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.
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, Assistant Director
Alaska School for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
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.
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 AM
CLARA BALDWIN, Assistant Director, Alaska School for the Deaf
and Hard of Hearing, gave invited testimony in support of HB
111. [Ms. Baldwin signed her testimony, which was spoken by an
American Sign Language (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. She
shared that she was born in a deaf family, which is rare. She
continued 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 this
advantage must catch up starting in kindergarten, as schools are
not able to provide a full 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 in Alaska to have an accessible
experience, which would start with HB 111.
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
MS. BALDWIN, in response to Co-Chair Ruffridge, expressed pride
in AKSDHH, 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. To train students appropriately,
counseling services are offered through a deaf counselor, as
well as additional language services. She added that
individuals ages 3 to 22 are currently served, which includes
the adult community transition program. She continued that the
school has leadership opportunities for students, as well as
clubs, theater, fundraising training, and after school sports
with their hearing peers. She noted that interpreters are
provided throughout.
8:15:15 AM
MS. BALDWIN, in response to a question from Co-Chair Allard,
expressed the opinion that the bill would open more doors for
these students.
8:15:41 AM
MS. BALDWIN, in response to a question from Representative
Story, replied that the state has an interpreter shortage.
Additionally, some interpreters will retire soon. The state has
the minimum requirements, but she expressed the need for more.
She stated that her interpreter today is also a program
coordinator who hires and supervises other interpreters.
Through a partnership with an agency, there are now five interns
from the Lower 48. In response to a follow-up question, she
said there is a shortage of interpreters because of the
challenges of serving such a vast state.
8:18:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT referenced children in rural Alaska and
recognized the choices to 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. Per the phrase in the bill "least restrictive
environment", she questioned whether a child would have to leave
their community and go to Anchorage.
MS. BALDWIN replied that Rural Deaf Support Services (RDSS) will
help find licensed foster homes with host families. She added
that there are many different families who qualify. She
clarified that the proposed bill would not force a student to
attend the school in Anchorage. She added that if the school in
Anchorage does not work for a rural student, there are virtual
services. In addition, there is an annual statewide deaf
retreat in Eagle River for secondary students. This provides an
opportunity to meet peers in person.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT expressed concern for the designation
of "least restrictive environment". She explained that it would
carry legal weight. She asked whether the proposed legislation
would be viable if another term were used.
MS. BALDWIN replied that there are two different perspectives.
She stated it can be narrowed down, and 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 services at AKSDHH. She
questioned how the proposed bill would help in this aspect.
MS. BALDWIN explained that other schools are smaller and more
isolated than AKSDHH. She expressed the opinion that the bill
would make AKSDHH more known and provide the ability to reach
out further, in addition to providing virtual services. She
expressed the hope she would have the opportunity to travel to
other municipalities in support of their schools and inform them
of the services available.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD asked whether the proposed legislation would be
an incentive to encourage other interpreters to come forward
because the state is offering more support.
MS. BALDWIN expressed agreement. She added that the deaf
community is a small community; therefore, this would have a
huge impact.
8:26:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked what support school districts could
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 is the only alternative.
MS. BALDWIN expressed uncertainty. She said that some
individuals who are considered profoundly deaf can speak very
clearly with repetition and training.
8:29:28 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD offered a personal example of a friend and asked
whether Ms. Baldwin could speak about this situation. In
addition, she explained that her friend uses an integrated phone
coil and hearing aids. She requested an explanation of the
phone coil.
MS. BALDWIN replied that the individual in question can speak
and is also fluent in sign language. She explained that if
there is a lot of noise, this individual will depend on the
interpreter. 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
concurred with the previous testifier. She spoke about her
experience as a deaf person in school, relating that her teacher
wore a microphone while she wore headphones. There would be a
person who pointed to the speaker, and she would read 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 which require
telephone usage. 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 that 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. She expressed the desire to
learn ASL, as it would help with communication. She described
some of the difficulties she has endured because of
communication barriers. She stated she is working on getting
hearing aids. She expressed the importance of HB 111, as
parents would be able to 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 shared that she is 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. She
expressed gratitude that her family made the decisions on how
she could best get her education. 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, and HB 111 is "amazing and powerful"
because there would be accessible resources provided in one
place.
8:50:20 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD, after ascertaining there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony.
8:50:45 AM
MS. BALDWIN thanked the committee for the platform 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 that there was no one who wished to testify, she
closed public testimony.
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 stated that the language has been
incorporated to allow Legislative Legal Services to make any
conforming changes to Conceptual Amendment 1. She explained
that the conceptual amendment would remove the three-year
requirement and make the lump sum payment to certain teachers a
permanent feature of the system. She continued that this would
allow teachers who commit to teaching in Alaska to receive the
payments without an end date.
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, answered questions regarding the discussion
on the fiscal note. She said that the $57.9 million per year
would be the funding grant total for the teacher incentive pay.
8:56:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that the purpose of the
amendment would be to take a "good" idea and make it a
"permanent" idea. She expressed the opinion that the state is
not competitive enough with teachers' wages, and this would be
one way to increase the pay, "and keep it there." She expressed
the concern that the existing retirement system does not require
teachers to stay more than five years, so having a raise
incentive which only lasts three years does not help.
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 a
raise would influence retention.
MS. TESHNER responded that this is correct. The intent of the
bill is to create a study to see if this is something that
improves retention.
8:58:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed the opinion that the ability to
raise teacher pay indefinitely is needed. She confirmed her
support for the amendment.
8:59:28 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE expressed appreciation for 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 questioned how it would be determined
whether the three-year incentive worked.
MS. TESHER responded it would be learned through the process of
collecting and reporting data.
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,
teachers' salaries are not negotiated, it is done through the
school districts. She offered her belief this is something
individual districts must do. She expressed support for
incentives; however, she argued that the bill is good "as is."
9:02:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT voiced that Conceptual Amendment 1
could have been a little different; however, she expressed the
concern that there is no fiscal note or study after the three-
year period. She expressed the idea this incentive could be
used by districts 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 to
HB 106. 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 Conceptual 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 in the proposed legislation.
9:05:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY opined that the proposed amendment has 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, for students to do
well, it is important to have consistent help from support
staff. She opined that the amendment would be a good incentive
and investment in Alaska's resources, even though the fiscal
note would increase.
9:06:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX commented that adding paraprofessionals
would increase the risk of passing nothing "if we push too far."
9:07:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT expressed the opinion that the best way
to increase salaries is an increase in the base student
allocation (BSA), but since this is uncertain, the [amendment]
would be one way to make sure staff are incentivized to stay,
while increasing recruitment for districts. She brought up the
example when the Department of Law made a 20 percent increase
for staff, and now it has the lowest vacancy rate of any
department.
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 to
HB 106. 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 that he supports
HB 106, but offered his belief that it would not be a good
replacement for an increase in BSA. He noted that this is not
supported by educators in Bethel, as they would support good
benefits and an increase to BSA.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK removed his objection.
9:09:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected and concurred with Representative
McCormick's comments. In order to thrive, she expressed the
opinion that working conditions are important for Alaska's
teachers and students; therefore, the state must keep up with
increasing costs. She added that local control is important.
She briefly mentioned the practices other states have attempted
to adopt.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY removed her objection.
9:12:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT objected because this would create a
difficult position. She acknowledged that teachers are
underpaid, and anytime there is a chance to increase their
salaries, it should be done. She suggested that a way to do
this would be to fund BSA and provide increases on a regular
basis to fund the schools and salaries.
9:12:55 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD offered her support for teachers but argued that
there is no guarantee that BSA would increase their salaries.
She suggested this would be up to the individual unions and
school boards. She expressed the belief that this increase
would be an incentive and a recruitment tool. She reiterated
her strong support for 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 reporting HB 106 from committee. 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 9:18 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 withdrew Amendment 2.
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:
[Because of the length of Amendment 3, it has been placed at the
end of the discussion of HB 105.]
[No audible objection was captured on the recording.]
9:19:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that Amendment 3 would
provide funding support for school districts to implement the
requirements of HB 105, as well as a funding factor for parental
involvement. She said that the bill would require communication
with families, and this comes with a cost, such as extra
staffing and teacher follow up. 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 supervised. The funding factor,
she said, would cover the one-time capital cost for building
modifications required by the proposed bill. She argued that
without this amendment [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 the amendment.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD responded 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 extra
steps would require more communication. She suggested that it
would be helpful to have a liaison at schools to encourage
parental involvement. She expressed concern about resourcing
help for teachers as well.
9:25:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT responded that there is quite a bit of
communication which happens between classroom teachers and
parents. She advised that finding time outside of the normal
school day to reach out to parents takes time and money, and
schools should have the needed resources.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE maintained his objection.
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.
9:28:33 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD withdrew Amendment 4.
9:28:40 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE moved to adopt the proposed Committee
Substitute (CS) for HB 105, Version 33-GH1072\B, Marx, 4/15/23
("Version B"); [however, the committee did not adopt the motion
at this time.]
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 the discussion of the original bill
version of HB 105].
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE moved to rescind the action in adopting
Amendment 3 to HB 105. There being no objection, the action in
adopting Amendment 3 was rescinded. [The committee rescinded
the action to adopt Amendment 3 to HB 105, with the intention
that the amendment would be reintroduced as "Conceptual
Amendment 1" after the CS was adopted.]
9:43:36 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE moved to adopt the proposed CS for HB 105,
Version 33-GH1072\B, Marx, 4/15/23 ("Version B"). There being
no objection, Version B was before the committee.
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
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE spoke on the changes made in 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 parents would also provide the school with names, nicknames,
and pronouns that the school shall use for identification and
records. He continued that another change addresses the
physical safety of a child in locker rooms and restrooms, and it
would recognize curriculum in support of the [Alaska's Safe
Children's Act].
9:46:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1
to HB 105, Version B. [Conceptual Amendment 1 is the same as
Amendment 3, which was moved, and then rescinded. A copy of the
amendment has been placed at the end of the meeting on HB 105.]
9:47:10 AM
CO-CHAIR 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 acknowledged that
Legislative Legal Services would be allowed to make any
technical and conforming changes to Conceptual Amendment 1, if
needed.
9:48:25 AM
CO-CHAIR 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.
9:49:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK questioned what sort of protections may
remain in place for students who might be from an abusive home,
as they could potentially end up in a dangerous situation when
they are forced to share certain information.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE explained that there are protections already
in place for teachers, and teachers are still mandatory
reporters if such a situation were to arise. He expressed
concern that teachers may be put in the middle of situations.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK requested clarification.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE explained that through testimony and
conversations regarding HB 105, teachers were found to be not a
neutral third party and found themselves uncomfortable in this
role. The teachers, he said, may have information they are not
certain of what to do with and Version B clarifies this. He
stated that this is a parental right bill; however, if a teacher
feels uncomfortable about a child's home situation, it is the
teacher's responsibility to be a mandatory reporter.
9:53:10 AM
CO-CHAIR 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 there is also some "poor teaching."
She expressed the opinion that the proposed legislation is
"using a butcher knife where a scalpel would do." She continued
that it would take the focus away from the way things should be
done, such as supporting schools in a predictable and stable
way, improving reading outcomes, and recruiting and retaining
the best teachers possible. She stated that passage of the bill
would be passing a mandate which feels threatening to some of
the most vulnerable. 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 by a vote of
4-3.
9:57:30 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McKay, Allard,
Prax, and Ruffridge voted in favor of the motion to move CSHB
105, as amended, from committee. Representatives McCormick,
Himschoot, and Story voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 105(EDC)
was reported 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 reiterated that CSHB 105(EDC) had moved
from committee.
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 moved to withdraw the motion to call the
question on CSHB 105, as amended. There being no objection, the
motion was withdrawn.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD moved to rescind the motion to move CSHB
105, as amended, from committee. There being no objection, the
motion was rescinded.
10:04:53 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 10:04 a.m. to 10:06 a.m.
10:06:11 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE moved to report CSHB 105, Version 33-
GH1072\B, Marx, 4/15/23, as amended, with individual
recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note from
committee, with an authorization for Legislative Legal Services
to make technical and conforming changes.
10:06:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected and spoke to her objection. She
offered her belief regarding the importance of parental rights,
as they are key. She added that in current law, parents are to
be notified two weeks prior of any sensitive topic in the
classroom, with the right to opt their child out. She expressed
her concern that the proposed legislation would switch "the opt
out" to "an opt in." She expressed concern that students would
miss out on very important information. She expressed the
opinion that most parents would like their child to have
information on sensitive age-appropriate topics. She opined
that the requirement of permission slips puts up a barrier. 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 students. She said [legislators]
must think about local control and violations of students'
rights to privacy. She warned that the provisions in the
proposed legislation garner much more serious thought.
10:11:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK noted that suicide in Alaska is the
leading cause of death in youths ages 10 through 24; however, he
stated that it is a preventable public health crisis. 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 and expressed the opinion that this would be
doing something to help people, while HB 105 would make life
harder. He gave an example of growing up in rural Alaska where
life is hard, and he said his goal is to make life easier for
rural kids. He reiterated his opposition to HB 105.
10:13:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed the belief that parents have the
moral responsibility to raise their children, not the
legislature. He stressed that the bill poses challenges, and
the state must think critically about this.
10:15:47 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE thanked committee members for their comments.
He said the legislature plays an important role regarding what
is happening inside of Alaska's schools and with children. He
expressed the belief that the proposed bill would strengthen the
ability of students to have private access to restrooms and
potentially greater safety. He stated that, while it may not be
perfect, the proposed bill has started the conversation about
the roles of teachers and parents, and how to better engage
them. He expressed value in parental's rights and said he looks
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. She questioned
whether any changes would need to be made.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE explained that this 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 related that when there are other legislators
present, they must be respectful to the chairs and not
interrupt. She added that the 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
[Following is a copy of Amendment 3 to HB 105, which was renamed
and passed as "Conceptual Amendment 1" during the meeting.]
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
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 |