Legislature(2023 - 2024)DAVIS 106
05/01/2024 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 | |
| HB400 | |
| HB382 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 400 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 382 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 382-EDUCATION; PARENT/TEACHER RIGHTS
8:26:32 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."
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE announced that the committee would continue
its consideration of amendments [begun on 4/29/24 at which time
Amendments 1-4 were moved but failed to be adopted].
8:26:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to adopt Amendment 5 to HB 382,
labeled 33-LS1056\U.11, Bergerud, 3/27/24, which read as
follows:
Page 5, line 24, following "expectations":
Insert "; subject to appropriation, the department
shall reimburse a school district for costs incurred
under this paragraph"
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT expressed her belief that the bill
contained many good things but that her intent was to take a
good practice of mentorship and make it work. She read from
page 5, line 20, and reiterated the language in Amendment 5.
8:29:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BEN CARPENTER, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HB 382, stated that he opposed Amendment 5 because
leadership training is something that should occur and be part
of a budget; therefore, everything in the budget is subject to
appropriation. He added that he did not see value in
"separating this out" and identifying it as subject to
appropriation versus all other things that go on to a school
district's budget.
8:30:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK pointed out that Regional Education
Attendance Areas (REAA) do not have municipalities or boroughs
to allocate these funds for. He said he may support the
amendment but would be interested to know how an REAA would pay.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER replied that the line item on the
budget for an REAA school comes from the legislature; therefore,
the requirement for providing leadership training is budgeted
under state law.
8:32:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX commented that he would support the concept,
but asked whether the amendment sponsor was contemplating a
separate appropriation for this particular service or how it
would be handled in the budgeting process.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that the leadership training
would be imbedded in whatever other professional development is
offered by the district, and she offered her belief that it
would work fine. She further explained that for some schools,
there would be expenses. She added that a whole new level of
professional development is being asked for.
8:35:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said she hoped to hear from the department
regarding a statewide mentoring program that used to be provided
and was funded through the legislature.
8:35:44 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:35 a.m. to 8:36 a.m.
8:36:27 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE explained to those who were listening that an
online system was not functioning and he could not see who may
be waiting online. He confirmed there were no department
representatives online available, but a department member was
present in the room.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY commented on a cost to districts and stated
that she hoped for a fiscal note.
8:38:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX moved to table Amendment 5. There being no
objection, Amendment 5 was tabled.
8:38:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to adopt Amendment 6 to HB 382,
labeled 33-LS1056\U.12, Bergerud, 3/27/24, which read as
follows:
Page 4, line 26, through page 5, line 9:
Delete "(a) To provide an orderly and safe
learning environment for students, a teacher may
(1) establish and enforce classroom rules,
including consequences for an infraction of those
rules, in accordance with policies adopted under
AS 14.33.110 - 14.33.140;
(2) remove a student from a classroom in
accordance with policies adopted under AS 14.33.120;
(3) direct a student whose actions are
violent, abusive, uncontrollable, or disruptive to
appropriate school personnel;
(4) assist in enforcing school rules while
on school property, while using school-sponsored
transportation, or while at a school-sponsored
activity;
(5) use reasonable force to protect the
teacher or another person from injury in accordance
with AS 11.81.430(a)(2), AS 14.33.120, and 14.33.125;
and
(6) communicate with and request
participation from parents in making disciplinary
decisions."
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that the amendment was in
line with common practice in schools and everything spelled out
in it is a "may".
8:40:25 AM
DONNA ARDUIN, Staff, Representative Ben Carpenter, Alaska State
Legislature, answered questions during the hearing on HB 382 on
behalf of Representative Carpenter, prime sponsor. She
explained that statute has extensive district requirements for
school safety programs but does not allow the teacher to have
any discretion underneath that.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER added that he had conversations with
teachers and support staff that indicated that enforcing the
rules was not uniformly done throughout schools. Giving
teachers a state statute to point to for their authority to
enforce rules is of the upmost importance, he said. He stated
that he and his staff support the Amendment 6.
8:42:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked the bill sponsor whether the
expectation would be that the Department of Education would have
to review the individual district policies and how guidelines
would be set.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER replied that the body that would
produce ordinance or school rules would be the next governing
body. With respect to school districts, the board would review
the state law changes and have to modify the rules that had been
promulgated.
8:45:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked for an elaboration of line 6.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER offered a scenario to imagine if a
teacher makes a request of a student to maintain good order in
the classroom and the student does not adhere to the requests;
if the administration does not force the student to adhere to
the request, then the teacher is rendered powerless. It is in
reference to who could have the authority to address the issue
and it would include the teacher enforcing any type of
discipline that must happen, but with a state law backing them
up. He related hearing of bad behavior in schools and teachers
feeling powerless.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether teachers are asking other
parents to help discipline another child. She stated that it
could be a delicate situation.
8:47:50 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE commented that he did not read line 6 that
way but he would let the bill sponsor clarify.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER clarified that the word "parents" is
referring to parents of multiple students in the classroom, and
the authority of the parent of the child does not extend to
children not of that parent. He further clarified on page 4,
line 22, "parent" is defined as a child's natural or adoptive
parent or legal guardian.
8:49:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY sought clarity that the parents must
cooperate with the teachers about their child's disciplinary
behavior and "management" issues needing to be put into state
law because of the perception that they are not being followed.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER reiterated that the intent is that the
teacher would have the ability - through state law - to request
participation and can communicate to the parents directly to
inform them that there is an issue. The teacher needs to have a
good order of discipline in the school, he said.
8:52:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed his understanding that if the
parent is not interested in supporting the school, then the
teacher is at a "dead end." He added that he did not know how
it could be enforced, but that he supported the amendment.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE commented that although the language may be
in state law, it refers to the "right" of a teacher to do
something. He stated that he would not support Amendment 6.
8:55:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT commented that the intent is to support
teachers. She expressed her concern that there could be a
lawsuit and a teacher could sue the district. She referred to
line 9 and said she thought it was subjective.
8:57:12 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE maintained his objection.
A roll call vote was taken.
[Co-Chair Ruffridge did not announce results and voided the vote
due to an interruption.]
8:57:44 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:57 a.m. to 8:58 a.m.
8:58:49 AM
[The following vote took the place of the voided vote.]
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Himschoot, Story,
and McCormick voted in favor of Amendment 6 to HB 382.
Representatives Prax, McKay, Allard, and Ruffridge voted against
it. Therefore, Amendment 6 to HB 382 failed by a vote of 3-4.
8:59:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to adopt Amendment 7 to HB 382,
labeled 33-LS1056\U.13, Bergerud, 3/27/24, which read as
follows:
Page 3, line 10, following "parent;":
Insert "and"
Page 3, lines 13 - 15:
Delete "; and
(17) notify parents promptly after a medical
examination or screening is performed on the child in
the event of an emergency"
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE objected.
9:00:01 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 9:00 a.m.
9:00:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said that the amendment came from a
concern she had on the section of the bill that was already in
board policy, which is also spelled out under the definitions in
the section. She spoke to the word "emergency" and what exactly
that would encompass. She said she thought it was unclear and
opined it was an unnecessary section.
9:02:24 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD shared that her child got hurt at school and she
was called immediately. She emphasized that there is no reason
a parent should not be called and notified of anything that
happens to their child. She expressed her opinion that
notifying parents should be in state statute and that she
appreciated Representative Carpenter looking into protecting
teachers.
9:03:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER addressed Representative Himschoot and
said he saw Sections 15 and 16 working together but the
amendment would delete Section 17. On page 4, line 15, he
restated the definition of a medical examination, and he shared
his interpretation.
9:06:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK expressed curiosity whether the mental
health screening falls under the provision or could create any
barriers for mental health providers to have conversations.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER replied that the definition found on
page 4 addressed mental health. If the amendment were not
adopted, and if there were a mental health-related emergency,
then parents would be notified after the emergency. Eliminating
the provision would mean that in an emergency situation where,
for example, a student has suicidal ideation, by state law
parents would not have to be notified.
9:08:09 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE interjected his understanding that with the
elimination of the language, a parent would have to consent or
be present even in the event of an emergency for a mental health
emergency.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER offered his belief that was correct and
added that if there were not an emergency, any other screening
would be covered under Section 16 being that is the only statute
there.
9:09:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK requested that Legislative Legal
Services be contacted for confirmation.
9:09:26 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:09 a.m. to 9:13 a.m.
9:13:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK restated his request for a legal
opinion in reference to Representative Ruffridge's prior
statement.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE questioned the removal of Section 17 on pages
14 and 15, whether the school would be required to gain consent
prior to offering even emergency treatment.
9:15:50 AM
MARGARET BERGERUD, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal
Services, stated that she believed that if Section 17 were
deleted and in the event of a true emergency, a school would at
least be able to provide the minimum amount of medical care
necessary for the emergency.
9:17:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY requested that legal counsel remain online.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT opined that the word "emergency" is
problematic in that there can be different perceptions of what
it entails. A family may come back with a lawsuit against the
district due to not being notified about something they deem an
emergency that educators or administrators did not. She did not
want to set families up for conflict, she said.
9:18:05 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Himschoot voted in
favor of Amendment 7 to HB 382. Representatives McCormick,
McKay, Story, Prax, Allard, and Ruffridge voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 7 failed by a vote of 1-6.
9:18:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to adopt Amendment 8 to HB 382,
labeled 33-LS1056\U.14, Bergerud, 3/27/24, which read as
follows:
Page 3, line 10, following "parent;":
Insert "and"
Page 3, lines 11 - 13:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following paragraph accordingly.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that Section 16 was already
addressed in board policy and that she hesitated to put things
in statute that could be handled more locally.
9:19:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER responded that what was being proposed
from being implemented into state law was the requirement that
parents be notified before a medical examination happens with
their child. He said he hoped that this statute would never be
needed, but in the case that a medical examination was performed
on a child prior to parents' notification and consent, that the
parents could point to state law and not just local rules. He
said he is opposed to the amendment.
9:21:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY requested Legislative Legal Services to
confirm the accuracy of her understanding of Amendment 8.
MS. BERGERUD replied that she believed it was a requirement and
part of school safety plans that schools need to adopt and are
required to make available.
9:23:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK expressed concern toward potential
abuse of the situation where a parent may be denying their child
mental care because they want them to suffer.
MS. ARDUIN commented that there is a difference between saying
the language is already in state law, and that state law
requires the districts to have to develop a school district
safety plan.
9:24:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK asked for further understanding
surrounding his previous comment about a possible abusive
household.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER responded that if the school, teacher,
or nurse is presented with information that there is an abusive
situation in the house and the child is in danger, there are
mandatory reporters to deal with such a situation. The bill, he
said, does not attempt to deal with that issue, but if the
school is trying to act on behalf of the parent, they are not
allowed to with regard to providing consent to a medical
procedure. If it is an emergency, the school can act, but if
not, they must get consent from the parent.
9:28:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX referred to a recent similar conversation
regarding an educator suspecting that a parent was abusing the
child, and they are afraid to call the parent because of the
potential abuse, then the next call would be to child services
from the mandatory reporter. He sought confirmation whether a
teacher failing to make the call would be liable.
MS. BERGERUD confirmed that was correct and the teacher would be
in violation of state law.
9:31:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT reiterated that it was covered in board
policy at the local level and that she felt it was covered in
multiple places. She stated that she did not want to add to
statute what is not needed.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE maintained his objection.
9:31:37 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McCormick,
Himschoot, and Story voted in favor of Amendment 8 to HB 382.
Representatives Prax, McKay, Allard, and Ruffridge voted against
it. Therefore, Amendment 8 failed by a vote of 3-4.
9:32:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to adopt Amendment 9 to HB 382,
labeled 33-LS1056\U.15, Bergerud, 3/27/24, which read as
follows:
Page 2, lines 3 - 4:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that the amendment would
delete the verbiage that stated, "allow parents to review the
budget including all revenue and expenditures of the child's
school", which she described as redundant. The budgets of every
school district are online, and anyone can ask for the
information, she remarked.
9:32:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER reinforced that the amendment, if
adopted, would remove what is currently in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT [moved to withdraw] Amendment 9.
[There being no objection, Amendment 9 was withdrawn.]
9:33:59 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:33 a.m. to 9:37 a.m.
9:37:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT stated that she would not offer
Amendments 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 at this time.
9:38:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to adopt Amendment 16 to HB 382,
labeled 33-LS1056\U.1, Bergerud, 3/20/24, which read as follows:
Page 12, line 27, through page 13, line 30:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE objected.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to adopt Amendment 1 to Amendment 16,
[a handwritten amendment included in the committee packet that
read as follows, original punctuation provided]:
1. Page 13, line 28 through 30
2. Delete all material.
3.
4. Renumber the following bill Sections
accordingly.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE objected.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY explained that it had to do with addressing
the physical safety and privacy rights of students on page 13,
lines 28 through 30. She requested opinions from Legislative
Legal Services since there may be a legal challenge based on
students' privacy rights.
9:39:32 AM
MS. BERGERUD responded that she believed the provision would
leave the bill vulnerable to challenge under state and federal
rights of privacy.
9:40:22 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD asked whether it violated the rights of
biological males and biological girls as well.
MS. BERGERUD replied that the Ninth Circuit recently ruled that
one does not have a right to privacy from members of the
opposite biological sex if the school otherwise makes single use
facilities available to everyone. In the context of locker room
facilities, she said, a school may not exclude certain
individuals based on their gender identity that are designated
by sex, so the ruling is that all would have access to a single
occupancy facility.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD commented that the word "transgender" is not a
term used in state statute and she asked Ms. Bergerud to refrain
from using it as a term. She asked, if an 18-year-old boy were
to enter a female locker room or bathroom and exposes himself,
whether it was a correct assumption that he would be breaking
the law.
MS. BERGERUD responded that that would be fact specific, but it
could be violative of other students' rights to privacy.
9:43:46 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE asked for any further comments on Amendment 1
to Amendment 16.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER stated that if it would be deleting
lines 28 through 30 and modifying the underlying amendment, then
he would be in opposition to the amendment but willing to allow
it to be challenged in court.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE commented that he would not be opposed to
Amendment 1 to Amendment 16 since Amendment 16 was initially
drafted incorrectly; therefore, he asked the committee to adopt
the amendment so that discussions could be had on the underlying
amendment.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 1 to Amendment 16 was adopted.
9:46:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER commented that he was confused over
whose privacy rights are at risk of being violated. He said
that as it currently stood, he would expect that if his children
were to attend a school and use a bathroom assigned to their
gender, then they would have a right to privacy. If that is not
happening, then their rights are being violated, he opined. He
said he found it ambiguous as to which students have privacy
rights and which do not in relation to the Ninth Circuit.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE commented that there may be added clarity by
Ms. Bergerud.
9:49:58 AM
MS. BERGERUD replied that Representative Carpenter put his
finger on the pulse of the issue, and the court is trying to
strike a balance in terms of privacy rights of students to not
have their gender identity status disclosed to the public. She
said it would be subject to challenge but did not know firmly
how a court would actually rule.
9:52:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2
to Amendment 16, [as amended]. She referred to page 13, line
29, and to strike "by requiring a student to use only facilities
designated to the student's biological sex."
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE objected.
9:54:10 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:54 a.m. to 9:56 a.m.
9:56:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT credited Representative Prax with the
concept for the amendment she was offering to Representative
Story's amendment.
9:56:30 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 9:56 a.m.
9:56:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX stated that he was in favor of conceptual
Amendment 2 but that he foresaw a lawsuit no matter what the
committee did. He opined that it would give schools options in
how to meet the objectives of procedures to address physical
safety and privacy of students in locker rooms and restrooms, as
well as give them the flexibility that is probably needed.
9:57:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER shared his thoughts that it is an issue
that the nation grapples with, and if adopted, the result would
be that the state law may solve "our political problem" in the
committee but "kicks the can" to the local jurisdiction to pay
for some kind of a challenge to the policies that they develop.
If the amendment is not adopted and the language is kept, the
legal challenge would be with the state and not the local
jurisdiction, he said.
9:59:58 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:59 a.m. to 10:02 a.m.
10:02:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT [moved to] withdraw Conceptual
Amendment 2 to Amendment 16, as amended. [There being no
objection, it was so ordered.]
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK said he was curious as to what the
genesis was of having the language in the bill to begin with.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER replied that he has heard from parents
that say they will not let their children attend a school that
allows the opposite biological sex in their bathrooms and locker
rooms; therefore, they removed their child from the school. He
added it is a national issue, and he drafted the bill into a
parents' bill of rights.
10:05:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK said whether or not the amendment
passed, he opined it would be useful to get information, if
available, on how many parents choose to remove their children
from school due to a bathroom policy. He expressed his
frustration and that the issue, compared to the many other
issues facing the educational system, felt frivolous to him. He
pointed out the minority of students in this situation and that
there is evidence that when students use a restroom that does
not coincide with their gender, they are at a higher likelihood
to be subject to violence. He noted that the language included
in the bill could actually defy parents' rights. He conveyed
that it felt departed from reality and from the future.
10:07:41 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD said she wished to protect her daughters and
stressed that first and foremost, she is a parent, and if one is
not, she opined that they may not share the values of what it
takes to be a parent. She shared a story of a boy in a male
restroom and a female walked in while he was using it, and it
caused him to be traumatized. She noted there would have to be
four locker rooms in each school and that marginalizing girls
and boys must stop.
10:09:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK pointed out that there was an option to
provide single occupancy restrooms and he opined it may be a
good compromise to the situation. He added that he had buried
friends because people do not want to accept people for who they
are, and that he experienced the suicide crisis not being
addressed; therefore, the issue may have unintended consequences
of putting more kids in graves.
10:11:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY supported the amendment and its importance
to recognize that students have privacy rights.
10:12:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER noted that he did not see this
provision as being prohibitive of local jurisdictions to have
single occupancy rooms; it just says the locker rooms and
restrooms that are identified for biological sexes are for
biological sexes.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE maintained his objection.
10:13:00 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McCormick,
Himschoot, and Story voted in favor of Amendment 16, as amended,
to HB 382. Representatives Prax, McKay, Allard, and Ruffridge
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 16, as amended, failed
by a vote of 3-4.
10:13:32 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE noted that the remainder of the amendments
would be taken up at a later date and announced that HB 382 was
held over.