03/21/2014 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB45 | |
| HB365 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 45 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 365 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 21, 2014
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lynn Gattis, Chair
Representative Lora Reinbold, Vice Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Sam Kito III (Alternate)
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Harriet Drummond
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 45
"An Act relating to harassment, intimidation, or bullying by
students attending a public school in the state."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 365
"An Act relating to the Alaska performance scholarship."
- HEARD & HELD
Confirmation Hearings
- REMOVED FROM AGENDA
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 45
SHORT TITLE: ELECTRONIC BULLYING IN SCHOOLS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) COSTELLO, GATTIS, HUGHES,
JOSEPHSON
01/16/13 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/13
01/16/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/13 (H) EDC, JUD
03/21/14 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 365
SHORT TITLE: PERFORMANCE SCHOLARSHIP: QUALIFYING EXAM
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SEATON
02/26/14 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/26/14 (H) EDC
03/21/14 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE MIA COSTELLO
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as prime sponsor of HB 45.
SARAH PAGE, Staff
Representative Mia Costello
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a section-by-section analysis of
HB 45, on behalf of the prime sponsor, Representative Mia
Costello.
AMELIA VAZQUEZ-DAVIS, Student
AJ Dimond High School
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 45.
RON FUHRER, President
NEA - Alaska (NEA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 45.
MIKE COONS
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 45.
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director
Postsecondary Education Commission
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 365.
LADAWN DRUCE, School Counselor
Ninilchik School
Ninilchik, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 365.
LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 365.
ROBERT DELGADO, Student
Ninilchik School
Ninilchik Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 365.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:04:15 AM
CHAIR LYNN GATTIS called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. Representatives Seaton, LeDoux,
Saddler, Reinbold, and Gattis were present at the call to order.
Representative Kito III arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 45-ELECTRONIC BULLYING IN SCHOOLS
HB 45-ELECTRONIC BULLYING IN SCHOOLS
8:04:49 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 45, "An Act relating to harassment, intimidation,
or bullying by students attending a public school in the state."
8:05:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MIA COSTELLO, Alaska State Legislature, as
sponsor, stated that HB 45 would provide a definition change to
add "electronic" to bullying and harassment in schools. As a
mother, former teacher, and elected official, she has noticed
our society has a huge dependence on electronic devices. This
bill would acknowledge that electronic communication occurs
among students.
8:06:24 AM
SARAH PAGE, Staff, Representative Mia Costello, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the prime sponsor, provided a section-
by-section analysis of HB 45. She stated Section 1 will remove
"whether verbal or physical" from AS 14.33.220(b) and not
specifying those actions would mean "bullying" would apply to
any type of bullying action, including cyberbullying. Section 2
would add "electronic communication" as a possible form of
harassment.
8:07:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether this bill will specifically
cover Facebook.
REPRESENTATIVE COSTELLO answered that HB 45 does not
specifically identify Facebook and does not address student use
of Facebook.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX, with respect to electronic bullying,
asked whether the bill attempts to make conduct by a student
punishable that is not otherwise illegal, such as making
disparaging remarks via electronic media. She clarified she was
referring to non-threatening comments students might make, such
as continued disparaging comments calling someone ugly and fat.
She maintained concern about the school district regulating
electronic off campus remarks by students.
8:10:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COSTELLO directed attention to Section 1 that
requires a school employee, student, or volunteer who has
reliable information or who witnesses student harassment to
report it.
8:11:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether an expression of dislike
constitutes bullying.
REPRESENTATIVE COSTELLO referred to proposed Sec. 2, which read
"(2) " harassment, intimidation, or bullying" means an
intentional written, electronic, or oral communication, or
physical act, when the communication or act is undertaken with
the intent of threatening, intimidating, harassing, or
frightening the student."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether a statement that "I don't
like Suzy," could constitute bullying.
REPRESENTATIVE COSTELLO responded that if HB 45 passed, that a
person would need to use his/her judgment and would need to
report behavior to school authorities if he/she thought the
behavior fit the definition and the administration would
subsequently decide if the behavior warrants action. She noted
some schools have bullying policies.
8:13:06 AM
CHAIR GATTIS remarked that this bill raises a good conversation
about bullying. She noted how bullying can have lasting effects
and the importance for others to become involved.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III acknowledged the importance of the
issue. He asked if her research identified other ways parents
can get support to stem bullying that happens outside of the
school.
MS. PAGE suggested that if the bill passed parents could report
electronic communication to the school as a means of providing
evidence of bullying.
8:16:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX acknowledged that serious consequences can
occur when someone is bullied; however, the First Amendment
[under the U.S. Constitution] rights related to freedom of
speech allows people to be "pretty mean to people" so long as
the person doesn't step over a certain line. The schools have
the leeway to be more restrictive; however, attempting to curb
behavior outside of the school realm may not be plausible. She
said she has some problems with this type of restriction.
REPRESENTATIVE COSTELLO appreciated her taking this seriously.
She said she does, too. However, not recognizing electronic
devices in statute ignores that society uses electronic
communication. She pointed out that oral or written
communication is addressed in existing statute. She maintained
that it is important for adults in schools noticing bullying to
have the responsibility to report it to the school. The intent
of HB 45 is to encourage a positive culture in the school
system. Legal remedies exist if behavior rises to that level
and the bill acknowledges that if oral and written behavior that
harasses and intimidates people must be reported, then similar
behavior using modern devices should also be reported.
8:19:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related his understanding that the bill
addresses a student being harassed, not the person harassing the
student. Thus, the bill would require a person report that a
student has been harassed. He asked whether this interpretation
is accurate.
MS. PAGE answered that the final aspect of Section 1 states
"shall report the incident" so she offered her belief that
actions on both sides would be considered.
8:21:09 AM
AMELIA VAZQUEZ-DAVIS, Student, AJ Dimond High School, stated she
is a sophomore at Dimond High School. She said a loophole
related to social media exists and needs to be closed and until
it is people will continue to be harassed. Other states have
also recognized this problem and have taken action. She
provided a number of statistics that demonstrated increased
occurrence of on-line bullying and highlights cyberbullying as a
problem. She has observed students being hurt and noted
depression as one outcome. She suggested that students see the
cyberbullying so it can enter the school and affect learning.
8:24:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked about the policy at Dimond High
School for smart phones and how that might affect cyberbullying
at school.
MS. VAZQUEZ-DAVIS answered that cell phone use is at the
discretion of the class teacher and some allow cell phone use
and others don't. She noted some students are text messaging
throughout the day so cyberbullying could certainly escalate.
In response to a question, she reiterated cell phone use is at
the discretion of each teacher.
CHAIR GATTIS pointed out modern cell phones are multi-use
devices that offer internet access.
8:26:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III suggested that if someone has been
adversely impacted by a communication that is evidence of
bullying. He related his understanding that this bill would
just add that students can be negatively impacted by "electronic
media" and not just oral and written communication.
8:27:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said the statute clearly covers oral and
written, or physical acts, when the acts are undertaken with
intent. He inquired why the drafting doesn't just add
"electronic" instead of adding communication since "oral" is
also communication.
MS. PAGE answered that an electronic act could be a post, not a
direct communication. She suggested that an offensive blog post
would be different than a directed comment.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER suggested that a Facebook post would be
general versus a direct comment and asked whether it would be
covered under this provision.
MS. PAGE deferred to the drafter.
CHAIR GATTIS suggested that question could be answered later.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER aligned with the previously comments
regarding the First Amendment rights, which allows a certain
amount of offensive comments.
8:30:10 AM
CHAIR GATTIS offered her belief that cyberbullying exists and it
is important to recognize the issue.
8:30:53 AM
RON FUHRER, President, National Education Association of Alaska
(NEA), testified in support of HB 45, paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, which read, as follows:
Cyberbullying occurs in the shadows, whether on-line,
on Facebook, by text message, or some other means. It
can be more difficult to detect and prevent than more
conventional forms of bullying. Teachers and
educational support professionals are the first lines
of defense in stopping cyberbullying in schools.
Cyberbullying carries over to the classroom. Only one
in ten victims will inform a parent or trusted adult
of their abuse. The consequences of cyberbullying are
significant and cause significant emotional and
psychological distress. Like other forms of bullying
cyberbullied kids experience fear, low self-esteem,
depression and anxiety.
Cyberbullying victims also experience some unique
consequences such as feeling overwhelmed, vulnerable,
powerless, exposed, humiliated, isolated, and even
disinterested in life. Bullied victims are two to
nine times likely to consider suicide. According to
Pew Research, one-third of all teenagers who have used
the Internet have been the target of some form of
cyberbullying. Some research shows that nearly 43
percent of kids have been bullied on-line and one in
four more than once. Seventy percent of students
report seeing frequent bullying on-line.
Cyberbullying is unacceptable. The only way to bring
cyberbullying out of the shadows is a community effort
by teachers, parents, administrators, and other
students to send a clear message that cyberbullying
will not be tolerated. This bill, HB 45, is a first
step towards ensuring that Alaska's students can
attend school in a safe-learning environment, free
from the threats of cyberbullying. Please support HB
45.
8:33:25 AM
MIKE COONS testified in opposition to HB 45, paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, which read [original punctuation provided]:
I oppose HB 45. Let me talk first on Sections 1 and
2.
Section 1, do you mean to tell me that school staff
don't intervene now? Why should a student have to
report? What happens if a student doesn't and if any
"discipline" and why? Then at what "level" is this
talking about? What is the objective definition of
harassment, intimidation or bullying? Very subjective
depending on the viewer and when they see it.
Heck it could be the intended "victim" intimidating
back to stop the "[bully's]" behavior. It could be
the "victim" fighting back and winning over the bully!
Then of course, with this as a "guideline" the bully
becomes the "victim" and the intended "victim" gets
the punishment!
Section 2 (2), again determination depends on the
viewer as I just stated.
In reading the proposed text, I am not impressed. If
this is being proposed because of the cyber bullying
in the Lower 48 that made national headlines, this
does little to nothing to deter such actions that lead
to death of the victim. This is why we have kids that
are bullied who have no skills turn to [have] ramped
up violence disproportionally over the problem. This
is why we have kids with low esteem, who have nowhere
to go that really matters to them!
In reviewing the wording, it is subjective at best and
with the history of the courts, I don't believe a
person on trial in a juvenile court would be found
guilty for "fear of physical injury, severe mental or
emotional injury, or damage to the person's property".
8:35:02 AM
MR. COONS continued to read from prepared remarks,
[original punctuation provided]:
How to prove the "victim" had that level of fear or if
they suffered "mental or emotional injury"? I'm sure
any number of psychiatrists could come up with
differing views as the "victims" level of "fear, or
mental or emotional injury", both for the defense and
prosecutor.
Based on the above, this is one more law that will be
either misused or ignored; we have enough of those
already and I'd love to see time spent to repeal such
laws that don't work and done for "emotion".
Let me end with this. Why don't we at the community
level, not legislative level, do something that makes
a real difference? Why don't we teach not to be a
victim? The NRA has a course "Refuse to be a Victim",
this is about 95% on mental attitude, verbal options
or "verbal judo", situational awareness, simple
methods of defense then upping defense with non-lethal
to lethal. This is mostly taught to women and has a
huge impact and high success rate. When I was a kid,
I was 6 months younger and quite a bit smaller than my
peers. My Dad always told me to never throw the first
punch, if I could, walk away, but if I had to fight,
fight to the finish and don't come home crying, then I
would get his discipline, a boot on my rear end. I
walked away many times, and called a coward for it. I
also stood up to bully's and got the second swing in.
I lost more than I won over the years, but no bully,
bullied me more than once after we got into it. For
[bullies] don't like to get hurt! They can dish it
out, but can't take it. Plus they know that they may
have won this time, they might not be so lucky the
second time. My last fight was in the 11th grade,
that one I won and won big and my PE teacher let it go
on to the end. He told me years later he did that
because he had never seen me win! What did this do
for me as an adult? It taught me to stand for myself
and not be a "victim" and to be in control of my life.
Legislation like this and others is so much fluff and
makes the progressives feel good that we are "doing
something", when we are really doing what progressives
really want, a public dependent on the government and
others, vs a public that takes personal responsibility
for themselves.
Do not pass this bill.
8:37:41 AM
CHAIR GATTIS closed public testimony on HB 45.
8:38:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented that the bill has brought an
important clarification to be able to take effect if a student's
education is being interrupted or threatening happens in the
learning environment. He pointed out the statute is in AS
14.33, which is public schools and the bill does not mean the
crime warrants police action, but it is important for district
action in terms of school policy.
CHAIR GATTIS recognized that some districts currently have
specific policy in place.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to page 1, line 5 to the
requirement that bullying policy currently addresses someone
must report bullying happening or a victim being bullied. He
pointed out current law requires reports of bullying so this
just expands it to include electronic bullying.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked to have a representative from the
Department of Law available to clarify First Amendment issues.
[HB 45 was held over.]
HB 365-PERFORMANCE SCHOLARSHIP: QUALIFYING EXAM
HB 365-PERFORMANCE SCHOLARSHIP: QUALIFYING EXAM
8:41:00 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 365, "An Act relating to the Alaska performance
scholarship."
8:41:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, speaking as prime sponsor, presented HB
365, paraphrasing from the sponsor statement, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
The Alaska Performance Scholarship (APS) was created
in 2010 through Senate Bill 221 and represents a
recurring investment in Alaska's future through post-
secondary education scholarships. The Legislature also
supported a long-term plan to fund APS in perpetuity,
demonstrating commitment to make higher education more
affordable to residents.
Students are currently eligible to receive a
scholarship if they meet the criteria in one of three
tiers of awards laid out in 4 AAC 43.020. Criteria for
awards include completion of a rigorous curriculum,
standardized examination, and grade point average
requirements. Standardized examinations used in all
three award levels are the ACT, SAT or WorkKeys. The
WorkKeys examination is designed for entry into career
and technical fields. However, if qualifying for the
APS through the WorkKeys examination, students may
only apply their scholarship to a career or technical
program that results in the award of a certificate. It
cannot be applied to a two-year Associate's degree,
which is often the degree needed to advance in a
career or technical field.
[HB] 365 will expand the application of an Alaska
Performance Scholarship earned through WorkKeys
examination to include degree programs. Students who
have demonstrated the necessary requirements to obtain
an Alaska Performance Scholarship should not be
limited to using it only towards a certificate program
when an Associate's degree or other degree may best
launch them into a vocation most appropriate for their
skills and experience. Current statute impedes
students' pursuit of career paths, especially those
offered through a two-year degree.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recapped that this bill would allow
students who use the technical career pathway and take the
WorkKeys to be able to pursue their technical career goal
through certificate or an Associate of Art's Degree and be
eligible to use the APS. Currently some students qualify for
the APS, but if they attend the university seeking an
associate's degree they cannot use it. He related his
understanding that the purpose of APS is to encourage students
to further their education and qualify in technical fields. He
referred to the handout in members' packets entitled
"Certificate and Associate's Degree Programs Offered by
University of Alaska" that lists numerous degrees offered,
including Industrial Technology or Air Traffic Control. He
concluded that the intent is to recognize the Associate of Art's
Degree as a pathway for career and technical fields.
CHAIR GATTIS agreed parents and students want career and
technical options.
8:45:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether taking an exam to enter a
technical school could be considered a college entrance exam.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained the use of placement tests,
including the Acuplacer used by the University of Alaska System.
He said it is important to understand that the SAT, ACT, and
WorkKeys assessment as an examination was necessary since the
state doesn't have control over the grade point averages (GPA)
across the state. Students still must demonstrate the skill
level on the exams. He said the SAT and ACT are not used by
many schools. The UA uses the Acuplacer to place students in
the appropriate classes.
8:48:39 AM
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director, Postsecondary Education
Commission, Department of Education and Early Development (EED),
explained that WorkKeys assessment is not a college entrance
exam, but is designed to access an individual's readiness to
enter the workforce.
CHAIR GATTIS asked for a briefing on the Alaska Performance
Scholarship (APS) in terms of four year college degrees and
vocational education and she understood HB 365 would fill a gap.
MS. BARRANS answered that the APS currently has two tracks, one
for attaining a degree related to the college entrance exam
scores. She explained the scores and award levels that can be
achieved. The state Board of Education (BOE) in setting the
standards for career track focused on a minimum benchmark for
all award levels, which is currently a WorkKeys assessment score
of 13 of 20 WorkKeys components. Thus, the GPA governs the
award level, but in order to give wide access to students the
APS went with a single scoring benchmark and limited the program
to certificate programs. The rationale was that components to
Associate Degree programs that are general education and need to
be assessed for academic preparedness into a degree program.
She related that the Associate Degree programs really combine
the general education and technical educational requirements
without assessing the student's ability to succeed directed the
students to certificate programs.
8:51:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether the award levels are set
appropriately.
MS. BARRANS responded the award levels were designed for tuition
for full-time students at the University of Alaska. She said
the program could range from 10 weeks to one year in length.
The student can obtain up to the amount of the award but the
award may not exceed the cost of the program.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked for further clarification on the
fiscal note set at $1-2 million.
MS. BARRANS answered that is difficult to pinpoint a cost
analysis for this program. She derived the figure by using the
actual students in the class of 2013 who qualified for a
WorkKeys APS, but enrolled in an Associate's Degree program and
couldn't use the scholarship.
CHAIR GATTIS remarked that she became informed about the
WorkKeys assessment policies during the House Finance
subcommittee work. She acknowledged that Representative Seaton
has had more experience with the APS.
8:54:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked for further clarification on the
number of students and how many more could be served.
MS. BARRANS reiterated that it is a difficult number to estimate
since she was unsure of how many students qualified for an APS
but elected not to go to school. The agency looked at the
number of students who were unable to use the APS but enrolled
in a degree program at the UA. In response to a question, Ms.
Barrrans recalled that 202 students enrolled. In addition, keep
in mind those students qualified with WorkKeys assessment scores
based on the current minimal level. If the bill were to pass,
the state Board of Education would need to reconsider the award
requirements. One question is whether there is a means compare
WorkKeys scores to ACT and SATs, which could be challenging
since one assesses college readiness whereas the other is not
designed to do so.
8:56:29 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked whether there might be more students who
consider the career portion if HB 365 passes.
MS. BARRANS disagreed. She suggested the students might aspire
to it, which is good; however, the cut scores may be increased
and the effect could be that fewer qualify.
CHAIR GATTIS understood.
8:57:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said he had been inclined to think that
if APS was extended to cover vocational or two year certificates
that more students would take advantage of it. He noted that it
is unclear what assessments will be required of students in
Alaska since it is still being discussed in the legislature. He
asked whether this bill is consistent with the intent of the
APS.
MS. BARRANS answered that these are the granular details that
were not originally discussed between a certificate and an
associate degree program. The commitment made was options for a
collegiate track and a career technical education track. She
offered her belief that it was in that spirit; however, she
wasn't privy to the discussions the BOE engaged in on setting
the cut score.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether she supports HB 365.
MS. BARRANS expressed concern about the bill as currently
drafted. She explained that it appears to be a wide broadening
to include any degree track. She suggested it might be more
finely tooled to focus on those that the WorkKeys score ensures
preparedness, perhaps a subset of the list of associate degree
programs. She pointed out there may be a wide variance of
academic requirements within the degree programs.
8:59:58 AM
CHAIR GATTIS surmised that the APS would be for either an
associate's degree or a bachelor's degree, but more importantly
more of a college track versus the certificate.
MS. BARRANS agreed, but said within the context of the training
structure, it has gotten a little blurry. She explained that
the structures aren't as clear-cut since interest has been
expressed to create pathways for some students to begin with a
certificate, move on to an associate's degree (AA), and build on
the AA degree by moving into a baccalaureate program.
9:01:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III asked for further clarification on
existing statute regarding the minimum scores. He asked whether
these scores are defined by the state Board of Education.
MS. BARRANS answered yes; the scores are set by regulation.
9:01:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recognized that 30 percent of the students
prepare for college. The goal would be to increase post-
secondary education and an entire curriculum exists to support
this. Students on the career path must still take rigorous
courses to qualify for the APS. He related that many degree
programs are aligned to furthering career technical education.
CHAIR GATTIS admitted she struggles with the prior and current
intent of the APS. She offered her belief that the state has
failed to maintain pace throughout districts to provide
vocational opportunities. She wasn't sure if the APS is the
appropriate place to address this. She understood the APS had a
particular mission and possibly this bill "piggybacks" on that
mission. She wondered whether the committee wants to "blur
those lines" and have vocational education on board.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested hearing from school counselors.
9:05:49 AM
LADAWN DRUCE, School Counselor, Ninilchik School, asked to
clarify the bill. She related her misunderstanding that the
WorkKeys assessment could be used toward a collegiate path of a
bachelor's program, which apparently was not the intent. If the
WorkKeys assessment could be used towards collegiate bachelor's
degrees, it seems they could be used toward the associate's
degree, more along the career technical education track. She
hoped the committee would not dismiss their testimony. She
pointed out the associate's applied science degree is quite
popular on the Kenai Peninsula, noting the Kenai Peninsula
College campus offering a two-year degree in Process Technology
and instrument technology [Industrial Process Instrumentation],
which several students are looking at, the WorkKeys option would
be much appreciated. She indicated the curriculum is fairly
rigorous for the track, noting the GPA must be a certain level.
She pointed out that the SAT and ACT throws up barriers for them
in accessibility in taking the test, opportunities to study and
take the test.
CHAIR GATTIS indicated the testifier teleconference connection
experienced difficulty and was disconnected.
9:08:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether the proposed change in HB
365 is consistent with the original intent of the APS.
LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), answered
that significant discussion was held on certificate and degree
seeking programs during the APS. He suggested the record may
need to be consulted for a definitive answer. However, there
was interest in advancing degree-seeking programs and students
moving into careers. He recalled one aspect of the intent was
to encourage more rigorous preparation at the secondary level
before students took either route to ensure student success,
regardless of the track and reduction of the need for
remediation. He offered his belief that the governor originally
developed the APS to encourage degrees, but significant
discussion was held on the value of certificates, as well, to go
into career programs.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER supported raising the rigor of
curriculum, which is a positive way to reinforce for students
taking on bigger challenges in high school, regardless of their
eventual academic or vocational track.
9:10:53 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked whether the bill continues to allow for the
intended level of rigor for either path.
MR. MORSE expressed concern that the language does not
completely match the intent. He stated the current language in
HB 365 would open it up to baccalaureate degrees; however, he
didn't hear this as the intent nor does it provide sufficient
information on whether students are prepared. Regarding whether
it helps to advance, he offered his belief that the focus is
associate degree programs at the university that are primarily
career oriented, but not toward baccalaureate degrees. He
offered his belief that it deserves deeper examination. Some of
the associate programs have a rigorous math, language arts, and
literature background. The WorkKeys doesn't give enough
information to know whether the student can make it through the
program, whereas the ACT and SAT provide better information to
assess success. Lastly, one goal is to reduce the remediation
rate. He suggested that perhaps the associate degrees should be
examined to determine if a subset or the whole set is
appropriate. He said the true requirements need to be
understood so the state doesn't move students into programs they
are not prepared to undertake. He acknowledged that the course
requirement provides some of that but the SAT or ACT provides
the crosscheck.
9:13:33 AM
CHAIR GATTIS noted that uniformity in high school curriculum may
be the biggest challenge.
9:13:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the GPA and a rigorous curriculum in
high school is the best predictor of student success. He said
both tracks require rigor and rely on the GPA. The intent is to
ensure that students are not being penalized for taking a
rigorous curriculum but being denied the APS for career
technical fields. He acknowledged the bill needs to be honed,
for example, to change "degree" to "associate's degree;"
however, he was unsure that WorkKeys means developmental courses
won't be necessary. For example, 40 percent of the SAT students
must take remedial courses. He understood that it could be
difficult for some students, but the opportunity to pursue
postsecondary education is the goal of the legislation and to
obtain a more highly-qualified workforce. He offered a
willingness to take amendments.
9:17:12 AM
CHAIR GATTIS noted that one challenge is considering GPA and
assessment scores and which can be trusted.
MS. DRUCE said the students are available. She agreed that the
GPA and the curriculum is a better indicator of success, which
has been proven over time.
9:19:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked how the student letters were
generated.
MS. DRUCE responded that students taking the government class
reviewed the bill and were encouraged to voice an opinion.
9:20:53 AM
ROBERT DELGADO, Student, Ninilchik School, speaking in support
of HB 365, offered his belief that the goal of the APS is to
help students stay in Alaska to obtain an education. He said
using WorkKeys for the career technical education for an
associate's degree instead of the ACT or SAT score will help
those students who are not good test takers to obtain the
scholarship in keeping with the main purpose of the scholarship
program.
9:21:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether the students are aware of
individual students taking the more rigorous courses.
MR. DEGADO answered yes; that all the students are pursuing the
APS.
9:22:31 AM
CHAIR GATTIS closed public testimony on HB 365.
9:22:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether the department supports HB
365.
9:22:59 AM
MR. MORSE reiterated concern that the intent of HB 365 and the
department's analysis of the bill are different. He suggested
the need to clarify the language. He further suggested that an
in-depth discussion would be in order to ensure that students
receive appropriate rigor in mathematics, language arts, and
literature. His biggest concern is having students more forward
without being adequately prepared to be successful in completing
the program. He related that the WorkKeys provides an
assessment on job skills and doesn't indicate preparedness for
college mathematics, language arts, and English. He cautioned
against hasty decisions.
9:24:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for further clarification on the
fiscal notes.
MR. MORSE pointed out that two fiscal notes were provided. One
fiscal note was prepared by EED and the EED provided the student
data and test scores to the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary
Education. The department's fiscal note for $35,000 would
provide analysis and correlation study to provide the BOE with
appropriate, relative information regarding cut scores.
9:26:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed that aligning the intent of the
bill with what will work within the department is important. He
pointed out that the department has the SAT and WorkKeys
assessment scores. He acknowledged it was appropriate for the
department and BOE to set the cut scores.
9:28:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III wanted to better understand whether the
rigorous curriculum required to qualify for the APS is also
appropriate for those students pursuing certificates or
associate degree programs. It might provide an opportunity to
separate out those programs from the APS program. He suggested
identifying specific standards for the curriculum for
certificate or associate degree programs.
CHAIR GATTIS acknowledged the sponsor's willingness to work with
the department.
9:29:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for further clarification on the
WorkKeys assessment.
MR. MORSE offered to provide a brochure on the WorkKeys
assessment.
CHAIR GATTIS asked whether the committee could take the WorkKeys
assessment in order to gain a better understanding.
MR. MORSE recalled the committee may have taken practice tests
or the WorkKeys assessment about five years ago. He agreed the
committee could take a practice test at the committee's
pleasure. He explained that WorkKeys assessment provides
students with a good understanding of career opportunities, and
what a student may need to undertake in order to be successful
in a given area. He pointed out the WorkKeys assessment is
aligned to thousands of workforce career opportunities.
CHAIR GATTIS expressed interest in taking the WorkKeys
assessment.
9:33:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled taking the WorkKeys assessment
previously in committee and provided a description of a typical
math question that addresses an actual workplace application
such as calculating chlorine needed for a sewage treatment
plant.
CHAIR GATTIS looked forward to viewing the WorkKeys assessment.
9:35:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related his understanding that the
difference between the career and technical track is the
curriculum involved for four-year programs include classes such
as calculus, whereas the career and technical track may involve
other mathematics that is more related to real world
applications.
CHAIR GATTIS agreed that many courses taken in school may not
serve everyone and this bill might serve as a gap between
academic and practical application.
[HB 365 was held over.]
9:37:08 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:37 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 45A.PDF |
HEDC 3/21/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 45 |
| SPONSOR STATEMENT FOR HB 45.pdf |
HEDC 3/21/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 45 |
| sectional analysis.pdf |
HEDC 3/21/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 45 |
| HB 45 Letters of Support.pdf |
HEDC 3/21/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 45 |
| HB 45 fiscalNote.pdf |
HEDC 3/21/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 45 |
| HB365A.pdf |
HEDC 3/21/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 365 |
| HB 365 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 3/21/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 365 |
| HB365 - referred AK Statutes.pdf |
HEDC 3/21/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 365 |
| HB365 - UA Degrees list.pdf |
HEDC 3/21/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 365 |
| HB 365 fiscalNote - DEED 2990.pdf |
HEDC 3/21/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 365 |
| HB365 fiscalNote -DEED-2796.pdf |
HEDC 3/21/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 365 |
| Bullying_and_Cyberbullying_Laws.pdf |
HEDC 3/21/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 45 |
| HB 45 Letters of Support.pdf |
HEDC 3/21/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 45 |
| HB 365 Letters of Support.pdf |
HEDC 3/21/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 365 |