Legislature(2019 - 2020)DAVIS 106
03/02/2020 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 | |
| HB136 | |
| HB260 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 260 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 136 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 136-PUBLIC SCHOOLS: SOCIAL/EMOTIONAL LEARNING
[Contains discussion of SB 6 and HB 181.]
8:06:43 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 136 "An Act relating to public school
funding for social and emotional learning; and providing for an
effective date." [Before the committee, adopted as a working
document on 2/28/20, was a proposed committee substitute (CS)
for HB 136, Version 31-LS 0827\U, Caouette, 2/17/20 ("Version
U").]
8:07:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRIER HOPKINS, Alaska State Legislature,
introduced HB 136 as prime sponsor. He recalled several
previous meetings' testimony centered on Social/Emotional
Learning (SEL) and its importance to all grade levels in Alaska.
He endorsed public education's role in teaching the "whole
student" beyond maximizing test scores, to help prepare students
for success in life.
8:08:00 AM
The committee took a brief at ease.
8:08:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS noted that a fiscal note for HB 136 would
be forthcoming.
8:09:02 AM
The committee took a brief at ease.
8:09:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS postulated that should a fiscal note
require a cost for implementation of the proposed bill, he would
expect it to be comparable to that of HB 181 providing for a
gathering of stakeholders and he does not anticipate any ongoing
costs. He explained Collaborative Academic Social and Emotional
Learning (CASEL) is a private contractor working with districts
throughout the nation on implementing SEL curricula that
includes self-awareness, social awareness, responsible decision
making, self-management, and relationship skills. He
differentiated SEL curricula from standard education by
describing SEL as an overall approach to teaching in the
classroom.
8:11:04 AM
TANIA CLUCAS, Staff, Representative Grier Hopkins, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 136 on behalf of Representative
Hopkins, prime sponsor. She added that SEL is already taking
place in Kindergarten through twelfth grade (K-12), and HB 136
would provide an acknowledgment of the work already being done
throughout the state and provide for standardization of SEL.
8:11:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referred to the State of Alaska early
learning guidelines, which contain some nexus of SEL in Alaska,
although he noted that in the intervening years since the
development of the guidelines, much research has taken place,
and HB 136 would extend SEL into all grade levels and not be
confined to Pre-K.
8:12:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referred to the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-
Su) School District Pre-K through second grade SEL guidelines,
which he lauded as exemplary standards that depict what SEL
standards are, including key concepts and tactics to deploy SEL
at various levels, from the student, to the classroom, to the
school, to the district. He exemplified the Mat-Su standard of
self-awareness; at third- to fifth-grade level a student must
have the ability to accurately recognize one's emotions and
thoughts and their influence on behavior, accurately assessing
one's own strengths and limitations, and possessing a well-
grounded sense of confidence and optimism. He then explained
that the school's role would be to develop the approach to
implementing the standard. He explained that this example is a
bottom-up approach wherein the role of the school is in the
closest position to understanding the individual's needs.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS indicated that there are several schools
that have worked with CASEL to implement standards with great
success. He noted that Alaska's Education Challenge (AEC)
identified overall goals which include "To Cultivate Safety and
Well-Being" among students, which is the goal area in which SEL
would apply. He drew this correlation to demonstrate alignment
of goals with prior administrations, the current administration,
the Department of Education & Early Development (DEED), and HB
136 and other proposed legislation.
8:15:05 AM
MS. CLUCAS indicated that the AEC contains an entire chapter on
SEL which further underscored the point that SEL is already
taking place throughout Alaska and suggested that HB 136 would
not obligate an entire novel undertaking but instead enact
standards for activities already taking place.
8:15:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS exemplified that the AEC safety and well-
being goal compels that culturally relevant standards should be
implemented, which aligns community and family relevance to SEL
by school district. He highlighted in the committee packet a
presentation to the House Education Standing Committee from
April 2019, entitled "K-12 Investing in Effective Measures by
Mark Foster." He highlighted page 3 of the presentation section
on caveats and limitations that caution the reader that
standardized testing for student success is singular and
summative, and that "'Standards Based Tests are only modestly
correlated with success in life' (Raj Chetty)." He emphasized
the third caveat in the presentation, "'Social skills tend to be
better predictors of success in life' (Kirabo Jackson, Raj
Chetty)," and SEL sets the foundation for teaching skills that
lead to student life success beyond test scores. He drew
attention to pages 38-39 in the presentation and recalled that
during the April 2019 presentation to the committee, Mr. Foster
repeatedly emphasized that while core academics are very
important and relevant to education, the key determinants of
positive adult outcomes are SEL skills.
8:19:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referred to a publication by the
Association of Alaska School Boards (AASB), entitled
"Transforming Schools: A Framework for Trauma-Engaged Practice
in Alaska" which outlines approaches that may be taken to
implement SEL and positive outcomes of including SEL in schools
in Alaska. He highlighted that tenets of SEL include self-
awareness, self-management, and co-regulation.
8:20:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS revealed that during research in
preparation for HB 136, he claimed further justification for SEL
in schools correlated with success later in life. He noted that
research has shown that prospective employers seek workers
skilled in the following areas: speaking, knowing how to learn,
working with others, positive attitude, able to work as part of
a team, respect for others, willingness to learn and understand
rewards, responsibility, and self-discipline.
8:21:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS drew attention to the additional
committee packet items demonstrating research documenting
positive outcomes for students with well-developed SEL skills,
including the documents, entitled "Transforming Students' Lives
with Social and Emotional Learning" and "Social and Emotional
Skills Well-being, connectedness and success." He noted that
extensive research exists and consistently indicates positive
outcomes when SEL is taught and learned. He complimented SEL
programs currently incorporated into districts in Mat-Su,
Anchorage, and Juneau, with success. He recalled previous
testimony from Anchorage School District (ASD) staff which
detailed "pockets of excellence" emerging in discrete settings.
He recalled that ASD incorporated district standards for SEL to
replicate pockets of excellence throughout the district. Mr.
Hopkins concluded that the statewide standards proposed in HB
136 would apply to all schools and proposed that more positive
student outcomes would be achieved as a result. He emphasized
that culturally relevant SEL should be considered.
8:23:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS again referenced the study included in
the committee packet, conducted by the Yale Center for Emotional
Intelligence, entitled "Transforming Students' Lives with Social
and Emotional Learning," which exemplified Promoting Alternative
Thinking Strategies (PATHS) as an example of SEL methodology,
among others. He concluded by recalling the summation at the
end of the Yale study, "keeping SEL separate from academics is a
disservice to educators, students, and families. The time has
come to ensure that all children and adults develop skills to
maximize their full potential academically, socially, and
emotionally." He spoke about ongoing efforts for professional
development and emphasized that SEL is most effective when
incorporated throughout all academic areas. He offered that the
committee consider an unattributed quote: "If a child cannot
read, we teach him to read. If a child does not know how to do
a math problem, we teach that child how to do a math problem.
If a child does not know how to behave, we punish him."
8:26:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX inquired whether this bill is the first
instance of implementing a measurable standard. He expressed
concern whether a standard would be the appropriate means or
whether to allow work that is already taking place to continue.
8:28:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS answered that SEL standards are not
measurable quantitatively; rather, qualitatively as outlined in
the Mat-Su standards included in the committee packet. He noted
that Mat-Su standards consist of objectives, activities, and
examples; individual schools and districts would retain autonomy
in how they meet those standards.
8:29:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX provided an example of the standard of
measurement of air quality, which he explained was contentious.
8:30:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS noted that math, science, and reading
standards exist in Alaska, and that SEL standards would be
developed in a manner that is not prescriptive.
8:30:49 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY postulated that increased skills in self-
regulation - including regulating fear, anger, and loss - may
result in a decrease in domestic violence, cases of Child In
Need of Aid (ChINA) may be reduced, and extolled the wider
benefits of restorative practices. She asked whether the
University of Alaska (UA) is teaching SEL to education program
students, and whether teaching of SEL is occurring on a national
level at colleges and universities. She asked how many of the
53 school districts in Alaska are currently engaged with SEL.
8:32:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS indicated that he has not identified
whether UA is providing instruction on SEL in its education
program and has not aggregated data either from districts in
Alaska or nationally, and he stated his intent to conduct
additional research into those three topics. He suggested that
the standards proposed in HB 136 would likely provide a vehicle
for reporting on the data that Representative Story sought
regarding SEL practices in the 53 districts in Alaska.
8:34:33 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY asked whether DEED may understand district level
SEL activities, so that it may be able to predict the impacts
and increase in workload, including professional development.
She added that implementation would come with direct costs. She
said it seems that resources are important for "making this
thing happen," and there is small fiscal note attached to the
bill.
8:35:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS allowed that cost is a major
consideration, which is "why we stepped back from our bill last
year that required school districts to spend a certain amount of
money on [creating standards for] social/emotional learning to
creating standards and the rationale to exclude the mandate that
...." He related that smaller schools had opposed that bill
because of the tightness of their budgets; some of the larger
school districts had been okay with it, because they could more
easily "shift money around," and "most of them were already
spending that one half of 1 percent of their state money on
social/emotional learning." He added that the resistance to the
previous bill has been supplanted by one of support for HB 136.
8:36:47 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY added that funding to these and other important
educational programs should be maintained and increased. She
noted that there have been advancements and increased awareness
in brain science, and these should be incorporated into
education.
8:37:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS expressed his agreement.
8:37:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK indicated that standards such as math and
science are measurable based on testing. He asked whether the
standards for SEL would be measured in behavioral outcomes and
how that would relate to instruction.
8:38:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referred to Mat-Su standards as a working
example of how SEL measurements might be accomplished,
consisting of a model of a set goal and reported outcomes,
analogous to a student's understanding a multiplication table.
8:39:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked where in the proposed language this
point was made clear. He suggested a contradiction between the
proposed language regarding "instruction" and student outcomes
described. He questioned adopting regulations as compared with
legislating standards as a point of discussion. He questioned
whether the proposed legislation would result in autonomy for
districts in implementing SEL, including culturally relevant
SEL, and indicated his understanding that SEL was explicitly
connected with student outcomes. He sought further discussion
to ensure that the bill would achieve the results as discussed.
He suggested the possibility that the mandate of instructional
standards could result in increased autonomy for districts. He
inquired whether SEL would be required.
8:42:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS affirmed that the standards would be
required to be adopted.
8:42:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked to clarify whether the standards
should be adopted by each district or by the board.
8:42:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS explained that the board would adopt the
standards, which districts would then deploy on a mandatory
basis.
8:43:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK drew attention to line 7 of the bill and
indicated that, as drafted, it is not a clear directive to any
entity other than the board. He suggested that language be
included to direct districts or other responsible parties to
adhere to a mandate.
8:44:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS indicated that he would follow up with
the board and DEED to ascertain their interpretation of the
language, which had been drafted in consultation with
Legislative Legal Services.
8:44:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS recalled Representative Tuck's earlier
question about the distinction between the mandate for
instruction and for student outcomes. He indicated that his
intent in drafting the bill pertained more to student outcomes,
and he would follow up likewise with DEED and the board to
ensure that their interpretation of the proposed legislation as
written is the same.
8:45:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON indicated that outcomes are the goal with
education in general, and that the wording of the language
distinguishing instruction versus outcome should be carefully
considered. She stated her understanding that many other states
do not require SEL and suggested that SEL should be implemented
on a non-mandatory basis until more is understood.
8:46:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS suggested that students who do not
possess the skills taught in SEL may be held back and do not
experience success to their potential. He allowed that some
states may not have mandatory standards in SEL; however, the
states that do experience positive outcomes.
8:47:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY expressed her pride in co-sponsoring the
bill. She emphasized that age-appropriate programs are
necessary. She cautioned that outcomes mandated by law might
not be achieved as intended, and the measurements of those
outcomes can become unwieldy. She encouraged Representative
Hopkins' stated intent of cooperation with DEED and the board in
order to maintain the focus of the holistic nature of SEL in the
classroom. She suggested the analogy of SEL as a "lens" through
which educators might teach.
8:50:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS expressed his agreement with
Representative Zulkosky's expressed viewpoint of the intent of
the proposed bill and agreed to continue development and
refinement of the language to ensure alignment with that
viewpoint.
8:51:09 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND inquired as to the number of districts
currently using SEL.
8:51:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS stated that standards may exist at a
variety of levels, from individual classrooms, to schools, to
districts; therefore, the data is not easily compiled. He
suggested that implementation of the proposed bill would lead to
more transparency in terms of where SEL is used and thereby its
efficacy. He suggested that an attempt to obtain that data
would result in granular results due to the variety of standards
and methods in SEL in a variety of settings.
8:53:34 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:53 to 8:54 a.m.
8:54:29 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND drew attention to fiscal note HB136-EED-SSA-1-
19-20.
8:55:05 AM
ERIN HARDIN, Special Assistant/Legislative Liaison, Office of
the Commissioner, Department of Education & Early Development,
explained that the fiscal note reflects changes adopted under
the CS before the committee, Version U. She noted that DEED
analysis of HB 136 was completed using similar methodology as
was used for analysis of HB 181. She listed the itemized fiscal
considerations for fiscal year 2021 (FY 21) as $60,000 for
travel, $41,000 for services, and $12,000 projected expenditures
for FY 22 to align best practices in standards development. She
explained that FY 21 costs are associated with a contractor that
would facilitate stakeholder engagement, and FY 22 costs would
be used to cover printing and distribution of standards to
stakeholders.
8:57:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether DEED examined development of
standards for teaching methods, curriculum, or both.
8:58:05 AM
TAMERA WAN WYHE, Division Director, Innovation and Education
Excellence, Department of Education & Early Development,
explained that the fiscal note was based on the process of
development of any set of standards, including non-assessed
standards. She added that assessed standards are language arts,
math, and science. She suggested that SEL efficacy is maximized
when the teachers adopt standards, and that the interpretation
of the proposed bill is directed towards instruction and what a
teacher does in the classroom.
9:00:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY inquired as to the role of DEED
regarding development of curricula.
9:00:42 AM
MS. VAN WYHE explained the difference between standards and
curricula: standards are what students need to know - as
developed by DEED - whereas curricula are tools and resources
developed to impart the standards to students - as developed by
the districts.
9:02:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked what resources are received and
needed by DEED for standards development.
9:02:37 AM
MS. VAN WYHE outlined the standards development process, which
in general includes a contracted subject matter expert,
stakeholder engagement, draft versions, multiple stakeholder
reviews, and public comment in advance of adoption by the board.
She emphasized that broad and thorough stakeholder engagement is
critical to standards development.
9:05:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY suggested that concurrent proposed
legislation under HB 136 and HB 181 being related to education
standards could result in "cross-pollination," cost savings, and
efficiencies, while she underscored the uncertainties of
predicting outcomes based on proposed legislation prior to it
becoming enacted.
9:07:16 AM
MS. VAN WYHE noted that DEED has been tracking both bills and
allowed that they each would require similar work to implement
once enacted, and DEED has been preparing for the potential that
both bills would pass, and agreed that efficiencies could be
achieved. She added that HB 136 and HB 181 include fiscal notes
that would be duplicative should both bills pass.
9:08:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked for clarification of the difference
between standards and guidelines.
9:08:29 AM
MS. VAN WYHE explained that standards with regard to education
reflect what students are expected to know. She allowed that
the concept of guidelines, by definition, accurately reflects
the intent of what educational standards are designed to
accomplish.
9:09:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether the amounts detailed in the
fiscal note reflect only DEED's direct costs.
9:09:28 AM
MS. VAN WYHE confirmed that is correct.
9:09:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether DEED had an estimate of what
costs stakeholders may be required to bear during the standards
development process.
9:09:49 AM
MS. VAN WYHE asked for clarification on who Representative Prax
referred to as stakeholders.
9:09:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX explained that districts would bear costs
during the standards development, namely the time spent
reviewing and contributing through the stakeholder engagement
process.
9:10:17 AM
MS. VAN WYHE explained that cost analysis for districts would
vary widely through the standards development and implementation
phases, and she could not project an accurate estimate of what
those costs might entail.
9:10:44 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:10 a.m. to 9:11 a.m.
9:11:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether non-assessed standards are
voluntary.
9:12:03 AM
MS. VAN WYHE confirmed they are. She explained that standards
in math and language arts are very prescriptive and that
districts may adopt their own; however, they would be similar to
the state standards when adopted.
9:12:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether the proposed legislation would
result in a non-assessed standard if passed.
9:12:59 AM
MS VAN WYHE confirmed that DEED's interpretation of the proposed
legislation is one that would result in non-assessed standards.
9:13:13 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY asked for further differentiation between
instruction and outcomes, such as the question of teacher
professional development. She asked whether DEED coordinates
with UA regarding its behavior management programs, which she
indicated is analogous to SEL, and what insight DEED has into
the instruction taking place at UA.
9:14:39 AM
MS. VAN WYHE explained that DEED does not approve UA coursework.
She allowed that SEL is trending as important throughout the
country. She cautioned that while she could not definitively
confirm that SEL is included in UA's coursework, she stated her
confidence that SEL exists and is being taught.
9:15:20 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY suggested that the committee contact UA to
confirm the extent to which SEL is incorporated into its
education programs. She asked DEED to confirm that the
standards in the proposed legislation would be implemented in
the classroom and not implemented to instructors.
9:15:49 AM
MS. VAN WYHE acknowledged that the answer to the question posed
is complex and explained that SEL is implemented in the
classroom, in the manner that teachers engage with students.
She noted that SEL is implemented in a variety of methods at
school, local, and state levels throughout the nation. She
offered that the committee substitute would direct the standards
to be implemented through teachers to the students directly in
the classroom, though teacher professional standards are not
addressed in the bill.
9:16:57 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY asked whether the language in the bill should be
changed to replace "instruction" with "learning".
9:17:12 AM
MS. VAN WYHE suggested that she confer with colleagues in order
to confirm whether a change to the language would be recommended
by DEED.
9:17:28 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND continued public testimony on HB 136, [which
had been left open from the previous bill hearing on 2/28/20].
9:17:44 AM
DAVID NEES offered biographical information. He expressed his
appreciation of the change incorporated in the committee
substitute that resulted in the removal of an unfunded mandate,
but cautioned that in communities such as Boston and Chicago,
the cost has been estimated to be between $20 and $50 per
student for the implementation of SEL training and
administrative support. He postulated that there would be costs
within limited resources and that districts would be compelled
to make decisions to cut other programs. He recounted that
Anchorage and Milwaukee both have had SEL implemented in their
districts for approximately 25-30 years and that no study has
taken place to determine the efficacy of the programs. He noted
that studies including Alaska's Education challenge suggest that
SEL is effective; however, data has not been obtained
specifically demonstrating benefit to students and that a
research component should be added to measure effectiveness of
SEL under the proposed bill. He suggested that the word
"instruction" in the proposed bill is problematic and
recommended that existing standards may provide the framework in
which SEL standards could be included; however, teacher
certification requirements may need to be examined to ensure
proper training.
9:21:17 AM
NATALI JONES, School Counselor, Kenai Peninsula Borough School
District, shared that the schools in which she serves are:
Nanwalek School, Port Graham School, Nikolaevsk, Susan B.
English School, Chapman School, and Homer Flex High School. She
expressed appreciation that SEL is being addressed in proposed
legislation, and that teachers have a diversity of skillsets in
SEL. She cautioned that counselors, while supportive of SEL,
would not be the ideal vehicle to implement SEL in districts;
rather, SEL skilled teachers and school culture would be the
appropriate channels. She suggested that students exhibiting
the behavioral problems that SEL seeks to mitigate can often be
handled in the classroom environment through teachers skilled in
SEL. She expressed her support of SEL and acknowledged that the
topic of policymaking for SEL is a complex undertaking and one
of importance to student success.
9:23:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY acknowledged there exists a shortage of
school counselors, in some communities to an extreme. She asked
Ms. Jones how many students she supports and what level of
professional support she receives.
9:24:09 AM
MS. JONES described the conditions in her district as having 3
itinerant counselors among 43 schools, each counselor serving
approximately 5 schools. She noted that the national model
suggests one counselor to 250 students in urban areas, and rural
areas the ratio is one counselor to 125 students due to the
challenges rural logistics impose. She added that, at current
levels, counselors provide services for ten minutes per student
per year.
9:24:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked for additional information about the
schools in which Ms. Jones works.
9:25:23 AM
MS. JONES explained that Susan B. English School is located in
Seldovia; Port Graham School and Nanwalek School are both
located in Native villages; Nikolaevsk School is in a Russian
Orthodox village; Homer Flex High School is located in Homer;
and Chapman School is a middle school located in Anchor Point.
9:25:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether there was a need for
culturally different approaches to the work she conducts at each
site.
9:26:23 AM
MS JONES suggested that local cultural customization and
autonomy would be important for effective implementation of SEL.
9:27:21 AM
HERMAN MORGAN testified in opposition to HB 136 and suggested
that other legislative priorities should be established.
9:30:14 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND closed public testimony on HB 136 and
announced that the bill would be held over.
HB 260-STATE EDUCATION POLICY: EARLY CHILDHOOD
[Contains discussion of HB 181, HB 136, and SB 6.]
9:30:50 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 260 "An Act relating to the state
education policy."
9:31:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, Alaska State Legislature, presented
HB 260 as prime sponsor and offered her availability for
questions or further discussion of HB 260.
9:31:57 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND suggested that HB 181, HB 136, and HB 260 are
conceptually similar and would shape DEED's approach to SEL
standards and practices and child development, but they remain
separate proposed legislation.
9:32:15 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY requested that Representative Tarr explain the
concepts of restorative practices as proposed under HB 260.
9:32:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR recalled work that had taken place during
restorative justice summits and noted that restorative practices
and SEL fall under a wider umbrella of trauma-informed approach
to learning. She suggested that HB 260 was drafted with the
intent and addresses these concepts from the broader umbrella
perspective. She recalled that Senate Bill 105 [passed into law
during the Thirtieth Alaska State Legislature] instructed
trauma-informed approach to the Department of Health & Social
Services, whereas HB 260 is instructive to DEED. She referenced
AS 14.03.015 and opined that it is brief and lacking. She
emphasized her belief and experience that changes proposed to
education policy should be undertaken with caution and a
measured and deliberate approach to include the educational
community in the development of policy.
9:34:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that work has been taking place over
the last four years to shape the proposed legislation and
include stakeholder input from Anchorage, Fairbanks, Palmer,
Wasilla, Valdez, Homer, Sitka, Juneau, Bethel, Chevak, Chignik,
and Kwethluk. She explained that stakeholder feedback revealed
a consensus to include trauma-informed approach to education
policy, and that local districts and schools deploy that
approach in SEL, restorative practices, and other strategies.
She recalled previous testimony in which witnesses revealed that
students experience trauma and bring it with them to school.
She explained that HB 260 would serve to orient thinking towards
trauma-informed approach as compared to a policy mandate. She
noted that the State of Alaska conducts a significant level of
crisis intervention, and the bill was drafted with the intent of
prevention.
9:36:13 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY proffered that the proposed legislation would be
a policy statement regarding social/emotional learning and the
addition of mental health education standards.
9:36:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR indicated that research conducted during the
formation of HB 260 from a variety of locations throughout the
country revealed a desired trend from educators and stakeholders
wherein policy intent is stated, and SEL and other standards can
be deployed with local and culturally relevant implementation.
9:37:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that SB 6 is a detailed bill that
contains funding considerations and, comparatively, HB 260 is
intended to inform overall policy formation and imparts a
gradual approach to policy reform. She indicated her support
for SB 6, HB 136, and HB 181 and expressed hope that funds will
be made available for implementation of these and other
legislation which trend toward a trauma-informed approach to
education.
9:37:51 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND restated the concept of "orienting our
thinking" as a suitable description of the intent of the
proposed language.
9:37:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX referred to AS 14.03.015 as consisting of
only one paragraph and inquired how adding a subsection "b"
would occur when there exists no subsection "a" currently.
9:38:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that this is due to the technical
draft requirements as provided by the "revisor of statutes" and,
if passed, the subsections would appear as intended.
9:38:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX opined that AS 14.03.015 is a broad
statement and asked whether the intent could be accomplished
without amending statute, to avoid any unintended consequences
that might result.
9:39:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR indicated that the proposed legislation
included stakeholder feedback and reflects the modern classroom
environment, and the policy statement under the proposed
legislation would codify the need to meet the issues that are
confronted in the classroom.
9:41:33 AM
KATIE BOTZ shared her personal experience of assault that she
endured as a school aged child. She explained that the stigma
surrounding sexual abuse perpetuated her abuse, and the criminal
justice process that ensued interfered greatly with her
education. She indicated that in her job as a school bus driver
she has noticed and is sympathetic toward children who may not
exhibit outward signs of trauma and abuse.
9:45:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK expressed his gratitude for the courage
demonstrated by the public testimony Ms. Botz had provided.
9:45:44 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND closed public testimony on HB 260 and
announced that the bill would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|