Legislature(2021 - 2022)DAVIS 106
03/16/2022 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
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 | |
| HB108 | |
| HB48 | |
| SB198 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 173 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 335 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 108 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 48 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 350 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 198 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 16, 2022
8:08 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Harriet Drummond, Co-Chair
Representative Andi Story, Co-Chair
Representative Tiffany Zulkosky
Representative Grier Hopkins
Representative Mike Prax
Representative Mike Cronk
Representative Ronald Gillham
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 108
"An Act relating to concurrent vocational education, training,
and on-the-job trade experience programs for students enrolled
in public secondary schools; relating to child labor; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 48
"An Act relating to the Alaska performance scholarship program."
- MOVED CSSSHB 48 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 198
"An Act providing that Rampart School is located within the
Yukon-Koyukuk School District regional educational attendance
area; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED SB 198 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 173
"An Act relating to state education policy; relating to school
climate and connectedness; establishing the School Climate and
School Connectedness Improvement Committee; and providing for an
effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 335
"An Act providing that Rampart School is located within the
Yukon-Koyukuk School District regional educational attendance
area; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 350
"An Act relating to school bond debt reimbursement; and
providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 108
SHORT TITLE: CONCURRENT SECONDARY & TRADE SCHOOL
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MCCARTY
02/22/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/21 (H) EDC, L&C, FIN
04/09/21 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
04/09/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/09/21 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
02/23/22 (H) EDC AT 3:30 PM DAVIS 106
02/23/22 (H) Heard & Held
02/23/22 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/04/22 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
03/04/22 (H) Heard & Held
03/04/22 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/14/22 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
03/14/22 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/16/22 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
BILL: HB 48
SHORT TITLE: AK PERFORMANCE SCHOLARSHIP; ELIGIBILITY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) STORY
02/18/21 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/21
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) EDC, FIN
04/12/21 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
04/12/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/12/21 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/28/21 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
04/28/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/28/21 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
02/22/22 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
02/22/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/22 (H) EDC, FIN
02/25/22 (H) EDC AT 9:00 AM DAVIS 106
02/25/22 (H) Heard & Held
02/25/22 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/04/22 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
03/04/22 (H) Heard & Held
03/04/22 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/14/22 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
03/14/22 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/16/22 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
BILL: SB 198
SHORT TITLE: RAMPART SCHOOL: YUKON-KOYUKUK DISTRICT
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/16/22 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/16/22 (S) EDC
02/25/22 (S) EDC RPT 5DP
02/25/22 (S) DP: HOLLAND, HUGHES, STEVENS, MICCICHE,
BEGICH
02/25/22 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/25/22 (S) Moved SB 198 Out of Committee
02/25/22 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
03/09/22 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/09/22 (S) VERSION: SB 198
03/14/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/14/22 (H) EDC
03/16/22 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE KEN MCCARTY
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, provided information and
answered questions on HB 108.
HEIDI TESHNER, Acting Deputy Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 108; presented SB
198 on behalf of the sponsor, House Rules by request of the
governor.
DEBORAH RIDDLE, Division Operations Manager
Innovation and Education Excellence
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
108.
LAURIE THOMAS, President
Yukon Flats School Board
Fort Yukon, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 198.
GRACE BEAUJEAN, Research Analyst
Division of Community and Regional Affairs
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on SB 198.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:08:29 AM
CO-CHAIR ANDI STORY called the House Education Standing
Committee meeting to order at [8:08] a.m. Representatives
Cronk, Gillham, Prax, Hopkins, Drummond, and Story were present
at the call to order. Representative Zulkosky arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 108-CONCURRENT SECONDARY & TRADE SCHOOL
8:10:04 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 108, "An Act relating to concurrent vocational
education, training, and on-the-job trade experience programs
for students enrolled in public secondary schools; relating to
child labor; and providing for an effective date."
[The committee adopted an amendment to HB 108 at its last
hearing of the bill on 3/4/2022.]
8:10:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KEN MCCARTY, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, offered that the main concern of HB 108 would be the
funding for the career and technical education (CTE) programs in
the school districts. He stated that the Juneau School District
(JSD) is taking on a $45 million expansion project, which
includes $7 million in employee benefits. He stated that the
focus of the benefit package is retention of JDS's workforce.
He added that the district has cited the importance of having a
younger workforce that is invested in the community to create
longevity. He stressed that investing in the careers of youth
in communities is a theme throughout the state. He offered the
opinion that, when the workforce comes from out of state, people
do not necessarily stay and work for their lifetime in the
state.
8:12:14 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY remarked that, during the previous hearing on HB
108, an amendment was adopted that changed the responsibility
for negotiating CTE contracts from the Department of Education
and Early Development (DEED) to the school districts. She
pointed out that the amendment would also designate the school
districts to fund tuition for CTE programs. She voiced concern
over the districts "having the dollars" to contract with CTE
vendors and fund the programs. She questioned whether districts
have responded to funding the programs.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY replied that the districts requested the
amendment, as they would have better knowledge about the
available resources for contracting in their communities.
CO-CHAIR STORY stated that a letter of support from the Nome
Public Schools (NPS) communicated that the district may not have
the means to support CTE programs. She added that JSD also
expressed concerns about the resources to pay for the
contracting. She questioned whether there has been a
conversation with NPS since the amendment passed.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY answered that there has been outreach to
NPS with no response.
CO-CHAIR STORY stated that she also reached out to NPS to no
avail, noting that there are industry partners funding some of
the CTE programs. She requested that Representative McCarty
review the process, from the school districts' perspective, so
the committee could understand how the agreement would be made
to pay the tuition, and how the individual learning plans would
all work together.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY responded that school counselors in
secondary schools follow guidelines to ensure students have
completed the required curriculum before graduation. The school
counselor tracks students, so that by senior year, the counselor
knows which classes are needed for students to graduate. He
stated that the process of following students through the CTE
programs would be same. The CTE classes would be considered
electives, as the industry creates the criteria. He stated that
the counselor would follow concurrent classes, like math and
science, along with the CTE classes. He made the distinction
that, if the student attends a program that has not contracted
with the school district, then the school district would not be
responsible for the tuition. He stated that the districts
expressed they would have reservations about the legislation if
DEED were responsible for the CTE contracts.
8:19:56 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND stated that school districts have been cutting
staff and, unfortunately, school counselors have been cut the
most. She stated that teachers are teaching, doing prep,
grading tests, and now, acting as counselors. She stressed that
they do not have the time. She pointed out many of the
committee members have been on school boards in the past, and
they understand the concern over fiscal notes. She warned that
the fiscal note may show zero dollars, but the result of 54
schools in the state delivering curricula may reflect
differently. She stated that the legislation would have a
fiscal note of almost $400,000 for the first year, $600,000 for
the second year, and close to $900,000 for the third year. She
argued that, unless each district comes forward to speak on the
issue, it would be difficult to know the costs. She expressed
interest in hearing from DEED on the issue. She said that, not
including DEED's basic budget, costs would approach $1 million
in the out years. She stated that it would be best to know the
costs to school districts before going forward with the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY related that the Kensington Mine
presented an idea for investment into CTE programs.
8:23:13 AM
HEIDI TESHNER, Acting Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Education and Early Development, stated that there should be an
updated fiscal note and directed that concern to DEED's
operation manager.
8:23:40 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:23 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.
8:30:56 AM
DEBORAH RIDDLE, Division Operations Manager, Innovation and
Education Excellence, Department of Education and Early
Development, responded to questions on the fiscal note for HB
108. She stated that the original fiscal note looked at
requirements for DEED to be able to negotiate contracts and
administer part of the tuition for [CTE programs]. It was
determined that DEED would need part of a staff position to work
as an education specialist at $129,400 per year. This amount
includes charge backs of $5,000. She stated that the tuition
per student would be estimated at $1,000 each year. She
surmised that the tuition would ease costs and incentivize
vendors and organizations to work with students. She stated
that DEED anticipated the number of students to be 250 students
for the first year, 500 for the second year, and 750 for the
third year. She stated there is also a one-time increment of
$6,000 for regulation changes. She indicated that, if the
committee adopted the proposed committee substitute, then the
costs to DEED would be less. She stated that the new fiscal
note would be about $6,000 for regulation fees. She stated that
the new fiscal note would not be written until the committee
substitute [is adopted].
8:35:02 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND clarified that the correct fiscal note was
before the committee. She questioned how DEED would spend the
$1,000 per student.
MS. RIDDLE responded that the $1,000 per student would be an
incentive to help defer the costs on the districts. In a
response to a follow-up question, she stated that the
distribution of the tuition is yet to be determined, and the
money would either go to the districts or directly to the
employer.
8:36:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS questioned whether the committee
substitute needs to be adopted before DEED could discuss the
impacts of the amendment.
MS. RIDDLE responded that, if DEED would no longer have the
responsibility of contracting, a new formal fiscal note for the
committee substitute would need to be reworked. She deferred to
Ms. Teshner.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS speculated that, if there is not a
centralized organization negotiating with CTE vendors, districts
could be looking at $2,000 or $3,000 per student, unless the
[tuition fee] is controlled within the bill. He stated that,
while it is a wonderful idea for a program, it would be
interesting to see the costs once the committee substitute is
adopted. In response to Co-Chair Story, he said that the
committee substitute would be drafted by Legislative Legal
Services with the bill sponsor, and then the committee would
possibly get the fiscal notes. He stated this could happen
going into the next committee of referral, or it could happen in
this committee.
8:38:38 AM
MS. TESHNER, in response to Co-Chair Story, stated that once the
committee substitute is adopted, DEED would proceed with
finalizing the revised fiscal note. She stated that DEED would
no longer be managing the contracts, but there would be a small
fee of $6,000 for regulation changes. In response to a follow-
up question concerning the $1,000 tuition fee, she stated that
DEED would only have the regulation cost. She deferred to Ms.
Riddle for clarification.
8:40:02 AM
MS. RIDDLE answered that, if DEED would no longer be handling
CTE contracts, the $1,000 tuition fee would then go to the
school districts.
MS. TESHNER responded to Co-Chair Story that it would be up to
the will of the committee whether districts or DEED pay the
tuition fee of $1,000 per student.
8:40:50 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND suggested that the committee substitute be
drafted, with the amendment, so DEED would be able to generate
the appropriate fiscal notes. She stated that once the majority
of costs shift from DEED to another entity, DEED would still
have a cost of about $130,000 a year for the new education
specialist, plus the regulation cost. She surmised that the
other funds would go to the school districts. She questioned
whether DEED would generate a fiscal note that shows money going
to school districts or the school districts would report the
expected costs.
MS. TESHNER stated that the school districts would have to
inform DEED of the costs, but it would not be reflected in a
fiscal note. She expressed the understanding that the staff
position in the current fiscal note would not be needed under
the new committee substitute.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND suggested that the committee proceed with the
committee substitute so the fiscal impact for DEED and school
districts could be understood. She said, "Should it turn out to
an unfunded mandate, that's not a bad thing, because ... school
districts need to be properly funded to deliver the curriculum
that best serves their students, and their communities, and
their workforce needs." She stressed that [the costs] would
need to be understood before the bill moves out of committee.
She stated that the responsibility of the House Education
Standing Committee is to ultimately oversee the 54 school
districts and the costs that may be imposed on them.
8:42:57 AM
MS. TESHNER, in response to Co-Chair Story, explained that once
DEED receives the committee substitute, the fiscal notes could
be produced quickly.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed confusion and stated the belief
that the proposed legislation would "permit" the school
districts to provide CTE, but it would not "mandate" them to do
so. He expressed the understanding that the difference would be
the ability to contract with an employer or apprenticeship
program outside of school districts to do the actual work.
CO-CHAIR STORY responded that, according to the current version
of the legislation, secondary schools "shall" pay the program
tuition. In example, she said that a school would work with an
industry partner contracted to pay the tuition for a student.
She suggested that the bill sponsor respond to Representative
Prax.
8:45:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY responded that the goal of the
legislation would be to advance programs that offer career
feasibility to students within the education system. If a
school district would not be able to offer training to students,
because of unavailability, the district would not be mandated to
offer that program. Districts would only offer the programs
they can contract. In response to a follow-up question, he
stated that the bill would enable school districts to pay a
third party for tuition costs, but districts would need to be
given the authority to do that. He stated that a system is
already in place, and some districts contract with organizations
to train students, but this legislation would extend that
capability throughout the state. He reiterated that it would
not be mandated. In response to a follow-up question, he stated
that it would be up to the districts to decide from which source
they obtain the tuition money. He stated that he understood
from districts' testimonies that the plans to fund CTE programs
could include employers in the community, the Carl D. Perkins
Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006 ("Perkins
IV"), and Alaska Native corporations.
8:48:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS, in reference to the use of "shall" in
the legislation, questioned whether school districts would have
to offer CTE programs.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY answered that his understanding is the
districts would not have to provide CTE programs or make
contracts with CTE vendors. In a response to a follow-up
question, he stated that the school districts would not have to
negotiate a contract with CTE vendors; he could not foresee a
reason why a school would not offer a program, unless the
request for that program would put a great imposition on the
funding of the school.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS hypothesized that the basic student
allocation fund could be used to provide CTE programs, and the
legislation would not need to provide fiscal support for the
school districts. He deduced that, if contracting and providing
CTE were the districts' responsibility, then the costs would not
be on the fiscal note and determining the [fiscal] impact on
school districts would be difficult. He questioned whether
there are letters of support from school districts for the
amendment changes and, if so, whether the letters include
explanations of the expected costs. He expressed interest in
whether it is the larger or the smaller districts that support
the amendment change.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY responded that he would supply the
committee with the letters of support.
CO-CHAIR STORY suggested that any question on the implications
of "shall" in the language of the legislation should be referred
to Legislative Legal Services.
8:52:19 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND stated that the economies of scale for larger
school districts would allow them to have complete schools for
CTE programs. She gave the example of King Tech High School in
Anchorage, which has full-day CTE programs. She stated that
some local high schools will bus in students for partial-day
programs. She stated that the Kulsilvak Career Academy, created
by the Lower Yukon School District, bought an old hotel in the
Anchorage area and contracts with the Anchorage School District
to send these students to King Tech High School for six-week
programs. She suggested that there are creative solutions, but
financially it would not be feasible for all school districts,
as building a new workshop would be a burden for smaller
districts. She stated that there should be awareness around the
costs school districts are asked to shoulder to fund the
programs. She expressed the opinion that this would be the year
to fund programs, as revenues are coming into the state, and the
price of oil [has increased]. She argued that "if we don't
spend it on our future workforce, then I think we are wasting
our time." She suggested that the bill be held until the
committee substitute and fiscal notes are available.
8:55:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY expressed support for Co-Chair
Drummond's comments. She stated that often exemplary
circumstances stand out as great examples of opportunity,
especially in reference to the Kulsilvak Career Academy. She
reinforced that the types of resources available to some
districts may not be available to other districts. She
encouraged future conversations about the availability of
resources in the different districts to ensure that each can be
successful and not be [held up in comparison to] outlier
exemplary examples.
8:56:31 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY referenced a letter of support from NPS that
conveys the concern that the legislation would benefit larger
school districts, while districts made up of smaller villages
would not have access to programs or the funds for expansion.
She stressed that HB 108 is crucial, and the needed investment
should be realistic, so there would be clarity when the
legislation moves out of committee to the House Labor and
Commerce Standing Committee. She suggested that consulting
districts [on costs] would result in clarity.
8:58:40 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND, in response to Representatives McCarthy and
Story, clarified that the amendment had been adopted. The
legislation now needs to be sent to Legislative Legal Services,
and then it would return to the committee as [a proposed
committee substitute], and at that time the fiscal notes should
be ready. She suggested there be a review of Perkins IV to
understand how it could be used as a source of funding. She
stated that these grants are specifically for career technology.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY suggested that individuals who provided
invited testimony during the previous hearing could return, if
needed, to answer further questions on the proposed legislation.
9:00:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY, in response to Representative Prax,
expressed the belief that the discussion had already reflected
Representative Prax's comment. She indicated that the spirit
and intent of the bill should match the mechanism. To make sure
of this, she stated that the committee should spend time and
make sure the language accomplishes and reflects the stated
intention of the legislation.
[HB 108 was held over.]
HB 48-AK PERFORMANCE SCHOLARSHIP; ELIGIBILITY
[Contains discussion of HB 108.]
9:02:15 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY announced that the next order of business would
be SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 48, "An Act relating to
the Alaska performance scholarship program."
CO-CHAIR STORY passed the gavel to Co-Chair Drummond.
9:02:38 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND noted that public testimony had been left open
from a previous hearing, and, after ascertaining there was no
one who wished to testify, she closed public testimony on SSHB
48.
9:03:34 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY, as prime sponsor of SSHB 48, provided a review
of the legislation. She stated that the legislation would make
the Alaska Performance Scholarship (APS) available to more high
school students, helping to meet the state's goal of retaining
young talent in its workforce. She stated that the amendment
before the committee is the result of recommendations from a
program review which occurs every ten years by the McKinley
Research Group. She stated that the suggested changes are as
follows: create courses for career and technical education;
remove college entry exams; increase award amounts; extend the
scholarship to eight years; and give juniors access to
information to keep them on track to receive scholarships.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND noted that the Higher Education Investment
Fund does not exist at this time. She stated that this is
difficult for students, as this fund's investments have
generated the money for their scholarships. She stated that the
committee needs to move forward and be prepared, as there is
another bill in another process which seeks to recapitalize that
fund.
9:06:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 32-
LS0315\G.1, Marx, 3/9/2022, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 7:
Delete "six"
Insert "12 [SIX]"
Page 1, line 9, following "completed":
Insert "or is enrolled in"
Page 2, line 9, following "language;":
Insert "and"
Page 2, lines 10 - 20:
Delete all material and insert:
"(4) has a minimum grade-point average in
high school of 2.5 or higher; the department shall set
by regulation minimum requirements based on a
substantially similar standard for districts that do
not assign grades [;
(5) HAS ACHIEVED A MINIMUM SCORE ON A
(A) COLLEGE ENTRANCE EXAMINATION; OR
(B) STANDARDIZED EXAMINATION DESIGNED TO
MEASURE A STUDENT'S LEVEL OF PREPAREDNESS TO MAKE THE
TRANSITION TO WORK, AS SELECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT; AND
(6) IS ENROLLED IN GOOD STANDING IN A
COURSE OF STUDY AT A QUALIFIED POSTSECONDARY
INSTITUTION IN THIS STATE THAT IS INTENDED TO RESULT
IN THE AWARD OF A CERTIFICATE OR DEGREE]."
Page 2, line 26:
Delete "a new subsection"
Insert "new subsections"
Page 2, following line 30:
Insert new subsections to read:
"(i) Not later than September 30 of each year,
the commission shall notify each applicant awarded a
scholarship under (a) of this section that the
applicant has been awarded an Alaska performance
scholarship. The notice must
(1) identify the Alaska performance
scholarship level awarded as described in
AS 14.43.825(a); and
(2) inform the applicant that
(A) the commission may disburse the award
only if the applicant meets the requirements described
in (k) of this section; and
(B) the commission will adjust the
applicant's award under the circumstances described in
(j) of this section.
(j) If, at the time an applicant awarded an
Alaska performance scholarship graduates from high
school, the applicant's grade-point average differs
from the grade-point average on which the commission
based the applicant's award, the commission shall
adjust the applicant's award in accordance with the
applicable Alaska performance scholarship level
described in AS 14.43.825(a).
(k) Notwithstanding (a) of this section, and
except as provided in (c) of this section, the
commission may disburse an Alaska performance
scholarship awarded to an applicant under this section
only if the applicant
(1) has, at the time of the applicant's
graduation from high school,
(A) completed the core academic curriculum
of high school level coursework described in (a)(3) of
this section; and
(B) met the minimum grade-point average in
high school described in (a)(4) of this section; and
(2) is enrolled in good standing in a
course of study at a qualified postsecondary
institution in this state that is intended to result
in the award of a certificate or degree."
9:06:30 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS stated that the amendment is by request
of the bill sponsor and the result of recommendations from the
McKinley Research Group. He stated that the amendment would
move up the date of issuance of APS and would inform students
sooner of their qualification status for the scholarship. This
would allow the students to know which financial package would
be available to them before choosing postsecondary education.
CO-CHAIR STORY added that currently students would not know
until the end of their senior year if they would receive the
scholarship. She stated that this change would also prevent
students from discovering, after the fact, they had not taken
the correct curriculum to receive the award. With this change
students would be able to adjust their classes in their senior
year and maintain their grade point average (GPA) to meet the
criteria. She stated that this would allow students to make
decisions earlier about postsecondary education.
9:10:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM, reflecting on HB 108, suggested that the
APS issuance date could be moved up even more, so then the
funding would be put towards CTE in high school. The students'
records could be reviewed in the sixth to eighth grades to see
if they qualify for the scholarship. He conjectured that making
the scholarship program eligibly even sooner, the fiscal notes
for HB 108 could be dropped.
9:11:39 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY indicated that APS requires a strict curriculum,
so this would require a discussion to determine how [HB 108 and
SSHB 48] would fit together. She stated that the APS program is
very prescriptive, but it does allow students to take some CTE
classes. She said that students could use the scholarship to go
towards technical programs, and, as HB 108 adds the work
experience with the training, [the two pieces of legislation]
could complement each other.
9:12:47 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND expressed the opinion that Representative
Gillham's idea is "brilliant." She added that APS is designed
for high school, but to begin in middle school would be a great
idea. She expressed the belief that students tend to decide
what they want to do around third grade. She referenced the
Alaska Native Science and Engineering Program at the University
of Alaska. She stated that the [accelerated] program brings in
high school students from rural communities, who often graduate
as engineers with dual credits and more. She stated that the
professor working with the program learned that, to excite
students and start them in the right classes, they would need to
begin in the sixth grade. She stated that this type of program
could be adapted for career technology. She noted that, at the
governor's request, the bill would have a substantial fiscal
note of $7.15 million. She stated that now APS is coming out of
the general fund, and it is not earning interest. She asserted
that, because there was no reverse sweep, the fund now earns
around 1 to 2 percent compared with historical earnings of 8 to
12 percent. Referencing the fiscal note and the Office of
Management and Budget component 2990, she stated that the
legislation would call for $15.2 million per year in
scholarships in the out years. This amount reflects an increase
in the size of the award to match tuition rates in state
schools. She stated that [Representative Gillham's idea] is
worth discussing, but it would require restructuring middle
schools around the state.
9:15:45 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY interjected that, as of mid-January, the Higher
Education Investment Fund had not been liquidated and is still
earning higher interest rates. She expressed hope that the
legislature would keep the fund intact and put the estimated
$400 million back. She stated that the Department of Revenue
has delayed the liquidation of the fund because the fund's
return was around 38 percent last year. She stated that the
fund would pay for the entire fiscal note that is in front of
the committee and has been self-supporting APS. Based on
recommendations of the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary
Education, a $7,000 scholarship award [per student, per year]
would be a self-sustaining amount. She said, if the Higher
Education Investment Fund has not been swept yet, funding for
several programs would not have to come out of the general fund.
She stated that Representative Josephson is sponsoring a bill to
clarify that the House of Representatives and the Senate would
both be in support of retaining the fund.
9:17:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM, alluding to Co-Chair Drummond's earlier
comment, stated that the state has an excess to spend this year,
but he is more interested in funding the state's workforce 10
years from now. He suggested that creating interest in middle
school would lead students to be involved with a CTE program by
the ninth grade. He stated that a constituent has expressed to
him that CTE is needed because youth are learning computers but
cannot build an outhouse.
CO-CHAIR STORY stated that students would get credit for CTE
classes as part of APS. She added that a study by the Alaska
Commission on Postsecondary Education shows that students who
receive APS have higher completion rates and tend to stay in the
state for careers, of which is the goal of the program. She
expressed hope that the Higher Education Investment Fund would
be put into law, retaining a future funding mechanism for the
program.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND stated that, in addition to APS, the Higher
Education Investment Fund has provided about $8 million a year
for the Alaska Education Grant program. She explained that APS
is a performance-based [scholarship], while the Alaska Education
Grant program is a needs-based [grant]. She added that the
grant can be used anywhere in the state for postsecondary
instruction in any field, including hair technology, carpentry,
and university courses. She said that the Alaska Education
Grant program now pulls from the general fund.
9:21:56 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY responded to Representative Prax that the
[University of Alaska] would receive the scholarship money as
long as the student was enrolled in classes. She stated that
the scholarship's availability for students would be increased
to eight years because the McKinley Research Group's study
related that nontraditional students in Alaska tend to take a
gap year to work and then resume classes. It was conveyed that
Representative Prax's comments were not speaking to the
amendment and would be deferred.
9:23:37 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND withdrew her objection to the motion to adopt
Amendment 1. There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was
adopted.
9:24:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed the understanding that the
legislation would extend the scholarship eligibility eight
years. He voiced the concern that this would create a greater
risk for students to change their mind and not graduate.
CO-CHAIR STORY responded that the extension would not be eight
years, but eight total semesters, and the student would have to
be on track to use the award. She offered that there would be
safeguards in the bill, and a student would have to maintain a
certain GPA and take a required number of credits per semester.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX suggested that if a student enrolled in the
university with no career direction and did not finish, the
scholarship would have been wasted. He questioned whether a
student would have to pay back the money if the student dropped
out after two years.
CO-CHAIR STORY responded that scholarship money would not be
paid back. She stated the belief that whatever education people
receive serves them well.
9:27:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK expressed appreciation for the extension.
He commented that there are "bumps" in life, so the eight-year
extension is understandable. He questioned whether, if a
student waits five years before attending university, he/she
would have only three years to use the scholarship.
CO-CHAIR STORY stated that the student would have eight years,
and if his/her education extended to one more year, the student
may have to pay more of the tuition.
9:28:34 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:28 a.m. to 9:32 a.m.
9:32:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY moved to report SSHB 48, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSSSHB
48(EDC) was reported out of the House Education Standing
Committee.
9:32:43 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:33 a.m. to 9:36 a.m.
9:36:09 AM
SB 198-RAMPART SCHOOL: YUKON-KOYUKUK DISTRICT
9:36:54 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY announced that the final order of business would
be SENATE BILL NO. 198, "An Act providing that Rampart School is
located within the Yukon-Koyukuk School District regional
educational attendance area; and providing for an effective
date." She noted that SB 198 is the companion bill to HB 335,
which the committee last heard on 3/7/2022.
9:37:52 AM
MS. TESHNER, Acting Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education
and Early Development, presented that SB 198 would move the
Rampart School from the Yukon Flat School District (YFSD) to the
Yukon-Koyukuk School District (YKSD).
9:39:02 AM
LAURIE THOMAS, President, Yukon Flats School Board, testified in
support of SB 198. She stated that she has served on the Yukon
Flats School Board for many years and knows the history of the
Rampart School. Over the past 10 years there has been an effort
to revitalize the community of Rampart and reopen the school.
She said that YFSD had a vocational education program and
invited students at the Rampart School to participate. She
stated that they worked together and decided to become partners.
They found that, where the community of Rampart is located,
logistically it would be more feasible for the Rampart school to
be under YFSD, so a memorandum of agreement was created to help
with the budgets. She stated that every year the memorandum has
been renewed, and then it was decided switching the boundary
would be easier. She stated that this is what the community and
the students of Rampart want, so the communities voted in favor
of the switch.
9:42:42 AM
GRACE BEAUJEAN, Research Analyst, Division of Community and
Regional Affairs, Department of Commerce, Community & Economic
Development, described that, before redrawing the boundaries to
move the community of Rampart into YKSD, the local communities
would be consulted. Then the 2020 U.S. Census Tract boundaries
would be used to ensure the entire community of Rampart is
successfully redrawn into YKSD. After the new boundaries for
each district are drawn, they would need to be described and the
geographic information systems updated.
9:43:46 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND moved to report SB 198 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, SB 198 was reported out of the House
Education Standing Committee.
9:45:23 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:45 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 48 FN ACPE, Admin Op.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 48 |
| HB 48 FN AEG.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 48 |
| HB 48 FN APS Awards.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 48 |
| HB 147 Invited Testimony - Arnaucuaq.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 147 |
| HB 48 FN Ed Support and Admin.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 48 |
| HB 147 Invited Testimony - Hankins, LKSD.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 147 |
| HB 350 Sponsor Statement Ver. 2.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 350 |
| HB 312 support 031522.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2022 8:00:00 AM HL&C 4/4/2022 3:15:00 PM |
HB 312 |