Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/20/2014 08:30 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR33 | |
| HJR18 | |
| HB220 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HJR 18 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 33 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 220 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 220
"An Act repealing the secondary student competency
examination and related requirements; and providing
for an effective date."
9:53:14 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 220, Work Draft 28-LS0947\C, (Mischel,
3/17/14). Co-Chair Austerman OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that the CS responded to concerns
expressed by the House Finance Committee.
DANIEL GEORGE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE,
explained the changes in the CS. In Sections 6 and 7 on
page 4 of the previous version there was a transition
period where students could continue to take the High
School Qualifying Graduation Exam (HSQGE) for one year
following its repeal. He noted that the newest version
added the language from lines 25 through the end of the
bill on page 5. He read the section:
RETROSPECTIVE ISSUANCE OF A HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA. (a)
At the request of a student made by June 30, 2017, a
school district shall issue a high school diploma to a
student who did not receive a high school diploma
because the student failed to pass all or a portion of
the secondary school competency examination but who
received a certificate of achievement under former AS
14.03.075. A school district shall mail a notice
consistent with this section to each student who
qualifies for a diploma under this section to the
student's last known address. (b) The Department of
Education and Early Development shall post a notice
consistent with this section on the department's
Internet website with information about how to request
a high school diploma. (c) In this section, "school
district" has the meaning given in AS 14.30.350. Sec.
7. This Act takes effect immediately under AS
01.10.070(c).
Mr. George concluded his presentation on HB 220.
9:55:44 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze asked for the bill sponsor's staff to
address the committee.
THOMAS STUDLER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE PETE HIGGINS,
reported that Representative Higgins had no opposition to
the new work draft.
Vice-Chair Neuman asked why the effective date was not
retroactive. Mr. Studler explained that any student that
did not pass the exam since its inception in 2004 would be
able to request a retrospective issuance of a high school
diploma.
9:57:39 AM
Representative Gara expressed that he appreciated and
supported HB 220. He recalled some studies showing that 3
to 6 percent of school budgets were spent on teaching to
the exit exam rather than to curriculum. He asked a
similar question to Vice-Chair Neuman regarding the June
30, 2017 request deadline. He wondered why it would be
necessary to impose a deadline on any student that had
previously received a certificate of achievement.
Mr. Studler responded that it would be up to the wisdom of
the committee to make a change.
Co-Chair Stoltze surmised that a deadline of three years
was a reasonable time period for past students to request
their diploma. He contended that a cutoff date served as a
motivator and affirmed that eliminating the test
requirement saved the state a significant amount of money.
He supported a request deadline of 2017 and suggested that
if there was a large group of students still looking for
their diploma, the legislature could revisit the issue.
10:02:04 AM
Representative Guttenberg noted the immediate effective
date. He asked how many students without a diploma were
eligible to take the HSGQE and inquired if they were in
limbo.
Mr. George deferred his response to Michael Hanley,
Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development.
10:02:51 AM
MICHAEL HANLEY, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
EARLY DEVELOPMENT, cited that, since 2004, 2,968 students
received a certificate of achievement rather than a diploma
because they could not pass the HSGQE. Just over 600 of
the 2,968 students have retested and passed the test since
the time of their initial exam. Currently, about 2,300
students would be eligible to receive their diploma if the
legislation passed. He reported that 48 percent of the
2,300 were students with disabilities. The governor
suggested a three-year transition as one way of removing
the HSGQE. Ultimately, the department supported the removal
of the HSGQE without reference to the method. One way to
implement the legislation would be to make the bill
retroactive, which he supported. He mentioned that there
was an $8,000 component in the fiscal note that provided
for the Department of Education and Early Development
(DEED) to help school districts notify the 2,300 students
about the change in law.
Representative Wilson asked the commissioner how many of
the 2,300 students received their General Education Diploma
(GED).
10:05:12 AM
Commissioner Hanley responded that he did not have a
number. He also informed the committee that the GED was
conducted by the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development and was separate from a high school diploma.
Representative Wilson asked for clarification as to the
maximum number of students that could retrospectively
request their diploma. Commissioner Hanley stated that the
maximum number of students included the current year's
cohorts plus 2,300 past students.
Representative Wilson again requested clarification that
the current high school seniors would be eligible to
receive their diploma if they completed their coursework.
Commissioner Hanley replied that current seniors would
still be required to pass the HSGQE prior to the
legislation becoming law. However, students that did not
pass the test and only had a certificate of achievement
would be able to request their diploma after the law took
effect.
10:06:56 AM
Representative Wilson wanted additional clarification about
whether or not students would receive their diploma if the
law took effect prior to graduation of the current year.
She also wanted confirmation that the current high school
seniors were not included in the 2,300 number the
commissioner provided.
Commissioner Hanley verified that current seniors would
receive their diplomas if the law became effective prior to
graduation. He also affirmed that the current year's
cohorts were not a part of the 2,300 past students that
would be eligible to receive a diploma under HB 220.
10:07:57 AM
Representative Munoz supported the legislation. She asked
for details regarding communication to past students with
attendance certificates. Specifically, she wanted
clarification about whether it would be the high school or
the department that would be following up with and issuing
diplomas to students. She also asked how DEED would work
with high schools to get the message out to the public
about the law, if it passed.
Commissioner Hanley reported that high schools issued
diplomas. The department would partner along-side the
school districts to get word out to the public, hence the
$8 thousand fiscal note. The fiscal note addressed
mailings, public service announcements, and postings around
the state.
Representative Munoz suggested that legislators make an
announcement via their newsletter in order to get the word
out to constituents if and once the legislation passed.
Commissioner Hanley agreed emphatically.
10:09:43 AM
Vice-Chair Neuman was concerned with eligible military
personnel being able to meet a request deadline of 2017. He
did not want to see service members miss an opportunity to
receive a diploma because of an extended tour of duty
overseas or because of an accessibility issue.
Commissioner Hanley responded that the bill did not specify
that a student would have to physically return to their
high school to make a request. Past students could contact
their school remotely. He furthered that students who
received a certificate of completion but wanted a diploma
were most likely making arrangements to take the HSGQE and,
therefore, would have access to any change in graduation
requirements. He was not as concerned about students who
were no longer pursuing their diploma after three years.
Vice-Chair Neuman opposed having a three-year request
deadline.
10:12:01 AM
Representative Guttenberg asked why anyone would take the
HSGQE if it was apparent that the legislation would pass.
Commissioner Hanley reported that the test was given in
October and April of each year. In the current year the
test would be given in April prior to the legislation
passing.
10:12:38 AM
Representative Thompson clarified that members of the
military were required to have a diploma. He was concerned
that civilian contractors, who wanted to join the military,
would be ineligible if they missed a cutoff date.
Co-Chair Stoltze suggested removing the objection and
adopting the CS in order to offer any changes.
Co-Chair Austerman WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Work Draft 28-LS0947\C was ADOPTED.
Representative Gara agreed with Representative Neuman and
Representative Thompson on their point about imposing a
deadline. He wanted to know what grade level the HSGQE
tested at and how much of teachers' time was spent teaching
to the exam.
Co-Chair Austerman asked if Representative Gara's question
was directly related.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted the savings of $1.4 million with the
elimination of the HSGQE. He directed the commissioner to
provide information about the practicality of having a
deadline and any other fiscal issues.
10:15:39 AM
Commissioner Hanley stated that the fiscal note was a
decrement of $2.75 million.
Co-Chair Stoltze wanted further clarification about the
$2.75 million figure because of conflicting reports from
Mr. Morse about the state's obligations to the contractor.
Commissioner Hanley replied that the only difference was a
very small increment of $8 thousand from the current year
to the next. The $8 thousand was designated for mailings
and disseminating information to the public.
10:16:34 AM
Representative Thompson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 28-
LS0947\N.I, Mischel, 2/26/14 (copy on file):
Page 1, line 2, following "requirements;":
Insert "relating to an annual performance report
to the legislature by the Department of Education and
Early Development;"
Page 1, line 6, following "year":
Insert "by electronic means"
Co-Chair Austerman OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Thompson detailed the amendment. The
amendment changed the reporting format from paper to
electronic means. The amendment helped to reduce the use
of paper.
Co-Chair Stoltze supported Amendment 1 but asked
Representative Thompson to make it a conceptual amendment
to conform to the new CS.
Representative Thompson MOVED that his amendment be a
conceptual amendment.
Co-Chair Austerman WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Amendment 1 was
ADOPTED.
10:19:25 AM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2 (copy on
file):
Page 4, line 26:
Delete "made by June 30, 2017"
Co-Chair Austerman OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara described the amendment. The amendment
would allow students to apply for a diploma at any time if
they completed their course requirements. He did not see
any reason to treat people who completed the same
coursework differently due to a diploma request deadline.
He suggested removing the cutoff date entirely.
Representative Wilson asked if there was an established
period of time school districts were required to retain
their records. She questioned whether it was the student
or the school district that was responsible for verifying
graduation qualifications.
Commissioner Hanley answered that records would be
available and that districts would be mailing out notices
to students who received their certificate of achievement.
Representative Wilson asked whether a high school would
have the ability to verify a student's eligibility if the
student requested a diploma at some point in the future.
Commissioner Hanley confirmed that records would be
available.
10:22:00 AM
Representative Edgmon asked the commissioner to explain the
counterpoint to having a deadline in place.
Commissioner Hanley replied that the deadline allowed
students to either pass the HSGQE now or request the
issuance of their diploma within three years. He didn't see
the applicability of someone making a request at 30 or 40
years of age.
10:22:51 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze disputed that the amendment was a punitive
measure. He believed that people respond well to deadlines
and that they served as good motivators. He emphasized that
he wanted to make sure kids get their diplomas, deadline or
no deadline. He had no objection to the amendment.
Co-Chair Austerman WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Amendment 2 was
ADOPTED.
10:24:36 AM
Co-Chair Austerman asked for any objections.
Co-Chair Stoltze MOVED to REPORT CSHB 220 (FIN) as amended
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
attached fiscal notes.
There being NO OBJECTION, CSHB 220 was REPORTED out of
committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with one new
fiscal impact note from the Department of Education and
Early Development.