provide
licensed foster homes, and there are many different families
that qualify. She clarified that the bill would not force a
student to have to attend the school in Anchorage. She added
that virtual services are available if, for example, a student
comes to Anchorage from rural Alaska and finds that the school
is not for them. In addition, there is an annual statewide deaf
retreat in Eagle River, Alaska, for secondary students and above
which provides an opportunity to meet peers in person and then
go back to their respective villages.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT stated that her concern is with the
designation of "least restrictive environment", which carries
legal weight. She asked Ms. Baldwin whether the bill would
still work if something other than that term were used.
8:22:47 AM
MS. BALDWIN replied that there are two different perspectives.
She stated it can be narrowed down, and that the bill could be
amended.
8:23:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX observed there must be alternatives other
than ASL for "least restrictive." He questioned what may be
available.
MS. BALDWIN replied that students can be mainstream, and some
students thrive with just hearing aids. She said she prefers a
sign language interpreter, whereas some students thrive sitting
near the teacher where they have access to auditory input.
8:24:26 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD asked about the services provided to other
municipalities compared to the school in Anchorage and how the
bill would help in that aspect.
MS. BALDWIN explained that other schools are smaller and more
isolated than AKSDHH. She said the bill would make the school
more known and provide the ability to reach out further, in
addition to providing virtual services. She stated she has
opportunities to travel to other municipalities to support their
schools in hopes of informing everyone statewide that they have
the help of AKSDHH.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD asked whether the proposed legislation is an
incentive to encourage other interpreters to come forward
because the state is offering more support.
MS. BALDWIN agreed. She added that the deaf community is a
small community, but it can make a huge impact.
8:26:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked what support the school district may
provide for parents to learn sign language.
MS. BALDWIN replied that a sign language class is offered, and
there is frequent communication with parents regarding their
child's individual education plan (IEP).
8:28:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX brought up the term "profoundly deaf" and
asked whether ASL was the only alternative.
MS. BALDWIN replied she was not sure. She said that some
individuals that are considered profoundly deaf can speak very
clearly with repetition and training behind them.
8:29:28 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD offered a personal example of a friend and asked
whether Ms. Baldwin could speak on his situation. In addition,
she explained that she uses a coil that is integrated into her
phone and hearing aids and asked Ms. Baldwin to speak on what a
coil means.
MS. BALDWIN replied that the individual in question can speak as
well as being fluent in sign language. She explained that
sometimes, if it is, for example, a big room with a lot of
stimuli, that individual will depend on the interpreter for the
competing noise. In response to a follow-up question, she spoke
about the use of coils providing sound to those hard of hearing
or deaf.
8:32:10 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD opened public testimony on HB 111.
8:32:31 AM
PAMELA MUELLER-GUY, representing self, testified in support of
HB 111, noting that she has been [in Juneau] since 1974. She
said she agrees with what the lady said - "excellent." She
spoke about her experience as a deaf person in school, relating
that her teacher wore a microphone and she wore headphones,
someone would point to the person talking, and she could learn
by reading lips. She talked about words having five different
meanings in sign language and about parents learning to sign.
She said video phones are helpful to deaf people working at jobs
that use the telephone. In response to Co-Chair Allard, she
confirmed that she supports HB 111.
8:38:59 AM
HEIDI LIEB-WILLIAMS, Chair, Governor's Council on Disabilities
and Special Education, Department of Health (DOH), testified in
support of HB 111. She explained she is a strong advocate for
the autism and disability community. She informed the committee
that she is functionally deaf and hard of hearing; it depends on
the moment whether she has her hearing or not. She shared that
she has undergone hundreds of ear surgeries to get the hearing
she currently has, and recently, she almost lost the hearing she
has. She said she wished she knew ASL to help her with
communication, and she described some of the difficulties she
has endured due to communication barriers. She stated she is
working on getting hearing aids, and the reason HB 111 is so
important is so parents can choose for their child, instead of
just relying on the districts. She urged the committee to pass
HB 111.
8:45:05 AM
AMY BOBICH, representing self, testified in support of HB 111.
[Ms. Bobich signed her testimony, which was spoken by an ASL
interpreter.] She explained she is both a teacher of deaf and
hard of hearing children and a deaf individual. She said she
was born deaf but her parents did not find out until later;
therefore, she did not learn any language until later. Her
family made the decisions on how she could best get her
education and how she could access information, she said. She
stressed the importance of access to language for deaf children,
as there are many opportunities missed during the first five
years of life. She opined that parents should not have to fight
to receive the information and resources for their deaf
children, and HB 111 is "amazing and powerful" because all the
resources would be provided in one place and would be
accessible.
8:50:20 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD, after ascertaining there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 111.
8:50:45 AM
MS. BALDWIN thanked the committee for letting her have the
platform today and encouraged anyone to reach out with
questions.
8:51:18 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that HB 111 was held over.
HB 106-TEACHER RECRUITMENT; LUMP SUM PAYMENT
8:51:24 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 106, "An Act authorizing lump sum payments for
certain teachers as retention and recruitment incentives; and
providing for an effective date."
8:51:36 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD opened public testimony on HB 106. After
ascertaining no one wished to testify, she closed public
testimony.
8:52:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT acknowledged missing the amendment
deadline but said she had prepared a conceptual amendment to HB
106.
8:52:36 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:52 a.m. to 8:54 a.m.
8:54:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1
to HB 106.
8:54:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX objected.
8:54:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT wished to incorporate the language
about allowing Legislative Legal Services to make any conforming
changes. She added that Amendment 1 makes the lump sum payments
a permanent feature of the system. It removes the three years
and makes it wide open that teachers who commit to teaching in
Alaska would receive the payments without an end date, she said.
8:55:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY noted that Conceptual Amendment 1 may
dramatically change the fiscal note.
8:55:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT stated that there is not a fiscal note.
8:56:19 AM
HEIDI TESHNER, Acting Commissioner, Department of Education and
Early Development (DEED), answered questions regarding the
discussion on a fiscal note. She said that $57.9 million per
year is the grant funding total for the teacher incentive pay.
8:56:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that the purpose of the
amendment is to take a good idea and make it a permanent idea.
It is known that the state is not competitive in its pay to
teachers, and it is one way to increase the pay and to keep it
there. Her concern with the bill, she said, is the existing
retirement system not requiring people to stay more than five
years, and having this incentive for only three years is another
way to support teachers.
8:57:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY recalled that the purpose of the bill was
to do a pilot program for three years and determine whether the
raises had an effect on retention.
MS. TESHNER responded that is correct. The intent of the bill
was to create a study to see if it is something that improves
retention.
8:58:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY offered her opinion that the ability to
raise teacher pay and keep that going is something very much
needed. She confirmed her support for the amendment.
8:59:28 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE appreciated the amendment; however, HB 106
was designed to be a pilot program, and it may not be the
appropriate way to raise pay for teachers. He stated he would
not support the amendment.
9:00:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked Ms. Teshner how it would be known
whether the three-year incentive worked or not.
MS. TESHER responded it would be learned through the process of
the data collected and then reporting it out.
9:01:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX offered his opinion that it is not a good
idea to negotiate salaries through the "central authority."
9:02:00 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD pointed out that when unions are involved,
salaries are not negotiated for the teachers, it is done through
the school districts. She offered her belief that is something
individual districts must do, and although she supported
incentives, she stated the bill is good as-is.
9:02:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT stated that perhaps Conceptual
Amendment 1 could have been a little different, but her concern
is that there is no fiscal note or study at the end. She said
it seemed like a good idea to provide this incentive so the
districts could use it as a recruiting tool.
9:02:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX maintained his objection.
9:03:03 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McCormick,
Himschoot, and Story voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 1.
Representatives Prax, McKay, Allard, and Ruffridge voted against
it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1 failed to be adopted by a
vote of 3-4.
9:03:42 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:03 a.m. to 9:04 a.m.
9:04:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2
to HB 106.
9:04:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT spoke to amendment 2 and related her
experiences as a teacher. She said in addition to teachers,
there are shortages in support staff; therefore, she wanted to
open the idea up to include paraprofessionals and support staff.
9:05:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY opined that the proposed amendment was a
similar problem to Conceptual Amendment 1 in that there is no
fiscal note to estimate additional costs.
9:05:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY offered her belief that it is an important
part of the puzzle for students doing very well to have
consistent help through support staff. She opined it would be a
good incentive and investment in Alaska's resources for this
amendment, even though the fiscal note would increase.
9:06:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX commented that adding paraprofessionals
increases the risk of getting nothing "if we push too far."
9:07:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT offered her insight that the best way
to increase salaries is an increase in the base student
allocation (BSA), but since that is uncertain, this [amendment]
is one way to make sure staff are incentivized to stay and it
would increase recruitment for districts. She brought up an
example of when the Department of Law (DOL) did a 20 percent
increase, and they now have the lowest vacancy rate of any
department; therefore, incentives work.
9:08:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX maintained his objection.
9:08:12 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McCormick,
Himschoot, and Story voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 2.
Representatives Allard, Prax, McKay, and Ruffridge voted against
it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 2 failed to be adopted by a
vote of 3-4.
9:08:43 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE moved to report HB 106 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
9:09:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK objected. He stated he supported HB
106, but offered his belief that it is not a good replacement to
increase the BSA. He added that in Bethel, he was told by
educators it was something they did not want; they wanted good
benefits and an increase to the BSA.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK removed his objection.
9:09:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected. She mirrored Representative
McCormick's comments that it should not be a replacement for
funding the BSA. She said that working conditions are very
important for Alaska's teachers and students to thrive;
therefore, we must keep up with increasing costs, which also has
a lot to do with local control. She briefly mentioned the
practices other states have attempted to adopt.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY removed her objection.
9:12:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT stated that her objection lies in the
fact this creates a difficult position to be in, and she
acknowledges that teachers are underpaid and any time there is a
chance to increase their salaries, it should be done. On the
other hand, she said, a way to do that is to fund the BSA and
provide increases on a regular basis to fund the schools and the
salaries.
9:12:55 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD offered her support for teachers and added that
there is no guarantee that the BSA would increase teacher
salaries; that is up to their individual unions and school
boards. She said she believed this increase is an incentive and
recruitment tool, as stated in the bill, and reiterated she is
in strong support of HB 106.
9:13:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT maintained her objection.
9:13:23 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Story, Allard,
Prax, McCormick, McKay, Himschoot, and Ruffridge voted in favor
of HB 106. Therefore, HB 106 was reported out of the House
Education Standing Committee by a vote of 7-0.
9:14:20 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:14 a.m. to 9:15 a.m.
9:15:02 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that HB 106 passed from committee.
9:15:28 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:15 a.m. to 9:18 a.m.
HB 105-SEX/REPRODUCTION EDUCATION; SCHOOLS
9:18:39 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 105, "An Act relating to parental rights in a
child's education; relating to access to school records;
relating to sex education, human reproduction education, and
human sexuality education; relating to school disciplinary and
safety programs; and providing for an effective date."
9:18:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY, in response to Co-Chair Allard, said he
"removed" Amendment 1 [in committee packet but never moved for
adoption], and "withdrew" Amendment 2 [in committee packet but
never moved for adoption].
9:19:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to adopt Amendment 3 to HB 105,
labeled 33-GH1072\A.2, Marx, 4/14/23, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 2, following "records;":
Insert "relating to school funding; relating to
charter schools; relating to state boarding schools;"
Page 3, following line 21:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 5. AS 14.03.260(a) is amended to read:
(a) A local school board shall provide an
approved charter school with an annual program budget.
The budget shall be not less than the amount generated
by the students enrolled in the charter school less
administrative costs retained by the local school
district, determined by applying the indirect cost
rate approved by the department up to four percent.
Costs directly related to charter school facilities,
including rent, utilities, and maintenance, may not be
included in an annual program budget for the purposes
of calculating the four percent cap on administrative
costs under this subsection. A local school board
shall provide a charter school with a report itemizing
the administrative costs retained by the local school
board under this section. The "amount generated by
students enrolled in the charter school" is to be
determined in the same manner as it would be for a
student enrolled in another public school in that
school district and includes funds generated by
grants, appropriations, federal impact aid, the
required local contribution, the local contribution
under AS 14.17.410(c), special needs under
AS 14.17.420(a)(1), [AND] secondary school vocational
and technical instruction under AS 14.17.420(a)(3),
and parental involvement initiatives under
AS 14.17.420(a)(4). A school district shall direct
state aid under AS 14.11 for the construction or major
maintenance of a charter school facility to the
charter school that generated the state aid, subject
to the same terms and conditions that apply to state
aid under AS 14.11 for construction or major
maintenance of a school facility that is not a charter
school.
* Sec. 6. AS 14.17.410(b) is amended to read:
(b) Public school funding consists of state aid,
a required local contribution, and eligible federal
impact aid determined as follows:
(1) state aid equals basic need minus a
required local contribution and 90 percent of eligible
federal impact aid for that fiscal year; basic need
equals the sum obtained under (D) of this paragraph,
multiplied by the base student allocation set out in
AS 14.17.470; district adjusted ADM is calculated as
follows:
(A) the ADM of each school in the district
is calculated by applying the school size factor to
the student count as set out in AS 14.17.450;
(B) the number obtained under (A) of this
paragraph is multiplied by the district cost factor
described in AS 14.17.460;
(C) the ADMs of each school in a district,
as adjusted according to (A) and (B) of this
paragraph, are added; the sum is then multiplied by
the special needs factor set out in
AS 14.17.420(a)(1), [AND] the secondary school
vocational and technical instruction funding factor
set out in AS 14.17.420(a)(3), and the parental
involvement initiatives funding factor set out in
AS 14.17.420(a)(4);
(D) the number obtained for intensive
services under AS 14.17.420(a)(2) and the number
obtained for correspondence study under AS 14.17.430
are added to the number obtained under (C) of this
paragraph or under (H) and (I) of this paragraph;
(E) notwithstanding (A) - (C) of this
paragraph, if a school district's ADM adjusted for
school size under (A) of this paragraph decreases by
five percent or more from one fiscal year to the next
fiscal year, the school district may use the last
fiscal year before the decrease as a base fiscal year
to offset the decrease, according to the following
method:
(i) for the first fiscal year after the
base fiscal year determined under this subparagraph,
the school district's ADM adjusted for school size
determined under (A) of this paragraph is calculated
as the district's ADM adjusted for school size, plus
75 percent of the difference in the district's ADM
adjusted for school size between the base fiscal year
and the first fiscal year after the base fiscal year;
(ii) for the second fiscal year after the
base fiscal year determined under this subparagraph,
the school district's ADM adjusted for school size
determined under (A) of this paragraph is calculated
as the district's ADM adjusted for school size, plus
50 percent of the difference in the district's ADM
adjusted for school size between the base fiscal year
and the second fiscal year after the base fiscal year;
(iii) for the third fiscal year after the
base fiscal year determined under this subparagraph,
the school district's ADM adjusted for school size
determined under (A) of this paragraph is calculated
as the district's ADM adjusted for school size, plus
25 percent of the difference in the district's ADM
adjusted for school size between the base fiscal year
and the third fiscal year after the base fiscal year;
(F) the method established in (E) of this
paragraph is available to a school district for the
three fiscal years following the base fiscal year
determined under (E) of this paragraph only if the
district's ADM adjusted for school size determined
under (A) of this paragraph for each fiscal year is
less than the district's ADM adjusted for school size
in the base fiscal year;
(G) the method established in (E) of this
paragraph does not apply to a decrease in the
district's ADM adjusted for school size resulting from
a loss of enrollment that occurs as a result of a
boundary change under AS 29;
(H) notwithstanding (A) - (C) of this
paragraph, if one or more schools close and
consolidate with one or more other schools in the same
community and district and, as a result of the
consolidation, basic need generated by the district's
ADM of the consolidated schools as adjusted under (A)
- (C) of this paragraph decreases, the district may
use the last fiscal year before the consolidation as
the base fiscal year to offset that decrease for the
first four fiscal years following consolidation
according to the following method:
(i) for the first two fiscal years after
the base fiscal year, the district's ADM of the
consolidated schools as adjusted under (A) - (C) of
this paragraph is calculated by dividing the sum of
the district's ADM of the consolidated schools as
adjusted under (A) - (C) of this paragraph for the
base fiscal year by the sum of the district's ADM of
the consolidated schools for the base fiscal year
without adjustment, and subtracting the quotient
obtained by dividing the district's ADM of the
consolidated schools for the current fiscal year as
adjusted under (A) - (C) of this paragraph by the sum
of the district's ADM of the consolidated schools for
the current fiscal year without adjustment,
multiplying that number by the sum of the district's
ADM of the consolidated schools for the current fiscal
year without adjustment, and adding that number to the
sum of the district's ADM of the consolidated schools
for the current fiscal year as adjusted under (A) -
(C) of this paragraph;
(ii) for the third fiscal year after the
base fiscal year, the district's ADM of the
consolidated schools as adjusted under (A) - (C) of
this paragraph is calculated by dividing the sum of
the district's ADM of the consolidated schools as
adjusted under (A) - (C) of this paragraph for the
base fiscal year by the sum of the district's ADM of
the consolidated schools for the base fiscal year
without adjustment, and subtracting the quotient
obtained by dividing the sum of the district's ADM of
the consolidated schools for the current fiscal year
as adjusted under (A) - (C) of this paragraph by the
sum of the district's ADM of the consolidated schools
for the current fiscal year, multiplying that number
by the sum of the district's ADM of the consolidated
schools for the current fiscal year without
adjustment, multiplying that number by 66 percent, and
adding that number to the sum of the district's ADM of
the consolidated schools for the current fiscal year
as adjusted under (A) - (C) of this paragraph;
(iii) for the fourth fiscal year after the
base fiscal year, the district's ADM of the
consolidated schools as adjusted under (A) - (C) of
this paragraph is calculated by dividing the sum of
the district's ADM of the consolidated schools as
adjusted under (A) - (C) of this paragraph for the
base fiscal year by the sum of the district's ADM of
the consolidated schools for the base fiscal year
without adjustment, and subtracting the quotient
obtained by dividing the sum of the district's ADM of
the consolidated schools for the current fiscal year
as adjusted under (A) - (C) of this paragraph by the
sum of the district's ADM of the consolidated schools
for the current fiscal year, multiplying that number
by the sum of the district's ADM of the consolidated
schools for the current fiscal year without
adjustment, multiplying that number by 33 percent, and
adding that number to the sum of the district's ADM of
the consolidated schools for the current fiscal year
as adjusted under (A) - (C) of this paragraph;
(iv) to calculate the district's basic need
for each fiscal year, the number obtained through the
calculation in (i), (ii), or (iii) of this
subparagraph is added to the number obtained under (C)
of this paragraph for the remainder of the district;
(I) if the basic need calculated under
(H)(i) - (iii) of this paragraph for one of the first
four fiscal years after consolidation is less than the
basic need calculated under (A) - (C) of this
paragraph for that fiscal year, the basic need may not
be adjusted under (H) of this paragraph for that
fiscal year;
(J) a district may not offset a decrease
under (H) of this paragraph if
(i) a new facility is constructed in the
district for the consolidation; or
(ii) the district offset a decrease under
(E) of this paragraph in the same fiscal year;
(K) a district that offsets a decrease
under (H) of this paragraph may not reopen a school
that was closed for consolidation in the district
until
(i) seven or more years have passed since
the school closure; and
(ii) the district provides evidence
satisfactory to the department that the schools
affected by the consolidation are over capacity;
(L) a district may not reopen and
reconsolidate a school that was consolidated in the
district more than once every seven years for purposes
of the calculations made under (H) of this paragraph;
(M) a district offsetting a decrease under
(H) of this paragraph shall provide the department
with the list of schools participating in the
consolidation and the corresponding ADM;
(2) the required local contribution of a
city or borough school district is the equivalent of a
2.65 mill tax levy on the full and true value of the
taxable real and personal property in the district as
of January 1 of the second preceding fiscal year, as
determined by the Department of Commerce, Community,
and Economic Development under AS 14.17.510 and
AS 29.45.110, not to exceed 45 percent of a district's
basic need for the preceding fiscal year as determined
under (1) of this subsection.
* Sec. 7. AS 14.17.420(a) is amended to read:
(a) As a component of public school funding, a
district is eligible for special needs, [AND]
secondary school vocational and technical instruction,
and parental involvement initiatives funding and may
be eligible for intensive services funding as follows:
(1) special needs funding is available to a
district to assist the district in providing special
education, gifted and talented education, vocational
education, and bilingual education services to its
students; a special needs funding factor of 1.20 shall
be applied as set out in AS 14.17.410(b)(1);
(2) in addition to the special needs
funding for which a district is eligible under (1) of
this subsection, a district is eligible for intensive
services funding for each special education student
who needs and receives intensive services and is
enrolled on the last day of the count period; for each
such student, intensive services funding is equal to
the intensive student count multiplied by 13;
(3) in addition to the special needs and
intensive services funding available under (1) and (2)
of this subsection, secondary school vocational and
technical instruction funding is available to assist
districts in providing vocational and technical
instruction to students who are enrolled in a
secondary school; a secondary school vocational and
technical instruction funding factor of 1.015 shall be
applied as set out in AS 14.17.410(b)(1); in this
paragraph, "vocational and technical instruction"
excludes costs associated with
(A) administrative expenses; and
(B) instruction in general literacy,
mathematics, and job readiness skills;
(4) in addition to the special needs,
intensive services, and secondary school vocational
and technical instruction funding available under (1)
- (3) of this subsection, parental involvement
initiatives funding is available to assist districts
in the district's implementation of the requirements
of AS 14.03.016(a)(3), (a)(7), and (a)(8),
AS 14.03.115, AS 14.30.361(e) and (f), and
AS 14.33.120(a)(10), including the costs of additional
administrative and educational support personnel and
modification of locker rooms and restroom facilities;
a parental involvement initiatives funding factor of
1.005 shall be applied as set out in
AS 14.17.410(b)(1).
* Sec. 8. AS 14.17.440(a) is amended to read:
(a) Except as provided in AS 14.17.400(b),
funding for state boarding schools established under
AS 14.16.010 includes an allocation from the public
education fund in an amount calculated by
(1) determining the ADM of state boarding
schools by applying the school size factor to the
student count as described in AS 14.17.450;
(2) multiplying the number obtained under
(1) of this subsection by the special needs factor in
AS 14.17.420(a)(1), [AND] the secondary school
vocational and technical instruction funding factor
set out in AS 14.17.420(a)(3), and the parental
involvement initiatives funding factor set out in
AS 14.17.420(a)(4) and multiplying that product by the
base student allocation; and
(3) multiplying the product determined
under (2) of this subsection by the district cost
factor that is applicable to calculation of the state
aid for the adjacent school district under
AS 14.17.460."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly
[No audible objection was captured on the recording.]
9:19:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT spoke to Amendment 3. She said the
amendment provides funding support for school districts to
implement the requirements of HB 105, as well as a parental
involvement initiatives funding factor. She said that as much
communication with families this bill will require, it comes
with a cost, such as extra staffing, and teachers following up
on required paperwork. She gave brief examples of how the tasks
of meeting requirements can slightly change depending on the
size of the district. She added there would also be increased
records requests, and if students are opting out, those students
still need to be somewhere they are supervised. The funding
factor, she said, would cover the one-time capital cost for
modifications to buildings which the bill asks schools to do.
Without this amendment and the bill passed, [the state] would be
putting another unfunded mandate on schools.
9:23:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK suggested adopting the proposed
committee substitute prior to discussing this amendment.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD explained that Amendment 3 pertains to the
original bill version of HB 105.
9:23:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY sought more information regarding the
initiatives for informing parents. She acknowledged that there
would be an unfunded mandate with the bill, and all the other
steps that would need to be taken add to a huge amount of
communication. She said it would be helpful to have a parental
liaison at schools to help encourage parent involvement. She
stated she was worried about not resourcing help for teachers as
well.
9:25:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT responded that right now, in her
experience, there is quite a bit of communication that happens
between classroom teachers and parents. Finding time outside of
the normal school day, she said, to reach out to parents takes
time and money and schools should have the resources they need.
9:26:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY requested a roll call vote on Amendment 3.
9:27:08 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Himschoot, Story,
Prax, and McCormick voted in favor of Amendment 3 to HB 105.
Representatives Allard, McKay, and Ruffridge voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 3 was adopted by a vote of 4-3.
9:28:01 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 9:28 a.m.
9:28:06 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD withdrew Amendment 4 [in committee packet but
never moved for adoption].
9:28:40 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE moved to adopt the proposed Committee
Substitute (CS) for HB 105, Version B, also referred to as 33-
GH1072\B Marx 4/15/23 as the work draft. There being no
objection, Version B was before the committee.
9:29:01 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:29 a.m. to 9:42 a.m.
9:42:46 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD [returned to discussion of the original bill
version of HB 105].
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE, in response to Co-Chair Allard, moved
to rescind action in adopting Amendment [3] to HB 105.
9:43:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE restated his motion to adopt the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 105.
9:43:57 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD noted that there had been no objection to the
motion to rescind the committee's action in adopting Amendment
[3].
CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced there being no objection, Version B
was adopted.
9:44:33 AM
The committee took two consecutive at-eases from 9:44 a.m. to
9:45 a.m.
9:45:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE spoke on the changes made in committee
substitute for HB 105, Version B. He said the bill would
require that parents receive notification for all activities,
classes, or programs that a child is involved in at least two
weeks in advance. He added that it would allow parents to
choose what their child participates in. The parent would also
provide the school with names, nicknames, and pronouns that the
school shall use for identification and records.
9:46:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1
to HB 105, Version B.
9:47:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that the costs had been
researched with her staff, and there is no fiscal note now, but
it would be approximately $6 million. She added to give
Legislative Legal Services permission to make any necessary
conforming changes to Amendment 1 [which was originally drafted
for the original bill version].
9:48:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE maintained his objection.
9:48:27 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Story, Prax,
McCormick, and Himschoot voted in favor of the motion to adopt
Conceptual Amendment 1 to HB 105, Version B. Representatives
Ruffridge, McKay, and Allard voted against it. Therefore,
Conceptual Amendment 1 to HB 105, Version B, was adopted by a
vote of 4-3.
9:49:26 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 9:49 a.m.
9:50:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK questioned what sort of protections may
remain in place for students who might be from an abusive home
and a student could potentially end up in a dangerous situation
when they are forced to share certain information.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE explained that there are protections
already in place for teachers, and teachers are still mandatory
reporters if such a situation would arise.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK asked Representative Ruffridge to
clarify a "return."
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE explained that through testimony and
conversations regarding HB 105, teachers were found to be not a
neutral third party and found themselves uncomfortable. The
teachers, he said, may have information they are not certain
what to do with and the Version B clarifies that.
9:53:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE moved to report CSHB 105, Version 33-
GH1072\B, Marx, 4/15/23, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
9:53:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT objected and spoke to her objection.
She paraphrased a previous testifier who stated that there may
be some poor parenting, but so does her profession as a teacher.
She added that she thought the bill was "using a butcher knife
where a scalpel would do." The bill, she said, takes focus away
from things that should be done, such as supporting schools in a
predictable and stable way, as well as recruiting and retaining.
She stated that passage of the bill would be passing a mandate
that feels threatening to some of the most vulnerable
population. She reiterated her opposition to the bill and the
committee substitute.
9:55:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY called the previous question on Version B,
as amended.
9:55:32 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 9:55 a.m.
9:55:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK objected to the call to question.
9:56:09 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 9:56 a.m.
9:56:53 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Ruffridge, Prax,
McKay, and Allard voted in favor of the call to question.
Representatives Himschoot, Story, and McCormick voted against
it. Therefore, the call to question was so ordered.
9:57:30 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McKay, Allard,
Prax, and Ruffridge voted in favor of HB 105. Representatives
McCormick, Himschoot, and Story voted against it. Therefore, HB
105 passed out of the House Education Standing Committee by a
vote of 4-3.
9:58:12 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:58 a.m. to 9:59 a.m.
9:59:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD announced that CSHB 105(EDC) had moved
from committee with permission for Legislative Legal and
Research Services to make conforming changes.
9:59:28 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:59 a.m. to 10:04 a.m.
10:04:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY stated, "I withdrew my previous motion to
call the question on HB 105, committee substitute, as amended."
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD stated, "I'm going to go back and rescind
action in regards to what had happened when you had called the
question, based on the fact that you have to have two-thirds of
the vote. So, I apologize, I moved a little too quickly."
10:04:53 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 10:04 a.m. to 10:06 a.m.
10:06:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE restated the motion to move CSHB 105,
Version 33-GH1072\B, Marx, 4/15/23, as amended, with individual
recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note.
10:06:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected and spoke to her objection. She
offered her belief regarding the importance of parental rights,
and that they are key. She added that in current law, parents
are to be notified of any sensitive topic two weeks prior to it
being given and have the right to opt out. She expressed her
concern that the bill switches an opt out to an opt in, and she
said she believed kids would miss out on very important
information. Most parents want their children to have
information on the sensitive age-appropriate topics, she said.
She opined that it puts up a barrier for returning permission
slips and stressed that she would not want students to be at
risk. She stated that youth need an affirming adult in their
lives to stop self-harm, and she observed that the bill may put
teachers in a very awkward place as well as the student. She
said [legislators] must think about local control and violations
of a student's rights to privacy. The regulations in the bill
garner much more serious thought, she said.
10:11:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK noted that suicide is a leading but
preventable public health crises in Alaska and is the leading
cause of death in youths ages 10 through 24. Suicide prevention
activists, he said, have identified the proposed legislation as
a problem and have testified before the committee that it could
lead to higher rates in suicide. He offered his belief that not
enough has been changed in the bill, and that it strips young
people of the ability to make choices for themselves, denying
them the ability to live with dignity. He referred to HB 111,
stating that the legislature was doing something to help people.
He opined HB 105 would make life harder for people. He gave an
example of growing up in rural Alaska where life is hard, and he
said he ran to make life easier for rural kids. He reiterated
his opposition to HB 105.
10:13:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX offered his opinion that this is an
imperfect world, and that parents have a moral responsibility to
raise their children, but someone turned it into a legal
obligation. He believed that parents have the moral
responsibility to raise children, not the legislature, and even
if parents make mistakes, they must have that right, he said.
He stressed that the bill poses challenges, and the state must
think critically about this.
10:15:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE thanked committee members for their
comments. He said the legislature was in an important spot in
returning to a conversation regarding what is happening inside
of Alaska's schools and its children. He said he believed the
bill actually strengthens the ability for students to have
private access to restrooms and potentially a greater aspect to
safety. He stated that while it may not be a perfect bill, it
started the conversations about what the role of teachers and
parents are, and how to better engage them. He said he valued
parent's rights tremendously and that he looked forward to more
legislative sessions on the subject.
10:18:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY drew attention to page 2, line 9 of the
bill in reference to a religious holiday and whether Legislative
Legal Services needs to make any changes.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE explained that the language is already
in state statute and not part of the bill.
10:19:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK maintained his objection.
10:19:50 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McKay, Ruffridge,
Prax, and Allard voted in favor of the motion to report CSHB
105, Version 33-GH1072\B, Marx, 4/15/23, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note. Therefore, CSHB 105(EDC) was reported out of
the House Education Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3.
10:20:39 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD relayed that when there are other legislators
present, they must be respectful to the chairs and not
interrupt. She added that aides are present for assistance.
10:21:11 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 10:21 a.m. to 10:23 a.m.
10:23:41 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD briefly discussed future business.
10:24:10 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:24 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB105 Amendment 2.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB105 Amendment 4.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB105 Amendment 3.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 CS VerB.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB105 Amendment 1.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |