Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/29/2018 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB105 | |
| SB104 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 122 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 29, 2018
9:03 a.m.
9:03:41 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair MacKinnon called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair
Senator Click Bishop, Vice-Chair
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Gary Stevens
Senator Natasha von Imhof
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Gary Zepp, Staff, Senator David Wilson; Senator David
Wilson, Sponsor; Brittany Hartmann, Staff, Senator Anna
MacKinnon; Marcy Herman, Legislative Liaison, Department of
Education and Early Development; Paul Prussing, Director,
Division of Student Learning, Department of Education and
Early Development.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Randall Burns, Director, Division of Behavioral Health,
Department of Health and Social Services; Karen Cunningham,
Alaska Board of Marital and Family Therapy, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
SB 104 EDUCATION CURRICULUM
SB 104 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
SB 105 MARITAL and FAMILY THERAPY LIC. and SERVICES
CSSB 105(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with one new
forthcoming fiscal impact note from the
Department of Health and Social Services and one
new fiscal impact note from the Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
Co-Chair MacKinnon indicated the committee would not be
hearing SB 122 at the request of the bill sponsor. She
reviewed the agenda to the day.
SENATE BILL NO. 105
"An Act relating to the licensure of marital and
family therapists; relating to professional liability
insurance for marital and family therapists; relating
to medical assistance for marital and family therapy
services; and providing for an effective date."
9:04:53 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed a brief history of the bill.
The committee opened and closed public testimony on the
bill on February 27, 2018. The committee had been working
on compromise language to satisfy the concerns raised by
members as well as the general public.
Vice-Chair Bishop MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute for SB 105, Work Draft 30-LS0442\N (Radford,
3/28/18).
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for discussion.
SENATOR DAVID WILSON, SPONSOR, deferred to his staff, Mr.
Zepp, to review the committee substitute changes.
GARY ZEPP, STAFF, SENATOR DAVID WILSON, reviewed the
Summary of Changes document (copy on file):
Version J to Version N
Section 1Amended
Page 2, lines 16-24: The required total number of
hours for the supervision of an Associate Marital and
Family Therapist was corrected to 1,700 hours.
The previous version incorrectly reflected 1,500 hours
as the required total hours.
Version R also clarifies that 100 hours of individual
supervision and 100 hours of group supervision
conducted one or more supervisors is included in the
1,700 hours.
Section 1 - Deleted
Page 2, lines 29-31: The requirement for $30,000 of
professional liability insurance was deleted.
Insurance to cover state investigative costs is not
currently available as envisioned. A national company
does offer professional liability insurance, but the
coverage would reimburse the licensee for their
investigative costs and not the state investigator
costs. The idea of professional liability insurance
was to pay for state investigative costs and keep
downward pressure on the state investigative costs so
that the costs wouldn't be allocated amongst current
licensees and increase their existing license fees.
Mr. Zepp continued to read the summary of changes:
Section 2 Amended
Page 3, lines 5 -13: Properly re-state the titles for
the healthcare professions listed that are authorized
to provide group supervision of an Associate Marital
and Family Therapist while in training.
The titles of certain healthcare professionals were
verified by the State Medical Board.
Section 4 and 5 - Deleted
Page 4, lines 8 Page 5, line 1: Sections 4 and 5
were deleted because SB 169, which has passed the
Senate and is in the other body, amends the same
statutes (AS 47.07.030) previously contained in
sections 4 and 5 of SB 105.
SB 169 amends statute by replacing a psychiatrist with
a physician, to expand the direct supervisory capacity
in providing behavioral health clinic services. As
well as removing the 30% on - site requirement and
replacing that by requiring a physician in person or
available via a communication device.
SB 105, as amended, is fully supported by the Board of
Marital and Family Therapists. Please see the two
letters of support from the Board.
9:09:42 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered. She invited Senator
Wilson to comment on the bill.
Senator Wilson discussed the bill. He explained the main
purpose of the bill was to add the marital and family
licensed therapist to the list of providers that were able
to bill Medicaid allowing more access to services. The bill
would enhance behavioral health capacity for underserved
Alaskans who were on long waitlists to access services. He
stated that the bill would offer opportunities for clinics
to provide services at a lower cost. He elaborated that the
way in which recruitment happened currently for licensed
social workers with a Master of Social Work (MSW) degree
took a significant amount of time, about 1 year or 1.5
years, to recruit. For some clinics, the cost of
recruitment was over $100,000. The bill would result in a
more abundant source of providers that were equally
qualified to provide behavioral health services at a lesser
cost with easier access.
Senator Micciche asked the sponsor to explain the benefit
of the bill and identify how much money would be saved in
the long run. Senator Wilson replied that without having
access to psychiatric services and providers at a lower
cost, patients were going to the emergency room (ER). The
cost for treatment at an ER often cost the state 10 times
more than providing the services through local community
clinics. He noted previous testimony by representatives
from some of the community health centers who confirmed
their facilities could provide behavioral health services
at a lower cost than an ER. The Mat-Su Health Foundation
reported the number of people accessing their ER and their
inability to meet the needs of patients because of a lack
of capacity. He also noted hearing testimony from 85
licensed psychiatrists in the State of Alaska. The Mental
Health Working Group confirmed that their studies stated
that Alaska needed an additional 106 to 184 psychiatrists
to meet the national average and to cover the need in the
state. He was hoping that patients could address their
issues through a lower acuity of care instead of them being
escalated to a higher acuity of care, which was more
devastating to the individual and costlier to the state.
9:13:47 AM
Senator Olson asked if the sponsor had checked with health
corporations regarding the changes to the bill. Senator
Wilson asked if Senator Olson was referring to the native
health corporations or some of the larger providers.
Senator Olson wondered, if he called up Maniilaq Health
Center, whether they would be able to confirm that the bill
sponsor had reached out to them about the proposed changes
in the bill. Senator Wilson stated that Maniilaq Health
Center was a member of the Alaska Primary Care Association
(APCA), who was in full support of the legislation. He
hoped Maniilaq Health Center would support the bill being a
member of APCA. He relayed that half of the members of APCA
were tribal entities that operated the community health
centers. The trade association was in full support and had
been lobbying to help support the bill.
Senator Olson referenced the name change in Section 4 and
5. He asked if the Senator had talked with any of the
physician groups such as the Alaska State Medical
Association about the changes moving from psychiatrists to
physicians. Senator Wilson responded in the negative. His
office had worked with the department on the legislation.
They were in full support of the change from psychiatrist
to physician to meet more of the federal definitions and
guidelines with conforming language.
Senator Olson asked who "they" were. Senator Wilson
specified Director Burns of the Department of Health and
Social Services (DHSS).
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that the committee had removed
from the bill another bill that was carried by another
sponsor, Senator Giessel, regarding supervision and the
definition Senator Olson referred to. Currently in Alaska
state statute, in any individual medical provider's office
a psychiatrist was required 30 percent of the time. She
conveyed her point that there were two pieces of
legislation that would affect the same portion of statute.
With that in mind, she had a concern that the legislature
would be dependent on two pieces of legislation by two
different legislators ending across the finish line at the
same time to accomplish what the legislature wanted to
accomplish. Senator Wilson's bill allowed the billing and
was not speaking directly to supervision. She asked if she
was correct. Senator Wilson clarified that the bill
addressed both supervision and the expansion of MSW's being
able to bill Medicaid.
Co-Chair MacKinnon directed her question around
supervision. She asked about supervision in terms of the
bill the committee had heard previously and whether it had
to do with 30 hours. Mr. Zepp answered in the affirmative.
He noted that the previous version of the bill in Sections
4 and 5 fell into the Medicaid billion section of the bill.
In thinking of SB 105 there were two silos. The first silo
was the training issue for an associate which was what the
senator as trying to streamline and expand. The second silo
was under the Medicaid billing to provided marital and
family therapists under the optional Medicaid services, so
they could bill and seek reimbursement. The Senator removed
Sections 4 and 5 because Senator Giessel's bill clarified
direct supervision from a physician with certain
guidelines.
9:18:52 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that she was willing to support
the billing portion of the legislation because of seeing
the results of an opioid epidemic in Alaska and other
mental health needs that were being under-represented in
communities across the state. She added that she thought
supervision was important, and that Senator Giessel's bill
along with Senator Wilson's bill both needed to reach the
finish line.
Senator Micciche thought both bills being discussed were
advantageous to the clients and to the state. Co-Chair
MacKinnon echoed the comments of Senator Micciche.
9:20:53 AM
RANDALL BURNS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES (via
teleconference), discussed fiscal note OMB component 2660.
The fiscal note specifically addressed the portion of the
bill related to the addition of marriage and family
therapists to the optional Medicaid statutes. The division
had estimated what was thought to be a fair amount of
additional costs to the Medicaid budget as the result of
adding Marriage and Family therapists to the list of
professions that could bill Medicaid for their services. He
found that the bill would only apply to about 633 Medicaid-
eligible recipients in the first year.
Mr. Burns continued that most of the marriage and family
therapists worked in clinics and did not bill Medicaid
directly. There was no way of knowing how many of those
individuals would opt to leave a clinic to start up a
practice independently or start billing independently. The
division tried to be conservative in its calculations. The
division estimated approximately $1 million. He continued
that $660,000 of the amount would be in federal match to
the state's commitment of about $340,000. There was a small
charge for FY 19 to make the changes to the state's
Medicaid Management Information System to allow marriage
and family therapists to bill Medicaid directly.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that the committee required an
updated fiscal note. She pointed out that the numbers were
correct but the narrative on the back needed to change to
reflect the new committee substitute before the committee.
Mr. Burns stated that he was working on that presently.
Senator Micciche thought the fiscal note addressed
additional costs but did not capture any consideration for
cost avoidance. He asked Mr. Burns if he intended to
include some evaluation of cost avoidance that would result
from the passage of the bill. Mr. Burns stated that he did
not put cost avoidance in the fiscal note of the bill. He
saw it falling within the more wholistic approach of SB 74
and the changes being made to the system by the 1115 waiver
and the process. He thought estimating the savings
resulting from adding marriage and family therapists to the
list would be difficult. The division had not contemplated
making such a representation in the fiscal note being
reviewed.
Co-Chair MacKinnon acknowledged that the number would be
difficult to quantify, as there was a mixture of private
versus government utilization. She indicated that the bill
would contribute to an overall higher cost to the Medicaid
system for the state. It was a new service that would be
provided and reimbursed by the state with a significant
portion of the reimbursement coming from the federal
government in an effort to deploy the resources to those
needing help, to divert ER access, and to lower care
access.
Co-Chair MacKinnon reported that someone from the Alaska
Board of Marital Family Therapy had come online. She asked
for the will of the committee.
9:25:43 AM
AT EASE
9:27:21 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon relayed that the public hearing had
closed on the bill. She indicated the committee was in
receipt of her comments. She asked Ms. Cunningham if she
had a brief comment she wanted to make to the committee.
KAREN CUNNINGHAM, ALASKA BOARD OF MARITAL AND FAMILY
THERAPY, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in
support of the bill. She was a licensed marriage and family
therapist (LMFT)and sat on the Alaska Board of Marital and
Family Therapy. She reported that the board met to discuss
SB 105 and unanimously affirmed their support for the
statutory changes presented in the bill. One of the
responsibilities of the board was to establish minimum
requirements for applicants seeking licensure. Senate Bill
105 called for clarification that the hours required for
licensure were 1700. The breakdown of the hours included
1500 face-to-face clinical hours and 100 hours each of
individual and group supervision. Another responsibility of
the board was to serve and protect public interest. The
proposed legislation worked towards that end by allowing
applicants greater options for supervisors which ultimately
would lead to a greater number of LMFTs in the state.
Currently, there was a limited number of LMFT supervisors
which made it very difficult for new graduates applying for
associate licensures to find an individual and a group
supervisor willing to commit to a minimum of 2 years.
Co-Chair MacKinnon relayed that the committee had written
comments from the board. Ms. Cunningham did not have
anything to add to the letter that had been written. She
appreciated the opportunity to speak.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated it was her intent to move the
bill. She had an agreement from the sponsor and the boards
that were contacted in support of the new language in the
bill.
Senator Micciche understood the fiscal note and the logic
behind it. He was concerned that the department seemed
unwilling to put on the record that there would likely be
an offset to the costs of the bill. Not all of the
additional services in the state's portfolio of Medicaid
billing had panned out as a cost saving measure. He would
have liked to have heard more from the department that it
recognized there would be an offset rather than a $340,000
UGF match. He hoped the amount would have been lower due to
the offset. With the expansion of Medicaid, additional
services, and new waivers the legislature had not seen the
savings in the waivers that he would have liked to have
seen. He was concerned with UGF spending increases. He
supported the additional services but was worried that the
department was not formally recognizing an offset.
9:31:36 AM
Senator von Imhof relayed that she sat on the Healthcare
Blueprint Committee. The committee was in phase 2 of
identifying areas of concern. The committee was flushing
out the five areas of concern it identified to put together
a recommendation to create a systemic transformation of
Alaska's healthcare system. One of the five areas of
concern was access to primary care providers. She thought
the bill addressed the issue by qualifying a marital
therapist as a provider. She thought the bill was
consistent with the direction of the blueprint committee.
Although the committee was still in progress, she supported
the bill because she believed it provided greater access,
particularly in rural Alaska, by allowing telehealth to be
part of the solution and for rural citizens to have access
to a variety of healthcare providers in numerous forms. The
intent of the systemic change of Alaska's healthcare system
was to lower the cost by having more access to a variety of
healthcare providers and through preventive care versus
costly crisis management. She thought the unquantifiable
downstream savings was a guess but was consistent with the
values of the blueprint committee she sat on.
9:33:54 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon agreed with Senator Micciche and Senator
von Imhof. She would be supporting the bill because she
believed the bill did what Senator von Imhof had discussed.
She was concerned with providers abusing the system. She
looked at some abuse in the dental field. For instance,
some dentists performed unnecessary extractions on young
children and billing Medicaid. Another example were adults
having all of their teeth removed without a particularly
good reason or back up materials. She continued that as
long as providers behaved in the best interest of the
people that were seeking care from them, the system should
see a decrease. However, if providers decided to use it as
a funding source for their individual practices and started
billing excessively, the system would break.
Co-Chair MacKinnon continued that Alaska's heath care costs
were 30 percent higher than the national average and
America's health care costs were higher than anywhere else
on the planet. Alaskans were faced with a low demographic
and high needs. They were at the mercy of hospitals,
pharmaceuticals, insurance companies, and access to care in
general. Senate Finance and the legislature were working to
provide lower cost care to Alaskans. The bill was a step in
the right direction. It required cooperation from the
providers to be judicious in the way they accessed Medicaid
funding which had a federal match. Senator Miccichie
suggested by moving it from an emergency room to a doctor's
or provider's office the cost would be lower, and the net
of providers would be larger for those seeking services.
Co-Chair MacKinnon continued to discuss the bill. She
thought the department had provided a fiscal note with the
possibility of an increased cost. The department had tried
to quantify it, knowing that there were variables that
could lower the overall cost. She appreciated that the
fiscal note was not indeterminate. She preferred the
legislature striking a balance between understanding the
possible implications and how providers, insurance
companies, hospitals, and pharmaceuticals working together
could meet Alaskans healthcare needs. Like other small
states, Alaska's legislators struggled to lower the costs
for their constituents.
9:37:33 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop made a comment about the general services
line of the fiscal note for the development of business
rules and the Medicaid Management Information System
detailing the parameters for services and reimbursement. He
suggested the department tract the legislation to see if
there was a savings rather than a UGF spend. He thought the
bill should result in a savings.
Co-Chair MacKinnon suggested that Senator Wilson implement
some tracking method for the particular billing code to
look at how providers were using the service. She suggested
a follow-up. She saw the bill as a benefit to hospitals and
providers and she hoped it translated into quality care
that was appropriate and effective for people trying to
access care.
Senator Wilson appreciated the comments from committee
members. He had hoped the bill would increase access to
care. His intention was not to increase the state's burden.
He thanked the committee for hearing the bill.
Co-Chair MacKinnon reflected that Mr. Zepp had been a
pleasure to work with in answering questions from committee
members and from her team. She was thankful that there was
an enthusiastic effort to meet and answer questions that
were difficult to answer.
Vice-Chair Bishop MOVED to report CSSB 105(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSSB 105(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one new forthcoming fiscal
impact note from the Department of Health and Social
Services and one new fiscal impact note from the Department
of Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
9:42:33 AM
AT EASE
9:46:35 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 104
"An Act relating to the duties of the state Board of
Education and Early Development; and relating to
school curriculum."
9:46:35 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon relayed the bill was returned to the
committee on February 22, 2018. Over the interim, the
Department of Education and Early Development went through
a process that engaged community members from across the
state on the Alaska Challenge. The Senate Finance Committee
called the bill back to committee to have an opportunity to
work with the commissioner of education, the department,
and other stakeholders to try to provide something
beneficial in the form of education - the foundation of
education being curriculum. She invited her staff to the
table.
Vice-Chair Bishop MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute for SB 104, Work Draft 30-LS0786\Y (Laffen,
3/27/18).
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for discussion.
BRITTANY HARTMANN, STAFF, SENATOR ANNA MACKINNON, discussed
the committee substitute for SB 104. The bill ultimately
sought to improve educational outcomes for Alaska students
by providing them access to the best curriculum available.
The committee substitute was the result of more than a
year's worth of work in close collaboration with all
relevant stakeholders including teachers, state school
board members, DEED, superintendents, education
associations, and more. There were multiple ways to improve
educational outcomes. After doing much research, curriculum
was found to be one of the best ways to achieve improved
outcomes. In the CS before the committee, the sponsor
believed it contained an excellent pathway to achieve the
goal of improved outcomes. She read from the sectional
analysis and the explanation of changes (copy on file):
Section 1 AS 14.07.030:
The Department may not require a school district
to review their curriculum more than once in a
10-year period.
Section 2 AS 14.07.165:
NEW: The State Board of Education shall review
the math and English Language Arts curricula used
throughout the state, every 5 years, to ensure
the curricula is still effective and is using
best practices.
Section 3 AS 14.07:
NOTE: This was section 2 in Version N
NOTE: * are sections that are repealed on July 1,
2025.
Section 3 requires the State Board of Education
and the Department of Education and Early
Development to work together to find, review, and
test the best available curricula and the best
practices for instruction of those math and
English/Language Arts curricula. The department
may provide incentive payments to school
districts that choose to implement the
incentivized curricula and best practices.
Specifically:
(a) The Board will establish the standards
and procedure to review, rank, and approve
curricula for school districts to use in
each grade level.
(b) and (c) AMENDED: The Department will
review curricula from Alaska, other states,
and other countries and identify the best
curricula for each grade level and the best
practices for teaching each subject by July
1, 2019. If the identified curricula and
best practices meets certain requirements,
the department will submit them for review
by the board. The requirements are:
appropriate, compliance with non-
discrimination standards in state law,
aligned with state standards, and result in
improved academic achievement.
NOTE: Section 2(c) in Version N was deleted.
(d) The Board may approve of the curricula
submitted by the department. If they do so,
the Department will then categorize the two
curricula as "incentivized" curricula and
"designated effective" curricula. The
incentivized curricula will be the best
available and will be the curricula used in
the pilot program. The designated effective
curricula are curricula that the department
finds appropriate and effective.
(e) *AMENDED: Establishes the three-year
pilot program, starting in the 2019-2020
school
year, to test the appropriateness and
effectiveness of the "incentivized"
curricula. Schools can apply to be in the
pilot program and will be reviewed and
approved of by the Department based on
capacity and readiness. The Department shall
select five schools, from those that apply,
to receive incentive payments to assist with
the purchase and implementation of the
curricula and best practices. The Department
must select districts and their curricula as
follows, in order to get a comprehensive
view of the best curriculum for all Alaska:
a. Urban District math
b. Rural District math
c. Urban District English Language
Arts
d. Rural District - English Language
Arts
e. Urban or Rural District math or
English Language Arts
The total cost of the three-year pilot
program cannot exceed $10,000,000.
(f) *AMENDED: If the pilot program shows
that adoption of the incentive curricula is
appropriate and effective, the department
may make available to all districts the
curricula and one-time incentive payments
starting in the school year beginning in
2022 and ending in the school year that
begins in 2024.
(g) *Incentive payments are limited to a
school district's ADM multiplied by 150 and
are subject to availability of funding in
(h). In order to get an incentive payment, a
district must be ready and have the capacity
to implement the incentivized curricula and
have not previously used the curricula.
(h) *Limits the funding available to school
districts that adopt the incentivized
curriculum, for years 4-6, to $20,000,000,
plus any unexpended money available under
(e)(4).
(i) The Department shall publish all
curriculum used by all school districts, on
the Department's website. The incentivized
curricula and the designated effective
curricula, identified by the Board, will
also be published on the website.
(j) *AMENDED: The Department shall submit an
electronic report to the legislature
providing information on the pilot program
and the curricula that each school district
adopts.
9:53:02 AM
NOTE: The report requirement was changed to
include information on the pilot program
(k) NEW: Requires school districts to submit the
relevant information to the department that is
needed for the department to carry out its duties
under this section.
(l) *All payments for the pilot program and
curricula are subject to appropriation. If
insufficient funding is available to distribute
payments to all school districts that request
funding in a year, the department may distribute
payments to the remaining school districts the
following school year.
(m)*NEW: If the applications for participation in
the pilot program are insufficient to meet the
requirements under (e) of this section, the
department may select five school districts from
those that apply, taking into consideration
geographical diversity.
(n) NEW: Provides for the continuation of
incentive payments after the pilot program ends.
Incentive payments may go to school districts
that use curricula reviewed and approved by the
Board under AS 14.07.165(c).
(o) Defines "rural," "school district," "school
district's ADM" and "urban"
NEW: AS 14.08.182
Establishes the curriculum improvement and best
practices fund, which consists of an initial
$30,000,000 to fund the first six years of the
curricula incentive program. The funds can be
spent without further appropriation and do not
lapse.
Section 4 AS 14.08.111:
Conforming language requiring a regional school
board to review all textbooks and instructional
materials at least once every 10 years.
Section 5 AS 14.14.090:
Conforming language requiring a school board to
review all textbooks and instructional materials
at least once every 10 years.
Section 6 AS 14.16.020:
Conforming language requiring management of state
boarding schools to review all textbooks and
instructional materials at least once every 10
years.
Section 7 AS 14.30.285:
NEW: The department shall make available to
school districts an electronic system for
managing student information and tracking records
relating to individualized education programs for
children with disabilities.
Section 8 Repeals:
Repeals sub-sections (e), (f). (g), (h), (j),
(l), and (m) in AS 14.07.180 that pertain to the
pilot program, it's incentive payments, and it's
reporting requirements.
NOTE: This was previously Section 6 in Version N
Sec. 9 4 AAC 05.080(e):
Annuls the regulatory requirement of a local
school board having to evaluate their curriculum
every 6 years.
NOTE: This was previously Section 7 in Version N
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair MacKinnon invited department staff to comment on
whether the department was supportive or neutral on the CS
and to review the fiscal note.
MARCY HERMAN, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, was available for questions. The
commissioner had appeared before the committee and spoken
about the bill. She relayed that the department had worked
for about a year on Alaska's Education Challenge and since
January working on the bill with Co-Chair MacKinnon and her
staff. She relayed that Commissioner Johnson believed that
curriculum was one of the levers that the department had
not pulled in increasing student achievement. She noted
that the legislation was a way to incentivize school
districts to take a look a curriculum that the department
and board would put forward and to use the $150 per ADM to
purchase curriculum and materials necessary to improve
student achievement. She added that under Alaska's
Education Challenge, there were 30 to 40 stakeholders
meeting presently. She deferred to Mr. Prussing and would
review the fiscal note after his statement.
9:57:23 AM
Senator von Imhof asked Ms. Herman to briefly describe
Alaska's Education Challenge. Ms. Herman stated that
Alaska's Education Challenge was an 11-month effort to
consider how to make education better in the state. She
discussed Alaska's poor performance for 4th and 8th grade
reading and math. She continued that it was Commissioner
Johnson's and Governor Walker's idea to get the pulse of
the state on the best way to go about improving education
for Alaska's students. Alaska's Education Challenge came up
with three guiding principles: safety and wellbeing,
responsible learning, and family community tribal
compacting. The group put forward 13 recommendations under
the guiding principles. She reported that the department
was working with stakeholders and a pier organization for
state chief school officers to determine the department's
capacity to take on some of the work and how the department
could work best with its stakeholders and partners
statewide.
Senator von Imhof referenced the passage of Alaska State
Standards in 2012. She wondered about Ms. Herman's
statement that curriculum had not been one of the levers
the department had pulled. She was incredulous that
curriculum had not been addressed and hoped the department
could explain the reason it had not been addressed. She
mentioned having been on her school board when the
standards were passed. She conveyed that immediately
following the passage of the standards in 2012, the board
reviewed its curriculum. She wanted the department to
state, for the record, why it did not address curriculum
until now.
PAUL PRUSSING, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF STUDENT LEARNING,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, relayed that
in state statute the legislature gave its authority to the
local district. Therefore, the department did not have the
authority to mandate what text books or curriculum were
used. The bill provided a framework for districts to look
at their curriculum which alleviated some of the work
districts would otherwise have to do to adopt a curriculum.
However, it did not mandate the curriculum. He believed the
intent of the statute was that authority was given to the
local boards. He reported that the state had had programs
in the past, such as Reading First (part of the No Child
Left Behind Act), where grants were given to districts that
adopted specific reading programs with a goal of assuring
that all kids were proficient by the end of third grade.
The grant program ended but showed some effective results.
The department had pulled the lever slightly but not to
such an extent as reflected in the legislation. He believed
it was a good step forward.
10:01:29 AM
Senator von Imhof appreciated that the department did not
have the authority to mandate certain curriculum or
textbooks. She commented that when the department passed
state standards but failed to show leadership, mandated or
unmandated, of any type of aid to the 53 districts that had
a wide variety of financial support and struggles was like
feeding them to the wolves. She thought the department
should have helped by creating a curriculum available (not
mandated) to the districts. She asserted that it should
have happened 5 years prior. She thanked the sponsor for
bringing the legislation forward.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that she had tried to advance the
notion of the bill for the previous 6 years. She had sent a
letter to the state schoolboard asking for their
recommendations on curriculum. She had also been frustrated
believing that the department and the state school board
should have been supporting districts to a greater degree.
She opined that Alaska's students were taking the brunt of
the state's failure to provide for their education. She
referenced constrained budgets in the past and emphasized
that the bill before the committee had been a collaborative
effort with DEED. She appreciated everything the department
had done to support the current idea. The bill was a Senate
Finance Committee proposal to provide a foundation for
school districts and teachers to have support to provide
best outcomes for students.
10:04:21 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman remarked that in defense of the
administration he went back in history to understand why
the committee was addressing the issue today. He recalled
that prior to SB 35 [Legislation passed during one of the
terms of Mr. John Sackett: House of Representatives (1967-
1970) and Senate 1973-1986], the state used to operate
under the state operating school system (SOS). He explained
that the SOS was where the state dictated to school
districts what needed to be done and what criteria needed
to be accomplished. Senator Sackett introduced SB 35 that
set up the current system giving independence to school
districts to have them decide what they felt needed to be
done. He was not saying that the system was perfect, but
from his experience, the decisions regarding education and
the direction for students was best decided by school
boards that were elected independently of the legislature.
Co-Chair Hoffman indicated school districts had the mandate
to present their case about what needed to be done in their
districts. It might differ from what might happen in
Tuntutuliak versus in Anchorage or in Juneau. He firmly
believed districts needed to make the decisions around
curricula and direction of education. He suggested that it
might be appropriate to consider provisions as presented in
SB 104 on a demonstration project to move forward. He did
not want to criticize the department for its position
because past legislators had passed laws that were before
the committee today.
10:07:02 AM
Senator Stevens had served on his local school board and
relayed the difficulty of establishing a curriculum and the
cost associated with curriculum, the key to a fine
education for Alaska's students. He was pleased to see the
legislation but had a couple of concerns. First, he wanted
to confirm that the districts supported the legislation. He
also expressed concern about how the department, having
been reduced significantly, would supervise the bill. He
wondered if additional staff was planned. Instructing the
department to implement the law without additional
personnel would be akin to throwing the department to the
wolves and a great concern to him.
Mr. Prussing stated that when he reviewed the fiscal note
he had added 3 additional staff; 2 content education
specialists and 1 associate to help drive the work and keep
things going. He had been with the department for 18 years
and had seen many personnel reductions. Some of the 20 or
more positions that had been cut were content specialists
that drove curriculum work. When adopting standards in the
past, the department had created a 3-step process: an
awareness process, a transitional stage, and an
implementation stage. The department had focused its
efforts in helping districts align their curriculums to the
new standards. The department also worked with districts on
measuring students' success with the curriculum. The
Performance Evaluation for Alaska's Schools (PEAKS)
Assessment measured only a thin layer. The department had
assisted districts with a formative assessment process.
Most districts had adopted the Measure of Academic Progress
(MAP) test which was given 3 times per year. It provided a
benchmark for teachers to see the movement of students
through the curriculum. He stressed the importance of
having 2 additional content specialists. In the past, the
department had had 2 content specialists that had done the
majority of the work and had had a great impact on
education.
Senator Stevens believed the legislation moved the state
forward in curriculum development. He did not think it took
away local control, as it gave the districts the option of
choosing whether to participate. Mr. Prussing agreed and
added that it would be important for districts to assist
the department in selecting the curriculum.
10:10:25 AM
Senator Olson referenced his schooling through the Bureau
of Indian Affairs System in Golovin, Alaska, and his
experience watching the implementation of the SOS program.
At the time, Golovin was hesitant to participate in the SOS
Program. He applauded Senator Sackett's efforts to ensure
local control because it allowed for buy-in from people who
were very concerned about their children's academic
performance. He shared Senator Stevens' concern regarding
local control.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that self-determination, as
stated in the constitution, was one of her team's primary
motivators in choosing the course of action outlined in the
bill. School districts had appeared before the legislature
multiple times stating that the lack of inflation proofing
the base student allocation or removing energy subsidies,
which at one time the state provided through $150 per
barrel oil, created challenges. Her team struggled with
what to do in a centralized way to provide benefits to
communities, especially to the smaller rural communities.
It was her understanding that many of the larger school
districts were circling around particular curricula in math
and language arts and they were starting to line up in
finding the best means for student achievement. There were
certain smaller community school districts that had less
opportunities than the larger school districts to explore
curriculum. For this reason, she pursued finding curriculum
as a basis. She was trying to find a way of incentivizing a
rigorous process for the state school board and to provide
parents with electronic access of the curriculum being used
across the state. She wanted parents to see what urban
areas in the state might be doing differently than their
own district and why. She thought collaboration was
necessary, hence the reason for her introducing SB 104.
Co-Chair MacKinnon continued to discuss the bill. The bill
offered a product electronically that all districts and
parents could see of incentivized or designated curricula
that met Alaska state standards. School boards could move
into the designated standards and adopt the state curricula
without that same vigor that might be invested in the
review and adoption process. Parents, teachers, and
administrators would be able to see what everyone was
doing, to see test results, and to ask questions. She noted
that some of the smaller school districts were doing
tremendously well for their students, some of whom had
scores that exceeded some of the urban schools. The bill
before the committee offered collaboration with all
parties.
Co-Chair MacKinnon appreciated consideration of the bill.
She wanted to hold the bill until the following Tuesday and
encouraged members to contact their local school districts.
She stated that there was a large fiscal note of $30
million. She estimated that achievable outcomes would be
necessary to pass the bill from committee.
10:16:57 AM
Senator von Imhof thought there might be some confusion
between standards and curricula. She also mentioned the
need for determining the materials that would be used with
the curricula and thought they would be decided on at the
local district level. She noted that there were districts
in Western Alaska that used local flora and fauna in
curriculum. She drew attention to documents "Parent
Roadmap: Supporting Your Child in Grade Five -
Mathematics," and "Parent Roadmap: Supporting Your Child in
Grade Three - English Language Arts," (copy on file).
Senator interjected that the document Senator von Imhof was
referring to was available online.
Senator von Imhof continued that the Anchorage School
District created the document. She hoped the State of
Alaska would generate a similar document at some point. She
referred to page 4 of the handout, which showed one of the
standards for 5th graders in math. Students had to
understand how to divide objects into equal shares
preparing students for the division of fractions. Page 3
listed curricula of 3 or 4 things a teacher needed to do
throughout the year. She posed the question about which
textbooks and workbooks should be used. She asserted that
such things were part of local control. She talked about
being on the local school board when the standards were
changed. She relayed that the process was expensive, long,
and tedious. She was hoping to see the state do something
similar to the example she provided. Local control was and
would always be available in how the individual teacher
taught concepts. She also hoped that the department would
take advantage of the resources of the Anchorage School
District.
10:20:44 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon referenced another component to the bill
pertaining to Individual Education Plans (IEP)s. Her team
had brought the idea forward. The section on recording
electronic data so that parents could review it came from
the Alaska Challenge and the department suggesting the
information should be shared in order to support local
control. She invited Senator von Imhof to speak to the IEP.
Senator von Imhof informed the committee that an IEP was
available to any student in Alaska whose collective
teachers including special education teachers, general
teachers, and parents felt it was necessary to provide
extra special supports for a student. Creating and IEP was
time consuming and extensive and was created in
collaboration with care givers, teachers, and parents. If a
child or family moved from one district to another, often
times the child's IEP was not transferable electronically.
It had to either be copied and mailed or faxed one page at
a time. Some of the smaller districts only had 10 megabytes
of capacity. The worst case would be for the new district
to have to do a completely new IEP. One of the
recommendations that came out of the DEED performance
review in 2016 was to suggest that all districts around the
state went to one standard software for IEPs paid for by
the state. Districts would be alleviated from paying for
the software. She thought the idea made good sense. Many
districts agreed with the idea of having a standard
software. When a child moved from Bethel to Anchorage the
IEP could be sent electronically keeping the transition
much simpler and less disruptive.
10:23:34 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop referenced his experience as a legislator
and working for previous administrations. He spoke to the
need for continuity. He mentioned seeing 3 different
administrations and 3 different evaluation tests. He did
not want to see the goal post moved for kids. He advocated
choosing a lane and staying in that lane. He acknowledged
the challenges of educating children. He relayed his
personal experience as a child moving from one school
district to the next. He brought up the subject of
outcomes. He hoped that education was preparing children to
enter the workforce and to be a benefit to society rather
than a burden. He wondered how to measure success. In his
experience as the Commissioner of Department of Labor and
Workforce Development his department worked with DEED to
put a process in place to track an individual after high
school. He reemphasized the need for consistency for the
sake of kids.
Co-Chair MacKinnon supported Vice-Chair Bishop's comments.
She thought everyone had different abilities. Some people
blossomed outside of school and perseverance was what was
needed to continue in the world. She wanted a good
foundation for Alaska. Math and English were the areas of
focus in the bill.
10:26:40 AM
Senator Stevens agreed with Vice-Chair Bishop. He added
that the goal of education at the beginning of the country
was to create citizens of the state and country.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated she wanted to bring the bill back
up early in the following week to move the bill along. She
emphasized she wanted the fiscal note prior to moving the
bill out of committee.
Ms. Herman appreciated the passion for education as
expressed by the committee. The department would finalize
the fiscal note and submit it to the committee for
consideration.
Mr. Prussing thanked the committee for its hard work on the
bill. He addressed Vice-Chair Bishop's comments. He relayed
that the department was working with Career and Technical
Education (CTE) through the Carl D. Perkins Career and
Technical Education Improvement Act in getting CTE teachers
trained to teach math within the CTE program. Vice-Chair
Bishop remarked that he could spend another 30 minutes
talking on the subject in a positive way.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if Ms. Hartmann could address
Senator Olson's question regarding who her team had reached
out to. Ms. Hartmann recalled that when the bill was first
heard in committee the previous April there was no
opposition from school districts. Recently, the team had
reached out to the Lower Kuskokwim School District, the
Yukon-Koyukuk School District, the Anchorage School
District, and the Fairbanks School District. She had heard
back from all of them and would be happy to share their
information with everyone. She had also heard back from the
Board of Education's members, local school district board
members, rural and urban superintendents, and the Alaska
Council of School Administrators who were reviewing the CS.
She reported getting good word back. Co-Chair MacKinnon
asked if it was positive feedback versus concerns on the
bill. Ms. Hartmann responded, "yes."
Senator Micciche expressed interest in hearing feedback
from stakeholders mentioned by Ms. Hartmann. He would be
reaching out to his local district. Co-Chair MacKinnon
stated that her office had reached out to his school
district to testify. They were not available but had
reviewed the bill.
Senator Stevens addressed the issue of IEPs, and his desire
to learn more. He suspected that some districts might be
concerned about receiving IEPs that were different from
their own.
SB 104 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair MacKinnon relayed that the committee had not
scheduled a meeting for the following day. She reviewed the
agenda for Monday's meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
10:32:29 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:32 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSSB 104 Bill version Y.pdf |
SFIN 3/29/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 104 |
| CSSB 104 Sponsor Statement version Y.pdf |
SFIN 3/29/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 104 |
| CSSB 104 Sectional Analysis ver Y.pdf |
SFIN 3/29/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 104 |
| SB 105 - Senate Finance Q A.pdf |
SFIN 3/29/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 105 |
| SB 105 - Letters of Support.pdf |
SFIN 3/29/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 105 |
| CS SB 105 FIN wrok draft v N.pdf |
SFIN 3/29/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 105 |
| CSSB 105(FIN) - Summary of Changes.pdf |
SFIN 3/29/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 105 |
| SB 104 Von Imhof Document ParentRoadmap_ELA_3.pdf |
SFIN 3/29/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 104 |
| SB 104 Von Imhof Document - ParentRoadmap_Math_5.pdf |
SFIN 3/29/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 104 |