SB 53-UNIV. REPORTING REQS FOR ACCREDITATION  9:00:04 AM CHAIR STEVENS announced the consideration of SB 53. He stated his intention to introduce the bill, hear public testimony, and hold the bill. 9:00:48 AM TIM LAMKIN, Staff, Senator Gary Stevens, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, said SB 53 is a result of the loss of accreditation by the University of Alaska Anchorage School of Education. There are currently other reporting requirements in place. The most recent, AS 14.41.190, requires the Board of Regents to submit a report to the legislature by the 30th legislative day biannually on their efforts "to attract, train, and retain qualified public school teachers." He noted that the report was due Friday, but the Senate Secretary's office had not received that yet, to his knowledge. He said he did not prepare a sectional for the bill because it would simply say that the bill would require a biannual report on the various accreditations across the UA system. He pointed out that the committee packets have a summary of current accreditations. There is zero fiscal note. 9:02:51 AM MILES BAKER, Associate Vice President of Government Relations, University of Alaska, Juneau, Alaska, said AS 14.41.190 has two reporting requirements for the University of Alaska. The first is a long report submitted every year as part of its budget submission to the legislature regarding things such as the condition of university property, receipts and expenditures, and unobligated university receipts. The second is commonly referred to as the SB 241 report, Alaska's University for Alaska's [Schools] Report. He said he believed Chairman Stevens was part of passing that law in 2008. That report is completed biennially. This report updates the legislature on teacher preparation, retention, and recruitment programs. He said it was submitted this year. He offered to provide a copy for the committee. CHAIR STEVENS said the education committees would probably meet jointly to discuss that report. MR. BAKER said this legislation would require a third reporting requirement. As part of its biannual report, the university would update the legislature on the status of regional, national, and programmatic accreditations at the university no later than the 30th day of the legislative session. The existing board policy requires each of the major campuses to regularly assess all institutional programs to evaluate quality and effectiveness. These program reviews are designed to meet the standards of applicable accrediting bodies. Annually, each university must provide a report to the Regents' Academic and Student Affairs Committee on the status of program reviews, including an extensive discussion of academic accreditation. UA already has an internal process to compile, track, and report this information annually to the board, so that information can be provided to the legislature in a biannual report. He pointed out that the packets have information on the status of ongoing accreditation at all the universities MR. BAKER said this committee has its regularly scheduled meeting today. One agenda item is a discussion of program accreditation and a review of the status document. The regents want to be aware of any accreditations that are challenged or having difficulty. There will be an interest in clarifying current regent policy regarding accreditation. The situation with UAA regarding initial licensure was that while reports were being provided to the board subcommittee in the fall, they were not detailed enough for the Board of Regents to have the full story of the potential situation with the accreditation. The board will want to update that policy. 9:08:33 AM CHAIR STEVENS said the impetus for this bill was the loss of accreditation at the Anchorage campus. "And that's a very big thing, as we all know. Universities don't usually lose accreditation. This is the only one I've seen in my experience," he said. CHAIR STEVENS continued, "It's a very, very important thing and it's particularly important because of the students. Because we're putting them in jeopardy, asking them to pay tuition and go through all the work of getting their classes done, yet when they leave the University of Alaska, they are going to have trouble, particularly if they transfer out of state." CHAIR STEVENS said, "The only reason for this bill is because of that loss of accreditation. Something went terribly wrong in this process." He said he chaired an accreditation committee before he retired from the university so he knows it is a long, involved process, but all the questions and concerns should be answered at the end of the process. CHAIR STEVENS said, "Again, something went terribly wrong. The president of the university, who I have the greatest respect for--I'm so glad he's there during these tough financial times-- yet he did not know of the jeopardy the university faced because of that accreditation study. The Board of Regents did not know. Mr. Baker, it is a terrible situation. We're not going to run the university. We don't want to do that, but we want to know what's going on. We want to know why the university, the Board of Regents, the president, the entire administration, were not monitoring that process or not responding to it. If they had known about it, I assume there would have been some intervention." CHAIR STEVENS continued, I'm a little annoyed as a citizen, as a senator, that that this occurred. And it can't happen again. All we're asking in this bill is for the university to monitor the situation, to let us know, and you should already be doing that. And I keep hearing people say, 'Hey, we're doing that. Why would you have this bill because we're doing it.' But you're not doing it. It fell apart. Somebody was asleep at the switch. It's a terrible black eye on the university and we simply cannot have this happen in future. I mean, are there other areas that are in jeopardy in the university for loss of accreditations. I'm sorry. I'm just not happy with this at all. I think it's a terrible situation to be in. I'm ashamed. I know you are. I know the university president is ashamed that this happened. All we're saying, for heaven's sake, is monitor this and let us know what is going on. 9:12:10 AM SENATOR HUGHES said she shared his frustration. The fiscal note states that the internal processes already exist and the reports are happening annually to the board, but Mr. Baker said the Board of Regents will be revisiting that policy. She assumed the board would be considering whether to increase the frequency of checking in on that type of thing. She would hope that any red flags would be reported to the Board of Regents immediately. The legislature would not hear as soon as the board, but that information would be included in the report to them. The idea of the bill is that having some oversight establishes accountability. She asked whether the legislature would receive the report every two years. CHAIR STEVENS answered twice a year. SENATOR HUGHES said that would help. 9:13:52 AM SENATOR BEGICH said when the committee first talked about accreditation, he put a conflict of interest on the record, but after checking with ethics, he found he does not have a conflict of interest with this bill. CHAIR STEVENS said that is an issue these days with changes in law. He has no conflict. He last worked for the university 20 years ago and retired as a tenured professor and has not received any renumeration from the university for 20 years. MR. BAKER said as currently drafted the bill would require the report at the start of each legislature, so every two years. He clarified that the university does not review every academic program every year. Most of the institutions are doing five-year reviews, but the status of those program reviews and how they relate to accreditation are reported to the Board of Regents every fall. UA has an internal process for compiling and reporting that information to the Board of Regents, but regents would share Senator Stevens' concern that the reports have not been adequate to keep the regents informed. UA will be working on that internally. 9:15:51 AM CHAIR STEVENS opened public testimony and after ascertaining there was none, closed public testimony. SENATOR HUGHES asked if the intention is to change the report to twice a year. SENATOR STEVENS said he thought twice a year would be best. SENATOR HUGHES agreed. SENATOR BEGICH asked if his intent was to change the reporting from biennial to biannual and to get an update on a regular basis. He agreed that twice a year would be better. 9:16:57 AM CHAIR STEVENS answered that that is the intention. He held SB 53 in committee.