Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 106
03/01/2010 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB360 | |
| HB297 | |
| HB206 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 360 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 297 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 206 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 360-YOUTH ACADEMY: STUDENT RECORDS
8:04:18 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 360, "An Act relating to the provision of
information regarding a student by a school district to the
Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs, Alaska Challenge
Youth Academy."
8:04:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY DAHLSTROM, Alaska State Legislature,
Introduced HB 360, said it is the intent of the sponsor to
provide HB 360 as a means for addressing the high drop-out rate
in Alaska's high schools. The Alaska Challenge Youth Academy,
or Alaska Military Youth Academy (AMYA), [hereafter referred to
as AMYA] is a viable option to help these students, she opined.
8:06:10 AM
SUSAN WALLEN, Staff, Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Alaska
State Legislature, presented HB 360, paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, which read [original punctuation provided]:
House Bill 360 simply requires school districts to
provide the names, addresses, and attendance dates of
students who have dropped out of high school to the
Director of the Alaska Challenge Youth Academy,
operated by the Department of Military and Veterans'
Affairs.
The school districts would be required to provide this
thth
information biannually: January 15 and July 15 as
this will allow ample opportunity for the Academy
staff to reach out to potential students.
The students whose information is to be provided must
meet the following requirements:
They must be between the ages of 15 and 19
They must have been previously enrolled in a school
district
Their plans to transfer or graduate were not provided
to the school
They have not earned a diploma or GED
The second part of the bill requires the school to
send notification in writing to the parent or
guardian, or student if they are 18 years old, before
the information is released to the Academy. The
parent or student has 10 days to object. If there is
objection, the district may not release the
information.
The Academy will provide in writing to the school
district that the information will not be disclosed to
any other party except as necessary to recruit and
retain students.
8:08:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked at what point a school district
categorizes a student as a drop out.
MS. WALLEN said the standard will be provided to the committee.
8:08:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON expressed concern for the ten day written
notification requirement, indicating that it may be a problem
for some communities with limited or remote access.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM offered that the ten working day
requirement could be amended, but opined that it should not be
changed to an excessive period of time.
8:10:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON paraphrased the pertinent language
included in the bill, which read:
If an objection is provided in writing within 10
business days after the notice is mailed, the district
may not provide the information.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON stated his understanding that a parent, or
student, would first receive a notification, and then have 10
business days to respond, and maintained his concern for remote
communities being able to comply.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM deferred to the department.
8:11:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER recalled that the use of student surveys
has been debated, and the use of passive permission versus an
opt-in action. She queried whether an opt-in possibility had
been considered. Additionally, she asked why parental objection
could not be in the form of a phone call to the district
requesting that the information not be released.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM reported that the Department of
Education and Early Development (EED) student data base has the
capacity to include a field for this purpose. When students
enter school there is a questionnaire filled out that could
include a line to the effect that should your student not
graduate, or not be participating, would the parent allow
information to be sent. She stated her interest in having such
a question included, for the sole purpose of providing a student
with AMYA specific information.
8:12:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM, regarding the question of allowing a
parent to respond via oral means versus a written response,
deferred.
8:13:23 AM
CHAIR SEATON noted the January 15 and July 15 dates, and asked
if these are significant dates to the districts.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM responded that the dates are
significant because they coincide with AMYA session dates;
commencing within 30-45 days. Further, she said the school
districts currently required attendance records should prove
adequate for the purposes of this bill, thus no new record
keeping procedures would need to be implemented.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON recalled that the academy uses January
and July 15th as the dates for determining enrollees for the
upcoming sessions, and suggested inserting January 1 and July 1,
in the bill.
8:15:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM welcomed the proposal of an amendment
should alternative dates prove to be beneficial.
8:15:22 AM
CHAIR SEATON recalled opening remarks and the statement "if the
student hadn't provided plans," and asked what plans are being
referenced, and where this aspect resides in the bill.
MS. WALLEN directed attention to page 1, line 14, and
paraphrased from the language, which read:
[(3)] has not provided school transfer or graduation
information to a school in the district;
MS. WALLEN said the assumption would be that a student has no
further plans to attend school.
8:16:28 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether this refers to a written plan, or
other method of contacting the district.
MS. WALLEN clarified that a student planning to transfer, would
usually inform school with written or oral notification, and
there would be a communication between the two schools.
8:17:15 AM
CHAIR SEATON noted that the language of the bill indicates a
student's "enrollment" versus "attendance.". He referred to the
10 day provision, which requires a district to drop a student
from enrollment if contact has been severed, and asked if the
intent of the bill is to align with that rule.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said yes.
8:18:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER queried the manner in which the AMYA
plans to contact a student. She suggested the process may be
simplified by having the AMYA information packets available for
the school districts to send directly to student's verses
providing names and addresses to the academy.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM suggested that EED could provide
further insight, and deferred.
8:19:34 AM
MCHUGH PIERRE, Deputy Commissioner, Chief of Staff, Office of
the Commissioner/Adjutant General, Department of Military &
Veterans' Affairs (DMVA), explained that if a school district
discloses the drop-out information it will support the AMYA in
efforts to target students who may benefit from the program, get
back on track, and possibly return to school. He confirmed that
the dates correspond with the sessions at the academy. Students
will receive a pamphlet with a postcard attached, and they
merely return the postcard for further action.
8:22:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked for the session dates.
MR. PIERRE replied that one begins on the first of April, and
one on the first of October.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON noted that the proposed dates work.
MR. PIERRE replied yes, with adequate time allowed for
recruitment, and continuity for the students who choose to
return to high school following a 22 week residency.
8:24:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked for the percentage of students
accepted into the academy.
MR. PIERRE indicated that it is generally a high percentage of
the applicants. The incoming April class received in excess of
350 applications, and the capacity is for 220 cadets.
8:25:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ noted the three pre-challenge phases, and
inquired about the retention rate through the phases.
MR. PIERRE said the first two weeks may see a drop of 10-20
percent. Applicants are dismissed for a variety of reasons
including negative social interactions, as well as health
concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if there is a cost to the applicant,
associated with dismissal.
MR. PIERRE replied no, save airfare home, if withdrawal occurs
in the first four weeks.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ opined that the response time of ten days
may need amending.
MR. PIERRE said it was set based the legal minimum, but the
department has no objection to having the timeline amended. He
briefly explained how the timeline was derived.
8:30:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON reviewed the four levels of communications
proposed: 1) the school district sends a letter to the parent,
guardian, or student, if the student is 18 years old; 2) the
school district discloses information to the AMYA; 3) the AMYA
mails a brochure to the student; and 4) the student communicates
interest to the AMYA. From a practical standpoint, the actual
respondent rate may become narrow, given the level of
communication involved, he opined.
MR. PIERRE underscored that the key to the success of the
program, is that the students who respond possess an interest a
desire to make a life change. The current methods of contact
are broad, and often random, including word of mouth, and the
internet applications of Facebook, and MySpace, which, he opined
all may be more inefficient than the proposed legislation.
8:32:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON pondered whether there could be a better
means to communicate the AMYA option to at-risk students.
8:33:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked why the passive permission,
versus the active permission approach was chosen, speculating it
may be due to the student not being under parental supervision.
8:33:56 AM
MR. PIERRE concurred and said that the commissioner agrees, that
it is the best approach for allowing an AMYA flier to be sent to
a student.
8:35:42 AM
CHAIR SEATON recalled that three districts have been cooperating
with the academy, and asked about the response received from
other districts contacted.
MR. PIERRE stated that some districts reported not having
information on drop-out students. He said that is erroneous as
the information is required to be reported to EED every July.
Other districts were supportive, but there was no follow
through, and, finally, some districts declined to cooperate
without cause.
8:37:06 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked for specific reasons offered by the districts
who reported not having information available on drop-outs.
MR. PIERRE replied:
It wasn't that specific ... just: We understand what
you're looking for, we don't keep those numbers, we
couldn't tell you who dropped out, so we're not going
to be able to pass on the information.
CHAIR SEATON recalled that the committee experienced difficulty
when requesting age specific information for drop-outs from the
districts, because the data is set up according to grade level.
The method used by districts to maintain records could be the
problem. Passage of HB 360 will impose specific requirements on
the part of the districts, and he asked where legal liability
will fall for non-compliance.
MR. PIERRE said there is no intention of punishing districts for
non-compliance, because the expectation is that districts will
want to support the effort, and see the academy as another means
to engage drop-outs.
CHAIR SEATON agreed that the support may exist, but maintained
that it is important to know the liability repercussions.
8:41:08 AM
LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education and
Early Development (EED), stated that the department has not
taken an official position on HB 360. Referring to a previous
question, clarified that July 15 as the due date for every
submit its annual enrollment status report to the department.
The district report includes who was enrolled, at any time
during the year, and, if they withdrew, the reason for the
departure. He recalled another question regarding how a drop-
out is determined and said there are several factors. A student
may state that they are leaving, or a district may exhaust ten
days of contact effort, and not received a records request from
another district; in either case the student will be coded as a
drop-out. Should transfer papers eventually be requested,
perhaps from another state, the district is able to convert the
drop-out code to a transfer status. He reported that as many as
30 percent of students initially coded as drop-outs, eventually
re-enroll. The January 15 date, in the bill, may be a
challenging time for some schools to generate a report, and he
deferred to the districts for a response on the viability of
that date.
8:44:18 AM
MR. MORSE, regarding information distribution, said the
department assumed AMYA brochures would be included in the
notice provided to parents at the beginning of every school
year. At the inception of the school year, every parent
receives a notice, which states that the department will
disclose information about you, for students 18 years of age, or
your child, to specific groups. A family or the student can
sign to say that they deny the disclosure of the information.
The information is generally directory oriented, and some
families do object. A recent addition to the disclosure list
has been for schools to release directory information to
military entities. In order for AMYA to be included on the
existing form, language would need to be added specific to the
academy.
8:46:03 AM
CHAIR SEATON surmised that adding the appropriate language to
the annual notice would take care of the concern for AMYA
information distribution.
MR. MORSE said, with the HB 360 provision in place, the district
would be compelled to include language similar to what is
included in the bill on page 1, lines 12-14, and page 2, lines
1-3.
8:47:25 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether a request for consent, in the school
registration packet, would preclude the need to provide a
written notice later, thus triggering the ten business day
response clause.
MR. MORSE indicated that further information would be provided
to the committee as to whether the consent, made at the
beginning of the school year, adequately covers the written
notification provision of the bill.
8:48:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired whether the department expects
to take an official position on HB 360. Further, she asked if
the July 15 reports are enrollment totals, or do the reports
include names and addresses of students no longer enrolled.
MR. MORSE offered to confer with the commissioner regarding a
forthcoming position. Additionally, he responded that the July
15 report does include identification information, which is run
against other district information to determine transfer
student.
8:50:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER questioned why the department could not
make the information directly available to the academy, from the
July reports.
MR. MORSE explained that both federal and state disclosure law,
requires student consent, which the state does not have a means
to collect, passive or active, in all 53 districts; creating a
legal concern.
8:51:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON noted that not every parent enrolls
their student in person, requiring forms to be sent to their
home, and asked what percentage are received in return mail.
MR. MORSE declined to speculate on the percentage received.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether the district report is provided to
the department by grade level or age of student.
MR. MORSE answered that it is by grade and includes date of
birth. It may not be easy for a district to pull certain data
from their system, but the departmental report includes the
student's state [identification], name, and birth date. A birth
date, however, is not always accurate. He pointed out that the
report in the committee packed is from the Anchorage district,
and differs from what is sent to the department. The department
report does not include all of the reasons for drop-out.
CHAIR SEATON concluded that there is not a unified district
system in place, and each district compiles information
independently.
MR. MORSE said that is correct, because the information is
collected into different systems using a variety of methods.
8:55:21 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked about the anticipated liability for
noncompliance by a district or superintendent.
JEAN MISCHEL, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, said
the liability is unspecified in HB 360, but the overall
enforceability of any education law requires state funding be
reduced.
CHAIR SEATON inquired whether enforcement is automatic or on a
case by case basis.
MS. MISCHEL said it is case by case, as reviewed by the
commissioner. The department may allow time for compliance
prior to taking action.
8:58:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON commented how deliberations on the
topic have continually indicated that every drop-out student is
unique. It is apparent that there are no silver bullet
solutions, and AMYA is one option for drop-outs to consider.
She stated support for the bill and for retaining the passive
permission language.
CHAIR SEATON indicated that if the school districts are able to
implement current data systems, the contact issue will be
resolved and not represent a burden.
9:00:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked the bill sponsor to provide the
committee with feedback from the districts regarding the costs,
and difficulties associated with supplying AMYA information.
Additionally, there are other programs and high school
completion options, and she asked whether information for these
options are also presented to the students; suggesting that
school counselors might be an efficient means for distribution
of materials. Finally, she asked for information regarding the
penalty for inappropriate disclosure.
9:01:17 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that HB 360 would be held for further
consideration.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:01 a.m. to 9:07 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 297 Amendment #1.pdf |
HEDC 2/15/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 297 |
| HB 297 Amendment #2.pdf |
HEDC 2/15/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 297 |
| Amendments 3 through 7.pdf |
HEDC 2/17/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 297 |
| Amendments 8 through 11.pdf |
HEDC 3/1/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 297 |
| Amendments 12 and 13.pdf |
HEDC 2/26/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 297 |
| HB 297 GPS Materials.pdf |
HEDC 2/3/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 297 |
| HB 206 Version P February 4, 2010.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/10/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/19/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/8/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/17/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 206 |
| HB 206 version P Sponsor Statement February 4, 2010.docx |
HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/10/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/19/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/8/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/17/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 206 |
| HB 206 Version P Amendment.pdf |
HEDC 2/19/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/8/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/17/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 206 |
| Scan001.PDF |
HEDC 3/1/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 360 Sponsor Statement and Background |
| count date brief - final.doc |
HEDC 3/1/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 206 |
| HB 360 DMVA Support Letter.pdf |
HEDC 3/1/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 360 |