02/07/2001 08:10 AM House EDU
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
February 7, 2001
8:10 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Con Bunde, Chair
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Joe Green
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Gretchen Guess
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 71
"An Act relating to the education of children with disabilities
and of gifted children; relating to the Governor's Council on
Disabilities and Special Education; making conforming
amendments; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 43
"An Act relating to reimbursement of certain student loans; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 37
"An Act relating to reimbursement of certain student loans; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 37(EDU) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 54
"An Act relating to reimbursement of student loans; and
providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 71
SHORT TITLE:EDUC. OF DISABLED OR GIFTED CHILDREN
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/17/01 0112 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/17/01 0112 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
01/17/01 0112 (H) FN 1: ZERO(EED)
01/17/01 0112 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
01/17/01 0112 (H) REFERRED TO EDU
02/07/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 43
SHORT TITLE:STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)GREEN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/10/01 0049 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/10/01 0049 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
01/10/01 0049 (H) REFERRED TO EDU
01/12/01 0073 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KERTTULA
02/07/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 37
SHORT TITLE:STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)STEVENS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/08/01 0033 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/08/01 0034 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
01/08/01 0034 (H) REFERRED TO EDU
01/17/01 (H) EDU AT 9:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
01/17/01 (H) Heard & Held
01/17/01 (H) MINUTE(EDU)
01/31/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/31/01 (H) Heard & Held
01/31/01 MINUTES(EDU)
02/07/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
DEBBIE OSSIANDER, Member and Legislative Chair
Anchorage School Board
PO Box 670772
Chugiak, Alaska 99567
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and asked questions on HB 71 and
HB 43.
LOUISE PARISH
PO Box 1182
Valdez, Alaska 99686
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and asked questions on HB 71.
GRETCHEN KEISER
PO Box 21883
Juneau, Alaska 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 71.
KEVIN JARDELL, Staff
to Representative Green
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 403
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 43.
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director
NEA-Alaska [National Education Association]
114 Second Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 43.
WENDY REDMAN, Vice President
Statewide University Relations
University of Alaska
P.O. Box 755200
Fairbanks, Alaska 99775
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented and answered questions on HB 43.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-5, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR BUNDE called the House Special Committee on Education
meeting to order at 8:10 a.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives Bunde, Porter, Stevens, Joule, and
Guess. Representatives Green and Wilson joined the meeting as
it was in progress.
HB 71 - EDUC. OF DISABLED OR GIFTED CHILDREN
Number 0198
CHAIR BUNDE announced the first order of business as HOUSE BILL
NO. 71, "An Act relating to the education of children with
disabilities and of gifted children; relating to the Governor's
Council on Disabilities and Special Education; making conforming
amendments; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR BUNDE went over HB 71 since there was no one from the
administration to present it. The bill is a requirement of the
federal government to adjust the funding of disabled children
and basically remove gifted children from the disabled funding.
CHAIR BUNDE referred to the fiscal note, [$103,400] of new GF
[general fund], which would continue the gifted programs
formerly funded out of the special education money. He noted
that HB 71 amends the Alaska statutes and brings them into
compliance with current federal special education mandates and
emphasizes the participation of parents in making decisions.
"In shorthand for that is if we don't do it, we'll stand to lose
federal money." It clarifies the procedure for requesting due
process hearings, streamlines the process for selecting a
hearing officer, and provides allocation responsibilities and
coordination of services among various educational agencies for
special education students who are enrolled in alternative
education programs.
CHAIR BUNDE went on to say that the bill requires local schools
to provide services to disabled children who attend private or
religious schools or who are home schooled. It allows parents
of home schooled children to also refuse services; replaces the
provision regarding separate transportation by school district
with a requirement that issue be determined by the IEP
[individual education plan] that special needs children have,
which has been part of their education for years and years;
separates Alaska statutes regarding special education services
and gifted education services as required by federal law. It
does, however, maintain procedural safeguards for both programs
and repeals and re-enacts definitions.
Number 0409
DEBBIE OSSIANDER, Member and Legislative Chair, Anchorage School
Board, testified via teleconference. She reported that the
Anchorage School Board has been following this issue for some
time now and has heard comments from folks all over the
community regarding the potential for this bill. The board is
not supportive of separating the gifted out from other special
education unless it has been determined with certainty that
Alaska is in jeopardy of losing federal special education
dollars. Last November some people from the department
[Education and Early Development] told the board that that was
not yet certain. First, the board would like some assurance
that that has been determined.
MS. OSSIANDER said the board has a number of questions and
concerns on this bill based on conversations between board
members and their superintendent. It hasn't yet been thoroughly
discussed with the Anchorage special education people, so at
this point, there are more questions than anything.
MS. OSSIANDER referred to page 3, Section 9, lines 25 and 28,
where the word "participate" is used rather than "consultation"
in the evaluation. She wondered if that means a change in
responsibility; what are the specific implications of that word
choice for districts?
MS. OSSIANDER referred to page 7, Section 19, line 26, which
uses the words "individualized education program," which is
different than "individual education plan." The board believes
that the intent was merely to reword current practice, but the
first sentence in lines 26-27 basically says the district shall
develop an individualized education program. She wondered if
that means there is a separate, distinct district responsibility
from the individual team responsibility to develop a plan for a
child.
MS. OSSIANDER referred to page 9, Section 21, lines 15-19, which
refers to a situation where a district does not have the
capability for delivering the education that a child needs
locally. The board has some concerns about this and may present
an amendment after talking to the special education people in
Anchorage. Anchorage serves as a statewide resource to provide
medical needs and educational services for low incidence
disabilities. Right now those children are in a separate
category of the state funding formula. Typically they are more
expensive to educate. Her concern is that these children need
to come in before the count date in order for the district to
receive additional funding to make sure the children's needs can
be met adequately. She asked the committee to at least consider
the possibility of giving the district the ability to document
the needs it is experiencing at some point through the year.
MS. OSSIANDER reported that additionally, there are some
extremely unusual situations where there is no ability within
the state of Alaska to provide for needed services. There was a
case last year that caused great concern. That has usually
happened with a severely emotionally disturbed child. There was
an instance where a child was sent outside for services because
the IEP team did not feel there were services available in
Alaska. The Anchorage School District totally absorbed the cost
for that education Outside. The board would be interested in
discussing a responsibility for situations like that and hope
that there would be at least some potential help from the state
in a situation like that. She doesn't have wording for an
amendment, but that is the concern in this area.
MS. OSSIANDER referred to page 12, Section 34, "informed
consent." She specified (A), which says "fully informed" in
talking about a parent's knowledge situation. She would
appreciate some clarity and further definition of what it means
to be sure that a parent is fully informed of all information
relevant. There is some real potential for district liability
if that is not fully done.
Number 0848
MS. OSSIANDER referred to page 13, Article 3A. "Education for
Gifted Children", (f), lines 24-31, where it talks about a
parent's right to obtain an independent evaluation if the parent
doesn't believe that the district has done a correct assessment
for his/her child. The concern is the wording "due process."
The board would hope to, at least, discuss an "administrative
appeal," which is cheaper for the district, it's less time
consuming, and there is less burden of proof, rather than going
immediately to due process.
Number 0922
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Ms. Ossiander to explain the
difference between an administrative review and a due process
hearing.
MS. OSSIANDER answered that to be accurate on this, she would
need to refer it to the people who do it for a living, but
generally, she understands that a due process hearing requires a
greater standard of proof and is a very formalized process; an
administrative review is more informal. Both have disinterested
and impartial hearing officers, but one is more similar to a
litigation process, and one is more of a discussion. She noted
she could stand corrected on this.
Number 0980
MS. OSSIANDER referred to page 14, line 17. As each child is
reviewed, both for special education and gifted children, the
team has been developing an individualized education plan or
program as is listed in the bill. She wondered what the
department had in mind with the term used in (2), line 17,
"short-term instructional objectives."
MS. OSSIANDER referred to page 15, lines 4-9, that refer to a
term that is part of federal special education law called "least
restrictive environment." The board members support and
understand this term with special education students. In the
arena of gifted education, in the board members' minds, things
can be viewed a little differently. All the educational
research they have seen show real benefits allowing these
children to have classes together rather than be at all times in
with all their other classmates. There is a gifted education
program in Anchorage, offered at the elementary school called
the "Ignite" program, where children are taken from their
neighborhood school one day a week and given special gifted
education services at a neighborhood school, which is not
necessarily their own. She wondered if Anchorage would be
precluded from offering this program under the "least
restrictive environment."
MS. OSSIANDER referred to page 17, [line 3], "Definitions". The
specific concern here is item (4), lines 15-16. It includes
creative talent and ability in the definition of gifted.
Currently, Anchorage does not offer gifted services to children
who may be creative musically or artistically, and the wording
in this definition appears to include that. On line 16, it
appears that gifted children will be determined under
regulations adopted by the department. Currently, districts
develop their own plan of delivery of services for gifted
children. There has been some discrepancy among districts in
the past. The board would very much like to retain local
control and hopes to continue with its own definition of
services.
Number 1160
MS. OSSIANDER said it was interesting that transportation
delivery of gifted students was not mentioned. Currently,
gifted students do qualify for transportation to their delivery
site. She wondered if it is the department's intent to do away
with that. She is also concerned about the change Chair Bunde
mentioned at the beginning of the meeting where he said
"transportation service for special education students
additionally will be provided in a different fashion based on
IEP rather than identifying label." She requested clarification
on those points.
MS. OSSIANDER said the board is pleased to see that this bill is
going through several committees because it needs a fair amount
of discussion and work prior to passage.
Number 1223
LOUISE PARISH testified via teleconference. She is the parent
of a learning disabled child and has a number of concerns
regarding HB 71. She read the following testimony:
Why has the department [Department of Education and
Early Development] completely ignored my numerous
requests to change the word language to speech-
language in eligibility regulations, even though IDEA
[Individuals with Disabilities Education Act] uses the
term speech-language? If you go to page 11, "child
with a disability" at line 24 reads "speech
impairment." I have commented numerous times to
AkDEED [Alaska Department of Education and Early
Development] that this needs to be changed to speech-
language impairment. My daughter is language
impaired. IDEA discusses speech-language impairment,
not just speech impairments. I've complained about
this to people at AkDEED, I've commented formally on
their proposed regulation. I see no change in it and
this one gross oversight, I believe, cost my daughter
many years of appropriate services. And I don't
understand at all why I have been able to pointedly
complain about this and have absolutely nothing done
about it. It gives me the feeling and the overall -
and I also went to due process - and just my
background gives me the feeling as though many of
these statutes and regulations are just written
without parent input and that often our concerns are
simply disregarded and forces us into a situation
where it's a brick wall, and the only way to change
anything is to take somebody to court. ... It's bad
news. I would hope that at least that gets fixed.
I asked Dr. Johnson why the department never invited
regular parents to participate in any legislative
review of this bill as it was constructed. I felt we
were left out of the picture. Dr. Johnson told me it
was because the department didn't "have to." He said
I could react after the bill was constructed to the
legislature. ... Why does AkDEED exclude parents?
I have no certainty whatsoever that this bill is
adequate or appropriate for our kids. I asked Dr
Johnson and the state board to confer with private
counsel in the construction so that parents could feel
that their interests were represented.
Has the department even conferred as it promised it
would do with private counsel practicing in this area
of law before submitting this bill, and if so, please
identify such private counsel?
Why is it that AkDEED never asked its hearing officers
for input or comment on current or proposed state regs
or statutes? That only makes sense to me.
Why has the department refused to consider the
proposal to set up a hearing panel as adopted by
Missouri?
Why does the bill fail to state Alaskan policy on
exceptional children? We should make a statement on
what we want to see for our kids; other states do.
MS. PARISH said she has a number of other items that she will
fax to the committee. She requested that the committee ask the
department and Dr. Johnson these questions. She also read:
There seems to be no Comprehensive System of Personnel
Development statute. There seems, just from my
limited review of IDEA 97, to be a number of items
that are not included in this statute or in the
proposed regs. I don't like that AkDEED appears to
have no oversight in this important legislation. It's
almost as though the bill gets constructed, and then
we start haggling about the minutiae in the bill
without looking at the big picture of what's missing
to begin with.
I'm particularly concerned because in IDEA 97, they
list additional procedural safeguards that should be
written into statute. These additional procedural
safeguards help us to be sure that kids are tested
appropriately in the evaluation process. IDEA reads:
"for teachers to ensure testing and evaluation
materials and procedures ... will not be racially or
culturally discriminating ... no single procedure
shall be the sole criterion for determining an
appropriate educational program." Often our districts
use an IQ discrepancy formula, regression formula, and
use this for determining whether a child is eligible
or not. This needs to be written into statute so it
is very clear that districts can't use this measure to
exclude kids. The problem often is that kids with
language learning disabilities, such as my daughter,
may be tested using devices that detect certain
disabilities, which would be reading, and therefore
provide inappropriate data for determination of her
eligibility.
The no CSPD (Comprehensive System of Personnel
Development) with no additional procedural safeguards,
AkDEED not addressing my request to add the word
language to speech-language impairment gives me the
overall impression that this bill may very well be
extremely inadequate, and I would like a private
lawyer to who deals with special education to review
this. I attended a legislative review meeting that
was held at least at AkDEED's behest for Parents Inc.,
DLC [Disability Law Center], district representatives,
and the Governor's Council [on Disabilities and
Special Education], but there were no regular parents
that were represented there.... It was a listen only
type of review. Parents need to be informed about all
of this and should be in on the construction of the
bill and hopefully what will be a number of changes
that will improve this bill drastically.
CHAIR BUNDE told Ms. Parish that Dr. Johnson was at the meeting
so has heard her questions directly.
Number 1577
GRETCHEN KEISER came forward to testify. She read the following
testimony:
I come today as a parent of a child who has been
determined to be high-ability, or gifted, student in
our public school system here in Juneau. My son is a
sophomore here at the high school.... Personally I
have spent a considerable time in my son's classes
over the years in Juneau and have made some effort to
educate myself about how you go about educating gifted
kids.
As a state, we are blessed with approximately 6,200
gifted kids from Ketchikan, Kodiak, Kaktovik. That's
approximately 5 percent of our student population.
That's a lot of children. If you place them together
that would rank as about our eighth largest city, just
behind Kodiak in population, or as our fifth largest
school district, ahead of Juneau in size.
I want to speak briefly about educating gifted
children -- is one piece within the broad array of
efforts we're undertaking ... for a number of years to
improve educational standards, increase and test
competencies, and basically graduate children who are
ready and able to tackle life's challenges. I would
like to suggest some changes to the language of one
section of HB 71 because I believe it may more closely
match the educational needs of gifted kids.
There are a variety of ways schools can meet the needs
of gifted children. In some circumstances, children
can be accelerated through promoting them: just move
them up a grade, and they're ready to move. Or you
can have a classroom of gifted children who can zoom
through the equivalent of two years of material in one
year by ... compressing the curriculum. For example,
rather than spending three days going through
repetitive math problems on a particular topic, these
kids are ready to move on to new material on day two.
In another instance, a group of gifted children from
one class can pull out to the library to do research
or discuss books by an author the whole class has
read, and then they could actually move on and write a
play or their own short story based on the reading.
The common thread here is an enriched educational
approach that matches and stimulates the ability of
the gifted kids.... One point to make is we're not
necessarily talking about more services provided to
these children than other students. I think what
we're really talking about are different services, a
different educational method and pace, appropriately
advanced materials, and a modified classroom setting
in some circumstances.
Why should we worry about special education for gifted
kids? Won't they be okay anyway? What happens to
these kids if they don't get some special services?
Gifted kids who do not receive the necessary
enrichment become bored, frustrated, discouraged, and
even angry. To have ability, to feel power you are
never allowed to use, can be traumatic for some of
these children. You end up with social discontents
and acting-out behavior in the class in some
circumstances. An article I read recently said many
researchers consider the gifted as the largest group
of underachievers in the American education system
today.
On the other hand, bright kids who are never truly
challenged find schoolwork easy and quite frankly,
some of them develop an inflated view of their
abilities, which can interfere with their future
education or their employability down the road.
I draw your attention to HB 71 the section on page 15.
The first speaker this morning ... spoke to this,
beginning on line 4, the section which is identified
as the "least restrictive environment." I have some
difficulties with this prescription of the least
restricted environment for gifted children. Now this
virtually identical language is also in place earlier
in the bill under the section for the children with
disabilities.
We have made an important educational decision to
integrate children with disabilities into the main
classroom as a way to help them maximize their
potential through interaction with other children. In
this sense, it is the least restrictive environment
for those children, particularly given some of the
alternatives in the past.
However, common sense suggests that the same does not
hold for gifted children in a regular classroom. The
least restrictive environment for these children, by
and large, would be an accelerated classroom, ...
differentiated curriculum ... more advanced material,
small group setting with their ability peers, or
individualized learning on their own.
From my personal experience, mainstreaming gifted kids
... for "education in regular classrooms with
supplementary aids and services" typically means
isolating one or two kids in a given classroom in what
is equivalent to an intellectual straitjacket. There
are not enough kids in any one of these classes to
reach the critical mass ... you don't have enough of
them to work together or feed off each other's quick
learning. I also think, actually, using the word
regular classroom ... we may be seeing that as
somewhat of an obsolete ... term at this point.
As the results of our benchmark tests and qualifying
exams begin to convulse through our school districts,
we are in fact defining two groups of children: those
who lack proficiency on material and those who are
proficient and ready to move on. In this context, I
think "regular classroom" has become obsolete. What's
regular? If more than 50 percent of the third graders
are proficient in writing, do these kids make up a
"regular class" while additional remedial efforts in
special classes are directed at the other children?
Alternatively, if 60 percent of the eighth graders
lack proficiency in math, do they constitute the
"regular classroom" while the fewer students are
proficient move forward? I think we really need to
look at that language and maybe step back from it.
MS. KEISER provided copies to the committee of some language she
came up with dealing with the least restrictive environment.
CHAIR BUNDE said there are obviously a lot of questions on HB
71. He remanded the bill back to the department and asked that
it work with the questions that have come up from school
districts, parents, and Mr. Briggs from the Disability Law
Center and bring it back to the committee with as much agreement
as they can achieve. [HB 71 was heard and held.]
HB 43 - STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS
Number 2018
CHAIR BUNDE announced the next order of business as HOUSE BILL
NO. 43, "An Act relating to reimbursement of certain student
loans; and providing for an effective date."
Number 2040
REPRESENTATIVES WILSON and GREEN made a motion to adopt the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 43, version 22-
LS0225\O, Ford, 2/6/01, as a work draft. There being no
objection, Version O was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN, sponsor of HB 43, explained that it is a
work in progress because the people from the student loan
program pointed out some problems with it even with the
modifications. It is hoped that the current version circumvents
the most obvious problem of the tremendous drop out in the first
two years of people who apply for loans, which is not uncommon.
By making incentives to encourage people to take out student
loans could create a problem. This bill now says there will be
loan forgiveness only after 60 credits have been earned. The
completion ratio from that point is much higher.
Number 2124
KEVIN JARDELL, Staff to Representative Green, came forward to
present HB 43. The goal of the bill is to increase the number
of students in subject matter areas that are determined to be
underserved in the state and to encourage students in their
final two years to look at teaching in geographical areas that
have a shortage of teachers. The bill accomplishes this by
allowing a program for Alaska student loans to be forgiven. In
order to qualify for loan forgiveness -- it would only apply to
loans taken after 60 credit hours -- the student would have to
graduate from an institution in Alaska, and the student would
have to either teach in a subject matter area that has been
identified as underserved by the commissioner or teach in a
geographically area that has been determined to have a shortage
of teachers.
MR. JARDELL explained that the provision for payback allows for
up to 100 percent of loans taken after 60 credit hours, and
there is a five-year "ramp up" on the payback provisions to try
to increase retention in those areas.
CHAIR BUNDE noted there had been a lot of public response on the
issue of loan forgiveness. Many have asked, "Why only
teachers?" He wondered if "we are killing students with
kindness by allowing them to graduate $50,000 in debt." These
students are graduating from colleges and assuming what were,
for many people in the past, home mortgages.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that the concept here is to let
teachers have "first crack at it" and see if this incentive is
going to be effective before adding other disciplines that are
facing shortages. He said regarding retroactivity: if it
doesn't start now, then how far back does it go? "We have to
start from a point and go forward."
CHAIR BUNDE added that the cost would be astronomical once it
was opened up.
Number 2299
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director, NEA-Alaska [National
Education Association], came forward to testify. He indicated
that both HB 43 and HB 37 are steps in the right direction and
loan forgiveness is one means of attracting individuals to the
teaching profession and to the classroom. The NEA-Alaska sees a
distinction between the two bills. Representative Green is on
the right track in identifying need relative to geographic area
and shortage as it relates to subject. It will give an
opportunity to hopefully get teachers into critical areas and
help the schools.
TAPE 01-5, SIDE B
Number 2371
MR. MARSHALL offered a thought relative to both bills. Loan
forgiveness is applicable July 1, 2001, but the NEA-Alaska would
like to see some opportunity to the students currently in
education preparatory programs now to take advantage of the loan
forgiveness, particularly as it serves as an encouragement to
increase the pool of teaching applicants. The NEA-Alaska is
concerned that with the 2001 timeline, it could take one to
three years to get that pool enhanced to the point where it is
beneficial to school districts. He suggested that the pool in
the university system now be taken advantage of so those
teachers can get in the classroom immediately. He called it a
modified retroactivity.
MR. MARSHALL agreed that the bill is one step in solving the
problems relative to teaching that are critical to the capacity
and ability to attract individuals to classrooms. These two
bills and Representative Davies' bill are a step in the right
direction to enhance and improve the pool of applicants from
which teachers are selected.
Number 2247
DEBBIE OSSIANDER, Member and Legislative Chair, Anchorage School
Board, testified via teleconference. She said the board members
have been following the loan forgiveness bills with interest for
the purpose of dealing with the shortages being experienced in
specific areas. The board would like further discussion on how
this would apply in the urban areas of Alaska in those high
needs areas, which include special educationucation and related
services, but there is also difficulty with foreign language,
math, and librarians. There was some mention earlier of a means
of appealing to the commissioner for determining if an area was
high need, and the board would like more information about that.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER clarified that one difference between HB
43 and HB 37 is that HB 43 addresses loans that have been
acquired by going to college in-state, and HB 37 addresses loans
acquired by going to college anywhere.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that not necessarily all a student's
academic career must be in-state, but the student must graduate
from an accredited Alaskan institution. Since there is a dearth
of graduates from the University of Alaska, he is trying to
encourage people to go into the teaching profession and graduate
from Alaska colleges.
Number 2128
WENDY REDMAN, Vice President, Statewide University Relations,
University of Alaska, came forward to comment and answer
questions on HB 43. She pointed out two issues that she thinks
are important. In response to a specific question asked, "I
think if you are trying to get college graduates to stay in
Alaska, investing in in-state institutions is the best way you
can do it. We already know quantitatively that 82 percent of
our graduates stay in Alaska, work here, make their homes here."
She told the committee that the University of Alaska could never
meet all the shortage; there are other things at play.
MS. REDMAN said the second issue that is important is to
consider extending it to students who are already enrolled. It
also is known quantitatively that only 50 percent of the
university's graduates in teacher education actually go into
teaching. According to surveys that the university has done,
the reason is primarily salary. It is also there aren't a lot
of teaching jobs in the urban areas, outside of the specialty
areas that Ms. Ossiander mentioned.
CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Redman what would be the minimum that a
student would have to be in residence in the University of
Alaska system to graduate.
MS. REDMAN answered that right now it is 30 credits, but there
is some flexibility in that. Basically, it is the last two
semesters.
Number 2048
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked Representative Green what the
definition is of a geographically underserved area or subject
for which there is a shortage of teachers. She asked: If a
school has all the positions filled except one and can't get
someone to go to that area, is that considered a shortage?
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he didn't want to presume how the
school district would determine that; it would be up to the
school district. He thought rather than a single position, it
would have to be a single, perhaps, subject matter.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON suggested perhaps that should be tightened
up.
CHAIR BUNDE requested that Representative Green talk to school
districts and see what kind of adjustment there could be.
Number 1982
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS asked if the loan forgiveness was 100
percent of the loans taken out after 60 credits.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN answered yes. It would not apply toward
the first 60 credits.
CHAIR BUNDE said he had some questions about the fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said there isn't a fiscal note yet, but he
thinks it would be significantly lower because it doesn't cover
the first two years, which is the bulk of people taking loans.
Number 1919
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked Representative Green: It was your
intent not to include graduate students?
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN agreed it was just for an undergraduate
degree and not the Masters in Teaching program.
CHAIR BUNDE announced that proposed CSHB 43 would be held over.
HB 37 - STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS
Number 1888
CHAIR BUNDE announced the next order of business as HOUSE BILL
NO. 37, "An Act relating to reimbursement of certain student
loans; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR BUNDE asked if there was any more public testimony.
Hearing none, he closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS asked Representative Stevens if he would
consider putting in a clause similar to the one in HB 43 on
geographically underserved areas or subject shortage to target
the problem.
Number 1849
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS responded that there are some excellent
issues to discuss. The idea of identifying the needs
geographically and the shortages in subject areas, as long as
they are identified, could easily be pulled in to HB 37. In
essence, 100 percent forgiveness, one way or the other,
accomplishes the same thing whether it is a five-year
forgiveness, freshman through graduate school, in HB 37 or
beyond 60 hours in HB 43; in the end he thinks it is a similar
dollar amount.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN reminded the committee:
If they take 100 applicants in year one, by the time
we get to year three, that may be down to 20 or 25
because we've lost all these people who are not going
to finish. So now we're talking about only using
about whatever ratio ... that would be the group that
would end up with effectively 50 percent of their loan
pre-paid, not this big group that dropped out, and
that's the difference between the two bills.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS clarified that the student would not
receive forgiveness unless he/she was teaching in HB 37. He
commented:
A lot of the discussion that has occurred is under the
assumption that if you don't actually graduate, you
somehow have failed.... There's a tremendous
advantage to our state when people take any classes at
the university or college. This does not apply, but
still I ... keep hearing this that it's a failure, and
you're not contributing to society if you don't
actually get a college degree. That's really not
true.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to the comment about the
university providing about 30 percent of the state's needs for
teachers. He asked if that percent takes out the 50 percent who
completed the teaching degree but chose not to teach.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked what information the fiscal note was
comprised of.
Number 1679
MS. REDMAN answered Representative Joule that the 30 percent
total is those who are actually teaching. It does not count the
50 percent of the university graduates who are doing something
else. It could potentially be higher. The 30 percent is of all
teachers. At the elementary level, close to 68 percent of the
need is being filled; the problem is in the specialty areas,
many of which the university does not even offer, like foreign
languages, physical education, and other specialty areas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to Ms. Redman's earlier points:
"1) that we need to continue to invest in the University; and 2)
that 50 percent of the people who did not go into teaching but
received their degrees did it because they can get higher pay
someplace else." He commented, "We seem to be missing the boat
on 50 percent of the people who are already in the system
because ... we can't be competitive on the wage market."
MS. REDMAN replied that she had said, "Pay was one [reason]. It
was the first thing in the polling we do, but the second issue
is locale." It's a very significant issue that there are many
graduates who want to teach in Anchorage, Fairbanks, or Juneau.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified his comments:
I'm not saying that if they don't qualify for this
loan that they're failures; by no means do I imply
that. I'm just saying that this is a single
possibility to try and encourage students to go to
school here and teach here, and if they don't do that,
they just don't qualify for this loan forgiveness.
That in no way means that they're failures. Even if
they take one course, ... that's better than not
taking any course.
CHAIR BUNDE indicated that he would like some conclusion today
about HB 37. The committee will hear HB 43 next week. He said
that HB 54 is going to be a difficult challenge financially
because it spends the Student Loan Corporation's money.
Number 1470
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS made a motion to move HB 37, as amended,
from the committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 37(EDU) moved from
the House Special Committee on Education.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1426
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Education meeting was adjourned at 9:20
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|