Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/13/1995 02:07 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
April 13, 1995
2:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Representative Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Caren Robinson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Tom Brice
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HB 156: "An Act relating to access to extracurricular school
programs by home schooled students."
HEARD AND HELD
* HB 35: "An Act relating to the grounds for imposing
disciplinary sanctions on persons licensed by the
Sate Medical Board."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 217: "An Act relating to employment of teachers."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 172: "An Act relating to kindergarten programs and
compulsory education; to identification required upon
enrollment in a public school; to those grades that
constitute elementary, junior, and secondary school;
and providing for an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HB 229: "An Act prohibiting certain amplified sounds from
automobiles; and providing for an effective date."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
JOHN DAHLGREN, Associate Superintendent of Schools
Kenai Peninsula Borough School District
148 N. Binkley
Soldotna, AK 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-5846
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 156.
MARYJEAN YRAGUI
P.O. Box 1290
Kenai, AK 99611
Telephone: (907) 283-4947
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 156.
ISABEL HUESTIS
P.O. Box 1886
Soldotna, AK 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-2868
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 156.
GISELLE BERGERON
Huntwood Christian School
12570 Northern Raven
Anchorage, AK 99516
Telephone: (907) 345-1010
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 156.
SANDY BLOMFIELD
7610 Wildwood Circle
Anchorage, AK 99516
Telephone: (907) 346-2738
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 156.
STEVEN PORTER
10420 Loan Tree Drive
Anchorage, AK 99516
Telephone: (907) 265-6269
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 156.
DR. BILL MELL, Director of Secondary Education
Anchorage School District
4600 DeBarr Road
P.O. Box 196614
Anchorage, AK 99519-6614
Telephone: (907) 333-9561
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 156.
JUSTIN WALTON, Home school student
P.O. Box 221166
Anchorage, AK 99522
Telephone: (907) 248-1323
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 156.
JOSHUA WALTON, Home school student
P.O. Box 221166
Anchorage, AK 99522
Telephone: (907) 248-1323
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 156.
JONATHAN WALTON, Home school student
P.O. Box 221166
Anchorage, AK 99522
Telephone: (907) 248-1323
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 156.
PAIGE WALTON, Parent
P.O. Box 221166
Anchorage, AK 99522
Telephone: (907) 248-1323
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 156.
SARAH WALTON, Home school student
P.O. Box 221166
Anchorage, AK 99522
Telephone: (907) 248-1323
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 156.
JERRY WALTON, Parent
P.O. Box 221166
Anchorage, AK 99522
Telephone: (907) 248-1323
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 156.
LAUREL TATSUDA, Attorney
Representing the Anchorage School District
510 L Street, Suite 500
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 278-8533
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 156.
MARY HUTCHINSON, Parent
HC 2, Box 389
Soldotna, AK 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-4260
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 156.
MAGGIE REILLY, Parent
P.O. Box 847
Kasilof, AK 99610
Telephone: (907) 262-1835
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 156.
SYLVIA REYNOLDS, Assistant Principal
Juneau Douglas High School
10014 Crazy Horse Drive
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-1900
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 156.
SHEILA PETERSON, Special Assistant to the Commissioner
Department of Education
801 W. 10th Street, Suite 200
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2803
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 156 and HB 172.
REPRESENTATIVE SEAN PARNELL
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 515
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2995
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 35.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Commerce
State Office Building, 9th Floor
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2534
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 35.
JAYNE ANDREEN, Executive Director
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, AK 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-4356
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 35.
DR. DAVID McGUIRE, Chairman
Alaska State Medical Board
3601 C Street, Suite 722
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone: (907) 561-2878
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 35.
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards
316 W. 11th Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-0183
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 217.
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director
National Education Association - Alaska
114 Second Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 217.
STEVE McPHETRES, Executive Director
Alaska Council of School Administrators
364 4th Street, Suite 404
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-9702
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 217.
THOMAS WRIGHT, Legislative Assistant
Representative Ivan Ivan
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 503
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4942
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 217.
DEE HUBBARD
4251 Pinnacle Drive
Anchorage, AK 99504
Telephone: (907) 337-6370
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 172.
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 156
SHORT TITLE: STUDENT ACCESS TO SCHOOL PROGRAMS
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES BY REQUEST
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/06/95 252 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/06/95 252 (H) HES, FIN
04/13/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 35
SHORT TITLE: SEXUAL MISCONDUCT BY MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PARNELL,Bunde,Robinson
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 29 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 29 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 29 (H) HES, JUD, FIN
01/19/95 90 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE
02/06/95 256 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ROBINSON
04/13/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 217
SHORT TITLE: EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF TEACHERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) IVAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/01/95 531 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/01/95 531 (H) HES, JUDICIARY
03/07/95 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/07/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/29/95 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/11/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/13/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 172
SHORT TITLE: KINDERGARTEN & MISC. EDUC
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES BY REQUEST
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/10/95 302 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/10/95 302 (H) HES, FINANCE
03/02/95 (H) HES AT 02:30 PM CAPITOL 106
03/02/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/11/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/13/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 229
SHORT TITLE: PROHIBIT LOUD VEHICLE SOUND SYSTEMS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) ROKEBERG,Toohey,Bunde
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/03/95 565 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/03/95 566 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, HES, JUDICIARY
04/05/95 1039 (H) STA REFERRAL WAIVED
04/13/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-35, SIDE A
Number 000
CO-CHAIR CON BUNDE called the meeting of the House Health,
Education and Social Services standing committee to order at 2:07
p.m. Present at the call to order were Representatives Bunde,
Toohey, Vezey, and Davis. A quorum was present to conduct
business. Co-Chair Bunde read the calendar and announced the order
of the bills. He also announced that HB 229, Prohibit Loud Vehicle
Sound Systems, would be heard on April 20, 1995.
HB 156 - STUDENT ACCESS TO SCHOOL PROGRAMS
Number 087
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that HB 156 was introduced by the HESS
committee by request. This bill aims to benefit students who
participate in the Alaska State Centralized Correspondence School
(CCS). This is also commonly known as "home school." In addition,
it aims to benefit private school students and independent home
school students. Currently, these students do not have access to
public school co-curricular programs, including drama, debate,
music, band, and sporting events.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the Anchorage School District (ASD), among
other districts, offers educational alternatives such as "back to
basics" elementary programs, foreign language immersion programs,
"school within a school," and "stellar and polar alternatives."
Students who attend district-sponsored alternatives are allowed
access to co-curricular programs. This discriminatory practice of
locking out students who are not enrolled in public education
fosters a system of education which allows for complacency and
mediocrity.
Number 202
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted competition in any monopoly is healthy and can
assist in providing the best possible education for Alaska's
students. Alaska's Department of Education (DOE) has held public
hearings on this issue. The Alaska School Activities Association
(ASAA) and the ASD strive to enforce rules and regulations that
prevent private, home-schooled and CCS students from participation
in these extracurricular activities.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said this legislation would provide equal access to
all programs for all students regardless of enrollment.
Number 262
JOHN DAHLGREN, Associate Superintendent of Schools, Kenai Peninsula
Borough School District, testified via teleconference that the
participation of home-schooled students, i.e., those students who
are not enrolled in the district correspondence, is something the
school board has wrestled with over the last year. Although the
district has tried to provide access to home-schoolers that are in
specialized classes, those stipulations are being laid out at this
particular time.
MR. DAHLGREN said the district does allow home-school students to
take and participate in the co-curricular activities and
competitions as long as the students are associated with that
class. Classes may include the district honor band, choir, and
music. It is very important to provide parents and students with
a choice. However, Mr. Dahlgren is somewhat apprehensive to begin
running "boys and girls clubs" for students who are not enrolled in
a particular school.
MR. DAHLGREN said participation is one thing, representation is
another. The district is attempting to follow school board
guidelines. If students are enrolled in one course, the district
obtains a .25 full-time equivalent student (FTE). If the student
is enrolled in two courses, the district obtains a half-time FTE.
Three courses obtain a .75 FTE, and four or more obtains a full
FTE. A three-quarters or full-time FTE is counted in the
foundation formula. That has not been put forth yet, although it
has been acted upon. It is the understanding of Mr. Dahlgren that
this issue is still in the Attorney General's Office.
Number 394
MR. DAHLGREN said the district is going to propose to the school
board that all students who are enrolled in district correspondence
be allowed to participate. Students that are enrolled in at least
three classes will be allowed to participate and represent the
school, except in programs that are extensions of the classroom
such as music and band.
MR. DAHLGREN hoped the legislature would look at this issue
carefully. There is a difference between participating and
representing. There needs to be guidelines. Mr. Dahlgren was very
apprehensive to open up the interscholastic program to anybody that
says they are home-schooled. Obviously, a curriculum must be laid
out. Students who are on state correspondence used to be able to
participate because the state paid the activity fees for those
students. Budget reductions have eliminated that option.
Number 486
MR. DAHLGREN noted that even private and home schools, by state
statute, are private schools. There are many private schools in
Alaska that are also members of the Activities Association. They
offer an interscholastic program. Mr. Dahlgren hoped HESS
Committee members would make sure HB 156 contains very specific
parameters so districts can have some guidelines to function
within. He did not wish for activities to be opened to any party
across the board.
Number 543
CO-CHAIR BUNDE thanked Mr. Dahlgren for his testimony, and asked
that subsequent testimony be limited to three minutes. Co-Chair
Bunde asked if, when Mr. Dahlgren spoke of representation, that he
was speaking of, for example, basketball teams that represent
various school sites and competitive teams.
MR. DAHLGREN said that is what he was referring to. He said it is
one thing to participate in a class. However, when someone puts on
a uniform, they are then representing their community and the
school they are attending. There are certain responsibilities that
go with that representation. He is very concerned with the fact
that there may be many students asking to participate, and that the
district does have eligibility standards. The district has been to
the board on several instances when parents have challenged the
district's grade requirements.
MR. DAHLGREN does not want to see students opting out of the
district's program in favor of a home-school program and have
grades be assigned by parents. He was not saying that occurred
often, but that was a point of concern.
Number 668
CO-CHAIR BUNDE would expect that any student participating in a
public school program would have to abide by the same requirements.
Number 679
CO-CHAIR CYNTHIA TOOHEY asked if Mr. Dahlgren was referring to the
CCS, or any home-school program.
MR. DAHLGREN said the CCS did, at one time, pay dues to the Alaska
School Activities Association. Those students were then able to
participate in the public school setting. When Mr. Dahlgren refers
to home-schooling, he refers to students who participate in CCS.
His district has students participating in the district's
correspondence that are home-schooled. Those students are still
members of the Kenai Peninsula Borough District.
MR. DAHLGREN said the district contains some individuals that apply
directly to various correspondence courses throughout the country.
All of those students must be participating in some sort of
approved program. When using the term "home-schooled," he refers
to any student who is not taking district correspondence school.
Number 770
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS asked if the school board feels it could
implement such a participation program without HB 156, considering
it has been studying this topic for some time.
MR. DAHLGREN said he has discussed this topic with the school
board, and the board is trying to make access for home-schoolers.
There has been several instances in which students participating in
choir had gone to all-state. Currently, those students can be
counted as enrolled students. The state school board is attempting
to "better define" what a student is.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted for the record that Representative Robinson
joined the meeting at 2:12 p.m.
Number 858
MARYJEAN YRAGUI, testifying via teleconference from Kenai, spoke on
behalf of her husband and herself. She said they support HB 156.
Their tax dollars are used for the benefit of the public school
system as a whole. If her children are excluded from participating
in extracurricular activities, then her tax dollars should also be
excluded.
MS. YRAGUI and her husband have elected to teach their children at
home for a number of reasons. They strive to customize their
children's education according to their beliefs, and to provide the
uninterrupted educational benefit of a one-on-one student-teacher
ratio. Separation of church and state, which is required by law in
public schools, is another reason why the Yraguis chose home-
schooling.
Number 897
MS. YRAGUI said her family supports the public school system with
money generated from her household with no benefit anticipated
other than the right for her children to participate in
extracurricular activities when desired. The Yraguis will continue
to support the process and hope legislators will be amenable to the
needs of all children, including those who are home-schooled.
MS. YRAGUI said her children have grown up in a very positive and
loving atmosphere, and she believes their participation in
extracurricular activities would only enhance the learning process
of all children involved.
Number 929
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY urged the Yraguis not to take on the IRS, because
that is a losing battle. This problem needs to be solved in
Alaska.
MS. YRAGUI assured Co-Chair Toohey that was not her family's
intention.
Number 949
ISABEL HUESTIS testified via teleconference from Kenai. She said
her tenth-grade son is presently enrolled in an excellent
accredited college preparatory course for home study. Ms. Huestis
pays for that program. Her son's choice was to home-school after
attending Skyview his freshman year.
MS. HUESTIS'S son loves basketball. In order to develop his
athletic talent by taking extracurricular basketball at the varsity
level, he is currently required to take three courses at Skyview
High School. This makes a total of eight classes each day for her
son. This disrupts the boy's educational schedule at home. As a
committed parent, Ms. Huestis feels he should have a choice and not
be denied access to the school sport program, as her son is
currently meeting all the state's requirements for his education.
Therefore, Ms. Huestis is in favor of the passage of HB 156.
Number 1003
GISELLE BERGERON spoke on the behalf of Huntwood Christian School.
She said her school is administered as a private home school as
provided by AS 14.45.100, and has been since 1984. Currently,
there is one student enrolled. That student has desired, for a
number of years, to cross-country ski at the high school level.
This was an expensive venture. The school paid over $250 for
membership fees to the ASAA, only to find out the school must also
be paid $150 for regional fees.
MS. BERGERON said this $400 gained the child access to ten ASAA
sponsored ski meets. That equals $40 per meet for one student.
This figure does not include other charges involved in the sport,
such as the $350 coaching fee, $200 travel fee, and $1,000 in
equipment and clothing.
MS. BERGERON and her husband pay taxes to support the local school
system. They have not asked the ASD to educate their children.
They have exclusively educated the children themselves. She has
only asked that the students in her school be able to participate
in one sport each year. The ASD denied that request, in part
because of the ASAA enrollment policy. Several years ago, Huntwood
Christian submitted a waiver to ASAA asking the organization to
exempt the home school students from the enrollment policy. That
waiver was denied.
MS. BERGERON said for a number of years, her children were caught
in a no-win situation. They were denied access to sports with
children their own age.
Number 1092
MS. BERGERON said ASAA was joined out of desperation, but members
of the legislature must agree that $400 is an unfair price for one
student to gain access to a few ski meets. Oregon has had a law
since 1991 allowing home-schoolers access to interscholastic
activities. In a recent study done by the Oregon School Activities
Association, it was found that out of 5,000 home-schooled students,
only 40 participated in interscholastic activities.
MS. BERGERON continued that the fear that home-schooled students
will displace public school students is blown out of proportion.
The ASD says there are 500 home-schooled children in Anchorage, but
only a small portion of those are high school children. The exact
number breakdown was not given. Even a smaller portion of the high
school kids in Anchorage will be interested in interscholastic
activities.
MS. BERGERON stated the ASD also said it would be a logistical
nightmare to account for home-schooled students participating in
public school activities. Discipline and attendance are two major
concerns for the ASD. These aspects can be dealt with in an
equitable manner that will put the burden on home-schooled students
and their parents. Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado,
Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Iowa, Minnesota and Vermont are
some of the states that have given home-schoolers access to
interscholastic activities.
MS. BERGERON asked the HESS Committee members to please pass HB
156.
Number 1170
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that concern was expressed that a child who
was only going to high school for sports could drop out and say he
or she was being home-schooled. Then, their parents could give the
child all "A"s, so the student would remain scholastically
eligible. He asked Ms. Bergeron how she would address that
problem.
MS. BERGERON doubted that any home-school parent would find
themselves in that situation. Most home-schooled parents are
completely dedicated. They would not allow such a situation.
Number 1216
SANDY BLOMFIELD testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She
praised HESS Committee members for introducing HB 156. Competition
is the key. If the state allows areas of competition into the
public education system, all will benefit. Instead of locking out
alternative education students from co-curricular activities, the
existing system will have committed students and correspondingly
involved parents if students in alternative schooling can
participate in those activities.
MS. BLOMFIELD said everyone will benefit from this situation.
Schools that charge fees are now commonplace. A student in
Anchorage can reside in one district and attend an alternative
school, and benefit from participating in activities at a school in
another district. The freedom and access to public school students
needs to be extended to home-schools, correspondence schools,
charter schools and private schools.
MS. BLOMFIELD stated that arguments against HB 156 are without
merit. However, she addressed three of those arguments. The first
is that school spirit would suffer. No member of an activity who
has gone through the trial and practice process would have a lack
of motivation or school spirit.
Number 1289
MS. BLOMFIELD said the rules of eligibility and discipline are
applicable to all students, regardless of where they choose to
attend school. The administrative burden can accommodate students
and parents without adding unnecessary cost to the school system.
MS. BLOMFIELD stated a third fear is that allowing extracurricular
access to students who are schooled alternatively will displace
more deserving students who attend the school. Ms. Blomfield noted
that all teams are chosen on the basis of a tryout and individual
challenges.
MS. BLOMFIELD noted that HB 156 addresses all the issues she had
discussed. She thanked HESS Committee members for considering HB
156.
Number 1325
STEVEN PORTER testified via teleconference from Anchorage in
support of HB 156. The aim of the state should be to encourage a
well-rounded education for all children. The administrative and
financial impediments should not be used to deny students the right
to participate.
MR. PORTER said in his profession, he often sees regulations and
laws, and then he studies the issue or problem. He noted that
regulations do not always solve the problem. HESS Committee
members must ask themselves what they really want to happen. The
HESS Committee members must look at the laws and regulations and
change them to make sure the laws and regulations are capable of
changing the existing state.
MR. PORTER recommended HESS Committee members focus efforts on
encouraging the development of extracurricular activities for the
state's children. HESS Committee members should be looking at
providing the best possible education for all Alaskan students.
Number 1390
MR. PORTER asked to comment on the eligibility concerns, and the
concern that failing or poor students will ask to participate. Mr.
Porter's son is a home-schooled student. He was enrolled in public
school for two quarters this year for math and science classes. He
is of the age when he should be in sixth grade, and he was placed
into a seventh grade gifted class. He received straight "A"s in
that class.
MR. PORTER assured HESS Committee members there would be no problem
with home-schooled children and their grades. He suggested if that
remained a concern, home-schooled children could be tested using an
Iowa Test or other standardized test. He felt home-schooled
children would not mind. He felt the concerns about home-schooled
children and their grades were simply roadblocks to slow down the
process.
Number 1418
CO-CHAIR BUNDE feared Mr. Porter misunderstood the intent of his
question. Co-Chair Bunde was not particularly concerned about
children who are currently being home-schooled. He was concerned
that sometime in the future, a parent who is not as conscientious
as Mr. Porter would not mind bending the rules to have their child
participate in school sports. Mr. Porter's idea about having home-
schooled children take a standardized academic test in order to
prove eligibility is a good idea. That would allay concerns and
discourage those who tried to get around scholastic requirements.
MR. PORTER noted that there will always be one or two isolated and
unique circumstances in which someone tries to get around the law
or push the edge. He asked that laws not be designed around those
special circumstances.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE assured Mr. Porter that was not the intention of the
HESS Committee members.
Number 1472
BILL MELL, Director of Secondary Education, ASD, reminded HESS
Committee members that the ASD submitted a memorandum concerning
this bill on February 23, 1995. Co-Chair Bunde noted the memo had
been received. Mr. Mell therefore asked to bring the attention of
HESS Committee members to points the ASD felt were most
problematic.
MR. MELL said first, HB 156 as written is vague to the point it is
difficult to determine and describe exactly what is an
extracurricular activity. In particular, the ASD offers drama,
music, debate and band, which are primarily classes and not
extracurricular activities at all.
MR. MELL felt this bill may provide the home-schooled student with
access to after-school events, but not provide him or her the
advantage of being able to participate with the group during the
school day when most of the work is done.
Number 1530
MR. MELL stated the ASD felt the bill proposed a real
administrative burden in terms of the ASD's ability to document how
those who participate in activities meet the standards. There is
a real question in Mr. Mell's mind that someone who is home-
schooled can meet the requirements of the ASD. The ASD believes
that is a question that will be tested in court, and much money
will be spent on many sides to make these determinations. Mr. Mell
would hate to have regulations set aside for that eventuality.
MR. MELL spoke of his last point, which was the most difficult for
him to deal with personally. There is a very significant
constitutional issue at work here. HB 156 puts the ASD into the
position of either violating or not violating the Constitution of
the state of Alaska. Another heavy legal burden could be acquired
to determine if that is so.
MR. MELL said this issue was discussed in February, and if it is
necessary to change the state's Constitution to have HB 156 work,
that would be the first step, rather than writing a regulation that
skirts the issue.
Number 1600
JUSTIN WALTON testified via teleconference that he is a student at
a registered home-school in Alaska. He is a junior with a 3.9
grade point average (GPA), and if he went to public school, he
would go to Dimond High School in Anchorage.
JUSTIN WALTON said the ASD would try to tell HESS Committee members
that letting home-schooled children participate in extracurricular
activities will cost more money and create more hassle. The
district will argue that there is no legal background to allow
home-school students to enroll in extracurricular activities. The
ASD may argue that if home-schoolers want the benefit of increased
extracurricular activities, they will have to take the whole
package.
JUSTIN WALTON said in Alaska, residents must pay property taxes.
Those taxes pay for the school districts in the state. This is
mandatory. Residents are paying for an education, but just because
home-schoolers do not want a certain part of that education, they
should still be allowed to get the part they do want. Back in the
"good old days," people paid the teacher for the education, and
this way students and parents got the desired education.
Number 1653
JUSTIN WALTON next spoke on the legal argument. The Alaskan
Constitution states that students are entitled to a free public
education. The United States Constitution gives citizens the
freedom to practice any chosen religion. If the two collide, as is
the case of many home schools, shouldn't the student be allowed to
get as many benefits as possible from public schools, aside from
what is conflicting?
JUSTIN WALTON said the whole point of a democratic republic such as
America's is to serve the public. Home-schooled students are part
of the public. It hurts no one to allow home-schooled students to
participate. Mr. Walton knows a great number of people who would
benefit from this bill. By the time HB 156 passed, he will
probably be graduated. However, many other students would benefit
greatly from HB 156.
JUSTIN WALTON knows many people on swim teams who would love to
receive the benefit of participating on high school swim teams, to
take advantage of the training. Mr. Walton would personally love
to be on a basketball team and get that training. At this point,
home-schoolers do not have that option. HB 156 needs to be passed
so they can participate and have a chance to compete at the college
level. Public school participation would also assist in getting
scholarships in athletics, band or music.
JUSTIN WALTON said home-schoolers do not currently have those
options, and it would be fantastic if they did.
Number 1726
CO-CHAIR BUNDE appreciated Mr. Walton's enthusiasm. However, the
Alaska Constitution requires an education be provided, but it does
not require the education be free. People pay property taxes in
Anchorage which provide about 18 percent of the actual cost of
education. The rest of the necessary money comes from the state.
Those legislative members who sit on the budget committee realize
the education is certainly not free. However, it is reasonable.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she had a son that went to Dimond High School,
and she also had a son who was home-schooled through CCS. Both of
her sons turned out to be very fine individuals. She does not
believe HB 156 is the answer to Justin Walton's problem. She
suggested that the answer is in his hands. He should get together
with many other home-schooled children and create a basketball
team, swimming team or whatever, and organize as home-schoolers.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY felt that way, the home-schooled can participate
against the high school teams. Getting the best of both worlds is
not necessarily the best for everyone.
Number 1780
JUSTIN WALTON said currently, a number of home-schoolers do meet to
play basketball. The problem is, the training is not good enough.
Students can meet to play basketball, swim, play instruments or
whatever. However, the education and training about the sport or
activity is not there. That is the problem. The home-schoolers
would have to pay a lot of money to get what public school children
are getting. It does not seem fair to Mr. Walton to have to pay a
lot of money to join the ASAA and to play against other accredited
schools. It does not seem fair that the home-schooled must pay for
what the district already pays for public school students.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY reiterated that is one of the perks of going to a
public school. Students get wonderful things thrown in. Students
have the right to be home-schooled, and Co-Chair Toohey was sure
Mr. Walton was thriving in that environment. But she also
suggested that he find coaches. She was sure there were those who
were ready and willing to help. She applauded Mr. Walton and his
friends for already organizing their own team.
Number 1844
JOSHUA WALTON, home-school student, asked to respond to previous
arguments. Dr. Mell suggested that home-schooled students may not
be able to meet the standards for activities. Joshua said he is
17-years-old. He got a 1370 on the S.A.T.s, he has a 4.0 GPA, and
a 31 A.C.T. score. He has been approached by many students asking
him to join extracurricular activities. At other times, teachers
have encouraged him to join. He does not doubt that home-schoolers
could meet the standards of the activities. If home-schoolers did
not, they would not be chosen in tryouts.
JOSHUA WALTON said therefore, meeting the activity standards is not
a problem. As for the constitutional question, Joshua did not
believe the Constitution addresses the problem of extracurricular
activities, nor of home-schoolers in extracurricular activities.
Joshua disagreed with Dr. Mell's conclusion that a constitutional
amendment is needed rather than a simple regulation.
Number 1915
JOSHUA WALTON stated HESS Committee members should not change the
rights of students to these activities in order to change the law
or to save administrative costs. The fact is, if other students
have a right to participate in these activities, home-schoolers
should also. They should not be denied simply because they do not
attend the school. They should not be discriminated against.
JOSHUA WALTON noted that his family pays taxes for public
schooling, and therefore should be able to get benefits from public
schooling. Anything else is discrimination.
Number 1943
JONATHAN WALTON testified via teleconference that he is a sixth-
grader. He has been home-schooled his entire life. He supports
this bill because next year he will be in junior high school, and
he would like to participate in cross-country track and skiing with
public school students.
Number 1964
PAIGE WALTON, mother of Justin, Joshua and Jonathan, testified via
teleconference that she and her husband have home-schooled their
children for nearly 20 years. She thanked the HESS Committee for
introducing this legislation. However, she is not 100 percent
happy with the wording of the bill. She personally thinks, based
on the information she has regarding other states' legislation, it
would be better to reword the bill so all "alternative" students in
the state have access to public school programs instead of singling
out home-schooled students.
MS. WALTON stated that alternative students currently exist in
public and private schools throughout the state, probably in every
district in the state. Anchorage experiences a unique situation.
Although there are 54 school districts in the state of Alaska, the
Waltons reside in the one district that accommodates over one-third
of the students in Alaska. Things are desperately out of
proportion, and she hopes some wisdom will prevail in the
legislature to balance this situation.
Number 2019
MS. WALTON noted that because of the circumstances in Anchorage,
her family is not given the option of a home-schooled or
alternative independent study program. She has spoken with school
administrators and many school representatives on this issue.
Although there are other districts in the state that offer home-
school, independent or correspondence programs, Anchorage has
consistently and insistently refused to offer this option.
Therefore, those who have chosen that option for whatever reason
are discriminated against. They do not have access to any
educational options unless they spend a lot of money.
MS. WALTON said her family is already paying for their own private
school programs. To hire a number of coaches to accommodate the
children to meet their needs, to benefit the children and to
benefit the communities is unrealistic. She does not have the
thousands of dollars that apparently the Bergerons have paid. If
Ms. Walton did have that money, she does not necessarily feel it
would be the best expenditure considering she has five children.
MS. WALTON said she would like to support this bill, and basically
thank those who have proposed it. She pointed out there are
currently over 650 students in the ASD who are enrolled in the CCS.
That does not accommodate all of the private school students who
are home-schooling, correspondence, or are in private schools of
other sorts.
MS. WALTON said there are literally thousands of students in the
ASD alone, and thousands more throughout the state, who are
discriminated against because they are not given access to public
school programs and programs that are regulated by ASAA. The
mandate of ASAA is to accommodate the public need.
Number 2106
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Walton a question to clarify one point.
When she said Anchorage does not provide home-schooling, she must
have meant the district does not provide a home-school program but
her family does have access to CCS.
MS. WALTON said he was correct.
Number 2120
SARAH WALTON testified via teleconference from Anchorage that she
is a home-school student, and has been all her life. She is
currently in the tenth grade. Just like many other home-schoolers
in the state, she has been denied the right to participate in
extracurricular activities offered at public schools. Some of her
family's tax money goes to the public school. The family therefore
pays for students to go to public school and participate in
extracurricular activity.
SARAH WALTON said her family's taxes are paying for coaching in the
public schools also. However, the children in her family are not
allowed to participate in sports. They should not be denied the
right to participate in these sports. She hopes the laws can be
changed so she can be allowed to participate in the extracurricular
activities offered through the public schools. Other states in the
Union allow this, Alaska should also.
Number 2160
JERRY WALTON, father of the Walton children, said his children have
all touched on the topics he was going to discuss. Therefore, he
summarized. Along with the Bergerons, the Walton family has asked
the ASD to allow home-schoolers to participate in extracurricular
activities. Basically, this option is not available. The Waltons
approached the ASAA, and the ASAA said a home-school group could be
formed. That was attempted, but the price was exorbitant. Home
schools basically consist of one or two children. His family is an
exception because they have so many children.
MR. WALTON noted that many families only have one or two
students/children, and they are unable to get involved and pay such
a high price. Therefore, they are excluded. On another subject,
basically the state has an ability to pay for an educated populace.
The state has opted to use school districts as political
subdivisions. The state Constitution allows for equal access to
all activities. This equal access is not as prevalent as the
hunting and fishing issue, however, it is just as or more important
to many people. Mr. Walton said he basically wanted to support HB
156.
Number 2276
LAUREL TATSUDA, Private Attorney, represented the ASD via
teleconference. She said the ASD strongly opposes HB 156. She
presented three reasons. First, HB 156 creates a costly obligation
for the ASD without the funding necessary to carry out the mandate.
Second, the bill ignores longstanding, well-established principles
of local control. Third, the language of the bill as written is
ambiguous, and invites litigation. The ASD feels there are also
some additional constitutional issues raised by the bill.
MS. TATSUDA discussed her first point. The ASD will be the
district primarily affected by this bill. The ASD will bear the
burden because it has the largest student population and the
largest number of home-school students residing in the attendance
area. Approximately 500 students will be trying to get into
extracurricular activities should this bill pass.
MS. TATSUDA noted that however, under the Alaska Public School
Foundation program, only students who are enrolled in the district
generate foundation funds. The school district budget allows for
extracurricular programs under those foundation funds. Therefore,
there will be hundreds of students participating in extracurricular
programs who do not contribute to the funding base of the district.
MS. TATSUDA said that raises, among other things, a fundamental
fairness issue.
Number 2336
MS. TATSUDA said an ASD student should not be displaced or bumped
from a school program because there are limited seats on
competitive sports teams. ASD enrolled students should not be
displaced by a student who does not attend the district, who does
not participate in academic programs, and who does not contribute
to the funding of the district.
MS. TATSUDA said the bill ignores locally-determined school board
policies. The ASD recognizes that districts in the state vary
widely. HB 156 may not impact some districts. Other districts may
be able to absorb those who are home-schooled. But there is no
district with 500 or more home-school students like the ASD has.
TAPE 95-35, SIDE B
Number 000
MS. TATSUDA addressed the language of the bill, and the definition
of "extracurricular activity." The inclusion of music, band, and
academic classes makes it difficult to determine exactly what an
extracurricular activity is.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS told Ms. Tatsuda he was not exactly sure how
the "stellar school" fits into the picture in Anchorage. He asked
if stellar school students have to follow the attendance area
guideline.
MS. TATSUDA answered no. Stellar school students who do not live
in a neighborhood are not involved in neighborhood schools. She
added that stellar students can be distinguished from non-enrolled
home-school students, as stellar school students are enrolled in
the ASD. They are ASD students and they generate foundation funds
for the ASD. They are basically in alternative programs that are
housed in separate buildings. Those alternative programs do not
include extracurricular activities. Ms. Tatsuda noted, however,
that stellar students are ASD students, and that is how they are
distinguished from students who are not enrolled in the district.
Number 120
MARY HUTCHINSON, Parent, testified via teleconference that she is
the mother of eight children. She feels each child should be
allowed to participate in sports if they meet academic eligibility
requirements. There is a fear that children who do poorly in
academics will drop out to become home-schooled, and then enroll in
sports.
MS. HUTCHINSON knows of individuals who had "D"s and "F"s in high
school. She said high schools do not want those children in the
classes anyway. If those children are only in the school to play
sports, it would be better for the school because those are the
children who smoke marijuana and drink beer.
MS. HUTCHINSON agreed that people only pay a small local tax.
However, they pay state and federal taxes as well. Ms. Hutchinson
had heard, although she may be mistaken, that Australia pays
parents to home-school their children. Of course, Alaska is far
from that point.
Number 220
MS. HUTCHINSON said currently, there are children who graduate from
public schools who cannot read and write. Almost all home-
schoolers are going to learn to read and write, therefore, they are
going to be doing better than certain public school students. Ms.
Hutchinson estimated that at least 25 percent of public school
graduates cannot read and write.
Number 293
MAGGIE REILLY, Parent, testified via teleconference that she has
two sons who are currently enrolled in the district correspondence
study course. Her sons are straight "A" students, and she supports
HB 156. She believes home-schoolers save the state a lot of money.
The home-schoolers pay for their own curriculum and overhead. In
her particular district, if children are home-schooled, the state
is saved $7,200 for each child not enrolled in the public school
education system. The state saves even more money for the home-
schooled in the bush.
MS. REILLY said home-schoolers still pay taxes that support public
education and extracurricular activities. The ancillary programs
are not as costly. Some money is taken out of the general fund,
and the rest is paid for by booster clubs, ticket sales and
activity fees. The initial cost to ASAA is $250, and then it is
only $2 per student. Schools currently are paying that $250, and
therefore Ms. Reilly does not feel it will be a problem to allow
home schoolers to pay that $2 extra fee.
Number 354
MS. REILLY stressed that education in the United States is a right,
but sports are a privilege. If this privilege is offered to the
child of one taxpayer, it should be offered to all of them. These
are public schools that are paid for with public money.
MS. REILLY has also spoken with people from Oregon and Washington,
and those states are providing access to home-schoolers for all
their ancillary programs. Those states feared at first they would
be overrun. This is not the case, and those states have discovered
the program works well. Ms. Reilly asked what the eligibility
requirements were in those states, and the answer was students were
to choose and pass one of four standardized tests. Home-schoolers
had to pass in the 23rd percentile.
MS. REILLY was shocked at this answer. She realized that in order
to be eligible for sports in Alaska public schools, a student must
have a "D minus" grade. She keeps hearing that education is
priority. She feels a "D minus" is a pretty low grade.
Extracurricular activities are an important part of a child's youth
and education. She asked why the best of both worlds cannot be had
for both parents and children who are both dedicated and
disciplined to do the home-school.
Number 430
MS. REILLY said home-school families are currently following state
guidelines. They are not lawbreakers, and they should not have
additional requirements. She asked HESS Committee members to
please pass HB 156.
Number 452
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that the teleconference was only available
until 3 p.m., therefore, teleconferencing would be ended for the
day. He noted for those who testified or wished to testify via
teleconference that this was the first time the bill was heard.
There are issues that need to be examined more closely and
discussed, therefore, the bill will be held. Additional hearings
will be scheduled for the future. He asked for testimony from the
local audience.
Number 500
SYLVIA REYNOLDS, Assistant Principal, Juneau Douglas High School
(JDHS), said she has reservations about HB 156. She wanted to
speak of the "disengaged" and "at-risk" students. She noted the
JDHS drill team is a three-time national champion. There are no
eligibility rules for those on the drill team. However, two of the
students on that particular team are at-risk students.
MS. REYNOLDS confided that one was involved in a drug and alcohol
program last year, and the other student was almost moved to Mt.
Edgecumbe. Ms. Reynolds feels it is the responsibility of the
schools to engage all students. One of her concerns with HB 156 is
that schools are going to become more elitist, and they will be
focusing on only those children who are engaged. One girl also
left the drill team this year. The school still supports that
child, and she is still part of the team even though she chooses
not to be a member.
MS. REYNOLDS said that girl still continues to get that support,
and that is carried within the boundaries of the school.
Number 589
MS. REYNOLDS said there has been talk about extracurricular
activities. However, she really thinks the true meaning of the
term should be co-curricular. During the last hour, she heard
testimony in which people claimed these activities were their
right. She believes activities are a choice. There are already
students who do not make teams. Juneau provides programs through
Parks and Recreation, and there are community school programs.
Anchorage has tremendous community schools and Parks and Recreation
programs.
MS. REYNOLDS does believe there are programs and open gyms
available to all students. As Co-Chair Toohey said, if it is
important, a student can make it work. It can happen.
MS. REYNOLDS is also concerned that HB 156 will lead to "sports
schools." If Juneau has a good basketball team, those who are
home-schooled and talented in basketball may want to move to Juneau
so there will be a superstar team. The focus will be off
academics, and only activities will be stressed.
MS. REYNOLDS does not know about other school districts, but in
Juneau, some students will take classes via correspondence that
will be used as credit toward graduation from JDHS. Therefore,
students can be on correspondence and still maintain their
enrollment at JDHS. Students are offered that benefit.
Number 687
MS. REYNOLDS said she is concerned about the administrative
control. It is going to be a nightmare. Ms. Reynolds wanted to
stress there are options and choices available for home-schoolers.
Ms. Reynolds also wanted to speak again about the disengaged
students. The district has a responsibility to them as well.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked whether Ms. Reynolds and her school was
in favor or opposed to the bill, and she said she was opposed to
it. He felt some of her testimony did not reflect that opposition.
Number 724
SHEILA PETERSON, Special Assistant to the Commissioner of
Education, Department of Education (DOE), said the Commissioner of
Education has a test she applies to all activities of the DOE, and
to legislation. She is constantly asking, "Is this good for kids?"
When the commissioner was shown HB 156, she looked at it, and
applied her test. She determined the bill is good for kids. It is
good for kids to have additional opportunities and experiences.
Allowing a home-schooled student to participate in extracurricular
activities or co-curricular activities is good for kids.
MS. PETERSON said the State Board of Education addressed this issue
about a year and a half ago when they opened up a period for public
comment on a proposed regulation. The regulation at that time was
broader than HB 156. It included private schools, CCS students and
home-schooled students. During the course of that discussion,
people came forward with both pros and cons. The regulation was
divided. The portion that went to the Attorney General's office
that the State Board of Education did approve dealt with part-time
students taking academic courses in the public schools.
MS. PETERSON said that regulation is currently in the Department of
Law for consideration, to be signed by the Lieutenant Governor.
Ms. Peterson reiterated that the Commissioner of Education does
feel that HB 156 is good for children and it does pass her test.
Number 836
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS told Ms. Peterson that he had asked Mr.
Dahlgren in Kenai if he felt it was already legal to provide this
extracurricular activity for home-schooled students. His answer
was they assume they do. He asked for the DOE's feeling on that.
MS. PETERSON answered yes, districts currently have the option to
do that. The regulations in the Department of Law would allow
funding for a part-time student who is taking an academic course.
They currently do have that opportunity and that option.
Difficulty is encountered when interscholastic activities become
involved, and there is conflict with the rule established by the
ASAA. The rule of that body is that the student must be enrolled
in the school he or she represents. Therefore, home-schooled
students experience difficulty if they want to participate
interscholastically.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY left the meeting at 3:09 p.m.
Number 905
CO-CHAIR BUNDE thanked all those who testified, and reiterated that
there are a number of interested persons who would like to testify
in the future. HB 156 has raised a number of questions, and the
committee will hold the bill to study it further.
HB 35 - SEXUAL MISCONDUCT BY MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL
Number 940
REPRESENTATIVE SEAN PARNELL said HB 35 is an act relating to sexual
misconduct as grounds for imposing disciplinary sanctions on those
persons licensed by the State Medical Board. Sexual misconduct is
not expressly addressed in Alaska Statutes. Currently the statute
provides sanctions for professional misconduct in lewd or immoral
conduct in connection with the delivery of professional services.
REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL noted that while most people would
categorize sexual misconduct as professional misconduct, the board
categorization used in statute needs to be changed so the
unmistakable message is sent that the society does not accept
sexual misconduct by doctors.
Number 987
REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL continued that the physician-patient
relationship is founded on mutual trust, and sexual misconduct is
a breach of that trust. HB 35 authorizes the State Medical Board
to sanction doctors and define some sexual misconduct. HB 35
defines sexual misconduct in very broad terms. That is found on
page 2 of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL said granting the Medical Board authority to
sanction doctors in this case is critical for several reasons.
First, the patient is extremely vulnerable, both physically and
emotionally. Two, a doctor can use his or her status in the
professional relationship to induce the patient's consent to sexual
activity. Finally and most importantly, the doctor's objective
medical judgement is, in most instances, compromised by a sexual
relationship or sexual interest in the patient.
REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL said HB 35 is supported by the Alaska State
Medical Board and the Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault. Representative Parnell concluded by saying there were two
amendments to the bill that he would discuss after testimony on the
bill.
Number 1057
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Commerce, said she would like to explain how her
division handles complaints of sexual misconduct of physicians, and
talk about how HB 35 would change that. At the current time, the
existing statute is used. This statute prohibits unprofessional,
lewd and immoral conduct. In terms of very obvious and gross
sexual misconduct, these statutes have worked because the division
has been able to define the actions as unprofessional conduct and
take cases that ended up going through the superior court system.
MS. REARDON noted that however, in what perhaps may appear to be
gray areas or instances that were not quite as blatant, it is
possible the division would experience some difficulty in using
unprofessional conduct to cover those instances. At this point,
sexual misconduct that occurs outside of the treatment setting,
such as meeting a patient in a social setting and having a sexual
relationship with a patient, has not been addressed in a
disciplinary manner unless the physician is a psychiatrist.
Number 1142
MS. REARDON thought if the legislature wanted the division to
prohibit sexual contact outside the doctor's office, it would be
helpful to clarify that in statute. Entities can of course
establish regulations to define sexual misconduct. Ms. Reardon
hopes the Medical Board would create those definitions. The
Medical Board has been looking at this issue already and it has
some thoughts on this, such as the things that should not be going
on in doctors' offices.
MS. REARDON conceded that there may be some issues in small
communities that should be dealt with. If there is a single doctor
who desires a romantic life, how that person pursues romance should
be considered.
MS. REARDON had her staff look back through the files to see how
many complaints the division has received on sexual misconduct.
Over perhaps the last six years, there were 35 files that reflect
complaints. Many of those complaints were not pursued. The person
complaining may have not been willing to give their name or press
the situation. In many situations with criminal sexual assaults,
people are often reluctant to go through with the difficulties of
pressing their case.
Number 1221
MS. REARDON said most complaints involved activities in the
doctor's office. However, that could have been skewed by the fact
that when people ask the division, "Is it illegal to do such-and-
such?" (e.g., Is it illegal to sleep with a patient?), the division
is not able to give the person a direct "yes" answer. That may
discourage people who make formal complaints.
Number 1258
CO-CHAIR BUNDE identified with the quandary of the division. As a
college professor, Co-Chair Bunde would absolutely want to enforce
a prohibition of single professors dating current students. The
gray area arises when determining when the student is no longer a
student. That is easier to define in the educational world.
However, it is more difficult to define when a patient ceases to
become a patient.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY commented on Ms. Reardon's point about small
communities. When there is only one doctor, subsequently, everyone
in the town is assumed to be a patient. It is not fair to tell the
doctor she/he must be celibate. What someone does on their own
time, as long as they are not a psychiatrist, is difficult.
Number 1303
MS. REARDON has been wrestling with this issue herself. The
relationship in the doctor's office (she spoke of doctors who were
not psychiatrists), can run over into a relationship outside the
office. She asked her staff what types of complaints her office
had received, and asked HESS Committee members to consider these
types of situations.
MS. REARDON said in one situation, a doctor had sent a video to a
patient of himself dancing around naked and masturbating. That
would have been outside of the treatment setting, yet it was also
strange and of a sexual nature. That is not something the state
wants its doctors to be doing. The division was able to handle
that situation through a memorandum of agreement with the doctor.
However, it did take place outside the doctor's office. Although
the division would attempt to charge the doctor with unprofessional
conduct, the response could be that unprofessional conduct concerns
how one acts as a doctor in the doctor's office.
MS. REARDON recalled other instances in which doctors have invited
patients to come to their houses and watch pornographic movies.
This is a complicated area.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the confusion lies between what goes on in and
out of the doctor's office, and when does a patient cease to be a
patient. Those are challenging questions.
Number 1405
JAYNE ANDREEN, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault (CDVSA), said she is present on behalf of the
Council to express strong support for HB 35. She first became
aware of this issue a few years ago when a case was brought to her
attention concerning a physician who behaved inappropriately in
sexual contacts with a current patient. The contact took place
outside the office, and for a variety of reasons there was not much
the District Attorney's office could do although the behavior was
illegal.
MS. ANDREEN said the victim in this case felt that she was not the
only person to experience this type of contact with this physician,
and she wanted to see some type of action taken. It was at that
point the CDVSA became aware that Alaska's Medical Board and the
Division of Occupational Licensing do not have these types of
standards.
MS. ANDREEN understands the American Medical Association has
established sanctions and standards for this type of sexual
misconduct. Ms. Andreen feels it is imperative Alaska establish
those same standards. She was very surprised when she learned such
standards did not exist, and these issues had not been addressed.
This is appalling. She felt the legislature can get bogged down
with details about the one doctor in a small community. She asked
the state to certainly take those situations into consideration,
but to also be concerned about the number of, primarily women, who
are being abused by physicians in this state. It is happening, it
is real and it needs to be addressed.
Number 1502
DR. DAVID McGUIRE, Chairman, State Medical Board, thought the issue
can be made relatively straightforward if it is remembered that the
patient's welfare should be primary in any discussion concerning
medical care. Any issue that is not clearly in the interest of the
patient then becomes highly suspect as to why that should be
tolerated. Dr. McGuire doubted anyone would disagree with that
point. The practice of medicine in the view of the board is a
privilege that is granted to an individual after he/she has
completed requisite training and other requirements. It is not an
inherent right. Practice is a privilege.
DR. McGUIRE said society can grant privileges with attached
responsibilities that may be higher than for someone who has not
been granted similar privileges. There is absolutely no indication
for inappropriate sexual contact between a physician and a patient
for any known therapeutic reason. There is no credible person who
will come forward to say that, for any condition known to man,
sexual contact between the doctor and patient is the treatment of
choice. That is ridiculous.
Number 1588
DR. McGUIRE said the board would like to send a clear message to
all licensed physicians in the state of Alaska that they need to
understand they are held to a high standard. The high standard is
that what they do must be in the interest of the patient, and the
State Medical Board is not going to listen to any discussion about
whether this inappropriate behavior was in the interest of the
patient. It is not in the interest of the patient. It is the
obligation of the doctor, if he/she desires a romantic relationship
with a patient, to be absolutely sure the doctor is on a "level
playing field."
DR. McGUIRE said by that, the board means the doctor must take such
appropriate action as to have the patient treated by another
physician, and to make sure the patient's welfare is considered.
Only then, if the patient turns out to be the love of the doctor's
life and those steps have been taken, the doctor can proceed. If
there is ever an allegation that the doctor inappropriately used
his/her position, prestige, etc., to influence someone to engage in
a sexual relationship, the doctor had better be prepared to prove
to the board otherwise. The burden of proof is going to be on the
doctor to show the board she/he took adequate and reasonable steps
to insure that this was a legitimate relationship.
Number 1655
DR. McGUIRE did not think there is much room for argument in that
situation. Responsible adults and people who choose to engage in
a relationship that may be clouded by a physician/patient
relationship have ample opportunity to document mutually that they
have considered the issues and chose to proceed.
DR. McGUIRE said it should be only in that instance that the board
is ever asked to interpret or deal with issues. If there is no
documentation on the part of the physician that appropriate steps
were taken, the board wants to be able to declare that physician
guilty as a matter of fact and law. The board will not listen to
arguments that the doctor was really in love. The situation is
inappropriate and unacceptable. It is sanctionable, and the
physician knew this in advance. Period.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE commended Dr. McGuire on his clarity. He closed
public testimony.
Number 1719
REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL felt the bill clearly sets bounds extending
to outside the treatment setting - the physician's office. That is
appropriate. The patient does not become any less vulnerable
outside the office as opposed to inside the office. The same
reasons still apply for doing so. The question for most doctors is
when a patient stops being a patient. There are court cases on
that issue that have helped decide this, and other cases will be
decided on a case-by-case basis.
REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL, as an attorney, sends a letter terminating
the attorney-client relationship. Doctors do not have that
practice. However, there are ways to send that patient to another
physician. Representative Parnell felt his comments apply to the
rural setting as well. There is a provision in the bill that
stipulates sexual contact is not to occur unless there is a spousal
or equivalent domestic relationship. That is clearly the intent of
the bill.
Number 1788
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY moved to adopt HB 35, Version A, as the working
document. There were no objections. Before the committee was HB
35, Version A.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE moved the first amendment, which was the title
amendment. He named it amendment number one.
REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL said the title amendment is really self-
explanatory. It tightens the title so sexual misconduct is being
referred to, rather than an act relating to the grounds for
imposing disciplinary sanctions. Representative Parnell was just
trying to tighten up the language so there would be no tinkering
with the title later in the legislative process.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for objections, and there were none.
Amendment number one passed. He moved amendment two for discussion
purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL said amendment two basically eliminates
Section (B), starting at line 29 on page 2. Since the bill was
drafted, Representative Parnell has had some discussions that have
led him to make the amendments. The current bill says the
"licensee's use of the physician-patient relationship to attempt to
induce...." Representative Parnell feels this is pretty broad
language. For example, a physician may tell the board it was
his/her charm and charisma. Therefore, it should be a factor that
if the physician is using the physician-patient relationship, and
in most cases they are, it should not be set forth in statute
because there are other bases for trying to establish sexual
contact with a patient. That is the whole reason he is getting rid
of Section (B).
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for objections, and there were none.
Amendment two passed.
Number 1871
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked for Representative Parnell's definition
of "equivalent domestic relationship."
REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL's intent is for any physician who is in an
intimate relationship with a person. It is defined in statute.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if, for the record, a long-term relationship
is meant.
REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL said yes, but it is open to interpretation
as to the definition of "long-term."
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON moved CSHB 35(HES) with accompanying
zero fiscal note and individual recommendations. There were no
objections, and the bill passed out of committee.
HB 217 - EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF TEACHERS
Number 1925
CO-CHAIR BUNDE stated this bill had been previously heard by the
HESS Committee. Now before the committee was CSHB 217, which is
the product of the previous discussions. A handout outlines the
changes between the original bill and the CS, and Co-Chair Bunde
offered to review those changes. Sections 1 and 2 of the CS change
the time before the acquisition of tenure from two to four years.
Section 3 adds nontenured teacher evaluation annually by a
superintendent, and also adds a peer evaluation for three out of
those four years that is advisory. Sections 4 and 5 remain the
same as in the original bill.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE continued that Section 6 changes Section 5 of the
original bill on layoff. It sets out the conditions under which
layoffs may happen, so the State Board of Education is not required
to set out those regulations. It basically says layoffs may take
place for either decreased enrollment or decreased financial
support. Section 7 adds the mandatory advisory arbitration, and
removes the de novo trial before going to other judicial review.
Section 8 remains the same.
Number 2019
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School Boards
(AASB), said the AASB supports CSHB 217. The AASB does have
concerns, but the CS accurately represents the subcommittee
discussion. Mr. Rose asked to address those concerns.
MR. ROSE agreed with the change of tenure from five to four years.
That is a good compromise. The acquisition of tenure rights with
the additional evaluation recommended by the tenure committee under
Section 3 is also a good provision. Mr. Rose had some concerns
about peer review in terms of the logistics, additional cost and
confidentiality. He notes those concerns because there has been a
full discussion on this and he still has concerns. It could be
costly, and he does not see how, logistically, this could be done
in an effective way. However, he is willing to work with that
provision.
MR. ROSE agreed with the layoff provisions that address economic
issues rather than nonretention for lack of revenue. A layoff
period of three years is fair. The concern is that regulations
would not represent the people who are addressing the legislation,
therefore, Mr. Rose agrees with that provision.
Number 2111
MR. ROSE was concerned about the secondary standard for
qualifications for rehire. As he has mentioned in prior testimony,
Mr. Rose thinks that standard is too low. He agrees, however, that
secondary and primary are in line with what currently exists in
statutes in terms of certification. Therefore, he would like to
work with that.
MR. ROSE spoke of judicial review, and said this is where mandatory
advisory arbitration is introduced. He has a concern because he
thinks it is another hoop to jump through. On the other hand, he
also heard the discussion that simply a board review was not
enough. Perhaps a review is needed from a disinterested third
party. The AASB would agree with the advisory nature of that
provision. But the concern is with the deletion of de novo, the
school boards do not have to recreate or present a new case before
the courts. Mr. Rose therefore agrees with that portion of the
bill. If that is what is required, the school boards can establish
the record, have it reviewed by an advisory arbitrator, and then
have it reviewed by superior court. As a compromise, the AASB can
agree with that.
Number 2167
MR. ROSE was deeply concerned with Section 8 of the bill. The
language in Section 8 grandfathers everyone who is already
employed. The bill only affects teachers who are hired after the
effective date, and renders the bill pretty much useless.
Therefore, Mr. Rose asked HESS Committee members to reconsider the
language in Section 8, and allow the grandfathering to apply to
perhaps Sections 1 and 2 for purposes of the four-year tenure
acquisition. However, for the portions concerning layoff,
nonretention and judicial review, Mr. Rose asked the grandfathering
be reconsidered, with the effective date applying to all employees.
Number 2205
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director, National Education Association
(NEA) - Alaska, believed the CS for HB 217 is a large improvement
over the original bill. He asked to speak to three issues, the
first being the four-year tenure. NEA Alaska supports a three-year
tenure. It believes that national statistics will show that if
Alaska adopts a fourth or fifth year for tenure, Alaska will be one
of five states nationally that holds that standard. Generally,
most states have a three-year tenure.
MR. MARSHALL stated NEA also would like a change on the second page
of the bill. During the peer review committee process, NEA feels
it is important for the teacher being evaluated to also receive a
copy of the evaluation. Concerning the layoff provision found on
line 16 of page 3, NEA recognizes that the provision deals with a
decline in school revenue. The NEA has some anxiety about this,
and wishes there could be some way to establish and verify there is
a financial emergency in the district. It should be proven the
district has made efforts to seek other cost saving avenues that
would be available to it.
MR. MARSHALL noted the downside of decreasing revenue and teacher
layoffs in combination with the current upward trend in student
enrollment is students are going to be affected. NEA would like to
assure any tenured teacher that layoff provisions are the final
recourse available to the district in terms of dealing with a
substantial decrease in school district revenue.
TAPE 95-36, SIDE A
Number 000
MR. MARSHALL continued that on the last page of CSHB 217, in
Section 7, he understands that during the judicial review, a
decision would be made by the school board, followed by the
arbitration. That record would then be appealed to the court. The
NEA would like to see the administrator in charge of that
particular tenured teacher make a recommendation. That
recommendation would be either for retention or nonretention. That
recommendation would then be submitted to the teacher. Based on
that recommendation, the teacher then has a choice as to whether
he/she goes to arbitration or not. The arbitration then would be
conducted after the award is rendered, giving the option to the
district or the teacher to submit the arbitration for court review.
MR. MARSHALL said the NEA has an amendment it feels would
accomplish that. The amendment also would accomplish the
arbitration under the procedures that are established in the state
law. Therefore, the NEA's amendment is simply an attempt to
clarify the whole process, from recommendation to arbitration, to
decision. Then, if the school district is not happy with the
decision, Mr. Marshall would assume the district should have the
latitude to appeal. The teacher should also have the latitude to
appeal also.
Number 149
CO-CHAIR BUNDE understood that NEA would like the arbitration to
happen one step sooner. It would like the unit administrator to
recommend, for example, nonretainment. Arbitration would then
follow, then the school board would make its determination, then
either party may go to court.
MR. MARSHALL said Co-Chair Bunde's assessment was correct. Mr.
Marshall was confused whether a hearing was taking place when the
school board reaches a decision that is unfavorable to a teacher.
He asked if that was an administrative hearing.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the school board really does the hiring and
firing, not the principal. The principal recommends, then the
school board does the hiring and firing. Now, the school board has
gone through the internal policy of that particular district to
arrive at nonretention. Arbitration follows, then judicial review.
Co-Chair Bunde did not see a need for the principal to make a
recommendation, followed by arbitration.
Number 232
MR. MARSHALL conceded that may be an area where he and Co-Chair
Bunde could agree to disagree. NEA would prefer a recommendation
made by the principal after he/she has gone through all the
procedures that are prescribed by the statute. The recommendation
would then be made. If that recommendation is adverse to the
teacher, the teacher has the opportunity to request arbitration.
After that verdict is rendered, the school board can then look at
what the administrator has recommended, plus what the arbitrator
has indicated. A decision would then be made.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE understood what Mr. Marshall was saying. He said
the school board may or may not then back up its principal. Co-
Chair Bunde was disinclined to delve into the internal politics of
the district, of how it gets to the point of nonretention.
However, after the district gets to the point of nonretention, Co-
Chair Bunde was concerned about protecting the rights of both the
district and the teacher.
Number 323
MR. MARSHALL's last point was to state NEA does support Section 8.
It is important that the rules "not be changed in the middle of the
game" for current employees.
Number 351
STEVE McPHETRES, Executive Director of the Alaska Council of School
Administrators (ACSA), noted that in a public school setting, all
the teachers are working in classrooms. When three teachers are
pulled out to visit another classroom and perform the peer review
process, substitute teachers will have to be found. There is a
cost involved in that, and districts should be aware so they can
budget for that. Hopefully money would be available in the budget.
If a tremendous number of nontenured teachers go through this
process, the cost could be rather high for districts. That is the
concern of Mr. McPhetres and the ACSA.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. McPhetres to comment on Section 7.
MR. McPHETRES agreed with Co-Chair Bunde's proposal on that issue.
From an administrative point of view, during due process the
administration conducts a very extensive investigation of a
particular teacher who may be having a problem. This is always
done for the improvement of instruction. At some point in time,
usually after about two years, a point is reached where there is no
possibility this teacher will perform effectively as a teacher.
The recommendation would then have to be made suggesting
nonretention.
MR. McPHETRES stated Co-Chair Bunde was correct in the fact that
administrators recommend to school boards. The school board does
the official hiring and firing. It is the position of
administrators to take the evidence to the board for it to examine.
The board must feel comfortable making that ultimate decision.
After that decision has been made, arbitration is asked for. That
is what is provided for in CSHB 217.
MR. McPHETRES did not see how it would work to have a third party
opinion at the principal-teacher level, and have that third party
opinion sent to the school board. It seems it is the school
board's responsibility to examine the evidence. Then, if indeed
evidence is in favor of the district, the third party arbitration
is called in.
Number 550
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY recalled comments on three teachers performing peer
review. She asked if all three teachers had to be together at the
time of review or observation. She asked if one teacher could be
picked each day or week, and if the evaluation could be performed
over a period of a month.
MR. McPHETRES said that was possible, but three teachers would
still be pulled from a classroom. Three substitutes would still be
needed to take their place. He was not saying this was not a good
process. Peer evaluations can be very productive, and they are
conducted in certain school districts. However, to do a thorough
analysis, administrative responsibility must still be taken to
evaluate the teacher at least twice during the year, according to
the regulations. This is also simply good practice.
MR. McPHETRES continued that the peer evaluation must be included
with the administrative evaluation. Together, those evaluations
would comprise a pretty good evaluation package to be given to the
superintendent for recommendation.
Number 630
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said his intent is to give the district as much
flexibility as possible. However, the intent of the evaluations
would be best served if the evaluations were spread out
periodically over the school year. Co-Chair Bunde could easily
envision one-half hour of observation per each evaluator three
times during the year.
MR. McPHETRES disagreed. He felt thorough evaluations which assess
what is really going on in the classroom can only be accomplished
through larger time allotments in the classroom. An evaluator must
be observing for much longer than 30 minutes. The observer needs
to watch the children enter the classroom and how the teacher
greets the children. The observer must note how the classroom
becomes organized, the atmosphere of the classroom and how the
children react to the teacher. The observer should pop into the
classroom at different times, and evaluate if the classroom setting
is a learning environment. A thorough evaluation takes longer than
30 minutes three times per year.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE understood. But his contention also was that if an
evaluator went to a teacher's lounge, he or she could figure out
who is doing a good job. At the primary level, through working
together as colleagues, teachers are in and out of each others'
rooms. Teachers have a pretty good perception of what is going on.
Co-Chair Bunde felt this additional observation was an unnecessary
addition.
Number 745
MR. ROSE asked to clarify and perhaps improve the issue of
evaluation. He asked if, for interpretation reasons, observation
and evaluation could be satisfied if mentorships were included. He
asked if a mentoring program would qualify as evaluation and
observation as well. That would give the AASB some latitude.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said a mentoring program would absolutely qualify.
MR. ROSE was pleased, because the AASB had some concerns with the
costs. However, if such evaluations can be included in an
inservice/professional development/mentorship-type program rather
than through simple observation, the AASB would have more room to
work.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE hoped this provision in the bill would grow into a
mentorship-type of program. However, Co-Chair Bunde did not want
to specify that in the bill because of the costs that may be
involved.
MR. ROSE stressed that if mentorships could be credited as a type
of observation, the AASB would have some latitude in which to work.
Number 828
CO-CHAIR BUNDE agreed that a mentorship is much more valuable and
important than simple observation. He then closed public
testimony. The committee needed to accept the work draft of CSHB
217, and then address proposed amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS proposed the HESS Committee accept the work
draft /K as the CSHB 217 working document. There were no
objections, and before the committee was CSHB 217 as the work
draft.
Number 855
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved her amendment one, and an objection
was made for purposes of discussion. She said the amendment was
simple, it changed the number of probationary years before tenure
from four to three. As was stated in the testimony, the normal
period of time used by most states is about three years. She felt
it was a good compromise. As she understands it, it would not
actually be until the fourth year that tenure would be achieved
anyway.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted with all due respect that four years was an
attempt on his part to compromise in the CS. Since one side asked
for three years of probation, and the AASB asked for five, the
compromise was four years.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked Representative Robinson to speak to the
rest of amendment one, which addressed a different issue. The bill
currently says, "A peer review committee shall submit its
evaluation in writing to the superintendent only." The amendment
seems to add "and to the nontenured teacher."
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Representative Robinson to divide the
amendment, and make lines 16 and 17 of the amendment into amendment
four. He said he would not have any objection to that provision.
Number 1038
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said part of her concern is that generally
speaking, when one goes to work for other agencies, most of the
time a period of probation is anywhere from six months to one year.
She knows of people in Juneau who have put in a year's service as
teachers, and they were then nonretained. Representative Robinson
understands that under the tenure system, those teachers are going
to have to start all over again. Considering the economic problems
the state is facing currently, she also believes that many teachers
are going to teach for a longer period of time than what has been
done in the past to get to tenure.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated that was the other reason she felt
it made sense to go with a compromise of three years, instead of
four.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE understood her goal. He was trying to compromise
her goal with those who want to abolish tenure altogether. A roll
call vote was taken. Voting "yes" on amendment one was
Representative Robinson. Voting "no" were Co-Chair Bunde, Co-Chair
Toohey, and Representative Davis. The amendment failed.
Number 1106
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved amendment two, and an objection was
raised for purposes of discussion. Amendment two does many things.
It makes the layoff section of the bill more specific. It provides
for greater clarity relative to financial situations that may
result in the layoff of tenured teachers. It establishes financial
exigency as a reason for layoff, and ensures that districts will
attempt to implement other budgetary reductions before layoff.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON continued that the amendment requires
verification of the financial exigency by a neutral third party.
It requires that teachers are to be notified by March 16, and
mandates the use of seniority to layoff tenured teachers. It
requires districts to decide rehire provisions through local
bargaining. It provides for fifth-year recall rights and restricts
districts from re-employing teachers until tenured teachers who are
laid off are recalled. Finally, the layoff section is defined.
Number 1194
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the impetus of this bill originally was to give
districts more flexibility. Inserting a bargaining unit into the
bill will not provide the flexibility districts desire.
Number 1214
THOMAS WRIGHT, Legislative Assistant, Representative Ivan Ivan's
Office, did not have a comment on amendment two. However, he
noted the sponsor's office did approve of the existing language in
the CS.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE called for a roll call vote. Voting "yes" on the
amendment was Representative Robinson; voting "no" were Co-Chair
Bunde, Co-Chair Toohey, and Representative Davis. Amendment two
failed.
Number 1264
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved amendment three. An objection was
made for purposes of discussion, and she spoke to the amendment.
Section 3 concerns the arbitration section, and it is an attempt to
clarify that section. The tenured teacher receives notice of
dismissal or nonretention. The tenured teacher then can request
within 15 days of receipt of the notice of nonretention an
arbitration hearing which is arranged and conducted. An
arbitration decision would then be reached, and a decision would be
furnished to the employee or employer within 10 days of the
decision. The employer or employee may appeal to the court, and
the court would then conduct a judicial review.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said this amendment simply clarifies the
issue.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Representative Robinson if arbitration under
AS 09.43.010 was advisory or binding arbitration.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON thought the arbitration was binding.
MR. MARSHALL interjected that AS 09.43.010 was that part of the
statute that deals with arbitration. It is not binding, but the
appeal that is provided for on line 7, page 2 of the bill is
basically a low threshold issue. The participants are not actually
going through a new hearing or anything like that. A process is
occurring in which the verdict or award is either confirmed,
modified, vacated or corrected.
MR. MARSHALL noted that his legal advisors have noted there are
certain standards prescribed within the statute that would be
looked at by a judge. One such standard would be was the
arbitration held in a timely manner; was there any strong
malfeasance conducted by the arbitrator. He apologized for not
bringing a copy of that particular statute. However, the statute
does, in a sense, specify procedural checks. It is not a re-
hearing of the dispute that occurred before the arbitration.
Number 1459
CO-CHAIR BUNDE told Representative Robinson that he is on the
Judiciary Committee, which was the bill's next committee of
referral. He told her he would study her amendment more
thoroughly, as it is lengthy. He would then consider presenting
the amendment in the Judiciary Committee. At this point, however,
he is going to oppose the amendment because he has not had the
chance to study it carefully enough. A roll call vote was taken.
Voting "yes" on the amendment was Representative Robinson; voting
"no" were Co-Chair Bunde, Co-Chair Toohey and Representative Davis.
Amendment three failed.
Number 1500
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved amendment four, and expressed
confidence that this amendment was going to pass. There were no
objections to amendment number four, and it was adopted.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that now before the committee was CSHB 217
as amended. He asked for the wishes of the committee.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY moved CSHB 217(HES) be passed to the next committee
of referral with its zero fiscal notes and individual
recommendations. Representative Robinson objected. Voting "no" on
the passage was Representative Robinson; voting "yes" were Co-Chair
Bunde, Co-Chair Toohey and Representative Davis. The bill passed
from committee.
MR. WRIGHT thanked HESS Committee members and Co-Chair Bunde in
particular on the behalf of Representative Ivan for all the work
that was put into this bill.
HB 172 - KINDERGARTEN AND MISCELLANEOUS EDUCATION
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced this bill had been heard in the committee
before. The bill expands Alaska's mandatory school system to
include kindergarten. The bill also legalizes the middle school
concept.
Number 1593
DEE HUBBARD, Parent, said she resides in Representative Ramona
Barnes's district. She began work on this bill about two years
ago, because she was concerned about the possible elimination of
kindergarten in school districts if kindergarten is not mandatory.
She felt that because of the amount of time and money being spent
on early education, if one school district decided to not provide
kindergarten, time would be lost between the early education and
first grade.
MS. HUBBARD said her concern is for the continuing education of
children. She did some initial work on this topic, and the Alaska
PTA endorsed a resolution requesting kindergarten become a required
grade in Alaska.
MS. HUBBARD addressed the middle school topic. Currently, there
are two districts that offer middle school, starting at grade six.
Ms. Hubbard feels this area should be cleaned up, in order to
ensure middle school is legal. It has never been her intent to
mandate that middle schools must start at grade six. That issue
can be determined at individual district levels.
MR. MARSHALL said NEA Alaska supports this bill. It feels it would
take the bill even a step further, kindergarten should be a
mandatory program in Alaska, and minimally it should be offered.
If the state is seriously entering times in which cuts are
entertained, the opportunity of kindergarten children should not be
cut.
Number 1712
CO-CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony, and asked for the will of
the committee.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked for clarification. She noted that
kindergarten is not mandatory, but customary. She also asked if
there was currently a district in this state that did not offer
kindergarten.
MS. PETERSEN answered every district currently provides
kindergarten.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted in times of budget cuts, if a district chose
to cut out kindergarten, it could. This bill would mandate
kindergarten.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if there would not be a war cry from the DOE
if a district chose to discontinue kindergarten.
MS. PETERSON presumed the DOE would be very concerned if a school
district did not offer kindergarten. However, since kindergarten
is currently not mandatory and is not in statute, the DOE could do
nothing. It could only express concern.
Number 1790
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved HB 172 from committee with individual
recommendations and accompanying zero fiscal notes. There were no
objections, and the bill passed.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1806
CO-CHAIR BUNDE adjourned the meeting at 4:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|