03/05/2012 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Nenana City School District | |
| HB256 | |
| HB272 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 272 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 330 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 256 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 5, 2012
8:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Dick, Chair
Representative Lance Pruitt, Vice Chair
Representative Eric Feige
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Sharon Cissna
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: NENANA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 256
"An Act repealing provisions relating to the power and duties of
the Department of Education and Early Development to intervene
in a school district to improve instructional practices."
- MOVED CSHB 256(EDC) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 272
"An Act providing for a reduction in interest on postsecondary
education loans for residents."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 330
"An Act establishing a Joint Legislative Task Force on Education
Standards; requiring the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development to provide information and resources to the task
force; establishing state education standards; amending the
authority of the Department of Education and Early Development
to adopt education standards; and providing for an effective
date."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 256
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL STATE INTERVENTION IN SCHOOLS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) DICK
01/17/12 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/6/12
01/17/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/17/12 (H) EDC, FIN
01/25/12 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
01/25/12 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/01/12 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/01/12 (H) Heard & Held
02/01/12 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
02/03/12 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/03/12 (H) Heard & Held
02/03/12 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
02/06/12 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/06/12 (H) Heard & Held
02/06/12 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
02/22/12 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/22/12 (H) Heard & Held
02/22/12 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/02/12 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/02/12 (H) Heard & Held
03/02/12 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/05/12 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 272
SHORT TITLE: STUDENT LOAN INTEREST REDUCTIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GARA, GUTTENBERG, GARDNER,
KERTTULA, HOLMES, TUCK, KAWASAKI, PETERSEN, GRUENBERG, CISSNA
01/17/12 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/13/12
01/17/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/17/12 (H) EDC, FIN
01/25/12 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
01/25/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/25/12 (H) EDC, FIN
02/22/12 (H) 2D SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
02/22/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/12 (H) EDC, FIN
02/27/12 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/27/12 (H) <Bill Hearing Rescheduled to 02/29/12>
02/29/12 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/29/12 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/05/12 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
ERIC GEBHART, Superintendent
Nenana City School District
Nenana, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a presentation of the Nenana City
School District.
ANNETTE KREITZER, Staff
Representative Alan Dick
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented amendments to the proposed
committee substitute for HB 256.
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing
on HB 256.
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the proposed committee substitute
for SSHB 272, as joint sponsor of the bill.
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director
Postsecondary Education Commission
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing
on HB 272.
MOIRA SMITH, Attorney
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 272.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:02:06 AM
CHAIR ALAN DICK called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:02 a.m. Representatives Seaton, P.
Wilson, Kawasaki, and Dick were present at the call to order.
Representatives Feige and Pruitt arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
^Presentation: Nenana City School District
Presentation: Nenana City School District
8:02:34 AM
CHAIR DICK announced that the first order of business would be a
presentation from the superintendent of the Nenana City School
District.
8:03:27 AM
ERIC GEBHART, Superintendent, Nenana City School District,
provided a presentation of the Nenana City School District
(NCSD). He offered to begin with the location and building
descriptions and move on to the activities that occur in the
school [slide 1]. He explained that the NCSD offers the
CYBERLYNX statewide correspondence program. He then reviewed
the class offerings, which include core class offerings, a K-12
music education program, and vocational education opportunities,
including welding, auto, small engines, construction trades, and
culinary courses [slide 2]. The NCSD received a grant and
implemented Emergency Trauma Technician/Emergency Medical
Technician (ETT/EMT) certifications. The NCSD has been able to
sustain their program since the Tanana Valley College's grant
assistance funding ended in Fairbanks. The school has a full-
service library, which also serves as the technology center.
The iPad for the literacy project has been helpful, he said. He
hoped to expand the program beyond the K-8 grades. He offered
support for legislation to provide further funding of technology
in the schools. The school also offers dual credit offerings in
college algebra and English in cooperation with Western Oregon
University.
8:07:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether the University of Alaska
(UA) could offer the courses instead of an out-of-state
university.
MR. GEBHART answered that contacts have been made at the UA but
progress has been slow at the university and the distance
courses with the university have not yet happened.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON highlighted that the legislature needs
to know if the university is not assisting them.
MR. GEBHART answered that it would be good to have the dual-
credit offerings available, but it just hasn't become a reality
yet. He highlighted that the program is successful in elevating
the level of math and two of their teachers are adjuncts with
the Western Oregon University. The credit cost has been reduced
to $240 per class and the school district pays for half of the
cost, which allows students to receive college credits for $120.
Further, if students qualify for free or reduced lunches the
class cost is as low as $60.00. These classes introduce
students to college courses and experiences while they are still
attending high school. He pointed out the classes start in
January so these students know they will be successful prior to
attending college in the fall. He related that 10 students are
currently enrolled in college algebra and eight or nine are
enrolled in college English courses. In response to
Representative Wilson, he agreed a teacher for the classroom is
necessary. He offered that Nenana has two teachers with
master's degrees in the areas that allow them to teach. He
acknowledged that the NCSD would like to expand the courses they
are offering.
8:11:22 AM
MR. GEBHART said the most important resource is an effective
stable administration and staff, which has been the case at the
NCSD for several years and since Nenana is located on the road
system it has not been difficult to find applicants [slide 3].
The school now has a fiber optic line, which provides excellent
connectivity. The buildings are old, but not in bad condition
and the facilities should last for some time to come with good
maintenance. A grant was provided for the Nenana Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) initiative, which fits
into the college plan and career interests [slide 4]. The STEM
program focuses on relevance, depth of understanding, and
application of what is learned. He said he wants the children
to love to come to school, love interacting with teachers, and
be engaged in brain development activities. He referred to the
website address in members' packets so they can check later and
peruse the site. The Nenana Student Living Center (NSLC)houses
up to 88 students statewide and this year was begun with the
maximum student capacity with some students on a waiting list
[slides 5-7]. He stated that the student retention has improved
in the past few years.
8:15:48 AM
MR. GEBHART described the activities and programs that are
provided at the NSLC, which includes suicide prevention training
for the student leadership and tutoring five nights a week. The
Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC) has provided funding for NSLC and
programs such as the suicide training. He reported that the
NSLC is working to provide more training for students. Some
students have real jobs and go through the application process
for the experience. These students work in the store which
gives them an opportunity to work.
8:17:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked where the NSLC students come from and
how are they supervised.
MR. GEBHART answered that the NSLC attendees are from outside
the school district, including from the Interior, Southwest, and
other outlying areas of the state. He said he is the director
and lives at the center, which is also supervised by two
additional associate directors - male and female. Resident
advisors are also on staff, and a resident educational support
model is followed to support kids.
8:18:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON noted that 26 students have left the
program and asked for the reason. She questioned whether there
is an exit interview given.
MR. GEBHART answered that some students are sent home if they
violate the drug or alcohol policy. The policy was changed to a
zero tolerance on drugs and he emphasized that follow through is
important. Additionally, suicides have occurred in the villages
and students may decide go back to their families in the
aftermath. Other students may get homesick and go home, he
stated.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether the suicides occur in the
village or within the family.
MR. GEBHART answered both. He suggested that sometimes students
go home and return to the center later, but others do not. He
remarked that suicide is a traumatic situation and everyone
handles it differently. The NSLC offers student leadership
training and the team has existed for some time.
8:20:59 AM
MR. GEBHART continued to describe the leadership groups at the
NSLC. He highlighted that they added the justice circle and
family circle to their duties this year. The demand to perform
at a high level is impressive, and the students formed a group
called the Unstoppables to interface with the adult leadership,
he said. The leadership team rewrote the handbook. The
leadership team was also instrumental in suggesting changes in
drug and alcohol policy. The NSLC has been in operation for 10
years and he reported 110 students have graduated. He related
that 11 students completed post-secondary graduation, 43 are
attending post-secondary schools, 9 are in the military, and 49
are working and the remaining 21 are at home, some are raising
families, and two are deceased.
8:24:01 AM
MR. GEBHART described the CYBERLYNX program as a program that
provides professional educational support for home school
parents, which operates 12 months per year [slide 8]. The
offices are administered by certified special education teachers
at all sites and provide aspects of individualized education
program (IEP) development. He stated that the CYBERLYNX program
is important to him, especially since it is a program that can
provide services to every student. The program offers regular
tutoring, close monitoring of student progress, and frequent
consultation with parents. The program also offers regular
study groups, varied curricular choices - from remedial to
advanced - and dual-credit offerings from accredited colleges,
including courses from the UA. The CYBERLYNX program offers a
graduation completion program with the following number of
diplomas awarded: 2008-09, 28; 2009-10, 39; and 2010-11, 50.
He pointed out that these students all took longer than four
years to graduate. He concluded his presentation by listing the
challenges that the district is facing [slide 10]. He stated
that the NCSD needs a resolution on the debt/loan for the NSLC
facility and students need technology tools, including iPads,
laptops, whiteboards, and software. He said the school district
also needs resources to update/improve all curricular areas,
major maintenance resources for NCPS to restore, repair,
upgrade, and bring the facility into compliance. Finally, the
NCSD needs additional resources to meet the increasing costs of
operation, including health insurance and salaries.
8:27:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired about the effectiveness of the
iPad regarding the special education students.
MR. GEBHART offered his belief that the iPad use has improved
student skills, but students have only used them for a year and
assessments have not yet been completed. He has observed iPads
being used for engagement in other activities and homework use.
8:28:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the iPads are used solely in
the classrooms or if they are checked out to students.
MR. GEBHART answered that the iPads are kept in the classroom,
including during the after school program which allows for some
extended use. Additionally, the iPads are shared. He cautioned
that at this point the center has just enough iPads for the
classroom so if someone left his other iPad at home it wouldn't
be available for class use.
8:29:46 AM
CHAIR DICK announced that a number of superintendents were
present in the audience, and he recognized each, which were:
Duncan Ware, Delta-Greely; Jim Nygaard, Cordova; Dave Herbert,
Cordova, Steve Bradshaw, Sitka; Michael Bier, Haines; Norman
Eck, Northwest Arctic; John Lamont, Lower Yukon; Gary Baldwin,
Lower Kuskokwim; Jack Walsh, Bristol Bay; Dave Piazza, Southwest
Region; Todd Poage, Alaska Gateway; Kerry Boyd, Yukon-Koyukuk,
Steve Atwood, Kenai Peninsula; Rob Thomason, Petersburg, and
Corrina Guardipee, Kake.
HB 256-REPEAL STATE INTERVENTION IN SCHOOLS
8:32:45 AM
CHAIR DICK announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 256, "An Act repealing provisions relating to the
power and duties of the Department of Education and Early
Development to intervene in a school district to improve
instructional practices." [Version X was before the committee.]
8:33:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 7,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 3, Line 18 to Page 4, Line 14:
The regulations adopted under AS
14.07.020(a)(2)(A)-(H) must be for the improvement of
instruction.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT noted the attached justification for the
amendment, which read [original punctuation provided]:
JUSTIFICATION:
The intent of this section is to incorporate
cultural standards, intensive early learning,
community involvement, etc. into regulations which are
promulgated for the improvement of instruction, not to
require the department to incorporate these goals into
every potential regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion.
8:33:16 AM
ANNETTE KREITZER, Staff, Representative Alan Dick, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, explained that Conceptual
Amendment 7 would address a concern the department had with
language on page 3, lines 19-22 of proposed Section 4. She
skimmed over portions of the language, including stating the
department shall ... study the conditions and needs of the
public schools of the state, adopt or recommend plans,
administer and evaluate grants to improve school performance
awarded under AS 14.03.125, and adopt regulations for the
improvement of the public schools. She explained the
department's concern is that every regulation would be subject
to all of the requirements listed beginning on page 3, line 23.
Conceptual Amendment 7 would require that the regulations
adopted under AS 14.07.020 (a)(2)(A)-(H) must be for the
improvement of instruction and would not apply to every
regulation that the department might have to promulgate.
8:34:46 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:34 a.m. to 8:35 a.m.
8:35:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked whether Conceptual Amendment 7
summarizes the language from page 3, line 18 through page 4,
line 14.
MS. KREITZER answered no; and explained the language is not
replaced. She highlighted that regulations adopted for the
statutes included on page 3, line 18 to page 4, line 14 must be
for the improvement of instruction. She clarified that language
is not being replaced, but noted that all of the things that
must be included in the regulations must be applicable to
improvement of instruction. She directed members' attention to
page 3 line 21 and read, "... adopt regulations for the
improvement of the public schools; ...." She explained that the
change is to reflect the goal is not for the improvement of
public schools but is for the improvement of instruction.
8:36:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON acknowledged he is confused. He asked
whether any language is being deleted.
MS. KREITZER answered no. She explained that Conceptual
Amendment 7 would clarify that regulations the department must
promulgate, including cultural standards and intensive early
learning, are regulations for the improvement of instruction and
not simply for improvement of the public schools.
8:37:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON clarified that Conceptual Amendment 7
is conceptual to allow the drafter to craft the appropriate
language and clarify the intent.
MS. KREITZER answered that is correct. She stated that the
sponsor wanted to avoid unintended consequences by inserting
language on page 3, line 22: "improvement of instruction."
8:38:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for a description of other
improvements of instruction.
MS. KREITZER deferred to the department.
8:38:54 AM
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), stated that the concern with the language was
all regulations would need to incorporate all the functions
required under proposed Section 4. He provided an example, such
that a regulation could change for a counselor's certificate or
the cut score on WorkKeys. Thus if the cut score was changed
the department would need to address all of items listed [in the
subparagraphs in proposed Section 4 (a) (2)] in its regulation.
He was concerned that every regulation that changed anything
having to do with education would need to be a page long since
it would necessitate that the department must incorporate all of
the functions listed in proposed Section 4. He offered his
belief that was not the intent of the language.
8:39:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to the justification portion
of Conceptual Amendment 7, which she understood is included for
the bill drafter.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY deferred to the drafter of the bill.
MS. KREITZER answered that is correct.
8:40:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection to Conceptual
Amendment 7. There being no further objection, Conceptual
Amendment 7 was adopted.
8:40:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 8,
which read, as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 6, Line 10:
DELETE
[two] AND
Insert three
Page 6, Line 15:
DELETE
[third] AND
Insert fourth
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion.
8:41:13 AM
MS. KREITZER explained that Conceptual Amendment 8 pertains to
the amount of time a school or district would need to
demonstrate consecutive years of improvement. The department
had concerns related to reducing the time from three to two
consecutive years. Additionally, Conceptual Amendment 8
reinserts three years of consecutive improvement and allows the
district to choose to receive restoration services for a fourth
year. She pointed out a typo in the proposed CS will be
corrected in the work draft.
CHAIR DICK indicated that the department had expressed concern
that the district must be doing well before it was released from
any intervention. He offered his belief that the department is
providing a tremendous service and he envisioned school
districts would want to receive the benefit. He emphasized this
change was important to the commissioner.
8:42:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked what help would be provided to
school districts.
CHAIR DICK recapped that year one allows evaluation by an expert
to evaluate the school district with respect to the criteria
described, including a student's preparedness to learn. The
first year a coach for the superintendent would be selected by
the superintendent and the department. Additionally, another
coach would be selected by the school board and the department.
He stated that in year two the superintendent could select his
or her own coach without the department's involvement in the
decision. The school board may also choose its own coach
without the department's assistance. He outlined that if no
improvement occurs, in year three a team effort would ensue.
8:44:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE referred to page 6, line 13, and asked
whether the two consecutive years of improvement should also be
changed to three years.
MS. KREITZER answered yes.
8:44:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Conceptual Amendment 8 on page 6, line 13 to change "two" to
"three." There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Conceptual Amendment 8 was adopted.
8:45:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the coaches in these
sections are the one week per month coaches initially
anticipated or if that has changed.
CHAIR DICK answered that he has wrestled with the question, but
ultimately decided the superintendent and the department or the
school board and the department could make the decision.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired as to the funding for the
coaches.
MS. KREITZER answered that judging by the fiscal note it would
be paid for by the department.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether Conceptual Amendment 8 would
significantly alter the fiscal note.
MS. KREITZER answered that a section in the bill, which has been
deleted, represents a $67,000 change. She stated that the
fiscal note would not be significantly changed.
8:46:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON wondered if the school districts could
require the department to provide coaches for the superintendent
for professional development and to the school board for a
fourth year. He suggested it seems like it would be a
unilateral decision by the school district, especially if the
school district chose to have full-time coaches. He just wanted
to ensure that this bill would essentially not allow the
district to have an assistant superintendent, a school
counselor, or administrator paid for by the state instead of the
coaches intended under the bill. He offered his support for
improvements, but he wanted to make sure the committee
understands the complexities. Furthermore, the bill needs to
determine whether the coaches will be the current coaches and
define the funding support. However, he cautioned that a full-
time coach living in a rural district would represent a very
different financial obligation than a professional development
coach who would fly in on occasion to a district. He expressed
concern the bill may leave the definitions so broad that it is
not possible to determine the funding.
8:49:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON pointed out that since the plan is now
a four-year versus a three-year plan so some dates and other
adjustments will need to be changed in the bill. She asked
whether HB 256 should be revised to ensure all sections reflect
the change to the fourth year.
MS. KREITZER answered that currently a school district can
petition the department to continue restoration activities.
This bill allows a school district the choice to select
restoration services for the fourth year. She related her
understanding from discussions with the commissioner that
continuing for a fourth year would be a decision between the
department and the specific school district.
8:50:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked for clarification of what occurs in
the fourth year if no improvement in the school district has
occurred in the first three years.
CHAIR DICK related his understanding that the team - the
superintendent, school board member, the four coaches, and a
representative from the EED and the Board of Education - will
develop a plan in the third year that will be implemented and
evaluated. He offered his belief that it would take three years
before the team could evaluate whether the plan is having a
positive impact on the school district.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT related his understanding the plan would
start after coaching for three years.
CHAIR DICK clarified that the restoration would entail coaches
for two years, and in year three the plan is implemented by the
superintendent.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT restated that the restoration would entail
a three-year plan. He asked whether the team would then
formulate another plan. He questioned why the plan would not be
started in the first year or earlier on in the process.
CHAIR DICK offered his belief the restoration plan will work.
He elaborated that rural school districts are isolated and
people are sometimes too close to the problem to identify it.
He suggested minimal intervention may be all that is required,
such as if a superintendent was coached for five days at the
beginning of the year. However, coaching for potentially five
days four times a year may be all that is necessary. He
suggested such assistance would be beneficial for the
superintendent and the school board. He stated his intent is
not to micromanage superintendents.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT highlighted the gravity of the situation
since children will be affected. Thus some follow through may
be necessary to ensure the children are positively affected
during this process.
8:54:03 AM
CHAIR DICK asked Representative P. Wilson to clarify an earlier
suggestion for evaluation.
8:54:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to page 8, line 27 to sub-
paragraph (iv), which read:
development of a three-year plan by the team
established under (ii) of this subparagraph to restore
the school; during the three-year plan, the team may
redirect funding in the district budget to improve
instruction; the superintendent shall implement the
plan developed by the team; each year, at the end of
the school year, the team shall evaluate and adjust
the plan as the team determines necessary;
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested additional language be
included if a fourth year will be considered. She explained
that would be for the protection of the school and to give the
department guidance. She highlighted that the committee has
been very careful thus far and she supported adding additional
language for clarification.
8:55:42 AM
CHAIR DICK considered the plan as a five-year plan, including
two years of coaching, and in the third year a team would be
brought in to develop an additional two-year plan.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON questioned the reason to wait two
years, which seemed to be too long of a time period.
CHAIR DICK answered in part, due to the fiscal impact and
additionally, that under NCLB it would amount to five years
prior to any action being taken.
8:56:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE offered his belief that the coaches may
identify the problem and resolve the issues in the first two
years so there wouldn't be any need to go into the three-year
plan. He reiterated the trigger for the additional restoration
only happens if the coaching fails. He directed attention to
page 6, line 19, to Representative Pruitt's point, that during
instrument landings pilots believe it is a good idea to have a
"missed approach procedure," which has been addressed by having
the department to cover the eventuality.
8:58:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection to Conceptual
Amendment 8. There being no further objection, Conceptual
Amendment 8, as amended, was adopted.
8:58:45 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY directed attention to page 4, which excludes
the ability to appoint a trustee. He reminded the committee
that under Moore v. State of Alaska the court clarified the role
and responsibility to provide oversight and support for school
districts; however, a trustee was not indicated. He related the
decision required the state to provide more direct support for
schools that are chronically underperforming. He reported that
numerous steps could be taken, but currently the department is
providing coaches and some technical support, as well as a
trustee in one school district. He surmised this may very well
address what the judge ruled in terms of direct support. He
offered his belief that this bill - which is different than what
the department is currently doing - holds the state and the
department accountable and requires accountability for the
school districts, as well.
9:00:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to language on page 8,
line 29, which pertain to the development of a three-year
restoration plan. He explained that one option included in that
plan is the team may redirect funding in the district budget to
improve instruction. He asked whether that would provide the
same ability as has been available to the trustee. Further, he
asked whether the team would have the same power and authority
that the trustee had held.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered yes, although he noted the power
has not been given to the trustee since the authority rests with
EED. The department would need to come before the legislature
prior to an intervention to redirect funds. He confirmed that
the provision would not change the department's existing
authority.
9:01:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the department is
comfortable with the team make-up described in Version X of HB
256. He further asked whether it would satisfy the requirements
under Moore v. State of Alaska.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that he did not believe the
authority changes; however, the make-up of the team is different
and outside influence and vision could be helpful. He indicated
that in the case of schools that had been underperforming for
years, the ruling applies specifically to the school district
that "has been unwilling or unable" to make the corrections on
their own. He emphasized the importance of having an outside
person since an internal team would struggle to see the
conditions they currently face. He reiterated before funds are
redirected it would be necessary to come to the legislature to
seek reappropriation.
9:03:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON highlighted that currently many coaches
are not teachers in schools, but come from the ranks of retired
teachers. She pointed out that Amendment 9 would require the
coaches be selected by the superintendent and the local school
board and will be from districts designated as high performance
districts by the department.
CHAIR DICK remarked that two issues are being discussed. He
related his understanding that Amendment 9 speaks to the coach
for the school board and not the superintendent.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said he did not fully understand how a coach
as currently defined, which would require extensive time, would
be able to be pulled from a high-performing district so it is
difficult to have those two jobs. He was unsure how that would
work.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:05 a.m. to 9:07 a.m.
9:07:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 9,
which read, as follows [original punctuation provided]:
One coach from a high performance school district
shall be selected by the local school board;
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT noted the attached justification for the
amendment, which read [original punctuation provided]:
JUSTIFICATION:
The coach selected by the local school board in year
2, will be from a district designated as a high
performance district by the department under AS
14.03.123.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion.
9:08:09 AM
MS. KREITZER clarified that Conceptual Amendment 9 relates to
the second year of restoration activities. She referred to page
8, line 4, and stated that the coaches would be selected by the
superintendent, plus one coach would be selected by the local
school board would be a coach from a high performance school
district.
9:08:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON pointed out that the coaches don't
normally come from the school district, but usually come from
retired teaching staff or superintendents who are trained and
contracted to do the service. She cautioned that Conceptual
Amendment 9 changes the current selection process and would
create an added expense since new coaches would need to be
trained. She characterized this as a significant difference in
cost especially as more schools become out of compliance. It
represents an unfunded mandate, and the committee needs to
decide how this should be handled. She emphasized the
importance of identifying funding and questioned whether the
legislature is willing to increase funding to that level. She
related her understanding the current coaches would not be used,
but would come from a high-performance school district.
9:10:30 AM
CHAIR DICK referred to page 9, lines 3-4, which indicates the
funding for restoration would be subject to appropriation by the
legislature. A coach could be chosen at will, but the language
indicates the person must be of quality and must have expertise.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON questioned whether a district would
have a coach available or if a person could be spared from
regular duties to coach.
CHAIR DICK related his understanding that the school board only
meets four times per year for three or four days each session.
He related a scenario in which school board "A" wants to draw a
coach from school district "D" - noting that district "D" has an
effective school board - so school board "A" would take one of
the school board members from school district "D" as a coach to
help the school district.
9:12:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether the coaches would be
taken from the state board [of Education] or another school
board.
CHAIR DICK answered that it would be from another school board.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON related her understanding that all
school boards meet each month.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked for the department's response.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON restated the question for the benefit
of the commissioner. She related her understanding that coaches
are not necessarily working in a school, but are contracted out
by the department to work as coaches.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that the department hires coaches -
as resources allow - so the EED does not have coaches standing
by who are not working. The only ones currently employed have
tasks around the state. He anticipated that this provision
would require an additional coach, which is reflected by the
fiscal note. He was unsure about the availability of high-
performance school district coaches. He related his
understanding that the department would hire another coach for
the restoration school districts by choosing from the pool of
current employees in high-performance districts.
9:14:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said it seemed that the coaches would be
elected members of a local school board from a high-performing
school district. He was unsure whether voluntary members that
have been elected by a local region - who understand the local
region and constituents - could be pulled from a place, such as
Anchorage, to go to a single-site rural district to coach the
school board to improve its function. He asked for further
clarification as to whether the parameters he laid out are
correct.
CHAIR DICK responded that was his intent as the sponsor. He
remarked that Norm Wooten from Kodiak is a good example. He
coaches many school boards throughout the state. He related his
goal was to have someone comparable to Mr. Wooten in a high-
performance school district assist other school boards to help
improve their performance. He offered to dismiss it and move on
if the coach concept is too complicated.
9:16:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON acknowledged this provision intends to
use a school board member as a coach in other school districts
and would not envision using a teacher from the high-performance
school district.
CHAIR DICK related a scenario in which a coaching circumstance
could happen.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested that Conceptual Amendment 9
should stipulate that since the amendment indicates "one coach
from a high performance school district shall be selected by the
local school board;" however she understands that is not the
sponsor's intent.
9:17:46 AM
CHAIR DICK suggested an amendment to Conceptual Amendment 9
might indicate, "one coach from a functioning school board of a
high performance school district shall be selected by the local
school board." The intent would be to have a quality coach from
a school district that is doing well to help the school board in
a school district that needs restoration.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered that what may not have been
originally captured is the concept that the coach would be a
member of the elected school board. He suggested including the
language would be helpful.
9:19:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Conceptual Amendment 9, to read, "One coach who is a school
board member from a high performance school district shall be
selected by the local school board." There being no objection
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Conceptual Amendment 9 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection to Conceptual
Amendment 9. There being no further objection Conceptual
Amendment 9, as amended, was adopted.
9:20:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to original Conceptual Amendment
9 and offered to identify the amendment since two amendments
were on the table titled "Conceptual Amendment 9." Conceptual
Amendment 9, just adopted read, as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Page 8, Line 4:
One coach from a high performance school district
shall be selected by the local school board;
The amendment had attached justification, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
JUSTIFICATION:
The coach selected by the local school board in year
2, will be from a district designated as a high
performance district by the department under AS
14.03.123.
9:21:22 AM
CHAIR DICK, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 256.
9:21:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 256, labeled 27-LS1171\X,
Luckhaupt/Mischel, 2/27/12, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, the CSHB 256(EDC) was reported from
the House Education Standing Committee.
9:22:05 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:22 a.m. to 9:24 a.m.
HB 272-STUDENT LOAN INTEREST REDUCTIONS
9:24:05 AM
CHAIR DICK announced that the final order of business would be
2d SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 272, "An Act providing
for a reduction in interest on postsecondary education loans for
residents."
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for 2d SSHB 272, labeled 27-LS1162\R,
Luckhaupt/Mischel, 3/2/12, as the working document.
9:24:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion.
9:24:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, stated that
he consulted with Diane Barrans, Executive Director,
Postsecondary Education Commission and members of the committee
to identify their concerns with HB 272. The proposed committee
substitute (CS) incorporates changes to address the concerns.
He stated that the intent of HB 272 is to limit the "brain
drain" in Alaska by assisting to reduce the student loan burden.
The most current version of the bill would clarify that the
student loan reduction applies to students who attend school out
of state and return home and to students who attend school in
the state and remain here. It would clarify, pursuant to a
comment by Representative Seaton, that the interest rate
reduction would not apply until the course work was completed.
Additionally, it would clarify an issue Representative Feige
raised on the residency standard. The bill would impose the
strictest allowable under the U.S. Constitution, essentially the
permanent fund program's residency standard, so applicants must
be in Alaska for one year before they are eligible to apply for
the student loan reduction. Those items have been incorporated
in the proposed committee substitute (CS), Version R of HB 272,
as well as a recommendation by Diane Barrans to reduce the
principal rather than the interest rate. This change has been
incorporated in Version R for ease of administration and
potential staff reduction. He described the details of the
reduction, such that the interest rate would be eight percent
and the principal would be reduced by three percent.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said the school loans were in the red
at one point and she asked whether this bill would jeopardize
the current financial situation.
9:28:28 AM
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director, Postsecondary Education
Commission, Department of Education and Early Development (EED),
stated the approach taken in the revised bill has been handled
cautiously. The benefit to residents who qualify is only
available if the legislature appropriates the funds and removes
the process from the corporation. Thus the corporation does not
have any liability for the benefit. The bill contains a
provision to indicate that if sufficient funds are not available
to allocate the three percent reduction there will be a pro-rata
distribution. This will help ensure the consequences of the old
forgiveness program do not occur again. She described technical
changes, such that the prior forgiveness led young people to
borrow money with the assumption they only had to repay a
portion of the loan; however, conditions applied, including that
the borrower needed to complete his or her degree and live in
the state. She pointed out that many borrowers failed to meet
the requirements and were left with a much greater debt than
they anticipated.
9:30:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON related her understanding that the
legislature will approve the funding each year.
MS. BARRANS answered that is correct.
9:30:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether Ms. Barrans had a copy of
Version R.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA highlighted the main change in Version R is
that the benefit will not occur until a degree is completed by a
student, which will reduce the fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to page 2, lines 2-3
and asked for clarification on how this language works in
conjunction with lines 12 and 13, which states the reduction of
the principal of the loan provided under this section is in
addition to any other available reduction of the principal.
MS. BARRANS referred to page 2, lines 2 and 3 and stated the
sponsor developed the language as an attempt to ensure that if
students qualify for loan reductions via another program - such
as a Teacher Education Loan Program - or they qualify for loan
forgiveness through another state program it disqualifies the
students from the loan reduction. In other words, the borrowers
would not be able to "double dip." She explained that lines 12-
13 permit borrowers who might qualify for other benefits to
receive benefits from programs, such as the Alaska Student Loan
Corporation's (ASLC) recurring automated payment discount of a
quarter of a percent. She highlighted that if students qualify
for another discount the applicants remain eligible for the
proposed student loan reduction.
9:34:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the language on page 2, lines
2 and 3, "fully repaid" and related his understanding this means
a loan would need to be completely paid off to qualify for the
forgiveness.
MS. BARRANS related that is her understanding, but deferred to
the sponsor to clarify.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA answered that two discounts are possible,
including the WWAMI discount and Teacher Education Loan Program
discount, in which the loan is fully repaid if the conditions
are met. He explained that these students would not receive a
three percent discount since their loans are fully repaid. He
pointed out that minimal reductions occur when students pay
their loans online, as previously stated. He indicated the
reduction proposed in HB 272 will be in addition to those types
of discounts.
9:35:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 2, lines 4-5, which
pertain to when borrowers complete their degrees in a timely
manner. He asked whether a timely manner is a term of art or if
it mean it is not prolonged for 20 years.
MS. BARRANS answered that subsection (e) allows the commission
to adopt by regulation a description of timely completion. She
offered her belief the commission would likely adopt the
national standard, which is within 150 percent of the degree
length, so if a four-year degree is completed in six years it
would be considered a timely completion. If the student took
longer than that time period the student would not qualify for
the reduction. Similarly, if a student finishes a two-year
degree in three years it would be timely. She acknowledged that
she is speculating since the commission would need to decide.
9:37:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE suggested the intent of HB 272 is to pay
off loans for students who live in Alaska and attend school or
attend school outside and have returned to Alaska. He related a
scenario in which a pilot attends a university in the Lower 48
obtains an aviation degree. He has a student loan to repay, but
Alaska has plenty of pilots. He questioned the benefit to the
state to offer reductions on student loans for pilots and
whether the bill should be restricted to particular skills, and
if so, it would also reduce the fiscal note.
9:39:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA proceeded to a full bill presentation. He
stated that the intent of HB 272 is to assist residents who
leave for educational purposes to return to the state to ensure
Alaska has a strong work force. He acknowledged that it is too
costly to forgive everyone's student loans. He explained the
bill came about when he discovered he could get a car loan at
his credit union at a 2.5 percent interest rate. However,
students pay eight percent interest rate on their student loans,
or triple the amount of the current rate of inflation. He
suggested that when students return to Alaska they often have a
student loan, a mortgage, and start families. The impetus of
the student loan reduction is to value education. He stated
that the state has a 38-40 percent departure rate, which means
38-40 percent of students who leave Alaska for higher
educational purposes do not return to Alaska. He offered his
belief that the state would rather encourage Alaskans to come
home and fill the jobs. He stated this is good for families,
will keep the state cohesive, and will help keep Alaska's jobs
for Alaskans. As the sponsor of HB 272, he has tried to address
concerns and limit the fiscal note. He acknowledged that people
outside Alaska can fill some jobs, but the state should
encourage Alaskans to fill many jobs. The state invests
approximately $5,000 to $15,000 per student each year in grade
school alone. The investment is paid off when these students
grow up and take jobs in Alaska. He would like to avoid what
happens in the oil industry, which is that employees come to
Alaska for two weeks and leave to go home to the Lower 48;
instead, Alaskans should be working on the North Slope and
returning to their homes in Fairbanks, Stony River, or elsewhere
in the state. He related that the bill indicates anyone in
default is eliminated during loan defaults. He mentioned the
letters of support received in order to help alleviate testimony
time on the record. He emphasized that given the economy in
which wages are not rising college graduates cannot afford a
loan rate triple or quadruple the rate of inflation.
Additionally, the ASLC can restrict benefits if the proposed
reduction will bring a student loan rate to under a three
percent interest rate. Thus the bill sets a floor that the
minimum rate should be three percent unless by regulation the
ASLC determines a lower rate is justified.
9:44:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA reiterated that the student loan rate should
be in line with mortgage rates, used-car interest rates, or the
rate of inflation. He cautioned that he did not blame the ASLC
for the current rate since the legislature covers some costs.
He acknowledged the ASLC cannot pay for this benefit. He
explained that the bill is modeled after the WWAMI Program and
the Teacher Education Loan Program (TELP) and the constitution
allows the state to require a one-year residency. Further, the
bill avoids the pitfalls the ASLC faced by making students pay
the discount; however, if the ASLC has funds it could also
decide to pay a dividend to the state. The goal is to ensure
that Alaskans have jobs in the state and avoid any impediments
to move back to the state. He said, "It's good for the economy.
It's good for families to help keep them together and we think
it is a modest approach instead of going the old approach, which
was talking about loan forgiveness every year that the state
cannot afford." He concluded that the proposed CS was drafted
to meet concerns raised.
9:46:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON withdrew objection to Version R. There
being no further objections, Version R was before the committee.
9:46:33 AM
MOIRA SMITH, Attorney, stated she would give a quick background,
identify some of the perverse economic incentives, and give her
view on the value of having Alaskans return to the state. She
provided a brief history, including that she was raised in
Juneau, attended Georgetown University, received her
undergraduate degree in 1998, and graduated from law school in
2007. She said she took out student loans for each law school
year. She reported that at this point she has one undergraduate
student loan left, which is her Alaska Student Loan. Prior to
consolidating her loans she had four separate loans with
interest rates ranging from eight to nine percent. She
consolidated her loans, which reduced the interest rate to 6.25
percent. This interest rate is still higher than all but one of
her student loans. She thought it was important to identify
loans other than her Alaska student loan to put things in
context. She indicated she currently has about $170,000 in
student loans, except for her Alaska student loan, which has a
balance of $17,000 for law school expenses. She stated that the
interest rate on her loans range from 2.75 percent to 6.55
percent. The Alaska student loan is the second highest among
all her loans and the average interest rate on her loans is 4.38
percent.
MS. SMITH continued by discussing incentives. She acknowledged
that she made the choice to attend law school, but she attended
a state school. She could have taken up residency and paid in-
state tuition - which would have saved her thousands of dollars
per year - but she chose out-of-state tuition since she wanted
to return to Alaska. Further, she also had an opportunity to
join her friends at large law firms, but she did not interview
for those jobs since the jobs were in major cities outside
Alaska. She highlighted that the first-year salaries in Alaska
are less than half of the $160,000 that San Francisco and other
major cities pay their first-year lawyers. She emphasized that
these are the very real economic incentives that can lead
Alaskans to stay away. Unfortunately, there are not any
countervailing economic incentives to return to Alaska. She
acknowledged there are other reasons to want to live in Alaska,
but just not any economic reasons. Finally, she offered her
belief that it is worthwhile to have students return to the
state. She acknowledged that Alaska absolutely benefits from
having transplants live in Alaska, but other reasons exist for
having students return home to Alaska. She acknowledged her
daughter's time with her grandparents is invaluable and would
happen less frequently if she had chosen to live in San
Francisco. She thought it was a good idea to reverse some of
the "brain drain." Additionally, she noted that many Alaskan
students have to leave the state to attain some higher degrees
and HB 272 is a way to provide an incentive to bring these
students home.
9:51:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked whether she freely made decisions.
MS. SMITH agreed her decisions were all freely made. She said
she did not want to whine. She said she repays her loans in
good faith and is not complaining about her economic burden;
instead, she is reiterating there is a means to incentivize
students to return to Alaska, even for lawyers.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked what type of law she practices.
MS. SMITH answered primarily oil and gas.
9:52:44 AM
CHAIR DICK, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 272.
9:52:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON indicated that he serves as the
legislative member of the Western Interstate Commission on
Higher Education (WICHE), which includes all western states. He
reported that the level of education in Alaska has deteriorated.
Alaska previously was one of the highest-educated states in the
nation with the most number of graduates. Alaska has now fallen
way down on the list and it makes the state unattractive for
many industries. He explained that industries often consider
the level of education of residents when they are considering a
location. He offered to provide statistics to the committee.
He said the bill will help to reverse this situation. He
pointed out that a highly educated citizenry is very important
to the state. He reiterated this is data that is considered
when a company considers expanding to a new area. The purpose
of the bill should be to look at retaining and bring back highly
educated people who can contribute to our communities, whether
they are taking a particular job or not.
9:56:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA added that Alaska ranks last among college
attendance and completion. He suggested that the marginal
benefits in terms of salary may not make it worth it to remain
or return to Alaska. He said the bill may help those statistics
improve. Also, it is important to encourage students to return
home from school in the Lower 48 since the money circulates and
stays in the economy, which is good for other businesses since
it provides a ripple effect. Further, it would help make Alaska
a stronger state. He pointed out the UA spends twice as much on
a resident student than a student who pays full tuition.
Therefore, it costs the state money to send a student through
the UA system. He concluded that the bill will save money by
allowing students to attend the school of their choice and give
them a three-percent reduction on their return.
9:58:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE took issue with the analogy of an 8 percent
student loan versus a 2-3 percent car loan, which is not
necessarily applicable because of the difference in the risk
involved. He stated that interest rates are set commensurate
with the risk on the loan. Higher rate loans are typically
riskier for banks to offer. He explained that banks can
repossess a car, but a student taking out a college loan who
later defaults on the loan does not provide the bank with
anything to collect; thus the reason for the higher interest
rate on a student loan versus a car loan.
9:59:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested a graph regarding the current
default rate and an opinion from the department regarding
whether this bill will have an effect. Additionally, he asked
whether the department views the three-percent reduction as
unprofitable for the ASLC.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to the six statutes cited in
the bill and asked for further information.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA agreed to provide the information to the
committee. In further response to Representative Seaton, he
answered that the ASLC does not pay for the discount from its
assets since the funds are subject to appropriation by the
legislature.
10:01:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to page 2, line 6, which
states that the reduction is subject to appropriation by the
legislature. She asked for clarification on the process and
whether the legislature will receive a report.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA answered that is the current process for
WWAMI, and the TELP. He explained they know how much these
programs will cost and if the estimates are wrong supplemental
funding is requested. The legislature has never chosen not to
fund those programs so the funding has been continuous. He
anticipated if HB 272 passes that the legislature will provide
funding.
10:02:50 AM
MS. BARRANS clarified how the WWAMI program is funded. The
WWAMI program is front loaded by a general fund appropriation to
support the cost of the program. All of the funds are provided
when the students begin to participate in the program so
essentially funds are not collected back from WWAMI graduates if
they practice in the state. Thus the structure is quite
different than what is being proposed in HB 272. Further, she
indicated the Teacher Education Loan Program (TELP) is a small
program. It is not supported by general funds and there are not
any appropriations associated with it. The program existed and
was disclosed in bond documents when the corporation that
originally began the program issued bonds. The TELP is funded
by the ASLC. It is such a small program with fewer than 90
students per year who qualify for the TELP. Further, the
success rate is relatively low for the number of teachers who
complete the degrees in qualifying schools. Therefore, the cost
is absorbed by the ASLC, but it is minimal. She emphasized that
HB 272 takes a very different approach and will be contingent on
legislative appropriations each year based on the number of
applicants eligible.
[HB 272, Version R, was held over.]
10:05:06 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:05 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CS to 2nd SS HB 272 Version T Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 3/5/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 272 |
| CS for 2nd SSHB272 Version T.pdf |
HEDC 3/5/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 272 |
| CS for 2nd SSHB272 Backup - Student loan rates.pdf |
HEDC 3/5/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 272 |
| 2nd SS HB272-EED-ACPE-02-28-12.pdf |
HEDC 3/5/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 272 |
| CS HB256 (EDC)-DOA-DAS-3-2-2012.pdf |
HEDC 3/5/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 256 |
| CS HB256 Version X -EED-TLS-3-2-12.pdf |
HEDC 3/5/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 256 |
| 2nd CS SS HB 272 Version R 03 02 12 Legal Memo.pdf |
HEDC 3/5/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 272 |
| CS for 2nd SSHB272 Version R.pdf |
HEDC 3/5/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 272 |