Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
05/13/2022 01:30 PM House FINANCE
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 | |
| SB131 | |
| SB173 | |
| SB20 | |
| SB243 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 131 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 173 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 243 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 20(FIN)
"An Act relating to teaching certificates for teachers
holding out-of-state certificates."
2:33:51 PM
Co-Chair Merrick indicated there was one amendment for
SB 20.
2:34:05 PM
Representative Thompson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 32-
LS0202\W.1, (Marx, 5/2/22)(copy on file):
Page 1, line 1, following "Act":
Insert "relating to the right of a child of school age
to attend school; relating to correspondence study
programs; and"
Page 1, following line 2:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Section 1. AS 14.03.080 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(g) A child of school age who does not reside in the
state is entitled to attend public school under this
section through a district or statewide correspondence
study program if the child
(1) is a dependent of a member of the armed forces of
the United States, the Alaska National Guard, the
Alaska Naval Militia, or the Alaska State Defense
Force who is
(A) a state resident as defined in AS 43.23.295; and
(B) transferred or pending transfer to a military
installation outside the district while on active
military duty under an official military order; and
(2) was a resident of a school district immediately
before the transfer under (1)(B) of this section.
* Sec. 2. AS 14.17.500 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(d) A child who is attending public school through a
correspondence study program as provided in AS
14.03.080(g) may be counted as a student for the
purpose of calculating the ADM of the correspondence
program.
*Sec. 3. AS 14.17.600 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(c) A child who is attending public school through a
correspondence study program as provided in AS
14.03.080(g) may be included in the report required
under (a) of this section for the purpose of
calculating the ADM of the correspondence study
program."
Page 1, line 3:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 4"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Thompson reviewed the amendment, which added
a new subsection to AS 14.03.080. The new subsection
allowed a student who did not reside in-state to continue
to attend public schools through a district or statewide
study program as long as the student was a member of the
armed forces of the United States, the Alaska National
Guard, the Alaska Naval Militia, or the Alaska State
Defense Force. He elaborated that the student's parents had
to be state residents as defined in the Permanent Fund
Dividend statutes. Additionally, parents had to be
transferred or pending transfer to a military installation
outside the district while on active military duty under an
official military order.
Representative Thompson continued to explain the amendment,
which would change AS 14.17.500 related to student count
estimate. Under the statute, districts provided their
projected student count for the succeeding fiscal year, due
th
on November 5 each year. The numbers were used by the
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) for
budgeting purposes only. He relayed that if a district
anticipated having a child that fell under the provision,
the district should include the student in its projected
average daily membership count. The amendment changed AS
14.17.600 under Section 3 related to the student count
period. Districts provided their actual student count for
the 20-day period in October; the numbers were due to DEED
within two weeks of the end of the count period. If the
district had a child who fell under AS 14.03.080(g), the
district should include the student in its actual average
daily membership count. He noted that adoption of the
amendment would require a title change resolution. He
explained the topic had been brought to his office by a
military family that wanted to remain with the school
district it had been remotely using. He noted that if a
family qualified for the PFD, they were required to say
they were moving back to Alaska.
2:36:56 PM
Representative Josephson thanked the sponsor for the
amendment. He considered the PFD and the requirement that a
person intended to return [to Alaska]. He did not see the
requirement included in the amendment. He thought it meant
the allowance could be indefinite such that the state was
paying for a Florida child's education for 11 years if they
left the state in the first grade. He asked if it was
possible.
Representative Thompson responded that the child would have
to qualify for the PFD. He stated that if he recalled
accurately, even military members that tried to continue to
qualify for the PFD had to return to the state every two
years. He was not certain about the details of the
requirement.
2:38:12 PM
Representative Wool looked at Section 2 in the amendment
related to a child attending a public school through a
correspondence study program who may be counted for the
purpose of calculating the average daily membership of the
correspondence program. He believed it was the way they
calculated the district formula. He provided an example of
students registered for a correspondence program in Galena.
He stated that Galena would count the students in its
average daily membership. He thought it was already
happening and did not understand what the change proposed
in the amendment meant.
Co-Chair Merrick listed individuals online for questions.
Representative Edgmon suggested hearing from the bill
sponsor first. He remarked that the amendment was
multidimensional, and he did not understand it in some
ways.
Co-Chair Merrick would go to the departments first and then
the bill sponsor.
2:40:11 PM
SONDRA MEREDITH, ADMINISTRATOR, TEACHER EDUCATION AND
CERTIFICATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY
DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference), deferred to a colleague.
DEBORAH RIDDLE, OPERATIONS MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference), asked
Representative Wool to restate his question.
Representative Wool restated his question. He asked if the
Section 2, subsection (d), lines 21 through 23 made any
changes to existing statute. He asked for verification that
currently a child in a correspondence program was counted
in the district where the program was housed.
Ms. Riddle indicated he was correct.
Representative Wool asked if the amendment was creating new
law or whether it was already in statute. He did not
understand what the amendment did.
Ms. Riddle responded that currently it was in statute for
in-state students.
Representative Wool asked for verification that the
amendment only pertained to students who were out-of-state
taking correspondence because either they had just left
Alaska or were about to come to Alaska.
2:42:29 PM
Representative Thompson offered to have his staff explain
the amendment further.
SENATOR GARY STEVENS, SPONSOR, highlighted the teacher
shortage in Alaska. He remarked that the bill helped solve
the problem. He stated that the bill did not lower
standards and cut red tape to allow teachers in good
standing from other states to come to Alaska and quickly
become certificated to teach in the school system. He
relayed the bill was supported by school districts. He
emphasized the amendment had nothing to do with the bill.
He stated the legislation was simple and he asked the
committee to avoid messing it up with the amendment.
Representative Thompson reiterated the intent of his
amendment.
Co-Chair Merrick MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Thompson, Carpenter, LeBon, Rasmussen
OPPOSED: Ortiz, Edgmon, Josephson, Wool, Merrick, Foster
Representative Johnson was absent from the vote.
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 1 FAILED (4/6).
2:45:55 PM
Representative Carpenter remarked that Section 3 of the
bill deleted the requirement to pass a competency
examination and inserted the words "complete education
requirements under" two new statutes AS 14.20.20 (h) and
(k) within 90 days. He stated the statutes were provided in
Sections 6 and 7. He detailed that Section 6 dealt with
multicultural education and cross cultural communications
and subsection (k) pertained to alcohol and drug related
disabilities (i.e., students with learning disabilities),
suicide prevention, and dating violence. He asked what was
currently in the competency exam that would no longer be
covered without the competency exam.
Senator Stevens indicated that the goal was to get the
teachers into the system as quickly as possible, not to
eliminate any of the responsibilities such as taking
suicide prevention classes and Alaska history and cultural
studies. He relayed that the teachers had to pass all of
the items over time. He asked his staff to provide further
detail.
2:47:49 PM
TIM LAMKIN, STAFF, SENATOR GARY STEVENS, reminded committee
members the bill was a direct result of emergency
regulations that had been written and adopted by the
current administration in the context of COVID-19. He
expounded it had successfully resulted in getting teachers
in classrooms more quickly during the epidemic. He
explained the statute in the bill was crafted in alignment
with the regulations to create efficiencies. For example,
it was presumed the individuals had taken a competency exam
when they had obtained their regular certification in
another state. The legislation maintained requirements for
courses on sexual abuse awareness, alcohol and suicide
prevention, and cultural awareness, but provided more time
for teachers to complete them.
Representative Carpenter appreciated the need to address
getting teachers into the state. He noted there was other
legislation in the building that was trying to address a
reading deficiency problem. He had been informed that there
were baccalaureate degree programs that did not actually
teach teachers how to teach kids how to read. He had been
told there were teachers employed in Alaska who did not
know how to teach kids how to read. He remarked that the
legislation would eliminate the competency exam requirement
and trust that a teacher from another state knew how to
teach Alaska's kids how to read. He asked if the competency
examination tested or confirmed that a teacher knew how to
teach kids how to read. He asked how Alaska would assess
whether a teacher from another state knew how to teach kids
to read.
Senator Stevens responded that the bill was about teachers
being hired by a district. He remarked that the legislature
was not involved in the hiring process. He stated that
school districts would not hire someone who was
incompetent.
Mr. Lamkin aligned himself with the senator's comments. He
stated it had been a concern voiced through the committee
process. There were stringent processes individuals had to
go through in order to get an Alaska certification. He
stated the bill was an effort to try to make it less
burdensome but not eliminate something such as a competency
exam. He deferred to Ms. Meredith as the person who made
the approvals.
2:51:28 PM
Ms. Meredith asked for Representative Carpenter to restate
his question.
Representative Carpenter restated his question.
Ms. Meredith responded that she administered teacher
certification for the state. She stated the competency exam
was a basic test related to reading, writing, and math and
most states had an exam as part of their licensure
requirements. The bill would remove the requirement for
teachers to provide the documentation within a year. In
terms of a teacher's ability to teach reading, there was
not a specific test. There were currently proposals in
other legislation to include the concept as a requirement.
The other types of exams taken by teachers were content
specific. Presently, an elementary teacher would have to
take a broader test that would test the person's ability to
teach all content areas. She noted the requirements were
currently regulatory, not statutory.
Representative Carpenter asked if the broad array of
assessments would change under the bill.
Ms. Meredith responded that the basic competency exam
requirement was the only exam that would be removed by the
legislation. She noted the additional regulatory
requirements for content area exams.
Vice-Chair Ortiz stated as a former principal he could
relate to the initial answer by the bill sponsor. He stated
that the process of determining a teacher's ability to
teach reading would not be covered in an objective exam. He
detailed the responsibility resided with the hiring
district, the principal, and hiring committee. He continued
that hopefully there was a thorough process through letters
of recommendation and other methods to assess a teacher's
ability to teach reading rather than relying on a specific
exam.
2:57:02 PM
Representative Carpenter begged to differ. He stated that
one of the other bills the committee had seen included
phonics and phonetic reasoning. He stated the concepts were
taught in some but not all schools. He thought a multiple
choice test could be devised to test an individual's
knowledge on the areas. He did not think removing the
competency examination was in the best interest of Alaskan
students.
Vice-Chair Ortiz believed the other bill working its way
through the body was about an assessment of an incoming
primary age student and where their ability was in
recognition of basic reading skills. He explained it was a
measurement of a student's reading readiness or their
ability to read by the third grade. He stated it was a
different thing than having a teacher apply to a district.
He stated the ability to teach kids to read was the
question; the question was not about having the skills to
be a reader.
2:59:16 PM
Representative Josephson asked how many people who took the
competency exam did not pass.
Ms. Meredith estimated there was a 3 percent to 5 percent
failure rate for the competency exam. There were others
that had been adopted and abilities for an educator to
retake the test. She noted it was often very difficult,
particularly in rural communities, for the retakes to take
place. She stated individuals often had to fly at their
expense to retake the test.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked about the practice Ms. Meredith had
mentioned. He assumed it did not relate to teaching reading
itself to primary age students. He noted Ms. Meredith had
spoken previously about content such as basic math,
science, history, and other. He wondered if the exam tested
a teacher's ability to teach reading.
Ms. Meredith reported that the basic competency exam did
not look at a person's ability to teach reading or the
knowledge behind the science of reading. The exam tested
reading comprehension.
3:02:16 PM
Representative Johnson noted Alaska was 49th in the nation
for its education system. She remarked on the state's
teacher shortage. Her biggest concern was not people who
were qualified to teach in Alaska. Her bigger concern was
about the unique conditions teachers may encounter in
Alaska, especially in rural areas. She highlighted the
point of the legislation was to expand the state's teacher
base. She remarked that many times teachers from out-of-
state were often already in Alaska because they were
married to a military member stationed in the state.
Co-Chair Merrick acknowledged Representative Mike Cronk in
the room.
Senator Stevens agreed with the statements made by
Representative Johnson. He explained the purpose of the
bill was workforce development. The bill aimed to cut the
red tape and get certificated teachers who were successful
in other districts to have the ability to apply for
teaching jobs in Alaska. He recalled past testimony from a
superintendent of the Anchorage School District that 7
percent of the district were military spouses. He remarked
that sometimes military members were only in Alaska for two
to three years and if a person had to wait a year to get
accepted into the education system, a year had been lost.
He added there were also other teachers who wanted to teach
in Alaska who were certificated in other states.
3:04:52 PM
Representative Carpenter appreciated that Alaska needed
more teachers; however, he emphasized that Alaska did not
need more teachers who fit into the 3 to 5 percent practice
test failure rate. He surmised they would just assume the
situation would no longer occur. He remarked that the bill
would no longer require the competency exam. He suggested
that it was a concept that businesses and military
organizations had when they had a recruiting problem. The
question was whether standards should be lowered to fill
positions. He asked how the bill sponsor knew the
legislation would not lower standards. He emphasized they
would not know because they were not asking.
Mr. Lamkin clarified Section 2 of the bill. He explained
the target population of the bill was teachers with years
of experience. The teachers held a baccalaureate degree and
currently held a legitimate teaching certificate in another
state. He highlighted that other state's certification
processes always included a competency of some kind. The
bill recognized that teachers had completed the test
previously; therefore, they would not have to take it again
to teach in Alaska. It was an expensive and onerous test
and sometimes relied on spotty internet in rural Alaska.
Ms. Meredith concurred with Mr. Lamkin. The cases that she
saw with difficulty often involved teachers in the rural
areas in Alaska. She remarked that individuals ended up
being successful, but it was a laborious process.
3:08:06 PM
Representative Carpenter wondered if he had just heard that
teachers with years of experience had to take the
competency exams multiple times.
Ms. Meredith agreed that teachers had to take a competency
exam. She explained they may have passed one of the exams
in the past but due to various aspects of the testing
companies they were unable to bring the exams forward to
DEED, meaning they had to take another exam that was
sometimes very difficult to pass.
Representative Carpenter disagreed with removing the
requirement for a competency exam that experienced teachers
had a challenge passing. He stated it reduced the state's
standards.
Vice-Chair Ortiz appreciated Representative Carpenter's
concerns. He understood that everyone had a concern of not
lowering the bar in relationship to the community of
teachers in Alaska. He referenced the portion of the bill
that enabled incoming teachers to not immediately take the
competency exam. He emphasized the exam did not measure the
competency to teach. He detailed the test measured content
about a person's knowledge of history or math. He stated he
could have all kinds of knowledge about history but that
did not mean he could teach it. He stated the
responsibility resided with the local district, hiring
committees, and principal to look at the applicant, their
letters of reference and years of experience to determine
whether the person was in the best interest of meeting the
kids' needs in the classroom.
Vice-Chair Ortiz believed an individual would not be hired
if the district did not think they would provide good
education to the students. He considered it may be further
complicated due to the shortage of teacher applicants and
districts may have to be more accepting of applicants than
they may have been in the past; however, the competency
exam would not change the situation.
3:11:52 PM
Representative Wool appreciated the conversation and the
need to get teachers in schools. He highlighted that
Fairbanks was in desperate need for substitute teachers. He
believed on any given day there were hundreds of substitute
teachers teaching kids. He stated he knew of kids who had
substitute teachers for weeks who were not teachers and
were not required to have a degree. He asked how many
substitute teachers were teaching Alaskan children on any
given day.
Ms. Riddle replied that he did not have the information on
hand but could get back to the committee.
Representative Carpenter thought the committee was placing
significant trust in teachers from out-of-state if it was
not requiring a competency exam.
Senator Stevens reminded members the purpose of the bill
was to fill a shortage with competent teachers by hiring
certificated teachers from out-of-state. He remarked that
the bill did not mean that every certificated teacher who
wanted a job in Alaska would be hired. He shared he had
been on school boards for many years, and he knew the
districts were very careful to hire the proper teachers. He
added that 7 percent of the teachers in Anchorage were
military spouses. He stated that without the bill the state
would lose years of experience in the classroom. The bill
did not solve all of the problems, but it did help.
3:15:41 PM
AT EASE
3:16:32 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to report CSSB 20(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Carpenter OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Rasmussen, Thompson, Wool, Johnson, Josephson,
LeBon, Ortiz, Foster, Merrick
OPPOSED: Carpenter
Representative Edgmon was absent from the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (9/1).
CSSB 20(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with five "do
pass" recommendations, one "do not pass" recommendation,
three "no recommendation" recommendations, and one "amend"
recommendation and with one previously published fiscal
impact note: FN3 (EED).
3:17:50 PM
AT EASE
3:19:10 PM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 131 Public Testimony Rec'd by 051222.pdf |
HFIN 5/13/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 131 |
| SB 243 Amendment 1 Thompson 051322.pdf |
HFIN 5/13/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 243 |
| SB 20 Amendment 1 Thompson w Legal Memo 051322.pdf |
HFIN 5/13/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 20 |
| SB 131 Amendment Pkt 051322.pdf |
HFIN 5/13/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 131 |
| SB 20 DEED Response 20220516 - Count of longterm subs by district and state.pdf |
HFIN 5/13/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 20 |
| SB 20 5.13.2022 (H) FIN Hearing SB20 DEED Follow-Up.pdf |
HFIN 5/13/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 20 |