02/21/2011 08:00 AM Senate EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB9 | |
| SB83 | |
| SB8 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 83 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 8 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 21, 2011
8:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Senator Joe Thomas, Co-Chair
Senator Gary Stevens
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Bettye Davis, Vice Chair
Senator Hollis French
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Cathy Giessel
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 9
"An Act relating to compulsory school attendance; and relating
to the crime of contributing to the delinquency of a minor."
- MOVED SB 9 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 83
"An Act providing for payment and loan incentives to public
school teachers for national board certification."
- MOVED CSSB 83(EDC) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 8
"An Act relating to questionnaires and surveys administered in
the public schools."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 9
SHORT TITLE: RAISE COMP. SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AGE/TRUANCY
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) DAVIS
01/19/11 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/11
01/19/11 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/11 (S) EDC, JUD, FIN
02/14/11 (S) EDC AT 8:00 AM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/14/11 (S) Heard & Held
02/14/11 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
02/21/11 (S) EDC AT 8:00 AM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: SB 83
SHORT TITLE: TEACHER BOARD CERTIFICATION INCENTIVES
SPONSOR(s): EDUCATION
02/04/11 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/04/11 (S) EDC, FIN
02/14/11 (S) EDC AT 8:00 AM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/14/11 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/16/11 (S) EDC AT 8:00 AM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/16/11 (S) Heard & Held
02/16/11 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
02/21/11 (S) EDC AT 8:00 AM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: SB 8
SHORT TITLE: STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRES AND SURVEYS
SPONSOR(s): DAVIS
01/19/11 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/11
01/19/11 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/11 (S) EDC, HSS
02/16/11 (S) EDC AT 8:00 AM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/16/11 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/21/11 (S) EDC AT 8:00 AM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
THOMAS OBERMEYER, Staff
Senator Bettye Davis
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a brief overview of SB 9 on behalf of
the sponsor. Read the sponsor statement, gave a sectional
analysis and answered questions for SB 8 on behalf of the
sponsor.
PATRICIA GEORGE, Advocacy Co-Chair
Alaska State Literacy Association (ASLA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 9.
JOHN ALCANTRA, Lobbyist
National Education Association of Alaska (AEA-Alaska)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 9. Answered
questions related to SB 83.
LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to SB 83.
MURRAY RICHMOND, Staff
Senator Joe Thomas
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a summary of changes to CSSB
83(EDC), version D, from the original bill, on behalf of the
Senate Education Standing Committee, sponsor of the bill.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:05:00 AM
CO-CHAIR JOE THOMAS called the Senate Education Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Stevens, Co-Chair Meyer and Co-Chair Thomas.
SB 9-RAISE COMP. SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AGE/TRUANCY
8:05:23 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS announced the consideration of SB 9.
8:06:26 AM
THOMAS OBERMEYER, Staff to Senator Bettye Davis, sponsor of SB
9, said statistics indicate that staying in school for longer
and graduating are tremendous for personal growth and income. He
turned to the report "Building a Grad Nation" which states:
Since 2002, 12 states have raised the compulsory
school age from 16 to 17 or 18. Currently, 21 states
have a compulsory school age of 18 and 32 states have
a compulsory school age of 17 or 18. In some states
that have a compulsory school attendance age of 17,
like Tennessee and West Virginia, students must remain
in school until they are 18 to keep their driver's
license.
[This report can be located in the document packet].
He said that every state is different in the way that they
handle raising the compulsory school age, but, in general, this
has become a major trend.
8:08:55 AM
PATRICIA GEORGE, Advocacy Co-Chair, Alaska State Literacy
Association (ASLA), testified in support of SB 9. She said while
most children are in school by the age of 6, this doesn't mean
that these students are in school regularly or on time. No Child
Left Behind has mandated that all children must read by the
third grade. She questioned how this can be enforced if children
are not required to be in school until age 7. SB 9 will give
schools the legal means to enforce regular and punctual
attendance for beginning learners.
SENATOR STEVENS said he understands the need for reducing the
mandatory age from 7 to 6. He asked if she has had any
reflections on increasing the age to 18.
MS. GEORGE answered that ASLA has not taken a position on the
age increase.
8:11:36 AM
JOHN ALCANTRA, Lobbyist, National Education Association of
Alaska (NEA-Alaska), testified in support of SB 9. He said, on a
personal note, as a parent of four children and an uncle of 61
nieces and nephews in Alaska, he understands how important it is
to have a "hammer to keep kids in school." He explained that
this is one tool that can be used to encourage students to
attend school on a regular basis.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS clarified for the committee that a student, on
their 18th birthday, could leave school.
8:14:38 AM
LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education and
Early Development (DEED), introduced himself.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked if he could review some of the exemptions
to SB 9.
MR. MORSE answered that there are several exemption and this
bill would not change those. Some of these exemptions include a
student: in a private school with certified teachers; being
tutored privately by certified personnel; attending an
educational program sponsored by a religious or private school;
in a federally operated school; who has a physical or mental
condition where a medical authority has indicated that
attendance would be impractical; in the custody of the courts;
ill or injured for a period time; who has been suspended and
denied attendance; or who has graduated from secondary school
regardless of age.
He said in regards to violating the compulsory attendance law
the implications are addressed towards the parent. Every five
days of unlawful absence is considered a violation, with a
maximum financial penalty of $500 per violation.
SENATOR STEVENS thanked Mr. Morse for his work during his time
as acting commissioner for DEED.
CO-CHAIR MEYER said lowering the age makes perfect sense,
however he is unsure about increasing the mandatory compulsory
age from 16- to 18-years-old. If students are in school at the
age of 16 who do not want to be there, it is going to be
disruptive. He said he would like to see a plan for how to
motivate students who do not want to be there.
He said his second concern is that there is no representation
from the rural areas. He questioned whether there might be
issues in rural areas where, at a certain age, the boys may be
expected to go out hunting for long periods of time. He said
that, despite these concerns, he does not have a problem moving
SB 9 out of committee; especially because he believes that
lowering the age is very important.
SENATOR STEVENS concurred. He said he hopes that if this bill
does pass DEED should follow it very carefully to determine
whether it is working. He said the bill is better than what they
have now and he is in favor of moving SB 9.
8:22:44 AM
CO-CHAIR MEYER moved to report SB 9 from the committee with
individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal note. There
being no objections, SB 9 moved from the Senate Education
Standing Committee.
8:23:05 AM
At ease from 8:23 a.m. to 8:26 a.m.
8:26:19 AM
CO-CHAIR MEYER said in looking at the fiscal notes there is an
appropriation required of $14,853,000 for the first year and
following that SB 9 has a zero fiscal note.
SB 83-TEACHER BOARD CERTIFICATION INCENTIVES
8:27:10 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS announced the consideration of SB 83 [CSSB 83,
labeled 27-LS0425\I, was before the committee].
8:27:32 AM
CO-CHAIR MEYER moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute
(CS) for SB 83, labeled 27-LS0425\D, as the working document.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS objected for the purposes of discussion.
8:27:42 AM
MURRAY RICHMOND, Staff to Senator Joe Thomas, Co-Chair to the
Senate Education Standing Committee, sponsor of SB 83 said there
was one change made to version D. He explained that the question
arose whether SB 83 would prohibit school districts from
continuing to give incentives to its teachers who are certified
through the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards
(NBPTS). Page 2, line 12, added a paragraph that addresses this
issue. It states:
(d) Nothing in this section prohibits a district or
the department from providing additional monetary
incentives to a teacher.
He explained that this means a district would be allowed to
financially award teachers who are NBPTS certified, in addition
to the money a teacher would receive through SB 83.
CO-CHAIR MEYER said it appears that in Anchorage or Fairbanks
the NBPTS certification is worth $2,000 annually for teachers,
while teachers who receive their Ph.D. receive $1,500 in these
same two districts. He said it seems that in this case, for a
teacher, it would be more worth their time to become nationally
board certified. He asked if someone could clarify why this is.
JOHN ALCANTRA, Lobbyist, National Education Association of
Alaska (NEA-Alaska), replied that, specifically in Anchorage, a
master's degree is worth $552 more on the pay scale than a
bachelor's degree. In many of the 53 districts in the state a
teacher cannot move up the pay scale until they achieve a
master's degree and very few teachers hold only a bachelor's
degree at this point. He explained that, currently, there are
3,700 teachers in Anchorage, 23 of which have a Ph.D. and 55 who
are certified through NBPTS. He said that, he would guess, most
people who go on to receive their Ph.D. are interested in
potentially moving out of the classroom and going into
administration and that may be why those with Ph.D.s receive
$500 less than those nationally certified.
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked if there are a lot of teachers with Ph.D.s
that are teaching in the classroom.
MR. ALCANTRA answered no, not for K-12.
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked for confirmation that once a teacher is
certified they have to recertify every 10 years.
MR. ALCANTRA replied yes.
CO-CHAIR MEYER said he would assume that this is why teachers
who are certified through NBPTS receive $500 more annually.
8:36:13 AM
CO-CHAIR MEYER moved to report [CS]SB 83( ), [version D] from
the committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note(s). There being no objections, CSSB 83(EDC) moved
from the Senate Education Standing Committee.
8:36:55 AM
At ease from 8:36 a.m. to 8:38 a.m.
SB 8-STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRES AND SURVEYS
8:38:35 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS announced the consideration of SB 8.
8:39:02 AM
THOMAS OBERMEYER, Staff to Senator Bettye Davis, sponsor of SB
8, read the following sponsor statement:
The purpose of this bill is to increase participation
in the national biennial Youth Risk Behavior Survey
(YRBS) in order to meet the minimum 60 percent
participation required by the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) for the survey to be validated for
assessment, recording and reporting of reliable
results. Alaska has periodically failed to meet
minimum participation levels. This anonymous survey
will next be administered in Alaska School Districts
in Spring 2011 and 2013. This survey is enormously
valuable to all aspects of society dealing with our
youth. Failure to obtain usable information adversely
affects education and funding of many services.
To help achieve this objective this bill will change
the parental consent requirement for the YRBS from
active to passive, that is, from written to implied
consent if the parent does not object or deny
permission in writing for the student to participate
in the survey. To alleviate increased concerns about
protecting the right to privacy the bill provides
lengthy and detailed new notice requirements which
will be sent to parents at least two weeks in advance
of the survey. There will be ample time and
opportunity for parents to review the survey with
instructions on how to opt out. Students may also
independently decline to participate or to answer
specific questions in this completely voluntary and
anonymous survey. Absolute privacy and anonymity are
maintained by strict administrative procedures and
return of surveys to CDC. Written permission is still
required to be obtained from the student's parent or
legal guardian for all other surveys, anonymous or not
that inquire into personal or private family affairs
of the student and are not a matter of public record
or subject to public observation.
Although research and experience suggest that the vast
majority of parents would consent to their students
participating in this survey, failure of parents to
return written consent forms has been found more often
to be the result of lack of interest or attention,
rather than refusal. Consequently, results from whole
schools periodically must be disregarded when not
enough parental consent forms are returned.
Without facts and population-based information on
youth risk behavior parents, students, educators,
planners, and policy makers cannot understand and
address the important health and social issues that
affect students' happiness and success in the future.
The Youth Risk Behavior Survey helps guide and
evaluate important health and prevention programs in
both the public and private sectors. Local, state and
federal officials, schools, state and federal
agencies, public and private grant programs and
nonprofit health organizations rely on these survey to
educate, allocate resources, and compare trends
concerning safety behaviors, injury prevention,
tobacco prevention and control, obesity prevention,
diabetes, heart disease and stroke, safe and drug free
schools, substance abuse prevention, violence and
suicide prevention, HIV, STD prevention, and
connectedness to teachers, parents and other adults.
SB 8 simply makes it easier to obtain information on
youth risk behaviors, while increasing procedures to
assure privacy, parental notice, and supervision.
MR. OBERMEYER continued by reading the sectional analysis of SB
8:
Section 1. Adds an exception for the Youth Risk
Behavior Survey (YRBS) to the written permission
requirement for student surveys.
Section 2. Provides detailed written notice
requirements for all student surveys, including YRBS.
Section 3. Adds specific questions and process for a
student and parent to refuse to participate in a
student survey by submitting a written denial of
permission.
Section 4. Provides an exception to written permission
for YRBS and a minimum two week notice provision that
is consistent with the requirements in sec. 2.
MR. OBERMEYER said Section 2 was repealed and reenacted to
include many more survey notice requirements to parents that are
not in AS 14.03.110.
Section 3 allowed students to not only refuse to participate in
the survey but allowed them not to answer specific questions in
the survey.
Section 4 included a provision of two weeks' notice for parents
to respond and write a denial of permission letter to take the
survey.
8:45:16 AM
SENATOR STEVENS asked what funding or services would be affected
if students do not take these surveys.
MR. OBERMEYER answered that, to his understanding, for agencies
that deal with youth part of the funding comes from engaging
youth successfully, which is often in response to the findings
of this survey. These agencies help children avoid problems or
assist those that are already engaged in problems now.
CO-CHAIR MEYER said this is not a new issue and is a very
sensitive topic to many parents. He asked him to describe how
the survey process currently works.
MR. OBERMEYER replied that there are probably five or six
questions on the survey that could be construed as offensive or
very personnel, typically pertaining to sexual activity. He
explained that this bill is not trying to hide any aspect of the
survey itself. Currently, in order to address this issue the
bill states that a student may choose whether they answer a
question or take the survey. He reminded the committee that
parents can still write a denial of permission to the school
that will not allow their child to participate.
He explained that, in his understanding, throughout the United
States the comparisons of the survey answers are enormously
useful. He said that not all school districts are necessarily
involved and only a 60 percent participation rate is necessary.
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) will throw out the survey
information from Alaska if it does not get a 60 percent feedback
rate. This means that Alaska would not have any background
information for two years, until the survey is administered
again. He said to remedy the problem of notice to parents in
regards to this survey, section 2, on page 1 and 2, includes the
following:
(1) the date the questionnaire or survey is to be
administered;
(2) a description of the content of the questionnaire
or survey;
(3) the sponsor of the questionnaire or survey;
(4) the name of a person at the school district who
may be contacted regarding the survey;
(5) notice of the opportunity to review the
questionnaire or survey;
(6) a description of the manner in which the
questionnaire or survey will be administered to the
student;
(7) instructions for submitting written permission or
denial of permission to participate in a questionnaire
or survey, including an anonymous or specific
questionnaire or survey;
(8) notice of the opportunity for the student to
refuse to answer specific questions…
He explained that the bill is trying to make things as easy as
possible so the survey can be successful. If the bill fails, the
school districts will continue making every effort, as has been
done in the past, to get parents to return the permission form.
He reiterated that Alaska has periodically failed to make the 60
percent participation requirement.
8:53:35 AM
CO-CHAIR MEYER said that this tells him that the administration
and the school districts have not done a good job to inform
parents or parents do not want their children participating in
the survey. He asked if it would be easier for parents to simply
check a box that allows their child to participate in a survey,
rather than obligating parents to write a denial of permission.
MR. OBERMEYER replied that the issue with this is school
districts issue more than just the YRBS survey throughout the
year. Right now, if the parents do not object to a survey being
given to their child, the law states that any personal survey
given to a student must include written permission. In the case
of SB 8 only the YRBS would be administered to students unless a
parent has written a denial of permission letter. He reminded
the committee that school districts are obligated to give
parents a two week notice that this particular survey will be
administered and can give written denial of consent if they do
not want their child to participate.
He said that it is a great burden and expense for schools to get
participation in this survey. He said that, to his knowledge,
many parents would not prevent their child from participating in
the survey, but they may have lost or been unaware of the
required permission slip they needed to sign.
8:56:44 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS announced he would hold SB 8 in committee.
8:58:21 AM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Co-Chair Thomas adjourned the meeting at 8:58 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| nbpts docs.docx |
SEDC 2/21/2011 8:00:00 AM |
|
| SB083-EED-TLS-2-11-11.pdf |
SEDC 2/21/2011 8:00:00 AM |
SB 83 |
| Ed Commission of the States.pdf |
SEDC 2/21/2011 8:00:00 AM |
|
| SB 9 Docs-Bldg Grad Nation 11-2011.pdf |
SEDC 2/21/2011 8:00:00 AM |
SB 9 |
| SB 9 Docs-NCSL email summary 2-15-2011.pdf |
SEDC 2/21/2011 8:00:00 AM |
SB 9 |
| SB 9 Docs-NCSL TaskForce-Path Grad 1-2011.pdf |
SEDC 2/21/2011 8:00:00 AM |
SB 9 |
| Sectional Analysis SB 9.pdf |
SEDC 2/21/2011 8:00:00 AM |
SB 9 |
| Supporting Documents.pdf |
SEDC 2/21/2011 8:00:00 AM |