01/27/2012 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB145 | |
| HB282 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 282 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 145 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
January 27, 2012
8:11 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Dick, Chair
Representative Lance Pruitt, Vice Chair
Representative Eric Feige
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 145
"An Act establishing the parental choice scholarship program to
be administered by school districts for the purpose of paying
the cost of attending grades kindergarten through 12 at public
and private schools; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 282
"An Act relating to applying military education, training, and
service credit to occupational licensing and certain
postsecondary education and employment training requirements;
and providing for a temporary occupational license for qualified
military service members."
- MOVED CSHB 282(EDC) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 8
"An Act relating to questionnaires and surveys administered in
the public schools."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 145
SHORT TITLE: K-12 SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KELLER
02/09/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/09/11 (H) EDC, FIN
03/25/11 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/25/11 (H) Heard & Held
03/25/11 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/04/11 (H) EDC AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/04/11 (H) Heard & Held
04/04/11 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/06/11 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/06/11 (H) Heard & Held
04/06/11 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/08/11 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/08/11 (H) Heard & Held
04/08/11 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/11/11 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/11/11 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/15/11 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/15/11 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
01/23/12 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/23/12 (H) Heard & Held
01/23/12 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
01/27/12 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 282
SHORT TITLE: MILITARY TRAINING CREDIT/TEMP. LICENSE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) THOMAS
01/17/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/17/12 (H) EDC, FIN
01/27/12 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 145 and responded to questions.
ERNEST PRAX, Staff
Representative Wes Keller
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the changes made in the proposed
committee substitute (CS), for HB 145, and responded to
questions.
JEAN MISCHEL, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing
on HB 145.
ANNETTE KREITZER, Staff
Representative Alan Dick
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided committee questions, for legal
comment, during the hearing on HB 145.
CHUCK KOPP, Staff
Senator Fred Dyson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing
on HB 145.
AARON SCHROEDER, Staff
Representative Bill Thomas, Jr.
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the proposed committee substitute
(CS) for HB 282, on behalf of Representative Bill Thomas, Jr.,
prime sponsor.
MARK SAN SOUCI, Regional State Liaison
Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
Military Family & Community Policy
Tacoma, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 282.
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, Associate Vice President
State Relations
University of Alaska Southeast (UAS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided University of Alaska System policy
measures relating to section 2 of the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 282.
DON HABEGER, Director
Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 282.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:11:26 AM
CHAIR ALAN DICK called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:11 a.m. Present at the call to order were
Representatives Dick, P. Wilson, Seaton, Feige, Pruitt, and
Cissna; Representative Kawasaki arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 145-K-12 SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM
8:11:53 AM
CHAIR DICK announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 145, "An Act establishing the parental choice
scholarship program to be administered by school districts for
the purpose of paying the cost of attending grades kindergarten
through 12 at public and private schools; and providing for an
effective date."
8:12:14 AM
CHAIR DICK closed public testimony.
8:12:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 145, labeled 27-LS0223\G, Mischel,
1/24/12, as a work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for discussion.
8:13:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER, Alaska State Legislature, expressed
his gratitude for the committee's work, on HB 145, by
paraphrasing a quote from Ben Franklin, which read [original
punctuation provided]:
... nothing is of more importance for the public weal,
than to form and train up youth in wisdom and virtue.
Wise and good men are, in my opinion, the strength of
a state; much more so than riches or arms, ...
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER deferred to staff for a review of the
changes represented in the proposed CS.
8:14:49 AM
ERNEST PRAX, Staff, Representative Wes Keller, Alaska State
Legislature, said that Version G contains three primary changes.
Directing attention to page 1, line 14, he indicated the first
change, which is to clarify that the scholarship program
requires a separate legislative appropriation, by inserting
language to read: "Payments made under the program are subject
to appropriation." Secondly, the language change on page 2,
line 5, stipulates the residence requirement by removing "in"
and altering the language to read: "…regardless of the
attendance area or the school district in which the student
resides." Finally, five lines of language have been added to
page 4, lines 21-25, at the behest of Chair Dick, which exempts
schools that have an average daily membership (ADM) of less than
50 students per year.
CHAIR DICK explained his intent to protect small schools, which
may be negatively impacted by passage of HB 145. Further, he
pointed out that the three year limit will allow future
legislatures to revisit the effects of the bill on the smaller
schools.
8:18:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether the CS retains the
language referring to a two year grace period, for schools with
an ADM below 10.
MR. PRAX answered, yes, and directed attention to page 3, lines
6-11.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether a school with an ADM of
less than 10 would receive funding at the 10 student level, or
receive reduced funding, but be allowed to remain open.
MR. PRAX explained that a school dropping below the minimum ADM
of 10 would receive full funding for a period of two years.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON surmised that a school with 9 students
would be funded for two years, as though it had an enrollment of
10 students, but in the third year, funding would be
discontinued. She stated her understanding that the third year
is when the state would be made aware of how many schools would
be closed.
8:21:46 AM
CHAIR DICK explained that the intent of Section 2 of the bill,
providing a three year sunset clause is to allow time to
evaluate how well the program is working. The proposed AS
14.31.030, stipulating a two year period of grace, due to low
enrollment, would not sunset.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON underscored the need to provide clear
intent in the proposed language, and asked for further
explanation of how the two aspects of the bill might work.
MR. PRAX pointed out that the language on page 4, lines 21-25,
is applicability language, which stipulates that schools with 50
or less students when the bill takes effect, could not
participate for the first three years. Following the third
year, the legislature will have the opportunity to review the
program and decide whether to continue the program, and then the
schools with less than 50 students could participate.
CHAIR DICK assured that there would not be a mass exodus from
public schools, with the passage of this bill and said that the
intent is to provide a three year window in order to grasp the
effects of the legislation. Following the initial three years
adjustments could then be made.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON maintained her concern and said that
following the third year small schools could be severely
impacted.
8:26:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE offered his understanding, stating that the
bill would not apply to small schools for the first three years.
If in the fourth year the enrollment drops below 10, there is a
waiver to allow schools to remain open for two additional years.
8:27:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he reads the bill as a directive to a
parent, that if a family resides in a community with a school
size of less than 50, the program is not available.
CHAIR DICK agreed that small schools are on the cusp, and not
every parent will have the choice of participating in the
program. He further agreed that caution must be taken to avoid
a situation that would eliminate a public school as a choice,
due to lack of enrollment.
8:30:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA expressed concern, and objection to the
amendment, due to the pace with which the bill is being moved
through committee. She asked to have further information
provided, time allowed to review the information, and department
and school officials made available for comment.
CHAIR DICK pointed out that, particularly considering NCLB
requirements, a one size solution doesn't fit all.
8:32:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked whether Representative Cissna
objects to the proposed CS, or the amendment, which is not yet
under discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA suggested that a special sub-committee to
review all of the changes would be helpful, and stated that she
does not object to the proposed legislation; the committee
process is a concern.
8:33:48 AM
JEAN MISCHEL, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, said she was
available for questions.
ANNETTE KREITZER, Staff, Representative Alan Dick, Alaska State
Legislature, on request of legal counsel, clarified the
committee's question asking how Section 2 of the bill, and
proposed AS 14.31.030, work together in practicality.
8:34:15 AM
MS. MISCHEL explained that the applicability provision, Section
2, excludes schools with fewer than 50 students for a three year
period after the effective date of the act. The proposed AS
14.31.030, stipulates that the school size, for purposes of
state aid calculation, would not change if the size falls below
10 for a period of a two year period. To a follow-up question,
she pointed out that proposed AS 14.31.030 is a permanent
provision.
8:37:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if it is correct to interpret
Section 2 to mean that parents in communities with fewer than 50
students on the school rolls do not qualify for participation,
during the initial three years of the program.
MS. MISCHEL said that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON queried whether constitutional due process
issues would arise, given the exclusionary restriction of
providing a state benefit only to larger communities.
MS. MISCHEL responded that HB 145 may present a valid equal
protection question. A court would not necessarily invalidate
the provision; however the legislature would need to articulate
legitimate rationale related to the provision. One policy
rational in question would be the potential failure of an
existing public school, particularly if it is the only public
school available in the area, and the effect on the remaining
students. Other questions might also arise, but she said if the
legislature has a legitimate purpose, and a provision is
tailored to that purpose, it would be upheld by the court.
8:41:54 AM
CHAIR DICK observed that a line has been legally drawn, and
cited the ADM limit of 10. Thus, discrimination already exists
for anyone who lives in a village with less than 10 students.
8:42:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked whether there are any public schools
with less than 50 students located in proximity to an
established private school, which might be effected. Further,
he questioned whether a private school could successfully be
established in a three year period.
MR. PRAX deferred to legal counsel.
MS. MISCHEL responded that the applicability provision [Section
2] excludes families from the program for a three year period.
8:44:19 AM
CHUCK KOPP, Staff, Senator Fred Dyson, Alaska State Legislature,
added that the language under applicability clearly indicates
that a parental choice scholarship may not affect a public
school. Thus, if public enrollment is reduced because a child's
parents have chosen another school, the public school funding
will not be impacted for a period of three years. Referring to
the requirement of an ADM of 10 students, he said these are two
very different provisions, however, in neither case does it
remove the ability of a parent to make a choice for the
education of their child.
MS. MISCHEL said the applicability provision [Section 2] is not
limited to a particular aspect of the program. The parents who
have students in a public school with an ADM of 50 or less may
choose to send their student to a private school, but no
scholarship funding would be available for a three year period
to support that choice. She indicated that the section could be
rewritten from applicability and be made a temporary protection
section; similar to proposed AS 14.31.030.
MR. KOPP offered that the intent is to promote parental choice,
and it appears that the opportunity will be limited for three
years, as written.
MS. MISCHEL responded yes. She referred to Representative
Pruitt's question, regarding size, proximity of schools, and
whether there are families that would be affected, and said an
EED response would be appropriate.
8:48:10 AM
CHAIR DICK offered his understanding that in states where this
type of legislation has been implemented, reports indicate that
everyone involved has benefited and the educational outcome has
been good.
8:48:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked whether the bills adopted by other
states are the same as what is before this committee and if the
reports are from states with similar rural conditions as Alaska.
CHAIR DICK responded no, and added that there is no state like
Alaska.
8:49:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested aligning the bill aspects
under discussion; the hold harmless clause and the applicability
section.
CHAIR DICK said:
We're talking about a five year period. Three years
where it's just hold harmless - let's figure out how
this thing works - and after that there would be a two
year grace period for communities to adjust.
MS. MISCHEL interjected that the two year period is a permanent
provision. Thus, if a schools ADM drops below 10, it will be
held harmless for a two year period from that point; it is a
floating two year period after the first three year exclusion.
8:52:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated his understanding that the funding
is based on the residency of the person not the location of the
school. A qualified boarding, correspondence or other private
school would receive a scholarship amount for an enrolled
student, at the rate for which the student's home district is
budgeted. He asked whether it is correct that there is no
requirement that a private school establish in the same
community in which the enrollment reduction occurs.
MS. MISCHEL concurred and said that the funding is based on
where ever the student retains residency; their home district.
The private school could be located anywhere in the state.
Transportation costs may discourage this type of scenario,
unless a boarding school situation was entered into. The
higher, rural funding would be paid to an urban boarding school,
should a student transfer in, and retain a remote resident
address.
8:55:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to page 3, line 6, and
requested a further explanation of Sec. 14.31.030.
MS. MISCHEL said that if a student count falls below 10, as a
result of the parental choice scholarship, the school is held
harmless. The school will be treated, for the purposes of the
school size factor, as having 10 students in order to avoid
closure. The funding, for 10 students, will be received for a
period of two years, during which time the enrollment may
increase, or the school would be closed.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON clarified that this represents a
floating two years.
MS. MISCHEL indicated that the two year period could begin at
any time, through the life of the program.
8:56:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that under this section the school
would be treated as having 10 students, in regards to funding
received for the district cost factor, but would not receive the
ADM funding for students who are not actually attending; the ADM
funding would be directed to the student's school of choice.
MS. MISCHEL explained that the section only speaks to the school
size factor, not the district cost factor; the ADM is the
reference point.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said:
If a school went down to five, they're not going to be
funded as if they had ten students in the school. The
cost factor to the district will still remain the
same, but they're only going to get the ADM and the
funding for five students not for ten students. ...
We're really only maintaining the district cost factor
... not the average daily membership, as if it was
fully ten.
8:59:07 AM
CHAIR DICK reported that he has experienced life in a village
where a school was closed, and the cost factor is far reaching,
as it includes many factors including legal filings. He stated
his understanding that a school would receive continued funding
for 10 students, and asked if that is correct.
8:59:49 AM
MS. MISCHEL said that the proposed language only speaks to the
school size factor, under AS 14.17.450; but the size creates an
adjusted student count. There is no multiplier for a school
with a student count of 10-20 students, thus, AS 14.17.450 would
normally require that a school falling below 10 be included
within the same district with the lowest ADM. She said this
action would not occur for a two year period.
CHAIR DICK opined that given the two year grace period, school
districts would have ample opportunity to plan ahead.
MR. PRAX offered that the intent is to have a school continue to
be funded at the 10 student level, and if the language needs to
be changed to reflect that intent an amendment would be
welcomed.
9:01:40 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 9:01 a.m.
CHAIR DICK reported that the sponsor of the bill does not
support an amendment for the section under discussion.
9:02:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON turned to page 2, lines 9 and 31, which
indicate allowable tuition, and stated his understanding that a
private school would receive the same basic aid and local
contribution that would be applicable to a public facility,
including correspondence schools. However, he pointed out, it
appears that a private correspondence school would receive 100
percent of allowed funding, whereas public schools currently
receive only 80 percent, under the funding formula.
MR. KOPP said it would be possible that the private program
could receive 100 percent funding.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reiterated that public correspondence
programs are only allowed funding at the rate of 80 percent of
the ADM.
MR. KOPP conjectured that tuition for a private correspondence
school would be competitive, and suggested that establishing a
specific percentage that could be funded would eliminate the
concern.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested that private tuition costs may
experience a surge to reflect the influx of state funding, and
the structure of the bill allows for funding above what state
institutions are allowed.
9:08:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE concurred that the tuition of private
correspondence programs may rise. The choice that parents and
students will make, remains unknown, he said, and underscored
the importance for competition. He suggested equalizing the
funding factor to mitigate the concern.
EPRESENTATIVE SEATON said it does not appear that an amendment
has been crafted to address this issue, and underscored his
concern for the language contained in the proposed CS.
9:10:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER pointed out that the finance committee
would revue how the education funding formula works in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON held that the education committee should
be crafting the bill appropriately, prior to passing it to the
next committee of referral.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON agreed that establishing appropriate
policy in this committee is important. Further, she said that
private schools will be allowed to discriminately enroll
students, even though public funds are being received.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT pointed out that charter schools are not
open enrollment institutions, and receive public funds; albeit
on a different scale.
9:13:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to page 3, line 29, and read:
The department shall adopt regulations necessary to
carry out the program in a manner that ensures the
highest number of student and school participation,
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said this is problematic, as the
department is being directed to write regulations that will be
as detrimental as possible to the public schools; the use of
"shall" and "ensure" are not appropriate directives for the
statute.
MR. KOPP responded that the proposed language refers to the
administrative process, and is a clear statement of legislative
intent to provide direction for efficiencies in process for how
schools of choice can be established. Operational guidance of a
school will be made user friendly through the adoption of this
language.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that the language does not come under
the intent section of the bill; it does, however, create a
mandate to the department, and represents a problem.
[A brief discussion ensued regarding the possibility of offering
an amendment.]
9:23:23 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:23 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.
9:30:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection. Without further
objection, Version G was before the committee.
9:31:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE moved Conceptual Amendment 1, to page 3,
line [28], to read:
The department shall adopt regulations necessary to
carry out the program including
9:32:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected to re-read the proposed
amendment. She then removed her objection. Without further
objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
9:33:13 AM
The committee took an at-ease at 9:33 a.m.
9:34:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked for departmental response regarding
how special needs students, requiring services, would be
affected by HB 145.
9:35:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested that department representatives
respond to questions regarding travel, specifically how the
participating school requirement would apply and also
considerations related to travel pertaining to attending a
boarding school.
9:35:19 AM
[HB 145 was held over.]
HB 282-MILITARY TRAINING CREDIT/TEMP. LICENSE
9:35:30 AM
CHAIR DICK announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 282, "An Act relating to applying military
education, training, and service credit to occupational
licensing and certain postsecondary education and employment
training requirements; and providing for a temporary
occupational license for qualified military service members."
9:35:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved the proposed CS for HB 282, Version
27-LS1116\E, Mischel, 1/25/12.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI objected.
9:36:18 AM
AARON SCHROEDER, Staff, Representative Bill Thomas, Jr., Alaska
State Legislature, reviewed the changes represented in the
proposed CS for HB 282 paraphrasing from a prepared statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, Line 9
DELETE: Relevant
Page 1, Paragraph (a)
SECTION REORGANIZED
ADDS SUBSECTION 1: "the department or applicable board
determines that education, training, and service is
equivalent to some or all of the qualifications
otherwise required of an applicant for a license or
certificate issued under this chapter:"
-stronger/clearer language
ADDS SECTION 2: "The applicant provides satisfactory
evidence of successful completion of the education,
training, or service as a member of the armed forces
of the United States, the United States Reserves, the
National Guard of any state, the Military Reserves of
any state, or the Naval Militia of any state."
-restates language from Section 1 of version B which
deals w/ occupations who issue temporary licenses.
Page 2, Paragraph (b)- ADDS: citation AS
08.01.050(a)(9)
Page 2, Line 11
ADDS: citation for subparagraphs 2-5
-Language refers licensing practices already in
statute
Page 2, Subparagraph (A)
ADDS: maintained the license or certification in
active status before and at the time of application
-Makes clear that the license needs to be current when
they apply for a temporary license.
Page 2, Subparagraph (B)
REWORDED TO: "was awarded a diploma or certificate by
a branch of the armed forces of the United States or
any state, as described in (a) of this section, that
met standards of an equivalent license or a
certificate of technical training."
-Recognizes military certificates of technical
training
Page 2, Paragraph (c)
ADDS: for an applicant who is on active duty
-Expedited licenses only apply to individuals who
already hold a license and are on active duty.
Page 3, Line 12
DELETES: paragraph (d)
-Was not appropriate guidance for the Postsecondary
Education Commission.
Page 4, Paragraph (b)
ADDS: Institution accepts military education if the
institution already accepts transfer credits and is
approved by their accrediting body.
-Language suggested by the Postsecondary Education
Commission.
-Protects the institution from jeopardizing their
accreditation.
Page 5, Section 5-
ADDS- Guidance for DCCED and applicable boards to
immediately promulgate necessary regulations.
Page 5, Section 6-
ADDS: Effective date of December 31, 2013 for section
1-4.
-Gives department time to research military training
and promulgate regulations.
Page 6, Section 7-
ADDS: Immediately effective for Sec 5
9:40:01 AM
MR. SCHROEDER said the intent of the bill is to assist
previously active military personnel to transition into the
private sector work force. Currently, the national unemployment
rate is high among this demographic, about 13 percent. Although
Alaska's veteran unemployment rate is typically better than
average, recent concern has risen for a means to better support
the ex-service men and women in our state. In 2010, 1,200
former military personnel separated from service and maintained
an Alaskan address. The scope of the bill seeks to directly
solicit the Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional
Licensing, Department of Commerce, Community & Economic
Development (DCCED), the University of Alaska Vocational
Education, and the Alaska Work Force and Investment Board, to
assess military equivalencies to the programs offered.
Additionally, HB 282 seeks to expedite professional licensing,
or relicensing, of a veteran who is credentialed in another
state.
9:42:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether licensing boards have
provided comment on HB 282.
MR. SCHROEDER responded that representatives are available to
answer committee questions.
CHAIR DICK interjected that written comment has not been
received from the boards.
9:43:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA drew a similarity between service members
and those who volunteer in a specialized field and then receive
credit for the gratis work, when being considered for hire into
a profession. She stressed the positive implications to the
state in encouraging this type of action.
9:44:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON pointed out that the fiscal note has
been increased due to the boards and commissions need to fulfill
the work; these increases may be reflected in the license fees.
She said that the sooner the military personnel are able to find
work, the more helpful it will be for them socially and
emotionally. This is a great bill, she said.
9:46:20 AM
MARK SAN SOUCI, Liaison, Military Families for the Northwest,
Department of Defense, Regional Deputy Assistant, Secretary of
Defense for Military Family & Community Policy, testified in
support of HB 282, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Last year, with one million veterans unemployed; with
a post 9/11 unemployment rate of 13.3 percent; and an
unemployment rate for 18-24 year old veterans at 21.9
percent, the Department of Defense [DOD] began
supporting efforts in the states to ask states to give
separating Service members credit, so that they may
not be held back from finding employment or finishing
a degree.
We are asking legislative leaders like you to
establish policies that ensure separating Service
members do not have to repeat requirements completed
during their military career to obtain academic credit
or an occupational license.
MR. SAN SOUCI said:
So far, in the 2012 session and this is as of this
morning, we have 27 bills in 15 more states resembling
the one before you today that we are asking you to
support.
MR. SAN SOUCI continued paraphrasing from a prepared statement,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
It is important to us that you know we are not asking
for direct licensure if it is not equivalent. In
cases where the regulatory agency or board determines
partial credit but it saves time and expense and helps
get them there, even if not completely, that is what
we seek. We only seek credit where credit is due.
A couple of other points to consider: You and I have
already paid for this veteran's training within the
DOD schools and with years of experience while serving
our Nation with our federal tax dollars. Also, the
more credit given to a veteran towards licensing or a
degree or certification, the more school slots can be
made available to civilians, especially in programs
where [there] may be waiting lists to get in.
This issue is now the top of the Top Ten Key Issues of
the Defense State Liaison Office. The Department of
Defense has many highly qualified schools which train
service members in a wide variety of skills and
occupations.
The Department of Defense is also, right now, working
feverishly with the US Department of Labor to link
military occupations with training/experience programs
that most closely align to private sector licensure
requirements, while also asking some state regulatory
authorities in pilot states like Washington, to review
select military occupations to determine whether the
training and experience are sufficient to render
licensing in that occupation.
As you very well know, Alaska is home to thousands of
veterans, and is a desired location for separating and
retiring military members when choosing where to live
after leaving the military. A 2010 Defense Manpower
Data Center Study reported that Alaska had 1,286
military separate or retire back to Alaska in Fiscal
Year 2010.
At roughly 1,286 annually, and more to come with draw-
downs, we can expect that highly qualified ex-military
people will continue to enjoy Alaska's quality of
life, and many will continue to choose Alaska when
transitioning into civilian careers.
Finally, I'm frequently asked what other states are
doing in this area. In 2011, Washington state passed
two bills - one for medical occupations and one for
non-medical occupations, into law as of July 22nd.
Washington modified the statutory chapters of 21
commercial occupations and 14 healthcare related
occupations. It is considered by us as Best Practice
(BP) legislation. Your bill is modeled after
Washington State and also would be a BP.
Washington State's Department of Health and Department
of Licensing accepted this challenge in legislation
last year with 'zero' as fiscal notes, and they have
the demands of a big military state with over 6,000
veterans annually choosing to separate or retire from
the military and live there.
We ask this committee and this legislature in Alaska
to join the other [15] states and rising now in
session and considering this help for our veterans,
along with the four (WA [Washington], UT [Utah], CO
[Colorado], WV [West Virginia]) that did it last year.
9:50:58 AM
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, Associate Vice President, State Relations,
University of Alaska Southeast (UAS), addressed the committee,
paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
I'm here today to talk about section 2 of this bill,
which directs the university's president to adopt
policies and procedures to award credit for military
training, education, and service.
I'd like to begin by noting that the university is
committed to offering quality educational experiences
to active military, veterans, and their dependents.
GI Jobs, which is a magazine and web portal that
exists specifically to serve people who are
transitioning from the military back to civilian life,
has designated both UAA [University of Alaska
Anchorage] and UAF [University of Alaska Fairbanks] as
"GI jobs military friendly schools". Only 15
[percent] of all the colleges, universities, and
vocational schools in the country have earned this
distinction, which is based on an institution's
financial and non-financial commitment to recruit and
retain military and veteran students. It is a pretty
sad commentary on the lower 48 that only 15 [percent]
of schools are rated "military friendly." That's
probably why the department of defense is promoting
this legislation around the country. The web portal
"guide to online schools.com," which bills itself as
the most comprehensive authority on distance education
and online learning, just released its 2012 rankings
of the most military-friendly online colleges in the
country, and out of the multitude of schools that
offer online education, UAA was rated [number] 5.
We're proud of that, and as the entity that made that
rating possible by your funding decisions and other
support, you have every right to be proud, too.
While trying to learn the university over the last few
months, the single issue I have heard about the most
is transfer of credit. Everybody's got a story. It
is a subject that arouses great passion, and military
transfer credit is a piece of this bigger issue.
The board of regents has adopted a written policy that
the campuses must accept in transfer as much credit as
is appropriate to a student's new degree and
graduation requirements. All three campuses have
established transfer credit policies designed to give
maximum credit for courses and training taken
elsewhere, including in the military. Keep in mind
that a degree from an institution is a representation
to potential employers and to others that the holder
has actually learned what the degree indicates they
have learned and that they can do everything the
degree indicates they can do. The credit transfer
policies have evolved over time to make the process as
streamlined as possible while still protecting the
integrity of the degrees that are awarded.
We believe that awarding appropriate credit for
military training is one of the university's
responsibilities, and another way we can show our
commitment to recruit and retain military and veteran
students.
There are apparently a lot of misconceptions about
what we do for military students, so I would like to
give the committee a brief recap.
Transfer credit processes at the university are
managed at the campus level, although there is
intentionally a great deal of uniformity in the
system. With respect to credit for military training,
all three campuses transfer credit based on
recommendations made by "ACE," which is the acronym
for the American Council of Education. For over 65
years, ACE has had an agreement with the defense
department to review military training and experience
for the award of equivalent college credits. Its
recommendations on equivalent college credits are
utilized by thousands of colleges and universities
across the country. Our three campuses have written
agreements with the defense department to use the ACE
recommendations.
Our three campuses are also members of the SOC
consortium. "SOC" stands for the Service-members
Opportunity Colleges. This is a consortium of over
1,000 colleges and universities that enroll military,
veterans, and dependents in special degree programs,
both on-campus and through distance learning. Its
purpose is to let the military get degrees, rather
than just accumulate credits as they move from base to
base. To be part of SOC, our campuses signed written
agreements to, among other things, follow specific
guidelines to ease transferability of credit between
the member institutions and to limit the number of
credits military students have to earn at UA, in order
to get a UA degree. For example, military students
working on an Associate's degree at UAA only need 3
UAA credits to earn the degree; UAA will take all the
rest of the credits from other schools in the SOC
consortium.
UAA is currently accepting approximately 51 credits
per student from those military students who attended
the community college of the air force, the service
academies, and other regionally accredited military
institutions.
At UAF, a military student can use approximately 30
credits of typical training for the Bachelor of
Emergency Management degree, or 90 credits for a
general studies BA that doesn't require satisfying
particular major requirements.
Neither UAA nor UAF have any limitation on the number
of military transfer credits they will award. They
used to; they've done away with it, UAA as recently as
last year, as part of our continual process to review
the system and make it more student-friendly. Right
now, for example, UAF is in the process of developing
a minor based on typical military credits, which will
satisfy 18 credits towards any BA degree.
I could go on, but what is the bottom line? I don't
have figures for the entire system, but last year, UAA
alone awarded over 15,000 hours of military transfer
credit for training, for education, and even for time
spent in the service. Approximately 99.5 [percent] of
the students who requested military transfer credits
received those credits.
Alaska is widely known to service-members as a state
that welcomes and appreciates the military. I think
that Alaska's university, as demonstrated by our
existing credit transfer policies, reflects those
prevailing social values pretty darn accurately.
9:57:42 AM
DON HABEGER, Director, Division of Corporations, Business, and
Professional Licensing, Department of Commerce, Community &
Economic Development, came forward to answer questions, at the
request of the committee.
9:58:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed support for the bill, and asked
whether the department has any concerns for the proposed
statute.
MR. HABEGER responded that the original version imposed time
constraints that would have been difficult to meet; however, the
sponsor has been responsive to the administrations concerns and
Version E provides a workable timeframe for the department to
implement the bill utilizing existing resources. As such, a
revised fiscal note will be rendered, he said.
9:59:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE stated support for HB 282, and said
anything that can be done to capture the talent of veterans is
beneficial for the state.
10:00:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI removed his objection. With no further
objection Version E was before the committee.
10:01:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to report CSHB 282, Version 27-
LS1116\E, Mischel, 1/25/12, out of committee.
10:01:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected and pointed out that a fiscal
note from DCCED is attached, but is undergoing revision. He
then removed his objection. With no further objection, CSHB 282
(EDC) was moved from the House Education Standing Committee,
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
10:02:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA commented that similar legislation in
Washington State has passed with a zero fiscal note.
CHAIR DICK announced the next regular meeting for the committee.
10:04:30 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:04 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 8 27-LS0084A Student Questionnaires.pdf |
HEDC 1/27/2012 8:00:00 AM |
SB 8 |
| SB 8 AS 14.03.110 current law.pdf |
HEDC 1/27/2012 8:00:00 AM |
SB 8 |
| SB 8 Docs - 2009 YRBS results by CDC.pdf |
HEDC 1/27/2012 8:00:00 AM |
SB 8 |
| CS HB282 Summary of Changes 012612.pdf |
HEDC 1/27/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 282 |
| CS HB282 Version E.pdf |
HEDC 1/27/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 282 |
| HB282-DCCED-CBPL-01-20-12.pdf |
HEDC 1/27/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 282 |
| HB 282 Professions Licensed.pdf |
HEDC 1/27/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 282 |
| CS HB282 Version E Sectional.doc |
HEDC 1/27/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 282 |
| CS HB282 Supporting Documents.pdf |
HEDC 1/27/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 282 |
| CS HB 145 G Version 012412.pdf |
HEDC 1/27/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 145 |
| SB 8 Docs - Letter Ak Ne Dom Viol Assault.pdf |
HEDC 1/27/2012 8:00:00 AM |
SB 8 |
| SB 8 Docs - Ref Links YRBS 2009.pdf |
HEDC 1/27/2012 8:00:00 AM |
SB 8 |
| SB 8 Docs-Ltr Support -ANDVSA 2-4-2011.pdf |
HEDC 1/27/2012 8:00:00 AM |
SB 8 |
| SB 8 Docs- 2009 Survey Questions.pdf |
HEDC 1/27/2012 8:00:00 AM |
SB 8 |
| SB008-DHSS-CDPHP-12-16-11 (2).pdf |
HEDC 1/27/2012 8:00:00 AM |
SB 8 |
| SB008-EED-TLS-12-6-11.pdf |
HEDC 1/27/2012 8:00:00 AM |
SB 8 |
| HB282-DCCED-CBPL-01-20-12.pdf |
HEDC 1/27/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 282 |
| HB282-ACPE-EED-01-20-12.pdf |
HEDC 1/27/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 282 |