Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/14/2002 03:03 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
March 14, 2002
3:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Fred Dyson, Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Vic Kohring
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 451
"An Act relating to municipal bond reimbursement for school
construction; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 451 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 416
"An Act relating to reemployment of and benefits for retired
teachers and principals who participated in retirement incentive
programs; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 416(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 464
"An Act relating to statewide school district correspondence
study programs."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 451
SHORT TITLE:MUNICIPAL BOND REIMBURSEMENT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)JAMES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/19/02 2310 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/19/02 2310 (H) HES, FIN
03/06/02 2496 (H) COSPONSOR(S): STEVENS
03/14/02 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 416
SHORT TITLE:REEMPLOYMENT OF RETIRED TEACHERS
SPONSOR(S): EDUCATION
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/13/02 2242 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/13/02 2242 (H) EDU, HES
02/20/02 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
02/20/02 (H) Heard & Held Subcommittee
Assigned
02/20/02 (H) MINUTE(EDU)
02/27/02 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
02/27/02 (H) Moved CSHB 416(EDU) Out of
Committee
02/27/02 (H) MINUTE(EDU)
03/01/02 2437 (H) EDU RPT CS(EDU) 4DP
03/01/02 2437 (H) DP: PORTER, GREEN, STEVENS,
BUNDE
03/01/02 2437 (H) FN1: ZERO(ADM)
03/01/02 2437 (H) FN2: ZERO(EED)
03/14/02 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 464
SHORT TITLE:SCHOOL DISTRICT CORRESPONDENCE STUDY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)JAMES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/19/02 2313 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/19/02 2313 (H) EDU, HES
02/19/02 2313 (H) REFERRED TO EDUCATION
02/22/02 2370 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
02/27/02 2416 (H) REFERRALS CHANGED TO HES, EDU
02/27/02 2416 (H) REFERRED TO HES
03/07/02 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/07/02 (H) Heard & Held
03/07/02 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/13/02 2530 (H) COSPONSOR(S): COGHILL,
KOHRING, GREEN,
03/13/02 2530 (H) FOSTER
03/14/02 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
HEATH HILYARD, Staff
to Representative Jeannette James
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 214
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 451 on behalf of
Representative James, sponsor.
EDDY JEANS, Manager
School Finance and Facilities Section
Education Support Services
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
801 West Tenth Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 451 and answered questions.
DEE HUBBARD, Member
Bond Reimbursement and Grant Review Committee
P.O. Box 88
Sterling, Alaska 99672-0088
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 451.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 501
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented CSHB 416(EDU) as chair of the
House Special Committee on Education, the bill's sponsor.
KAREN McCARTHY, Staff
to Representative Con Bunde
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 501
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: As committee aide to the House Special
Committee on Education, answered questions pertaining to CSHB
416(EDU).
GUY BELL, Director
Division of Retirement & Benefits
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110203
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0203
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 416, answered
questions relating to the state's retirement system.
RICHARD SCHMITZ, Staff
to Representative Jeannette James
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 214
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 464, answered
questions on behalf of Representative James, sponsor, and
explained proposed amendments to Version O.
ED McLAIN, Ph.D., Deputy Commissioner of Education
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
801 West 10th Street, Suite 320
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 464; said EED didn't oppose
Amendments 1 or 2 to Version O, but needed time to consider
Amendment 3.
SHARYLEE ZACHARY
P.O. Box 1531
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 464.
CAROL SIMPSON
448 Klondike Avenue
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 464.
TIM SCOTT
3339 Fairbanks Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 464; agreed with Amendments
1 and 2 to Version O, and said he saw no problem with proposed
Amendment 3 from his perspective.
RUSS BOWDRE
P.O. Box 1048
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 464.
CHRISTINE AXMAKER
P.O. Box 301
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 464.
JOAN DANGELI
P.O. Box 34711
Juneau, Alaska 99803
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 464, offered suggested
change to proposed Amendment 3 and asked questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-22, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR FRED DYSON called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.
Representatives Dyson, Wilson, Coghill, Stevens, Kohring, and
Cissna were present at the call to order. Representative Joule
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
CHAIR DYSON announced that after the bill hearings, the
committee would discuss a possible committee bill pertaining to
putting professional counselors and [marital] and family
therapists under one board.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if the merger would be immediate, or
whether the starts would be staggered.
CHAIR DYSON read, "The board [of] professional counselors and
the board of marital and family counselors shall by July 1, 2003
become the board of professional counselors and therapists."
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON explained that her reason for asking this
is because one group has some outstanding [financial] bills.
HB 451-MUNICIPAL BOND REIMBURSEMENT
Number 0241
CHAIR DYSON announced the first order of business, HOUSE BILL
NO. 451, "An Act relating to municipal bond reimbursement for
school construction; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0292
HEATH HILYARD, Staff to Representative Jeannette James, Alaska
State Legislature, presented HB 451 on behalf of Representative
James, sponsor. He referred to the sponsor statement in the
committee packet and offered his understanding that current
statute requires for grant proposals for municipal school
construction that there be a preventative maintenance plan in
place prior to the grant's being funded. The bill would clarify
statute under the bond reimbursement for school construction.
He said it is simple: all it does is "clean up statutory
differences between the two processes."
CHAIR DYSON said this is also his understanding.
Number 0333
EDDY JEANS, Manager, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Education Support Services, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), reminded members that about three years ago
the legislature passed a requirement that school districts have
a five-part preventative maintenance plan in place as an
eligibility [requirement] for school construction grants; this
is found in [AS] 14.11. Also in this statute is the
reimbursement program [for school construction]. The provision
[for a preventative maintenance plan] was not attached to the
debt-reimbursement program. Therefore, HB 451 places the same
requirement on the debt-reimbursement programs that currently
exists under the grant program.
Number 0389
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON sought confirmation that in order for
schools to be on the capital improvement [project (CIP) list],
they must have a preventative maintenance program in place.
MR. JEANS answered in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said some schools choose not to be on the
[CIP list]. She added, "And I could be wrong in this, so ...
I'm going to ask you this: some schools go ahead and bond
without being on the list ... and ... take care of it themselves
and then ask for reimbursement afterwards. Are those schools
required to be on the CIP?"
MR. JEANS replied that the debt-reimbursement process is a
separate process that districts have to go through. Currently,
there is no additional debt authorization under the debt-
reimbursement program; the legislature would have to pass a bill
authorizing additional debt for reimbursement from the state.
He said this typically is allocated based on community size; it
is up to districts to submit projects to [EED] for eligibility.
Right now, the projects under the debt-reimbursement program
don't have to have a preventative maintenance program in place.
He offered that since the legislation of approximately three
years ago, [EED] has been reviewing all districts' preventative
maintenance plans, even those under the debt-reimbursement
program. He said [EED] has been working with districts to meet
those five categories [in the preventative maintenance plan].
Number 0504
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE inquired about feedback from school
districts affected by [HB 451] and whether they have plans.
MR. JEANS answered that all districts have a plan of some type.
These plans might not conform to the five required parts [in
statute], however, and [EED] has been working with all the
districts to assist them in conforming to the law. He added,
"Under the grant program, this just mirrors that same
requirement for the debt-reimbursement program."
Number 0546
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS offered that this is a reasonable request
of districts; it is a lot to do, but any district should be able
to have a preventative maintenance plan if it plans on
[facility] renewal and replacement. He asked if this
preventative maintenance is beyond any district's ability to
accomplish.
MR. JEANS replied, "I believe you're correct." He reiterated
that [EED] is working with school districts to meet all five
requirements. Tools such as a renewal-and-replacement schedule
are available on EED's web site to assist districts. He added
that this bill was submitted by Representative James at the
request of the bond reimbursement [and] grant review committee
that oversees all school construction and major maintenance
regulations in the state. This committee supports this
inclusion of the debt reimbursement under the requirements for
the grant program.
Number 0627
CHAIR DYSON referenced page 3, line 11, of the bill and asked if
"cardex" is a brand name.
MR. JEANS said he was unable to answer that question.
CHAIR DYSON offered his opinion that it is. He added, "And it's
no big deal. I think [it] ... probably communicates what we
want; and if it is a brand name, it's probably not smart to put
it in state law, but I don't think it's something that ought to
hang us up."
Number 0671
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE noted the need for preventative maintenance
plans. He recounted comments he has heard from school districts
indicating that the many maintenance requirements necessitate
hiring personnel to do the paperwork; so much needs to be
reported that this takes personnel away from performing the
maintenance. He said these [district] budgets are already
constrained. He asked about the impact of the extra maintenance
personnel costs on the 70/30 ratio and whether districts are
granted waivers for this.
MR. JEANS replied that Representative Joule had raised a good
question. School districts have raised this issue with [EED];
the additional expense incurred under this provision of law
works against districts in meeting the 70 percent requirement
for instruction. He said:
My only response to that is: if this is one of the
contributing factors, then the department will support
a waiver, if that's one of the items that's causing
them not to meet the 70 percent on instruction. But
... I would suggest that this isn't the only thing
that's going to cause them not to meet the 70 percent
instructional requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE pointed out that if districts are getting
close [to the 70 percent requirement], this might cause them to
[go below that]. He affirmed that all districts are working
hard to [achieve the 70/30 ratio for instruction and
administration, respectively].
EDDY JEANS concurred. He reiterated that [EED] will take that
into consideration when reviewing a district's waiver request.
Number 0800
CHAIR DYSON said part of the problem is that the 70/30 ratio
reflects good intentions but doesn't work really well. He
suggested that in smaller schools, particularly those with
unsophisticated physical plants, this may be overkill. He
added, "The only thing I would add to the contrary is, as we
work more ... on school safety sorts of things - alarm systems
and sprinklers ... - [those] have some additional reporting
requirements that ... make us need to work [at that]."
Number 0860
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON pointed out that schools need to hire an
engineer or some other expert to [put these plans in place].
Large expenses can be incurred by districts in rural areas
because of transportation, housing, and other expenses
associated with contracting with these experts. If districts
are approaching the 70/30 ratio, they could easily go over [the
30 percent administrative-cost allocation].
Number 0904
CHAIR DYSON suggested perhaps the 70/30 [ratio] should be
revisited, "and put some school building facility size and
remoteness caveats in there or something."
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said he has traveled to visit schools in
varying states of repair and disrepair. He offered that the
reason there is such a problem in some rural schools is due to
the lack of renewal-and-replacement schedules. He emphasized
the necessity of requiring [preventative maintenance plans].
Number 0958
CHAIR DYSON responded that local people should take on the
responsibility to [maintain facilities of their own volition];
it shouldn't require a law. He offered his experience regarding
facility-and-machinery preventative maintenance, that when money
gets tight, "guess what gets cut?"
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON agreed that this maintenance must be done,
noting that the state has over a billion dollars of deferred
maintenance currently. She said [the legislature] expects the
school districts that are short of funds to [properly maintain
facilities], although legislators have not [provided funding]
for the state's deferred maintenance.
Number 1015
CHAIR DYSON said, "Or at least document that they have a plan to
take care of it when they go for bonds or bond reimbursement,
which is the subject we have at hand."
Number 1033
DEE HUBBARD, Member, Bond Reimbursement and Grant Review
Committee, testified via teleconference, noting that she has
been a member of that committee since its establishment in 1993.
She said in 1993 the legislature decided to establish a
committee to take all the school construction issues together,
to create a fair statewide system. She noted that this is just
what the committee has done, and it has a good record, according
to school districts. Upon review of regulations, the committee
discovered that the preventative maintenance required by law did
not affect the projects being considered for bond reimbursement;
this is the justification for proposing the bill, she said.
MS. HUBBARD told members she is glad the [House Health,
Education and Social Services Standing Committee] understands
the problems encountered when meeting any maintenance
requirement. "It is the thing that gets cut first," she said.
Anyone who has lived in Anchorage has witnessed this, she
offered. [The legislature] has determined that districts must
create a maintenance program to save money in [new] construction
costs by allowing districts to spend money to maintain schools,
she pointed out. The review committee recommended the program
to the [State Board of Education and Early Development] and the
commissioner, and it realized that additional costs would be
incurred with this program by putting it into law.
MS. HUBBARD agreed with Mr. Jeans' comments that [EED] similarly
recognizes this problem and is willing to work with school
districts. She reported that a person has been traveling
through the state to work with [district] maintenance personnel;
this has helped districts find simpler solutions [to maintenance
problems] so that districts can qualify under the program. She
expressed appreciation for this committee's hearing the issue
and acknowledging the problems that the 70/30 [funding ratio] is
causing.
Number 1218
CHAIR DYSON stated to Representative Joule that he would
entertain, pending committee approval, some meaningful
adjustments to the 70/30 ratio, as a committee bill. He
characterized this as a heavy-handed action that legislators
tend to do in attempts to "get everybody to shape up and do the
right thing, and it often is counterproductive." He conveyed
his preference for a better law that neither forces [EED] into
the position of entertaining waivers nor causes well-meaning
people and organizations to continue to try to "cook the books
... in the most favorable sort of way - not to do something bad,
but to meet an arbitrary and capricious guideline that was
somewhat thoughtlessly put in place."
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to report HB 451 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE observed that some of the best maintenance
plans he has seen have been from some of the smaller districts.
He noted that this is a concern for the smaller districts
because they are trying to meet the [70/30 ratio requirement].
CHAIR DYSON related his impression that [maintenance plans] are
almost entirely dependent on whether the local people who are
involved really care, not on whether a state law mandates them.
Number 1327
CHAIR DYSON announced that there being no objection, HB 451 was
moved out of the House Health, Education and Social Services
Standing Committee.
HB 416-REEMPLOYMENT OF RETIRED TEACHERS
CHAIR DYSON announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 416, "An Act relating to reemployment of and
benefits for retired teachers and principals who participated in
retirement incentive programs; and providing for an effective
date." [Before the committee was CSHB 416(EDU).]
Number 1369
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as
the chair of the House Special Committee on Education, sponsor
of the bill, characterized CSHB 416(EDU) as another tool in the
toolbox that addresses teacher retention and recruitment; it
would be available if school districts chose to use it.
Referring to previous discussion of teacher shortage issues, he
said this bill provides [districts] an opportunity to rehire
teachers who have retired under a [Retirement Incentive Program
(RIP)].
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE explained that current law dictates that
these [retired] teachers who decide to return to teaching repay
a substantial bonus [to be eligible for rehire]; CSHB 416(EDU)
allows teachers and principals to be rehired without that
penalty, but the rehiring is at an entry-level step. This was
included to give districts as much flexibility as possible while
preventing possible abuses.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE reported that this bill has been endorsed
by the [Matanuska-Susitna] and Anchorage School Districts, the
[Association of Alaska School Boards], and the [Alaska]
Association of Secondary School Principals. He suggested it
might be useful to look at the effects in different districts if
[CSHB 416(EDU) becomes law]. There are 457 teachers who have
applied for a retired teacher's teaching certificate, he noted.
Referring to a document titled "Comparison: Average Salary at
Retirement vs. Retirement Benefit + Returning Salary Under CSHB
416(EDU)," he pointed out that in most cases, retired teachers
would earn more at a beginning teacher's salary with retirement
benefits than if they had continued teaching [without retiring].
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE brought attention to [Amendment 1], 22-
LS1472\F.3, Craver, 3/13/02, which read:
Page 1, line 2, following "programs":
Insert "and to the employment as teachers of
members of the public employees' retirement system who
participated in a retirement incentive program"
Page 2, line 17:
Delete "a new subsection"
Insert "new subsections"
Page 2, following line 22:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(e) A member of the public employees'
retirement system who participated in a retirement
incentive program under ch. 26, SLA 1986; ch. 89, SLA
1989; ch. 65, SLA 1996; ch. 4, FSSLA 1996; or ch. 92,
SLA 1997, who subsequently becomes a qualified
teacher, may become an active member under
AS 14.25.040 without losing the incentive credit
provided under the applicable retirement incentive
plan and is not subject to any related reemployment
indebtedness."
Page 2, line 26, following "Act":
Insert "; AS 14.25.043(e), added by sec. 3 of
this 2002 Act"
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted that Amendment 1 addresses Public
Employees' [Retirement System (PERS)] retirees who apply [to be
rehired as teachers].
Number 1623
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE informed members that he'd neglected to say
CSHB 416(EDU) has no negative actuarial impact. He said he
would refer questions about the retirement system to Guy Bell,
Director, Division of Retirement & Benefits, Department of
Administration.
CHAIR DYSON offered his understanding that Representative Bunde
had said these people don't have to pay back the severance
bonus. He asked where that is in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said that was the intent in drafting [CSHB
416(EDU)].
Number 1680
KAREN McCARTHY, Staff to Representative Con Bunde, Alaska State
Legislature, speaking as the committee aide for the House
Special Committee on Education, offered her understanding from
Mr. Bell that the answer to Chair Dyson's question is found on
page 2, lines 13-16; the [exemption] is implied by the
information contained therein. She offered that Mr. Bell could
explain how it works.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said that section looks as though it is
being removed.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE answered that by dropping that language,
the payback provision [is omitted]. He added that the amendment
was suggested by Mr. Bell.
Number 1750
GUY BELL, Director, Division of Retirement & Benefits,
Department of Administration, explained that the language in the
bill that is being removed [originated in] HB 242, passed last
year [to allow] Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) and
Teachers' Retirement System (TRS) [non-RIP] retirees to return
to public employment, through filing a waiver, while continuing
to receive a retirement benefit. He said this was viewed as an
incentive to bring retirees back into the workforce. Several
things were omitted in [HB 242]. Therefore, [CSHB 416(EDU)]
seeks to make one correction and one adjustment. The correction
is in Section [1], where line 5 adds the Department of Education
and Early Development (EED); this allows EED to rehire retired
teachers. This was an inadvertent omission in HB 242.
CHAIR DYSON asked if these people were professional staff or
worked for Alyeska [Central School].
MR. BELL offered his belief that these are employees in the
correspondence school, the [Alaska Vocational Technical Center],
and Mount Edgecumbe High School - any job that requires a
teaching certificate within EED. This allows any of these
employers to declare a teacher shortage. Then the provisions of
the rehired-retiree plan come into effect in Section 2, which
allows organizations declaring a shortage to rehire retirees;
these retirees are allowed to file a waiver that waives
additional coverage in the [retirement] system. In return,
these retirees can keep their retirement benefits, but don't
accrue another retirement benefit during their period of
reemployment. Mr. Bell noted that lines 13-16, page 2 of CSHB
416(EDU), delete language contained in HB 242. This language
prohibited retirees who retired under the TRS-sponsored RIP from
participating in the return provision. Deleting this language
allows people, through a waiver, to return to teaching without
having to pay a penalty.
Number 1900
CHAIR DYSON inquired what "pay a penalty" means.
MR. BELL replied that under the provisions of the RIPs over the
years, there were penalty provisions: a "RIP retiree" returning
to teaching would have to repay 110 percent of the benefit
received. In addition, the retiree would forego any additional
credit received as a result of the RIP. If the retiree received
health benefits that person wouldn't have received otherwise, a
repayment would be required. There is a significant penalty to
a RIP-retiree returning to employment, he said; this law has not
changed. By allowing a person to file a waiver, this waives
his/her coverage so that the penalty provision does not apply.
He continued:
So by deleting ... on page 2, lines 13 to 16, a RIP
person is allowed to come back. If the RIP person
does come back and files a waiver, they are not in
TRS-covered employment, and therefore penalty ...
provisions wouldn't apply. So a RIP person could
return to teaching and not pay the penalty; at the
same time, though, that person would not accrue
additional retirement credit, but they would continue
to receive their retirement benefit.
MR. BELL drew attention to Section 3 and explained that this
provides for the retiree to be rehired at the entry level of the
negotiated salary schedule.
CHAIR DYSON sought further clarification on Section 2. He asked
whether some of the incentives for early retirement were cash
benefits.
MR. BELL replied that some school districts offered cash
incentives, but those aren't referred to in [CSHB 416(EDU)].
Referred to in the bill are the TRS-sponsored retirement
incentive programs. Those basically gave a person up to three
years of service credit if the employee and the employer paid
the actuarial cost.
CHAIR DYSON offered his understanding that one retirement
incentive was the additional [years of service] granted to
retirees in the form of [up to] a three-year "bonus" for someone
who had worked 17 years, for example; the teacher had to make up
the [difference] in the payments.
MR. BELL concurred.
Number 2007
CHAIR DYSON asked if enhanced health insurance was an incentive
offered to retirees.
MR. BELL replied that it was not enhanced health insurance. A
retiree, by buying the three years, received health insurance
through the retiree health plan at the point of retirement. A
teacher who quit [after 17 years] would be ineligible for this
health insurance [otherwise].
Number 2024
CHAIR DYSON offered his understanding that the intention of [the
Division of Retirement & Benefits] was to guard against giving
an incentive for people to "pull the pin" and retire, and then
be rehired somewhere and be "double-dipping"; therefore,
penalties were built in.
MR. BELL said he wasn't present [during the RIP]; he surmised
that there were public policy reasons at that time. One
argument is that times have changed: now there is a shortage of
teachers. With qualified people available who might wish to
return to teaching, there is no actuarial cost to the retirement
system; there may, in fact, be a savings to employers because
they are not paying TRS contributions.
Number 2065
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE offered that there was some concern about
double dipping. However, anyone who took the retirement and
went to Oregon to teach could receive a full salary as well as
Alaska's retirement. He indicated that Alaska's not allowing
this to happen might be shortsighted. He pointed out that there
is a sunset provision in the bill to allow for unforeseen
[circumstances]. It will sunset in 2005. This will give the
legislature an opportunity for redress.
Number 2122
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS pointed out that he was a school board
member when the RIP was offered; substantial savings were
realized by school districts when these teachers retired early,
which was important at the time. However, teachers are no
longer readily available. He concurred with Representative
Bunde's point about districts in Oregon that don't care how much
a teacher is receiving in retirement.
Number 2175
CAROL KANE, Executive Director, Alaska Association of Secondary
School Principals (AASSP), testified via teleconference, noting
that AASSP represents K-12 administrators and has approximately
255 members in addition to 25 retired administrators. She said
AASSP fully supports this legislation. She'd just returned from
the national principal associations conference, where she
observed that benefits offered to teachers and administrators
include housing bonuses, signing bonuses, professional-growth
incentives, and early contracts. She conveyed her concern that
Alaska's salaries are in the bottom quartile when compared to
the Lower 48.
MS. KANE asked whether the language [in the title, page 1] on
line 1 - "An Act relating to reemployment of [and] benefits for
retired teachers and principals" - transfers throughout the
bill, or whether the intention is to change that. She offered
her association's support for the bill and the amendments as
presented today.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE clarified the intent that the legislation
will apply to both teachers and principals throughout.
Number 2263
MS. McCARTHY noted that Mr. Bell had provided her a copy of the
statutes wherein the definition of "teacher" under the TRS
section means a person eligible to participate in the system, a
certificated full- or part-time elementary or secondary teacher,
a school nurse, [or] someone at the University of Alaska. She
sought further clarification from Mr. Bell.
MR. BELL said, "A certificated person in a position requiring a
teaching certificate as a condition of employment."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted that all principals require [a
certificate].
Number 2293
CHAIR DYSON offered, "The representation is that anyone that ...
is a certificated teacher would qualify regardless [of] whether
they're in the classroom in an administrative role as
principal."
MS. KANE explained that there are the following certificates:
Type A for teachers, and Type B for administrators. Unless a
person holds both certificates, she said, she doesn't believe
that person would meet the criteria described in the
[definition] of teacher. She asked for clarification on this.
Some principals may not maintain a current teaching certificate,
she added.
Number 2331
MR. BELL answered that the Division of Retirement & Benefits
does not differentiate between a [Type] A and B certificate; it
only looks at certification. The law indicates it is a position
requiring certification. He said, "From our perspective, we
would just put on the record ... A or B; we would look at that
as certification. And ... the language as written covers that."
Number 2350
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a distinction between being employed
and qualifying for retirement. He said TRS covers anyone who is
certified. He then returned attention to Amendment 1.
TAPE 02-22, SIDE B
Number 2400
CHAIR DYSON expressed his understanding that Amendment 1 allows
a PERS [retiree] - who has subsequently become a [certified]
teacher and wants to be employed - to not lose benefits.
Number 2350
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE acknowledged that this person might have
been an uncertificated teacher aide and therefore not in TRS;
this person would have been in PERS. The PERS retirement of a
person who has since obtained a teaching certificate would not
be forfeited.
Number 2336
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked: If a PERS-eligible employee retired
and then wanted to enter the teaching system, would this person
accrue retirement benefits under TRS?
MR. BELL answered that a PERS retiree who was hired by a school
district as a certificated employee would continue to receive
the PERS retirement. That person would be allowed to accrue a
TRS benefit while employed as a teacher. They are two different
systems.
Number 2290
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS moved to adopt Amendment 1 [text provided
previously]. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS moved to adopt Amendment 2, 22-
LS1472\F.2, Craver, 3/13/02, which read:
Page 2, lines 17 - 22:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, lines 25 - 26:
Delete "; AS 14.25.043(d), added by sec. 3 of
this 2002 Act"
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS remarked that this discussion of RIP-
retired teachers was a learning process; it might not result in
a great number of teachers being rehired, but could be
important. He added that after the bill left the House Special
Committee on Education, upon further reflection, he'd thought
[CSHB 416(EDU)] might be a bit punitive by requiring a teacher
to return at the lowest [salary] level possible. He reiterated
that other states are not concerned about the benefits a
prospective teacher may already be earning from retirement
benefits. [Alaska] might be only harming itself by saying that
people must return at no more than what they were earning when
they left," he suggested.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS brought attention to the comparison chart
showing average salaries at retirement and retired teachers'
salaries including TRS benefits. He suggested [the small jump
in salary] was hardly worth going through the retirement
process. He pointed out the need to look at teachers who have
retired from Alaska and are then "snapped up" by districts in
other states. He offered an example of someone he knows.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS pointed out that Amendment 2 deletes
Section 3, which provides for a teacher's being rehired at only
the rate of a new teacher. Amendment 2 leaves that [salary]
decision up to the school district; the school district will be
paying this teacher and must determine how badly it needs this
teacher. It will add flexibility, and there is no actuarial
impact, as Mr. Bell has indicated.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS offered his concern that members learn
from [EED] the number of teachers rehired under the bill after
its implementation; EED does have a report that will convey that
information. He noted that when this reaches the 2005 sunset
date, the legislature will know how many teachers actually have
been affected by this. He concluded that the main purpose of
Amendment [2] is to allow districts the flexibility to decide at
what level they want to rehire RIP teachers.
Number 2106
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE offered that this is an issue upon which
reasonable people disagree in part. He agreed that [the
legislature] should provide as much local flexibility as
possible. He said:
I could see a possibility of someone retiring at 60-
plus, or ... getting their retirement and going back
the next day at their former salary of 60-plus
thousand ... if there was some good-ole-boy network
... in place. Now, I don't expect that this would
happen, ... but we have seen some malfeasance in
school administrators in the not-too-distant past, and
... I would suggest that it's wise to not encourage
human weakness.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE added that some people might be concerned
about allowing people who, by good fortune, had retired with a
substantial early-retirement bonus to return to teach and retain
their retirement. He said, "Don't lose the good in search of
the perfect. I would be concerned that there might be those who
would be disinclined to support the bill if there was any
possibility - no matter how remote - that it could be abused by
a school district somewhere in Alaska."
Number 2037
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON explained why she didn't support
[Amendment 2]. As written, the bill provides leeway at the
local level. Districts are not required to rehire a candidate
at a [the lowest salary on the salary schedule]. Rather, the
bill allows latitude in placement on the salary schedule through
the negotiated agreement in each district. In some areas,
districts can give credit [for education and experience].
Furthermore, the present language addresses the problem of
morale [if a retired teacher could return at the same salary as
for existing teachers]. Therefore, she would leave the bill as
it is.
Number 1980
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE, in response to Chair Dyson, said he'd
prefer that [Amendment 2] wasn't adopted.
Number 1962
CHAIR DYSON asked about the impact of [line 7 of Amendment 2],
which read:
Delete ";AS 14.25.043(d), added by sec. 3 of this 2002
Act"
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE expressed his understanding that this is
the language that requires districts to rehire [RIP-retired
teachers] at the beginning salary. He mentioned that beginning
salaries vary from district to district; for example, he thinks
Kotzebue allows people to bring in six years [of teaching
experience].
CHAIR DYSON pointed out that [the deletion of] lines 17 - 22 [on
page 2] in Amendment 2 [removes the requirement for districts to
rehire RIP-retired teachers according to the negotiated
agreement]. He asked Representative Stevens about the impact of
[the deletion of] lines 25 -26 [on page 2].
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied, "It puts it in the uncodified
section because it's going to sunset in 2005."
Number 1925
MS. McCARTHY added that Amendment 2, lines 6-7, takes out the
reference of Section 3 from the uncodified section of statute,
where temporary [laws] are placed.
Number 1907
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS thanked Ms. McCarthy for her explanation.
He explained that Amendment 2 removes Section 3 from the bill;
line 7 of [Amendment 2] removes the reference to Section 3. He
returned to [the potential for] malfeasance and pointed out that
many teachers might be going to districts [other than the ones
in which they had taught].
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS, referring to Representative Wilson's
comments, highlighted line 21 [page 2 of CSHB 416(EDU)], which
addresses the rate of pay for new teachers. If this language is
left in, he said, a returning RIP teacher would be paid the rate
for new teachers on the salary schedule. He expressed concern
that without [Amendment 2], there might not be any RIP teachers
returning. Drawing attention to Anchorage's salaries on the
comparison chart, he said, "Would they really want to come back
for a thousand dollars more? I don't know." He requested
confirmation of his understanding that substantial savings will
be realized by districts regardless of salary placement, because
districts will not be paying for health insurance or retirement.
These costs are covered by the retirement [system]. He asked
Mr. Bell to clarify for members any additional savings to
districts.
Number 1807
MR. BELL offered the division's interpretation that the retiree
medical plan is such that if a person becomes an active
employee, the active-employee health insurance becomes a
person's primary insurance. He said the Division of Retirement
& Benefits anticipates that districts will still be required to
pay for health insurance. He added that the major savings to
the school district would be the employer contributions to the
retirement system - 11 percent of salary.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS indicated he thinks most members believe
the local level is where education decisions should be made. He
said:
The goal here is not to give a loophole for someone to
come back and rip the system off. ... If we leave it
as it is, I'm afraid there will not be much of an
impact; there will be very few ... RIP teachers coming
back to Alaska. If we change it, it allows local
option - it allows the district to decide ... how much
... to pay this person. So it does put more option at
the local level.
Number 1748
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE added that teacher shortages exist in rural
and urban areas across the country. He offered that drawing
teachers to rural Alaska might be even more difficult;
[Amendment 2] allows school districts more latitude to attract
teachers to rural districts. He observed that some, though not
many, teachers live in the community and become "part of the
family." He expressed hope that some of these teachers would
[be rehired under this legislation]. He concluded that rural
areas need to have this tool to attract teachers.
Number 1708
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said, "I would tend to agree with
Representative Bunde." Teachers will receive the retirement
base; in addition to this is the healthcare benefit and the
salary [upon rehire]. He offered his opinion that this is
enough incentive, and said the benefits under early retirement
were significant and a "real benefit to those who took it." He
stated that there is still a benefit for teachers to return even
without Amendment 2. He turned attention to the wisdom of 20-
year retirements. He said, "At this point, I think that I would
rather just ... stay with the way the bill is written."
Number 1662
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked Ms. McCarthy if the bill's current
language provides that a returning teacher would be rehired at
the rate of a new teacher who had no experience, or if it allows
latitude for the local district to negotiate.
MS. McCARTHY replied that the bill's current language refers to
the negotiated salary schedule that gives credit for experience
and education beyond a bachelor's [degree]. She referred to a
chart in the committee packet titled "Examples of Possible
Salaries for Reemployed Teachers Who Participated in a
Retirement Incentive Program." She said the last column shows
the number of years of experience each listed district will
allow a teacher to bring in. She noted that a teacher with 20
years' experience being rehired in Kotzebue would receive 6
years of credit with a bachelor's [degree] and 8 years with a
master's [degree]. Galena allows for 5 years to be brought in,
or 6 years if a shortage exists in a specific teaching area.
Number 1583
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said that gives "pretty good latitude" to
the local areas, the way the bill is written.
MS. McCARTHY agreed.
Number 1570
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS pointed out that a teacher moving to
Anchorage would receive no years of experience credit. He said,
"It is up to the individual districts ... what their salary
schedules are like."
MS. McCARTHY agreed, adding that it would be the responsibility
of the individual to decide whether it would be an advantageous
move.
Number 1532
CHAIR DYSON noted his agreement with Representative Coghill,
saying, "We see lots of unintended consequences of the 20-year
retirement system ... across a lot of different areas. And we
do them all with good intentions, and they end up presenting
real problems for us downstream." He continued:
Personally, somebody that will move to Oregon for
$30,000, I say good riddance. ... What I want to
represent ... is the people that are committed to
living in Alaska whatever it costs, and money isn't
the issue. They love this country and its people, and
they're here forever. But I realize everybody ...
[doesn't] march to the same drummer as I do, and money
is an issue. And I can't imagine how much money it
would take to get me to live somewhere else.
CHAIR DYSON also noted his agreement with Representative Stevens
that flexibility needs to be given to local people. "Yes,
they'll misuse it, and yes, I want to trust them and give them
that flexibility," he said. "My own vote will be to accept the
amendment."
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Dyson, Cissna,
Joule, and Stevens voted for Amendment 2. Representatives
Kohring, Wilson, and Coghill voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 2 was adopted by a vote of 4-3.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON remarked that if the bill had been left
the way it was, schools that are able to recruit teachers more
easily wouldn't have had to raise [salaries] as much; this would
have enabled more teachers to be hired in areas that have more
difficulty in recruiting teachers.
Number 1436
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING commented that he was troubled that the
legislature initially passed the RIP provision and created a
situation that necessitated this legislation. He said, "I'm
just troubled that we're continuing to provide more and more
benefits for a profession ... that you just don't see in other
professions. I recognize the intent of the sponsor, ... that
he's trying to get the good, qualified teachers back in the
system [and that] there's a shortage." He relayed his belief
that over the years the legislature has been extremely generous
to the teaching profession with tenure, retirement packages, and
salaries.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING returned attention to the salary chart.
He said the Anchorage salary of [$62,889] divided by nine months
is nearly $7,000 a month; there are three months off during the
year as well. He said, "I'm not putting teachers down; I'm just
saying that they've been rewarded very, very handsomely over the
years. And I'm just troubled with the fact that we continue to
advance legislation that ... provides them more and more benefit
and more gain." He noted that he would not object to moving the
bill out of committee, however.
Number 1343
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS pointed out that the bill as amended
forces no district to hire anybody. He offered his opinion that
teachers who were poor teachers would never be rehired. This is
a tool that allows a district to decide at the local level how
badly it needs a teacher in a time of shortage. He offered his
belief that the shortage will worsen over time, and that Alaska
is in a less competitive situation and will find it even more
difficult to [hire] the necessary teachers.
Number 1295
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON reiterated, "What we did with that
amendment ... is that we've just given the school districts that
can afford to pay a real good salary a little bit of an
advantage over the ones that can't." She offered that the
starting salary in [Wrangell] is only $27,000 because the
district doesn't have enough money to pay teachers more. "We
have a hard time getting people to come to our area now," she
said. "And that ... would've helped just a little, because it
would've kept Anchorage at not giving them those extra years,
and it would've maybe made people look at ... another area."
Number 1250
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS responded that Anchorage is not the
villain, that the entire country is facing a shortage, and that
Anchorage needs teachers as badly as Wrangell or Kodiak.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he couldn't support the bill, since
the scope had been narrowed.
Number 1209
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA moved to report CSHB 416(EDU), as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Dyson, Cissna,
Joule, Wilson, Stevens, and Kohring voted to move CSHB 416(EDU),
as amended, out of committee. Representative Coghill voted
against it. Therefore, CSHB 416(HES) was moved out of the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee by a
vote of 6-1.
HB 464-SCHOOL DISTRICT CORRESPONDENCE STUDY
CHAIR DYSON announced that the committee would consider HOUSE
BILL NO. 464, "An Act relating to statewide school district
correspondence study programs." [Before the committee, adopted
as a work draft on 3/7/02, was Version O, 22-LS1494\O, Ford,
3/4/02.]
TAPE 02-23, SIDE A
Number 0001
RICHARD SCHMITZ, Staff to Representative Jeannette James, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative James, prime
sponsor of HB 464, noted that he had three amendments for
consideration that had been drafted in response to some issues
people with the bill. He explained that Representative James
was comfortable with all three amendments, which work in
concert.
MR. SCHMITZ informed members that Amendment 1 would change the
title [which for Version O read, "An Act relating to statewide
school district correspondence study and state supported home
schooling programs."] Amendment 1, which would delete "and
state supported home schooling programs", read:
Title change to:
"An act relating to statewide school district
correspondence study programs."
MR. SCHMITZ explained that it ties in with Amendment 2, which
read:
Delete (b)
Add:
(b) In this section, "statewide school district
correspondence study programs" do not apply to charter
schools, Alyeska Central School, or to school district
correspondence study programs that enroll only
students within its district of residence.
Number 0338
MR. SCHMITZ expressed his understanding, based on a conversation
with Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
personnel, that four types of public schools are considered
correspondence schools. One is Alyeska Central School, a state-
operated school that distributes curriculum for home schoolers;
the program offers few curricular options. The second type
includes charter schools that offer correspondence; one in
Anchorage provides some correspondence. He remarked, "Charter
schools are their own animal." He offered that these schools
have worked on regulations for a number of years to fine-tune
[the programs]. In conversations with people involved with
charter schools, Mr. Schmitz said he was made aware of concerns
about unintended consequences for charter schools that would
occur as a result of HB 464. He indicated that charter schools
would be excluded [from HB 464 by adoption of Amendment 2].
MR. SCHMITZ explained that correspondence programs exist within
a district; these programs serve only students within district
boundaries. The remaining type of home school program is
statewide correspondence programs, the subject of HB 464.
CyberLynx, Interior Distance Education of Alaska (IDEA), and
others are among the approximately ten statewide correspondence
programs. These are, by statute, correspondence-study programs
that are open to students anywhere in the state, offered by a
school district. He added that certain rules apply to how these
programs enroll students. In order to clarify HB 464, this
language was developed by a "sort of committee" to ensure that
the language applies only to [these statewide correspondence
schools] and to allow other programs to operate without undue
controls. He said the title change also goes along with this
premise.
MR. SCHMITZ turned attention to Amendment 3, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
Delete: (3)
Add: (3) must provide that the school district
conducting the correspondence program has
the duty and authority to establish
procedures for the purchase of
correspondence curriculum materials, and to
establish procedures for approving or
disapproving individual education plans and
home designed courses.
MR. SCHMITZ indicated this pertains to paragraph (3), page 2,
lines 2-4, and refers to the purchase of correspondence
curriculum materials. The schools in question do not want the
approval or disapproval of these materials within their purview;
this is the job of the parents, he stated. However, districts
do want control over the purchase of materials to ensure that
state law is followed. Amendment 3 also establishes procedures
for approving or disapproving individual education plans.
MR. SCHMITZ indicated these plans are established by parents and
district personnel in concert. He noted that the inclusion of
home-designed courses had been added at the suggestion of Joan
Dangeli. A home-designed course might be a physical education
course that includes hiking, for example; if the district
approves it, then it is allowable. This might also apply to
music lessons. The purpose is to give these schools and parents
who teach their children at home the greatest possible freedom
to continue the success achieved up until now, he concluded.
ED McLAIN, Ph.D., Deputy Commissioner of Education, Office of
the Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development,
in response to Chair Dyson, said Amendment 1 wasn't a problem
for EED.
CHAIR DYSON moved to adopt Amendment 1 [text provided
previously] and asked whether there was any objection. There
being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
DR. McLAIN, in response to Chair Dyson, said he would have
suggested language similar to Amendment 2, and that the
department had no objection to Amendment 2.
CHAIR DYSON moved to adopt Amendment 2 [text provided
previously] and asked if there was any objection. There being
no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 0680
DR. McLAIN, in response to Chair Dyson, said he wanted time to
review [Amendment 3]. However, he conveyed his initial reaction
that it may cause problems, may conflict with a statute that
addresses the responsibility of school boards in general, may
cause problems with accreditation efforts of the programs in
question, and may have implications for acceptance of
transcripts from those courses.
CHAIR DYSON asked that these amendments be distributed to the
Legislative Information Offices (LIOs) as quickly as possible.
He announced that the committee would not adopt Amendment 3 [at
this time] and would take public testimony.
Number 0774
MR. SCHMITZ, in response to Representative Wilson, explained
that HB 464 originated because of concern about proposed
regulations for statewide correspondence study programs. The
regulations were reviewed and conversations were held with
concerned parties; a bill was drafted to address these concerns
while protecting the state's interests and allowing for things
to run smoothly. He said [statewide correspondence programs]
are government programs that are popular with the people who use
them; these programs seem to work and have a good reputation.
Parents who educate their children at home are happy with these
programs and fear that [proposed] regulatory changes will limit
the programs' ability to work effectively. He noted that
Section 1, [paragraph] (1), calls for these programs to be
approved every ten years. The [proposed] regulations called for
this approval every year, which creates, from the programs'
perspective, a paperwork burden.
Number 0856
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired, "So if they change things, it
might be nine more years before somebody's going to check on
it?"
MR. SCHMITZ replied that the ten-year review is based on charter
school requirements for approval. He pointed to the second
provision in Section 1, [paragraph] (1), which requires a
program deemed "deficient" or "in crisis" under statute to be
[reviewed more frequently than every ten years].
Number 0900
CHAIR DYSON offered that part of the genesis of the bill was a
reaction to concerns about [proposed] regulations. The approval
is every ten years, but HB 464 makes the monitoring and
oversight a district responsibility as opposed to a department
responsibility. This responsibility is a major issue that the
bill addresses.
MR. SCHMITZ added that the bill gives the district the
responsibility to monitor students as the district deems
appropriate; this issue was raised by many parents. A student
enrolled in the program might be the child of a new home school
parent who might require more frequent contact with a district
teacher than is required by a more veteran home school parent.
The bill allows the district to determine [the appropriate
amount of contact] and to establish procedures to do so. It
allows the greatest amount of freedom while still having the
accountability of passing statewide exams, he said. The
proposed regulations would have been much more rigid.
Number 0988
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON noted that some concern has existed about
the number of [correspondence school] students taking the
Benchmark and [High School Graduation Qualifying Exam (HSGQE)]
tests. Some districts had many students who were not
participating in these tests, she pointed out.
MR. SCHMITZ replied that this bill does not address that
concern, but does hold the schools up to a standard of passage.
It would be in the programs' best interest to have as many of
their students as possible take the exams. In addition,
students cannot graduate without passing the [HSGQE].
Number 1109
SHARYLEE ZACHARY testified via teleconference. She referenced
written testimony from her husband, noting that both his and her
testimony had been faxed. She told members:
The building-based schools have been set up to
accommodate a large number of children with teachers,
supplies, programs, et cetera, to reach the goal of
education. Certain procedures and rules do need to be
applied in order to work with so many children in a
controlled and effective way. But this is only one
method of schooling that can be used to reach the goal
of education.
Home schooling is an entirely different, yet just as
effective, way of educating our children. It looks,
feels, and functions differently because it can be
designed according to the child and the family.
During the schooling years, children will be at
different levels in different areas. Yet when they
graduate, the same goal is met as in the public
school.
Because of IDEA, our family has been able to educate
our children with resources that we never had
available to us before. And you might ask, "Why did
you not put your children in the public school
system?" While we do agree with a lot of things being
taught in the school system, we see areas that are
being taught that we feel are very dangerous for our
children to be exposed to. I ... won't go into them,
but those areas tear down the character building that
we are trying to do in our children.
If we send our children into the public school system,
we are sending them into an area that will lead them
to make extremely unwise choices in their lives. We
teach our children to treat all people with respect
and kindness, and they do. But that does not mean
that they need to believe that what certain people are
doing at certain times is okay.
MS. ZACHARY, in response to Chair Dyson, offered her belief that
the bill says because she wants to teach certain principles to
her children at home through a Christian curriculum, her family
cannot receive funds from the state. She added that if her
family's children are enrolled in the [regular] school system,
they can be educated in areas her family finds dangerous. Her
family is penalized when trying to home school with curriculum
that will only build the children's character, she suggested.
Number 1276
CHAIR DYSON offered his impression that Ms. Zachary
misunderstood the intent of the bill, which limits the
department's regulations that could have included some censoring
of materials. It also puts oversight of the program into the
purview of the [administering] district. He indicated that Ms.
Zachary ought to have more influence over the district [than the
department], and that the district would be more responsive to
her needs. He offered his understanding that according to
[EED], any program receiving [state] money is not precluded from
purchasing materials from any publisher; the only restriction is
that state law prohibits the use of state money for promulgating
or advocating a particular religious perspective. He stated
that she is free to purchase materials in addition to state-
funded materials.
MS. ZACHARY thanked Chair Dyson for this clarification. She
said she and others have been very concerned about that.
Number 1363
CAROL SIMPSON testified via teleconference. She said she works
for the IDEA program, and she is also a longtime home school
parent. She told members [IDEA] is in favor of this bill and
appreciates that it eliminates the cumbersome yearly
applications. She offered that these applications are routinely
denied each year; every year, the previous year's approved
application is resubmitted and subsequently denied. She said
Section 2 allows the programs to base its monitoring on [a
family's needs]; Section 3 promulgates local district control of
the materials being used and what educational concepts are
covered. She added her belief that this is aligned with
legislative intent and statutes already in place.
Number 1387
CHAIR DYSON expressed his perception that Ms. Simpson has been
actively assisting the bill's sponsor and his office with this
bill. He noted his appreciation for her efforts. He asked if
she had seen the amendments before the committee and was
comfortable with them.
MS. SIMPSON replied that she had a question about why the
proposed regulations and the wording [in HB 464] say "statewide
correspondence programs" and therefore exclude in-district
correspondence programs. Noting her curiosity about the
department's distinction between the two types of programs, she
asked: what perceived problem prompted greater [proposed]
regulation of the statewide programs?
CHAIR DYSON responded that he had the same question and that the
committee would seek an answer to it.
Number 1439
TIM SCOTT testified via teleconference. He indicated his
agreement with Amendments 1 and 2, and told members that much of
what he wanted to say had already been said. In response to
Chair Dyson, he said that from his perspective, he saw no
problem with Amendment 3.
Number 1472
RUSS BOWDRE testified via teleconference. He said his family
has home schooled for over 20 years; he is in favor of the bill.
He indicated he had a question about an amendment that had
already been addressed. He noted his appreciation for
Representative James's and others' efforts to push this bill
forward. There is no need to change the regulations, he
offered; if a need exists, this bill addresses the concerns of
home schoolers.
Number 1535
CHRISTINE AXMAKER testified via teleconference. A home school
parent of three children, she has been home schooling for about
nine years. She noted that she had faxed written testimony to
the committee. Returning attention to Representative Wilson's
comment about a lack of accountability, Ms. Axmaker pointed out
that parents are accountable to the IDEA program on a regular
basis through reports and annual tests. She offered that her
children are "accelerated" and have scored well into the 90
percentile on all their tests. She asked, "Why are they messing
with such a good program?" She concluded, "We want this bill to
pass because we feel it will protect our rights; it will make it
easier for us to continue doing what we do."
Number 1589
JOAN DANGELI came forward to testify, noting that she is a
Juneau home school parent with the CyberLynx program. She asked
if the committee might consider inserting the word "grading"
following the words "individual education plans" in Amendment 3.
In response to Chair Dyson, she offered that the last line would
read, "disapproving individual education plans, grading and home
designed courses." She returned to the subject of accreditation
and noted that she wonders how the state is receiving
accreditation in rural areas. She expressed her understanding
that rural parents home school their children due to the lack of
educational options.
CHAIR DYSON offered to try to get that question answered. He
related his understanding that programs are accredited and that
there is some way of assessing and monitoring the students.
MS. DANGELI said her son participates in much more strenuous
physical education than he did in [traditional public] school;
he works very hard.
Number 1693
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked Ms. Dangeli if she was requesting
in her proposed change to Amendment 3 that the district
establish procedures for grading, or that the district do the
grading.
MS. DANGELI replied, "That they be allowed to set their ...
procedures for grading." She referred to the proposed
regulation, [4 AAC 33.421(e)(2)], which references grades or
standards met, determined and assigned by a certified teacher.
She explained that her home school program allows for [grading
by a] parent or [certified teacher]. She noted that she took on
the task of grading this year because [program personnel] had so
much to do. Grading in the program is "pretty straightforward,"
she said, and is based on weekly assessments in reading and
math. She added, "I felt if it could be left at their
discretion, and maybe kick in something if a child isn't doing
good for two years in a row or something, then the district can
have the option of saying, 'Okay, now we're going to do the
grading....'"
Number 1769
CHAIR DYSON asked Dr. McLain how long it would take him to
research Amendment 3.
DR. McLAIN stated his desire to check with the accreditation
association. He indicated that although he would be gone for a
week, someone else could present it on his behalf [on March 19].
He said the department will do its best to obtain an answer.
This is a high priority for the department, he noted.
CHAIR DYSON returned to the question raised by Ms. Simpson
regarding the difference between in-district and statewide
correspondence programs.
DR. McLAIN explained that one key difference between the two
types of programs is that a school district has, by statute, the
responsibility for providing education to children residing in
its district. He noted that this statute is very specific; he
didn't have the exact citation, but said it was a matter
important to [EED], he said. There is not a legal obligation
for a district to serve students outside the district; he said
when Galena was applying for impact-aid reconsideration, that
was one of the points the district raised. He offered that
[EED] used a lot of material from Galena when preparing the
[proposed] regulations. "So this is not about Galena," he said.
He stated that Galena is doing a good job, and [EED] wants to
support that. However, Galena is not required to serve [the
students outside its district boundaries]. He indicated [EED]
does not want to see students left [outside the responsibility
of a district].
Number 1868
CHAIR DYSON offered his understanding that [EED] views the two
type of programs differently because a district has legal
responsibility only for the students within the district. When
school districts are [delivering instruction to students outside
of district boundaries], the same obligation does not exist.
DR. McLAIN replied that in addition to that, there are related
issues such as representation. The Galena district has a very
active site council; parents are able to have input. There is
no requirement for Galena to do this. Other programs may or may
not do that.
Number 1897
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked Dr. McLain whether he had concerns
about the language in the original bill wherein Section 3
discusses the approval or disapproval of curriculum materials,
or whether his concern was about the individual education plan.
DR. McLAIN replied that there is a statute that calls for school
boards to approve materials and curriculum; he expressed his
desire to find the statute to gain a precise understanding of
it. He said he wants to discuss this with [EED] attorneys to
determine how this language in the bill might conflict with
statute. Additionally, accreditation is at issue. When Galena
applied for accreditation, the issue of grading came up. Galena
specifically identified the certified teacher as assigning the
grades when "push comes to shove." This application spoke "very
emphatically" about the close relationship between [the
certified teacher and a home school family], he said.
DR. McLAIN referenced a conversation with an accreditation
representative in which the representative indicated that the
[grading issue] is a critical [component of accreditation]. Dr.
McLain noted his intention to ask this accreditation
representative what impact "this sort of piece might have." He
again referenced Galena's application for accreditation wherein
Galena was asked, "Do you do things very differently?" The
response from Galena was that its students are held to exactly
the same sort of standards and requirements. He said:
This would seem to be ... very much of a moving away.
And so I don't want to see us - with all good
intentions - walking into a place where the school is
not accredited. As the last speaker brought up, the
issue of accreditation is of interest, especially to
those parents whose children may be intending to go to
a postsecondary [institution] ... or to transfer into
a traditional school.
DR. McLAIN offered that credits are automatically accepted from
accredited programs. As Galena is accredited, he noted, its
students can [more readily move into other programs]; it is
value-added to be accredited. He noted that he would hate to
see a program lose accreditation and consequently have less
worth.
Number 1995
CHAIR DYSON asked Dr. McLain for his impression of the impact of
the proposed inclusion of the word "grading" in Amendment 3.
DR. McLAIN replied, "I think I'm going to be told that that will
become ... problematic for the accreditation. But, again, I
don't want to speak for them."
CHAIR DYSON said the bill would be scheduled for the following
Tuesday if possible. He asked Dr. McLain to have department
personnel relay the aforementioned information to the committee.
Number 2034
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked Dr. McLain if [Section 1, paragraph
(1)] would add a financial burden to districts. If so, how
should this be dealt with?
DR. McLAIN replied, "I wouldn't be able to answer how that might
impact ... the district. I think that would depend upon how the
[district] did that internal review and updating." He offered
his belief that some of these programs have been actively
"trying to keep themselves up and going;" he speculated that
these programs probably would not incur additional expense. He
pointed out that [EED] is, based on comments it has received,
looking at changing the proposed regulations to call for a five-
year review.
Number 2074
CHAIR DYSON expressed appreciation for the work of
Representative James, her staff, and others. [HB 464 was held
over.]
CHAIR DYSON noted that he had two further items of business for
the committee. First, he pointed out that all members but
himself had signed the sheet to waive out of committee HB 211,
which adds a cost-of-living increase to the Foundation Formula
every year. He noted that it could be argued that this is a
finance committee matter. He said that if members had signed
the waiver with the impression that the chair was eager to
dispense with it, they now had an opportunity to change their
minds.
CHAIR DYSON also noted that the Joint Committee on Legislative
Budget and Audit had recommended that the House Health,
Education and Social Services Standing Committee combine the
board of professional counselors and the board of marital and
family therapy into a single oversight board. Noting that a
bill had been drafted, he asked whether members would like to
sponsor it as a committee bill.
Number 2150
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON recalled that Representative Murkowski had
spoken about something similar on the House floor recently.
CHAIR DYSON said he would find out. Pending that, he asked
whether anyone objected to "putting this in the hopper and
starting on it"; if it turned out to be a duplication, it would
be discarded. [There was no objection stated to the committee's
sponsoring a bill to combine the boards of professional
counselors and marital and family therapy.]
Number 2168
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that he'd signed the [waiver of HB
211] under the impression that [it was the chair's goal to
dispense with it]. He said he would withdraw his name from the
waiver.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee meeting
was adjourned at 5:07 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|