Legislature(2023 - 2024)DAVIS 106
04/29/2024 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 | |
| SJR17 | |
| SB24 | |
| HB382 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SJR 17 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 382 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 382-EDUCATION; PARENT/TEACHER RIGHTS
9:05:32 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 382, "An Act relating to education;
relating to the rights of the parents of public school students;
relating to the rights of public school teachers; relating to
the records of public school students; and providing for an
effective date."
9:05:56 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:05 a.m. to 9:11 a.m.
9:11:39 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE announced that the amendment process would
begin.
9:11:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 382,
labeled 33-LS1056\U.7, Bergerud, 3/22/24, which read as follows:
Page 1, lines 2 - 3:
Delete "relating to the records of public school
students;"
Page 6, line 6, through page 12, line 9:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 14, line 2:
Delete "sec. 4"
Insert "sec. 3"
Page 14, line 3:
Delete "sec. 5"
Insert "sec. 4"
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that the amendment would
delete Section 3 because the content is modeled on the federal
Privacy Act and is already addressed in federal law. The intent
is to not add more statute than is needed, she said.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE invited the bill sponsor to answer questions.
9:13:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BEN CARPENTER, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HB 382, said that he would support the will of the
committee on the amendment, and noted that the intent of the
bill is to get better local control for schools. He said he
recognized that the section the amendment dealt with was student
records, and the rights of parents are as spelled out in federal
statute, which can change. He stated that he appreciated the
concept of keeping statues necessary and essential, and that he
believed it was important that the state speaks about what
Alaska's state policies are and not just rely on the federal
government.
9:15:05 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD agreed with Representative Carpenter and noted
that federal law is consistently changing. She added that "if
it is not in state statute, it could be open to lawsuits," which
is not fair to people; in state statute, it is more locally
controlled, she said. She stated that she would not support
Amendment 1.
9:15:39 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:15 a.m. to 9:16 a.m.
9:16:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER noted that if the state's version of
the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) is in
state statute and the federal statute changes, there could be
some questioning within the districts and lead to confusion.
9:18:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said she understood Representative
Carpenter's thoughts and wished to add to the conversation that
changing federal law as far as FERPA would be a difficult thing
to do, and highly unlikely. She stated that she supported the
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT offered her belief that FERPA is an
incredibly important law, but stated she did not like having the
law in two places, which was the point of the amendment.
9:19:43 AM
A roll call vote was taken but subsequently voided.
9:20:17 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 9:20 a.m.
9:20:38 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE noted that the previous roll was voided and
called for another vote on Amendment 1 to HB 382.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Himschoot, Story,
and McCormick voted in favor of Amendment 1 to HB 382.
Representatives McKay, Prax, Allard, and Ruffridge voted against
it. Therefore, Amendment 1 to HB 382 failed by a vote of 3-4.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to adopt Amendment 2 to HB 382,
labeled 33-LS1056\U.8, Bergerud, 3/22/24, which read as follows:
Page 13, lines 29 - 30:
Delete "requiring a student to use only
facilities designated for members of the student's
biological sex"
Insert "providing access to unisex, single-occupant
bathrooms and locker room facilities; the state shall
reimburse a school district for costs incurred to
comply with this paragraph"
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said that she strongly agreed with the
bill sponsor on the importance of privacy for students but had
concerns about the section in the bill. She restated the
verbiage in Amendment 2 and summarized that the amendment would
support the schools, the students, and the right to privacy that
children should have.
9:23:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER said he was opposed to Amendment 2 due
to the cost it may be to "retrofit" all the schools in the
state. It seemed cost-prohibitive, he said, and he added that
he was sensitive to teachers and administrators "policing"
students' bodies.
9:24:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY shared an opinion she received from
Legislative Legal Services that it would be a violation of
students' privacy rights. She stated she supported Amendment 2
but stressed the importance of hearing from some of the school
districts. She offered her belief that there may not be as
large a fiscal note as was thought.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER questioned which students and privacy
rights were being addressed. He said if privacy is the issue,
then there needs to be a different solution because all students
should have the same privacy rights.
9:27:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK expressed curiosity as to how it would
apply to schools that have to take bathroom buses via four-
wheeler due to not having bathrooms in the school.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT responded that depending on how remote
facilities are set up, they may already be providing privacy for
everyone; therefore, everyone would be safe.
9:29:16 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD related an incident of a student using restroom
facilities for the opposite sex which traumatized another
student; therefore, she stated she did not support Amendment 2.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE highlighted the term "governing body" [in
subsection (a) of Section 6 of HB 382, on page 12, line 28] and
asked whether it referred to each school district.
9:30:52 AM
KENDRA BROUSSARD, Staff, Representative Ben Carpenter, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Carpenter, prime
sponsor, pointed out to Co-Chair Ruffridge that he was reading
from current law that each governing body, which is the school
district, shall adopt a written school disciplinary and safety
program. She further explained that it is a written requirement
which is different from a construction requirement.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE referred to charter schools and questioned
whether a parent may be a governing body, or the school district
where the language would reside.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER offered his belief that would be
specified in the charter agreement and may not be the same for
each charter school.
9:32:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY commented that she agreed with
Representative Carpenter in that it would be an overall school
district policy, and that all student rights should be
protected. She offered her strong support for the Amendment 2.
9:33:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK articulated his support of Amendment 2,
and he related that there were statistics supporting that when
individuals are forced to use restrooms that do not coincide
with their gender as opposed to their biological sex, there is
an increase likelihood they would be subjected to violence
within those situations. He opined that the amendment is a
compromise on the bill as it was already written leading to
safer situations for students.
9:35:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX spoke against Amendment 2 and opined that it
would not solve the underlying problem and would cost too much
money.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 2 to insert the word "by" and delete "by requiring"
and insert a period after "sex".
CO-CHAIR ALLARD objected.
9:37:42 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:37 a.m. to 9:41 a.m.
9:41:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX moved to withdraw Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 2. [There being no objection, it was so ordered.]
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said that Amendment 2, even though it
is a written policy, puts the state behind resolving the issue
of every student having the privacy they deserve and to do this,
the state must support districts in their written policy and
make lockers and restrooms unisex.
9:42:27 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McCormick,
Himschoot, and Story voted in favor of Amendment 2 to HB 382.
Representatives McKay, Prax, Allard, and Ruffridge voted against
it. Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 3-4.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to adopt Amendment 3 to HB 382,
labeled 33-LS1056\U.9, Bergerud, 3/27/24, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 11:
Delete "and make copies of, at no cost,"
CO-CHAIR ALLARD objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained the verbiage that would be
removed and added that the issue with the section of the bill is
that curriculum and teaching materials can get very expensive.
The words "at no cost" are misleading because someone has to
pay, she stated. She reiterated the amendment related to the
copying only.
9:44:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER noted that Amendment 3 is similar to
Amendment 19, and he would support the amendment if the "at no
cost" piece were dropped.
9:45:30 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD said her issue was taxpayers whose money goes to
education, and she did not believe parents should be "picking up
the bill" for copies. She said she does not support the
amendment.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE disagreed and stated that not all parents are
taxpayers.
9:46:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY stated that she supported Amendment 3. She
noted that budgets are very tight currently and she shared a
story of going to a basketball game and that programs are
normally printed out but there were none due to the school
budget being tight; therefore, no copies or printouts were being
produced.
9:48:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX offered his belief that the labor making the
copies could be a considerable cost and not just the cost of the
paper. He noted that in his borough one must pay for copies,
and that could end up costing a significant amount. He
concluded that the body must think carefully about this.
9:49:34 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE stated he did not support Amendment 3 in
hopes to support Amendment 19 when it is time.
9:49:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER commented that the paper is expensive
but the toner is more so.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT pointed out that school curriculum,
when bought from a publisher, has very strict guidelines around
how it can be used. The cost remained a major concern for her,
she said, and copyright issues were an additional concern.
9:51:28 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE suggested that the word "make" should say
"provide a copy of" surrounding copyright issues.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT responded regarding curriculum and the
various textbooks included in it, and an extra set of the
teacher's guide could be made available to families by request.
Each additional set is an extra expense but "that could be a
compromised solution here," she said.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE said that as a parent he did not want to see
the teacher's guide, but would, for example, inspect a math
book. He added that there is a vested interest in looking at
what the plan for the semester year is as well.
9:54:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER offered his belief that there is
nothing the school does with the intention of keeping secrets
from parents, but through policies, that is the effect that ends
up happening.
9:55:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said that if parents felt they were
obstructed from seeing curriculum and "turned away," then the
principal should be addressed.
9:56:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT pointed out curriculum not being
defined in statute and provided a definition she read from the
Oxford English Dictionary. She acknowledged it was a very broad
description; therefore, her amendment did not specifically
address the definition of curriculum but further added that
making copies is problematic for copyright reasons.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE maintained his objection to Amendment 3.
9:57:06 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McCormick,
Himschoot, and Story voted in favor of Amendment 3 to HB 382.
Representatives Prax, McKay, Allard, and Ruffridge voted against
it. Therefore, Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 3-4.
9:57:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to adopt Amendment 4 to HB 382,
labeled 33-LS1056\U.10, Bergerud, 3/27/24, which read as
follows:
Page 2, lines 1 - 2:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that the deletion addressed
parents meeting with teachers in person or by video conference.
She said it is common practice and twice a year is far too
little, and the parent has a right to meet with the teacher any
time they want. She offered her belief it was unnecessary to
put into law that it would happen only twice a year.
9:59:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER addressed the addition in the
underlying bill on page 2, lines 1 through 2, and pointed out
that the amendment addressed is not currently in state law.
10:00:24 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD referred to her experience with Eagle River High
School and shared that that school does not have parent teacher
conferences anymore. She expressed her shock that schools want
parents to be more involved yet do not "open the door for that."
She added that she would not support Amendment 4.
10:01:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK asked Representative Carpenter whether
there would be consequences for parents if they do not meet with
the school district at least twice a year.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER offered his belief that using "allow" -
not "require" - would not be interpreted by a judge or any other
law to say that the parents must meet. Parents could exercise
their right to participate in conferences at least twice a year
with the teacher, he said.
10:03:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY shared her belief that parent teacher
conferences are required in Alaska, and she questioned which
districts are not participating.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER responded that he could request the
information from DEED.
10:04:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT reiterated her concern regarding "in
person or video conference" but not involving telephonic.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE maintained his objection.
10:05:16 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McCormick,
Himschoot, and Story voted in favor of Amendment 4 to HB 382.
Representatives Prax, McKay, Allard, and Ruffridge voted against
it. Therefore, Amendment 4 failed by a vote of 3-4.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE reopened an amendment deadline and announced
that HB 382 was held over.