Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 106
03/01/2010 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
Audio | Topic |
---|---|
Start | |
HB360 | |
HB297 | |
HB206 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
*+ | HB 360 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | HB 297 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | HB 206 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 360-YOUTH ACADEMY: STUDENT RECORDS 8:04:18 AM CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 360, "An Act relating to the provision of information regarding a student by a school district to the Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs, Alaska Challenge Youth Academy." 8:04:48 AM REPRESENTATIVE NANCY DAHLSTROM, Alaska State Legislature, Introduced HB 360, said it is the intent of the sponsor to provide HB 360 as a means for addressing the high drop-out rate in Alaska's high schools. The Alaska Challenge Youth Academy, or Alaska Military Youth Academy (AMYA), [hereafter referred to as AMYA] is a viable option to help these students, she opined. 8:06:10 AM SUSAN WALLEN, Staff, Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 360, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read [original punctuation provided]: House Bill 360 simply requires school districts to provide the names, addresses, and attendance dates of students who have dropped out of high school to the Director of the Alaska Challenge Youth Academy, operated by the Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs. The school districts would be required to provide this thth information biannually: January 15 and July 15 as this will allow ample opportunity for the Academy staff to reach out to potential students. The students whose information is to be provided must meet the following requirements: They must be between the ages of 15 and 19 They must have been previously enrolled in a school district Their plans to transfer or graduate were not provided to the school They have not earned a diploma or GED The second part of the bill requires the school to send notification in writing to the parent or guardian, or student if they are 18 years old, before the information is released to the Academy. The parent or student has 10 days to object. If there is objection, the district may not release the information. The Academy will provide in writing to the school district that the information will not be disclosed to any other party except as necessary to recruit and retain students. 8:08:05 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked at what point a school district categorizes a student as a drop out. MS. WALLEN said the standard will be provided to the committee. 8:08:44 AM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON expressed concern for the ten day written notification requirement, indicating that it may be a problem for some communities with limited or remote access. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM offered that the ten working day requirement could be amended, but opined that it should not be changed to an excessive period of time. 8:10:23 AM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON paraphrased the pertinent language included in the bill, which read: If an objection is provided in writing within 10 business days after the notice is mailed, the district may not provide the information. REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON stated his understanding that a parent, or student, would first receive a notification, and then have 10 business days to respond, and maintained his concern for remote communities being able to comply. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM deferred to the department. 8:11:01 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER recalled that the use of student surveys has been debated, and the use of passive permission versus an opt-in action. She queried whether an opt-in possibility had been considered. Additionally, she asked why parental objection could not be in the form of a phone call to the district requesting that the information not be released. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM reported that the Department of Education and Early Development (EED) student data base has the capacity to include a field for this purpose. When students enter school there is a questionnaire filled out that could include a line to the effect that should your student not graduate, or not be participating, would the parent allow information to be sent. She stated her interest in having such a question included, for the sole purpose of providing a student with AMYA specific information. 8:12:28 AM REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM, regarding the question of allowing a parent to respond via oral means versus a written response, deferred. 8:13:23 AM CHAIR SEATON noted the January 15 and July 15 dates, and asked if these are significant dates to the districts. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM responded that the dates are significant because they coincide with AMYA session dates; commencing within 30-45 days. Further, she said the school districts currently required attendance records should prove adequate for the purposes of this bill, thus no new record keeping procedures would need to be implemented. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON recalled that the academy uses January and July 15th as the dates for determining enrollees for the upcoming sessions, and suggested inserting January 1 and July 1, in the bill. 8:15:02 AM REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM welcomed the proposal of an amendment should alternative dates prove to be beneficial. 8:15:22 AM CHAIR SEATON recalled opening remarks and the statement "if the student hadn't provided plans," and asked what plans are being referenced, and where this aspect resides in the bill. MS. WALLEN directed attention to page 1, line 14, and paraphrased from the language, which read: [(3)] has not provided school transfer or graduation information to a school in the district; MS. WALLEN said the assumption would be that a student has no further plans to attend school. 8:16:28 AM CHAIR SEATON asked whether this refers to a written plan, or other method of contacting the district. MS. WALLEN clarified that a student planning to transfer, would usually inform school with written or oral notification, and there would be a communication between the two schools. 8:17:15 AM CHAIR SEATON noted that the language of the bill indicates a student's "enrollment" versus "attendance.". He referred to the 10 day provision, which requires a district to drop a student from enrollment if contact has been severed, and asked if the intent of the bill is to align with that rule. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said yes. 8:18:07 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER queried the manner in which the AMYA plans to contact a student. She suggested the process may be simplified by having the AMYA information packets available for the school districts to send directly to student's verses providing names and addresses to the academy. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM suggested that EED could provide further insight, and deferred. 8:19:34 AM MCHUGH PIERRE, Deputy Commissioner, Chief of Staff, Office of the Commissioner/Adjutant General, Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs (DMVA), explained that if a school district discloses the drop-out information it will support the AMYA in efforts to target students who may benefit from the program, get back on track, and possibly return to school. He confirmed that the dates correspond with the sessions at the academy. Students will receive a pamphlet with a postcard attached, and they merely return the postcard for further action. 8:22:41 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked for the session dates. MR. PIERRE replied that one begins on the first of April, and one on the first of October. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON noted that the proposed dates work. MR. PIERRE replied yes, with adequate time allowed for recruitment, and continuity for the students who choose to return to high school following a 22 week residency. 8:24:12 AM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked for the percentage of students accepted into the academy. MR. PIERRE indicated that it is generally a high percentage of the applicants. The incoming April class received in excess of 350 applications, and the capacity is for 220 cadets. 8:25:30 AM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ noted the three pre-challenge phases, and inquired about the retention rate through the phases. MR. PIERRE said the first two weeks may see a drop of 10-20 percent. Applicants are dismissed for a variety of reasons including negative social interactions, as well as health concerns. REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if there is a cost to the applicant, associated with dismissal. MR. PIERRE replied no, save airfare home, if withdrawal occurs in the first four weeks. REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ opined that the response time of ten days may need amending. MR. PIERRE said it was set based the legal minimum, but the department has no objection to having the timeline amended. He briefly explained how the timeline was derived. 8:30:26 AM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON reviewed the four levels of communications proposed: 1) the school district sends a letter to the parent, guardian, or student, if the student is 18 years old; 2) the school district discloses information to the AMYA; 3) the AMYA mails a brochure to the student; and 4) the student communicates interest to the AMYA. From a practical standpoint, the actual respondent rate may become narrow, given the level of communication involved, he opined. MR. PIERRE underscored that the key to the success of the program, is that the students who respond possess an interest a desire to make a life change. The current methods of contact are broad, and often random, including word of mouth, and the internet applications of Facebook, and MySpace, which, he opined all may be more inefficient than the proposed legislation. 8:32:40 AM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON pondered whether there could be a better means to communicate the AMYA option to at-risk students. 8:33:09 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked why the passive permission, versus the active permission approach was chosen, speculating it may be due to the student not being under parental supervision. 8:33:56 AM MR. PIERRE concurred and said that the commissioner agrees, that it is the best approach for allowing an AMYA flier to be sent to a student. 8:35:42 AM CHAIR SEATON recalled that three districts have been cooperating with the academy, and asked about the response received from other districts contacted. MR. PIERRE stated that some districts reported not having information on drop-out students. He said that is erroneous as the information is required to be reported to EED every July. Other districts were supportive, but there was no follow through, and, finally, some districts declined to cooperate without cause. 8:37:06 AM CHAIR SEATON asked for specific reasons offered by the districts who reported not having information available on drop-outs. MR. PIERRE replied: It wasn't that specific ... just: We understand what you're looking for, we don't keep those numbers, we couldn't tell you who dropped out, so we're not going to be able to pass on the information. CHAIR SEATON recalled that the committee experienced difficulty when requesting age specific information for drop-outs from the districts, because the data is set up according to grade level. The method used by districts to maintain records could be the problem. Passage of HB 360 will impose specific requirements on the part of the districts, and he asked where legal liability will fall for non-compliance. MR. PIERRE said there is no intention of punishing districts for non-compliance, because the expectation is that districts will want to support the effort, and see the academy as another means to engage drop-outs. CHAIR SEATON agreed that the support may exist, but maintained that it is important to know the liability repercussions. 8:41:08 AM LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development (EED), stated that the department has not taken an official position on HB 360. Referring to a previous question, clarified that July 15 as the due date for every submit its annual enrollment status report to the department. The district report includes who was enrolled, at any time during the year, and, if they withdrew, the reason for the departure. He recalled another question regarding how a drop- out is determined and said there are several factors. A student may state that they are leaving, or a district may exhaust ten days of contact effort, and not received a records request from another district; in either case the student will be coded as a drop-out. Should transfer papers eventually be requested, perhaps from another state, the district is able to convert the drop-out code to a transfer status. He reported that as many as 30 percent of students initially coded as drop-outs, eventually re-enroll. The January 15 date, in the bill, may be a challenging time for some schools to generate a report, and he deferred to the districts for a response on the viability of that date. 8:44:18 AM MR. MORSE, regarding information distribution, said the department assumed AMYA brochures would be included in the notice provided to parents at the beginning of every school year. At the inception of the school year, every parent receives a notice, which states that the department will disclose information about you, for students 18 years of age, or your child, to specific groups. A family or the student can sign to say that they deny the disclosure of the information. The information is generally directory oriented, and some families do object. A recent addition to the disclosure list has been for schools to release directory information to military entities. In order for AMYA to be included on the existing form, language would need to be added specific to the academy. 8:46:03 AM CHAIR SEATON surmised that adding the appropriate language to the annual notice would take care of the concern for AMYA information distribution. MR. MORSE said, with the HB 360 provision in place, the district would be compelled to include language similar to what is included in the bill on page 1, lines 12-14, and page 2, lines 1-3. 8:47:25 AM CHAIR SEATON asked whether a request for consent, in the school registration packet, would preclude the need to provide a written notice later, thus triggering the ten business day response clause. MR. MORSE indicated that further information would be provided to the committee as to whether the consent, made at the beginning of the school year, adequately covers the written notification provision of the bill. 8:48:36 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired whether the department expects to take an official position on HB 360. Further, she asked if the July 15 reports are enrollment totals, or do the reports include names and addresses of students no longer enrolled. MR. MORSE offered to confer with the commissioner regarding a forthcoming position. Additionally, he responded that the July 15 report does include identification information, which is run against other district information to determine transfer student. 8:50:29 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER questioned why the department could not make the information directly available to the academy, from the July reports. MR. MORSE explained that both federal and state disclosure law, requires student consent, which the state does not have a means to collect, passive or active, in all 53 districts; creating a legal concern. 8:51:23 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON noted that not every parent enrolls their student in person, requiring forms to be sent to their home, and asked what percentage are received in return mail. MR. MORSE declined to speculate on the percentage received. CHAIR SEATON asked whether the district report is provided to the department by grade level or age of student. MR. MORSE answered that it is by grade and includes date of birth. It may not be easy for a district to pull certain data from their system, but the departmental report includes the student's state [identification], name, and birth date. A birth date, however, is not always accurate. He pointed out that the report in the committee packed is from the Anchorage district, and differs from what is sent to the department. The department report does not include all of the reasons for drop-out. CHAIR SEATON concluded that there is not a unified district system in place, and each district compiles information independently. MR. MORSE said that is correct, because the information is collected into different systems using a variety of methods. 8:55:21 AM CHAIR SEATON asked about the anticipated liability for noncompliance by a district or superintendent. JEAN MISCHEL, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, said the liability is unspecified in HB 360, but the overall enforceability of any education law requires state funding be reduced. CHAIR SEATON inquired whether enforcement is automatic or on a case by case basis. MS. MISCHEL said it is case by case, as reviewed by the commissioner. The department may allow time for compliance prior to taking action. 8:58:31 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON commented how deliberations on the topic have continually indicated that every drop-out student is unique. It is apparent that there are no silver bullet solutions, and AMYA is one option for drop-outs to consider. She stated support for the bill and for retaining the passive permission language. CHAIR SEATON indicated that if the school districts are able to implement current data systems, the contact issue will be resolved and not represent a burden. 9:00:05 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked the bill sponsor to provide the committee with feedback from the districts regarding the costs, and difficulties associated with supplying AMYA information. Additionally, there are other programs and high school completion options, and she asked whether information for these options are also presented to the students; suggesting that school counselors might be an efficient means for distribution of materials. Finally, she asked for information regarding the penalty for inappropriate disclosure. 9:01:17 AM CHAIR SEATON announced that HB 360 would be held for further consideration. The committee took an at-ease from 9:01 a.m. to 9:07 a.m.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|---|---|
HB 297 Amendment #1.pdf |
HEDC 2/15/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 297 |
HB 297 Amendment #2.pdf |
HEDC 2/15/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 297 |
Amendments 3 through 7.pdf |
HEDC 2/17/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 297 |
Amendments 8 through 11.pdf |
HEDC 3/1/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 297 |
Amendments 12 and 13.pdf |
HEDC 2/26/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 297 |
HB 297 GPS Materials.pdf |
HEDC 2/3/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 297 |
HB 206 Version P February 4, 2010.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/10/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/19/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/8/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/17/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 206 |
HB 206 version P Sponsor Statement February 4, 2010.docx |
HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/10/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/19/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/8/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/17/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 206 |
HB 206 Version P Amendment.pdf |
HEDC 2/19/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/8/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/17/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 206 |
Scan001.PDF |
HEDC 3/1/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 360 Sponsor Statement and Background |
count date brief - final.doc |
HEDC 3/1/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 206 |
HB 360 DMVA Support Letter.pdf |
HEDC 3/1/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 360 |