Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/29/2021 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 | |
| SB32 | |
| SB36 | |
| SB20 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 32 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 36 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 29, 2021
9:22 a.m.
9:22:10 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Bishop called the Senate Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:22 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Donny Olson (via teleconference)
Senator Natasha von Imhof (via teleconference)
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman
ALSO PRESENT
Erin Shine, Staff, Senator Click Bishop; Senator Gary
Stevens, Sponsor; Tim Lamkin, Staff, Senator Gary Stevens.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Sondra Meredith, Teacher Certification Administrator,
Department of Education and Early Development; Deena
Bishop, Superintendent, Anchorage School District; Tammie
Perreault, Northwest Regional Liaison, Military and Family
Policy, United States Department of Defense.
SUMMARY
SB 20 OUT OF STATE TEACHER RECIPROCITY
SB 20 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SB 32 COLLEGE CREDIT FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
CSSB 32(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with two previously
published zero fiscal notes: FN 1(EED) and FN 2
(UA).
SB 36 U OF A REGENTS REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
CSSB 36(EDC) was REPORTED out of committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with one new zero
fiscal note from the University.
SENATE BILL NO. 32
"An Act establishing the Alaska middle college program
for public school students; and relating to the powers
of the University of Alaska."
9:23:10 AM
Co-Chair Bishop relayed that it was the second hearing for
SB 32, and the committee had taken public testimony on
March 22, 2021. He stated the intent to adopt a Committee
Substitute (CS), consider an amendment, review fiscal
notes, and look to the will of the committee.
Senator Wielechowski MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute for SB 32, Work Draft 32-LS0307\B (Klein,
3/23/21).
Co-Chair Bishop OBJECTED for discussion.
9:23:58 AM
ERIN SHINE, STAFF, SENATOR CLICK BISHOP, discussed the
proposed CS. She read from an Explanation of Changes
Document:
Page 1, Line 2 Updates title for effective date
Page 2, Lines 20-23 Deletes previous proposed
14.30.780(b) language and inserts language that the
Alaska Middle College Program shall be made available
to each school district by the University of Alaska if
a school district elects to participate.
Page 4, Lines 20-21 Clarifies that the University of
Alaska shall enter into agreements for a school
district that elects to participate.
Page 4, Line 26 Provides an effective date of July 1,
2022.
Ms. Shine conveyed that she had contacted the Legislative
Legal Department after the previous hearing on the bill to
get clarification regarding some public testimony that
indicated that the bill required school districts to
participate in the middle college program. The legal staff
indicated that language in Version A of the bill iterated
that if a student was eligible and interested, a school
district would be required to try and enter into an
agreement with the Alaska Middle College. She had spoken
with the sponsor and the sponsor's staff, who indicated the
result was not the intent of the version of the bill under
consideration. The CS tried to remedy the matter and
ensured that the program was required for the university to
offer but did not require school districts to participate.
Co-Chair Bishop WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
9:25:58 AM
AT EASE
9:26:37 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stedman MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 32-LS0307\B.1
(Klein, 3/27/21):
Page 3, line 1, following "district":
Insert "that elects to participate in the
program"
Co-Chair Bishop OJBECTED for discussion.
Ms. Shine explained that Amendment 1 made one more
clarifying change to the CS. After the CS was drafted, the
committee had realized that there was one more section that
would require something from every school district. The
change conformed to other sections and clarified that
school districts that were participating in the program
would have to notify students and parents of the
opportunity if a student was eligible to participate.
Senator Wielechowski wanted legislative understanding of
how election of participation occurred. He asked if a
school board would need to pass something or if a
superintendent could take some action.
Ms. Shine was unsure of how a school would elect to
participate in the program. She thought there was invited
testimony that could address the question.
Senator Wielechowski thought it was important to get more
legislative understanding of the issue.
Co-Chair Bishop invited the sponsor and his staff to speak
to the amendment.
9:29:06 AM
SENATOR GARY STEVENS, SPONSOR, thought it was a simple
procedure to elect to participate in the program. He
thought there were many ways for a district to elect to
participate, and the decision would usually involve action
by the superintendent or school board. He did not think the
matter needed further definition.
Co-Chair Bishop WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Amendment 1 was
ADOPTED.
Senator Stevens explained that the intent of the bill was
to help students throughout the state to get college
credits while in high school. He cited an equity issue and
noted that many larger districts already had the
opportunity while many smaller districts did not. He
appreciated the amendment changing the language from
"shall" to "may." He knew the University had explicitly
stated that it would make the program available to any
district that wanted it. Additionally, larger districts had
gone out of their way to ensure that extremely small
districts could access the program through the larger
district. He thought the program was a real advantage for
students.
Senator Wilson discussed fiscal note 1 from the Department
of Education and Early Development, OMB Component 2796. He
specified that FY 22 showed a zero cost, and out-year costs
were all zero. The department stated there was no fiscal
impact from the bill.
Senator Wilson discussed fiscal note 2 from the University,
OMB Component 730. He specified that FY 22 showed a zero
cost, and out-year costs were all zero. He read from the
analysis on page 2 of the fiscal note:
The university's existing middle college programs are
designed to be cost neutral to UA in that the tuition
provided by the students through their school
districts is sufficient to cover the university's
costs to run the program.
9:32:45 AM
AT EASE
9:32:51 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stedman MOVED to report CSSB 32(FIN) out of
Committee as amended with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes.
CSSB 32(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee as amended with
a "do pass" recommendation and with two previously
published zero fiscal notes: FN 1(EED) and FN 2 (UA).
9:33:11 AM
AT EASE
9:34:23 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 36
"An Act relating to reporting requirements of the
Board of Regents of the University of Alaska."
9:34:23 AM
Co-Chair Bishop read the title of the bill. He relayed that
it was the bill's second hearing, and public testimony was
taken on March 22, 2021. The intent was to re-introduce the
bill, cover fiscal notes, and look to the will of the
committee.
Senator Gary Stevens, Sponsor, spoke to the bill. He
explained that the bill came about because of the loss of
accreditation by the School of Education at the University
of Alaska Anchorage. The loss had been a shock to everyone,
particularly to the president at the time, and various
chancellors who had not known that accreditation had been
in jeopardy. The purpose of the bill was to bring the
legislature "into the loop" so it had some idea of
accreditation status. He estimated that the University of
Alaska dealt over 200 accreditations for schools,
departments, and programs. He cautioned that there were
those did not support the bill, and he informed that the
Board of Regents thought the legislature was overstepping
its bounds. He thought it was the state's responsibility to
have someone that was paying attention to accreditation. He
mentioned previous testimony by the University and
emphasized the importance of tracking accreditation
matters.
Co-Chair Bishop appreciated Senator Wilson's re-
introduction of the bill.
Senator Wielechowski discussed a new fiscal note from the
University of Alaska, OMB Component 730. There was a zero-
appropriation request for FY 22. There were no expected
expenses incurred for the out years.
Co-Chair Stedman MOVED to report CSSB 36(EDC) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSSB 36(EDC) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one new zero fiscal note from the
University of Alaska.
9:37:50 AM
AT EASE
9:39:09 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 20
"An Act relating to recognition of certificates of
out-of-state teachers."
9:39:09 AM
Senator Gary Stevens, Sponsor, thanked the committee for
hearing SB 20. He reminded that school districts had a
difficult time making sure there were enough teachers. He
asserted that the bill would help by allowing teacher
reciprocity to occur. He mentioned the high number of
United States Coast Guard personnel and spouses, some of
whom were ready to teach after being certified in other
places. He explained that school districts supported
reciprocity, which would help solve the teacher shortage in
Alaska. He thought the bill supported the state's high
teaching standards while addressing barriers to entry.
9:40:42 AM
TIM LAMKIN, STAFF, SENATOR GARY STEVENS, explained that the
bill aligned with regulatory suspensions that occurred by
emergency order the previous year, to assist districts with
the teacher shortage.
Mr. Lamkin discussed a Sectional Analysis (copy on file):
Sec. 1: AS 14.20.010, relating to a teaching
certificate being required to teach in Alaska, removes
the reference of there being a preliminary
certificate.
Sec. 2: AS 14.20.015(a), relating to out-of-state
teaching certificates, removes reference to there
being a preliminary certificate.
Sec. 3: AS 14.20.015(b), relating to out-of-state
teaching certificates, removes a requirement for
passing a competency exam, and replaces it with a
requirement to complete a college course in Alaska
studies and multi or cross-cultural studies within two
years.
Sec. 4: AS 14.20.015(c), relating to out-of-state
teaching certificates, removes reference to there
being a preliminary teaching certificate.
Sec. 5: AS 14.20.015(g) is added to direct the
department to establish regulations to expedite the
out-of-state teaching certification application
process for military spouses.
Sec 6: AS 14.20.020(h), relating to a requirement to
complete a college course in Alaska studies and multi
or cross-cultural studies, to allow an out-of-state
teacher to receive their Alaska certificate, but to
complete those studies within 3 years.
Sec 7: AS 14.20.020(k), relating to the requirement of
a variety of trainings to take place before being
issued an Alaska teaching certificate, to allow out-
of-state certificate holders 3 years to complete such
trainings.
Sec. 8: AS 14.20.015 (d), (e), and (f), relating to
preliminary teaching certificate employment, tenure
and expiration are repealed.
9:43:28 AM
Senator Wilson asked about Section 3. He asked if Alaska
teachers would still be required to take the competency
exam to be licensed.
Mr. Lamkin answered in the affirmative. In-state teachers
were required to take all the assessments. The bill
proposed that if a teacher was in good standing in another
state and did all that was required, the teacher should be
eligible to teach in Alaska.
Senator Wilson asked if all other states had similar exams
as related to Alaska standards.
Mr. Lamkin noted that the Praxis exam and other tests set a
high bar. He expressed that generally the bill recognized
that if a teacher passed the test in one state, it would
transfer to Alaska.
Senator Stevens reminded that the school district and
hiring process would ensure that any incoming teacher would
have the necessary skills and experience.
Senator Wilson asked if the bill would allow teachers to
graduate from a school in Alaska, gain an easier
certification in another state, and then return to Alaska
to teach using the reciprocity proposed in the bill.
Mr. Lamkin was not entirely sure about the answer to
Senator Wilson's question and deferred the question to
invited testimony. He assured the committee that the intent
of the bill was not to allow for teachers to cheat the
system.
9:47:16 AM
SONDRA MEREDITH, TEACHER CERTIFICATION ADMINISTRATOR,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT (via
teleconference), explained that part of university
requirements for teachers required the exams referenced
earlier. She continued that the state had adopted a number
of exams that were offered outside the state, and over the
course of time the exams had been considered and approved
by the Alaska State Board of Education as comparable to
state competency standards.
Senator Wilson discussed the difference in state
requirements for teacher education programs. He noted that
some states required a degree in a subject area, but Alaska
required an education degree. He wondered how the
difference translated to competency in Alaska teaching
standards.
Ms. Meredith explained that the types of certificates
brought to the state would be examined to ascertain that
certificates being provided were issued based on completion
of a state-approved program. She assured that there would
be a check in place to ensure an applicant had been through
a state-approved program. The department was a member of an
organization that would identify individuals that had
completed a state-approved program.
9:50:59 AM
Senator Wilson asked about a state that had certificates
issued for life. He asked if individuals would have the
certificate without the 5-year renewal requirement.
Ms. Meredith informed that the certificate issued as a
result of the legislation was a professional 5-year license
that would need to be renewed every 5 years.
Senator Wielechowski was curious what was needed to attain
a teaching certificate in Alaska. He asked about the policy
rationale for teacher certificates.
Ms. Meredith explained that the reason the state issued
teaching certifications was to ensure that individuals had
not violated ethical standards. She noted that the state
did criminal background checks. The department considered
teaching applicants' training to ensure teachers had
content expertise and the ability to present the content to
help students learn. The department looked for state-
approved programs to ensure teachers had the pedagogical
knowledge to help students learn.
9:53:45 AM
Senator Wielechowski assumed that to obtain a teaching
certificate in Alaska currently, an applicant needed a
background check, an approved degree program. He asked if a
test was needed.
Ms. Meredith answered "yes."
Senator Wielechowski asked if the key distinction of the
bill was that applicants would not have to take the test.
Ms. Meredith estimated that 48 of the states had similar
testing requirements to Alaska and had a basic competency
exam and a content exam.
Senator Wielechowski asked if the bill considered that
applicants will have taken a similar test in another state.
Ms. Meredith answered in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Bishop referenced Section 7 and asked how long it
took an applicant to complete the four areas of training.
Ms. Meredith stated that the areas of training were
available as e-learning modules through the department, and
the modules took roughly two hours to complete.
Co-Chair Bishop asked if the areas of training were the
last step before a certificate was issued.
Senator Stevens explained that the bill gave a qualified
teacher from another state two years to complete the
program. He noted that it was possible to complete the
training through a 3-credit course through the University
of Alaska. He did not think the requirement would prevent
an applicant from getting a certificate.
Co-Chair Bishop asked if the required training was required
before an applicant could get a reciprocity certificate.
Ms. Meredith understood that currently applicants would be
allowed up to two years to satisfy the requirements.
9:57:34 AM
Senator Wielechowski noted that a person born and raised in
Alaska would be required to complete training on a list of
subjects before acquiring a teaching certificate and asked
if an out of state applicant would not.
Senator Stevens reminded that there was a teacher shortage,
and the bill intended to assist hiring teachers in good
standing in other states. He thought the bill would
primarily be used in his district with military spouses. He
qualified that the bill was not to ease standards. He knew
that many teachers opted to take the full 3-credit course
for the required training.
Senator Wilson relayed that he had worked in the
registrar's office at a university. He mentioned the Alaska
Staff Development Network and thought the required training
was not difficult to attain. He discussed different types
of teaching certification. He asked if the bill would allow
for all types of certifications to be transferable for
reciprocity.
Mr. Lamkin clarified that the bill only applied to teacher
certification. The bill only changed that incoming teachers
would have two years to take the required training. The
bill would help expedite teachers that were military
spouses with good standing as teachers in other states.
Co-Chair Stedman wondered if the bill sponsor could help
with understanding the estimated demand for the changes
proposed in the bill. He asked how many incoming teachers
would be using the reciprocity each year.
Senator Stevens reminded that the program was not mandatory
and would only be used if there was a teacher shortage. He
did not think there would be a large number of applicants
but wanted to defer the question to an invited testifier.
10:01:52 AM
DEENA BISHOP, SUPERINTENDENT, ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT
(via teleconference), estimated that there would be about
60 to 100 teachers seeking a reciprocity certificate. She
identified that there had been member questions and
concerns related to the rigor of teacher education. She did
not share the concerns and thought applicants from out of
state had similar educational standards. She thought the
hiring entity would be looking for teachers with
experience. She thought testing was not of huge concern.
Ms. Bishop continued her remarks. She highlighted that some
teacher programs did not include a student-teacher
experience. The bill would allow districts to look at
applicants' teaching records. She noted that the Anchorage
School District employed many military spouses, and the
bill would add to the pool of qualified teacher applicants.
Senator Wilson asked if school districts could do temporary
licensure to allow a qualified person to complete some of
the training standards.
Ms. Bishop thought there might be a way to grant a
temporary certificate, but that it was difficult. She noted
that the request was not coming from applicants, but rather
from school districts that were seeking additional
teachers, and the onus would be on the to ensure compliance
with educational standards.
Senator Wilson asked if districts could currently request a
temporary certification if it was trying to hire a
qualified applicant.
Ms. Bishop did not have an example of what Senator Wilson
described. She thought the scenario had never happened. She
thought more information was needed from the department.
10:06:21 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked if Ms. Bishop thought the
required training (related to drugs and alcohol, teen
dating violence, disabilities, sexual abuse, and assault)
was important for teachers to have.
Ms. Bishop answered in the affirmative. She added that
there were a couple of additional trainings also required
by school districts. She suggested that additional time for
on-boarding qualified teachers would be a good thing. She
thought districts had an interest in having highly skilled
and highly knowledgeable teachers and could speed up the
process.
Co-Chair Bishop was curious where the largest gap for
teachers in the ASD.
Ms. Bishop identified that K-12 special education teachers,
as well as the related services such as speech pathologists
were the areas in which more teachers were needed. She
thought one of the other largest deficits was in areas such
as science and mathematics in high school. She mentioned
renewed focus in early childhood education and an increased
need for teachers.
Senator Wilson mentioned the high burnout rate for out of
state teachers, particularly those that went to teach in
rural areas. He asked if the bill could add to increased
costs for districts because of hiring more out of state
teachers.
Senator Stevens believed in-state teachers would always be
preferred. He reiterated that hiring out of state teachers
would be due to a teacher shortage. He acknowledged the
high burnout rate of teachers that came to Alaska and did
not think the bill would change the matter.
10:10:29 AM
TAMMIE PERREAULT, NORTHWEST REGIONAL LIAISON, MILITARY AND
FAMILY POLICY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (via
teleconference), relayed that her office worked with state
legislators to address quality of life issues for military
families. She highlighted information that had been
conveyed in previous bill hearings, such as that many
states provided teacher reciprocity at the level proposed
in the bill. She noted that there were 16 states with
similar language pertaining to military spouses.
Ms. Perreault cited that a 2015 study found that teacher
reciprocity was a benefit to the teaching profession. She
expressed support for the policy changes proposed in SB 20.
She noted that the current process for teacher
certification in another state was lengthy. She mentioned
the expedited licensure for military spouses as proposed in
the bill. She noted that the Department of Defense had
found that teaching was the most prevalent occupation among
licensed military spouses. She cited that 34 percent of
military spouses required an occupational license in order
to work, and teaching certification was the most common.
She discussed statistics that indicated a military spouse's
ability to continue in a career affected a service member's
decision to remain in the military. She thought the bill
was important for supporting military families.
10:14:30 AM
Co-Chair Bishop OPENED public testimony.
10:14:46 AM
Co-Chair Bishop CLOSED public testimony.
Senator Stevens appreciated hearing from the Department of
Defense. He acknowledged that many members had military
installations in their districts. He highlighted the
importance of an expedited teacher certification timeline
for military spouses as proposed in the bill.
SB 20 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
10:16:18 AM
RECESSED
ADJOURNED
10:16:18 AM
This meeting automatically ADJOURNED when the 1:00 PM
scheduled meeting convened.