02/07/2024 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation(s): the Nation's Charter Report Card | |
| HB236 | |
| HB230 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 236 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 230 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 7, 2024
8:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jamie Allard, Co-Chair
Representative Justin Ruffridge, Co-Chair
Representative Mike Prax
Representative CJ McCormick
Representative Tom McKay
Representative Rebecca Himschoot
Representative Andi Story
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): THE NATION'S CHARTER REPORT CARD
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 236
"An Act relating to the duties of the Board of Regents of the
University of Alaska; establishing the University of Alaska
major maintenance and modernization fund; repealing the
University of Alaska building fund; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 230
"An Act repealing the limit on the number of years of out-of-
state school experience that may be substituted for in-state
experience in teacher salary scales."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 236
SHORT TITLE: UA MAJOR MAINTEN. MODERNIZATION FUND
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) STAPP
01/16/24 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/24
01/16/24 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/24 (H) EDC, FIN
02/07/24 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
BILL: HB 230
SHORT TITLE: OUT-OF-STATE TCHG EXPERIENCE & SALARIES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HIMSCHOOT
01/16/24 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/24
01/16/24 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/24 (H) EDC
02/07/24 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
WITNESS REGISTER
PAUL E. PETERSON, PhD, Henry Lee Shattuck Professor of
Government;
Director
Program on Education Policy and Governance
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint, titled "The
Nation's Charter Report Card."
REPRESENTATIVE WILL STAPP
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, introduced HB 236.
PAUL MENKE, Staff
Representative Will Stapp
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Stapp, prime
sponsor of HB 236, presented a PowerPoint, titled "HB 236: UA
Major Maintenance and Modernization Act."
CHAD HUTCHINSON, Director of State Relations
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
236.
LUKE FULP, Chief Financial Officer
University of Alaska System
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
236.
BARBARA ADAMS, Consultant
Adams Analytic Solutions
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave invited testimony during the hearing
on HB 230.
DAN POLTA, Superintendent of Schools
Denali Borough School District
Healy, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave invited testimony during the hearing
on HB 230.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:00:47 AM
CO-CHAIR JUSTIN RUFFRIDGE called the House Education Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. Representatives Prax,
McKay, and Ruffridge were present at the call to order.
Representatives McCormick, Himschoot, Story, and Allard arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
^PRESENTATION(S): The Nation's Charter Report Card
PRESENTATION(S): The Nation's Charter Report Card
8:02:23 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE announced that the first order of business
would be The Nation's Charter Report Card presentation.
8:02:47 AM
PAUL E. PETERSON, PhD, Henry Lee Shattuck Professor of
Government; Director, Program on Education Policy and
Governance, Harvard University, provided a brief introduction to
the PowerPoint presentation of the Nation's Chart Report Card
[hard copy included in the committee packet]. He explained that
this was the first time this has been attempted and only
recently, data on student performance has been collected by the
U.S. Government. He walked the committee through some
procedures used in terms of the report card.
8:04:50 AM
DR. PETERSON moved to the second slide, titled "National
Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP)," which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
--The nation's report card
--Administered under the direction of the U. S.
Department of Education.
Provides information on public student performance in
math and reading every 2 years for representative
samples of students in each state
Students tested in other subjects less frequently
Sampled school districts and charter schools expected
to participate
Sample of students is smaller for charter than
district students, as only 7% of all students attend
charters
State proficiency tests administered to all students
in every state, but each state designs its own tests,
making cross-state comparisons questionable.
DR. PETERSON added there are not many high school charter
schools; therefore, there are not many observations or
information from which to draw conclusions on students in
twelfth grade. He said the report card is different from any
state mandated proficiency test, and the tests are very
informative, but it is hard to make cross state comparisons
because each state has its own tests. He stressed that this is
not the state proficiency test.
8:09:46 AM
DR. PETERSON continued on slide 3, titled "Our Ranking is based
upon:," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
• 24 NAEP surveys: grade 4 and 8 math and reading
(2009-2019)
• Approximately 145,730 tests for charter students
• (2,430 Alaska charter students). •
• NAEP is representative by state and for the country
as a whole
DR. PETERSON emphasized that 2,430 [Alaska charter students] is
a reasonable number to be working with.
8:11:21 AM
DR. PETERSON moved to slide 4, titled "Results adjusted for
student background," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
• Adjustments made for students' ethnicity, gender,
free and reduced-price lunch status, locale, special
education, English Language Learner status, age on
February 1 of testing year, computer availability in
the home, the number of books in the home, and levels
of parental education (only for grade 8)
• Also, we standardized scores within years, subject,
and grades and for age of charter school
DR. PETERSON pointed out that quite a bit of information is
taken into account leading to the most accurate estimate of how
well that state is doing relative to other states.
8:12:58 AM
DR. PETERSON moved to slide 5, titled "Ranking and
interpretation." He briefly explained the numbers on the slide,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
• State ranks based on the adjusted scores for charter
students from 2009 to 2019 as compared to the scores
of charter students nationwide.
• Rankings do not compare charters to district schools
within a state; instead they compare charter schools
in one state to those in other states.
• Measure is in standard deviations (sd)
• 0.31 standard deviations equals one years' worth of
learning
• 1.04sd equals four years of learning (difference
between 4th and 8th grade scores on same test).
DR. PETERSON added that for simplicity's sake, he would speak in
terms of years of learning.
8:14:15 AM
DR. PETERSON proceeded to slide 6, titled "Limitations." He
elucidated each point on the slide, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
• We are not able to track year-by-year trends in
charter student performance within states (too few
observations)
We have no information on student performance at
virtual charters (excluded in NAEP)
• Only 4th and 8th grade data. No information on high
school (insufficient observations).
• Data end in 2019, before Covid pandemic
8:15:06 AM
DR. PETERSON continued to slide 7, titled "Ranking states by
charter performance," which featured a graph showing states
above and below national average. He noted that the top ones
look as might be expected, but the bottom ones are "off" because
of what the schools are teaching, such as Indigenous languages,
using Hawai'i as an example.
8:18:25 AM
DR. PETERSON moved to slide 8, titled "Charter school ranking
weakly related to ranking of all public schools." The slide
showed charter school rank versus public school rank, and he
noted that Alaska is "very unusual" and ranked very low overall.
He proceeded to slide 9, titled "Ranking of states on raw 4th
and 8th grade performances of charter students on NAEP, 2009-
2019," where he pointed out that Alaska comes in seventh, which
he said is not bad, but other states have higher performing
charter schools. He said the comparisons are done with fairness
in mind, but he noted some states have a charter sector that is
serving an advantaged population.
8:21:25 AM
DR. PETERSON proceeded to slides 10 and 11, titled "Ranking of
thth
states on adjusted 4 and 8 grade performances of charter
thth
students in math" and "Ranking of states on adjusted 4 and 8
grade performances of charter students in reading." He pointed
out that Alaska is shown at the top in math and third in
reading.
8:22:35 AM
DR. PETERSON moved to slide 12, titled "Ranking of states on
adjusted 4th and 8th grade performances of lower-income charter
students." He added that these students are eligible for free
and reduced lunch and Alaska "looked good," he said. On slide
13, titled "Ranking of states on adjusted 4th and 8th grade
performances of higher-income charter households," he pointed
out that Alaska ranks third here, which is good, but not at the
top. He proceeded to slide 14, titled "Ranking of states on
thth
adjusted 4 and 8 grade performances of white charter students,
2009-2019," which showed Alaska came in third, and he noted that
it is good but not as good as Washington, D.C., which has a very
large charter sector that serves many different races.
8:24:21 AM
DR. PETERSON moved to slide 15, titled "Ranking of states on
average adjusted 4th and 8th grade performances of charter
students tested in cities," and he emphasized that Alaska came
in first place. He said many charter students are urban
students, being that is where many schools are located. He
continued on to slide 16, titled "Ranking of states on adjusted
4th and 8th grade performances of charter students tested in
suburbs, towns, and rural areas." He reiterated that these
areas had to be combined all together in order to have enough
general observations, and that Alaska came in first place.
8:25:19 AM
DR. PETERSON proceeded to slides 17 and 18, titled "Ranking of
states on adjusted 4th and 8th grade performances of boys at
charter schools," and "Ranking of states on adjusted 4th and 8th
grade performances of girls at charter schools." He noted that
the boys and girls do very well in Alaska compared to other
states.
8:25:44 AM
DR. PETERSON moved to slide 19, titled "Additional findings,"
and expounded each point. The slide read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
• Charters authorized by state agencies (board or
department) outperform charters authorized by other
entities
• Charters authorized by higher education institutions
show lower performances
• Standalone and for-profit charters do not perform as
well as those in nonprofit charter school networks.
• Specialized charters outperform those with generic
objectives
• No effects of funding level, or the percentage of
charter students in state
8:30:23 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE invited questions from the committee.
8:30:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY referred to the report [included in the
committee packet] on page 29 in reference to charter
authorizers.
DR. PETERSON replied they [the data] can only show that students
perform better if they attend charter schools that have been
authorized by a statewide agency.
8:33:12 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD reminded everyone the superintendents are
present and that she appreciated the data numbers. She said
that she noticed reasons were not pinpointed throughout Mr.
Peterson's presentation as to why Alaska charter schools have
been so successful. She asked Mr. Peterson if he could pinpoint
"what we are doing right."
DR. PETERSON said one reason he speculated was that Alaska had
experiences with young people learning in many different
circumstances. He also noted many people in Alaska were
educated by corresponding, and he opined that these unique
experiences may have helped Alaska.
8:36:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said she heard a lot of correlation but
not causation in the study, and asked Dr. Peterson if he could
make a study to find the causation of Alaska's high
achievements.
DR. PETERSON said if the data could reach causal conclusions, he
would "jump at it." He said scientific work can only be done if
it is something you can stand behind if you have the
information, and the government collects a limited amount of
information about the country's educational system and that
holds more true in the charter sector.
8:39:46 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE added to Representative Himschoot's question
regarding correlation and causation. If the body requested some
data set to allow causation to be studied, he asked DR.
PETERSON, as a person in his position, what the data pieces
would be.
DR. PETERSON replied that charter schools have given people the
opportunity to do causal analysis. If a charter school is
oversubscribed, it must admit students with a lottery. He
explained that academics love lotteries because they can then
use the data to say what happened to the students who did or did
not win the lottery. He gave examples of some eastern states'
lottery systems.
8:43:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT referred to Dr. Peterson's study on
page 2 [included in the committee packet] and asked whether
regulatory policies need to be changed.
8:45:29 AM
DR. PETERSON explained that state rankings done up until his
study are that the studies were not really based on whether or
not students were learning at the charter schools. He opined
that charter schools should be ranked on how much students are
learning, also taking into account other important aspects of
their lives.
8:48:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK brought up Dr. Peterson's research for
performance and offered his belief that there are only two
charter schools in all the Bush areas in Alaska.
DR. PETERSON replied that the main way the research factors in
is to compare students with similar students. He stated that he
could not say anything about the proper distribution of students
throughout Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK questioned whether it is detrimental
for students to learn in their Native language.
DR. PETERSON gave an example of immersion schools in Hawai'i and
those left out were the Indigenous community who had many
problems adapting to the Twenty-First Century world that was
created. They were told they must learn in English and give up
their language, and when charter schools "came down the pipe" it
was the same time as the Hawaiian renaissance, leading to
charter schools being the place to see whether immersions may
work for this population. He said he had nothing but admiration
for these institutions and there is no reason to discontinue
these immersion schools.
8:54:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY commented that sometimes one can deduce
what happens from data. He observed that charter schools are
focused on reading and math, and he opined public schools should
be too, to bring scores up. He offered his belief that there is
no need to wait for further studies.
8:56:23 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE reflected on slide 8 and asked Dr. Peterson
if he could bring anything to the committee linking school
choice legislation and states.
DR. PETERSON responded that although he expected to have a clear
answer when he began the study, he did not have the answer
currently. He said what he had learned from other data is that
a charter school should have a clear mission on what is
essential.
9:00:45 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE referred to subsets on data by individual
characteristics, and asked Dr. Peterson whether part of the data
set included people with intensive or special needs.
DR. PETERSON related that he had an autistic son; therefore, it
was a heartfelt topic. He said special needs are taken into
account as part of the analysis, but he could not tell whether
Alaska schools are particularly good at serving those with
special needs.
9:02:11 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD emphasized her agreement with Representative
McKay's comment about educators needing to focus on the "three
Rs," [reading, writing, and arithmetic].
9:03:30 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE thanked Dr. Peterson for presenting the data
and answering questions from committee members.
9:03:56 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:03 a.m. to 9:09 a.m.
HB 236-UA MAJOR MAINTEN. MODERNIZATION FUND
9:09:14 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 236, "An Act relating to the duties of
the Board of Regents of the University of Alaska; establishing
the University of Alaska major maintenance and modernization
fund; repealing the University of Alaska building fund; and
providing for an effective date."
9:10:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILL STAPP, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, presented HB 236, and paraphrased the sponsor statement
[included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
As of this year, the University of Alaska (UA) system
has an estimated $1.4 billion in backlogged deferred
maintenance projects. 40% of state buildings belong to
the university, and university-affiliated members
across our state are hindered while working, studying,
and living in facilities and dormitories that have
fallen into disrepair. Without a clear fiscal vision
and framework, the $1.4 billion backlog will only
continue to grow, and our university system will
suffer.
HB 236 will solve this problem by establishing a major
maintenance and modernization fund. With this fund,
the Board of Regents will be able to leverage state
funding to create a clear, concise plan for reducing
the UA system's deferred maintenance backlog. This
bill intends to bring UA long-term financial stability
that will signify the State of Alaska's investment for
its students and higher education institutions.
Deferred maintenance is an ongoing cost, not a one-
time payment. The University of Alaska building fund
exists in the state's budget but has not been
consistently funded, which led to an unreliable
funding stream which the UA system could not utilize
to resolve its deferred maintenance backlog. To remedy
this, HB 236 will establish a funding source that will
be exclusively used for major maintenance and
modernization projects. The future generations and
workforces of our state must have the opportunity to
thrive in safe, modern buildings that lead Alaskans
north to the future.
9:13:13 AM
PAUL MENKE, Staff, Representative Will Stapp ,Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Stapp, prime sponsor of
HB 236, began a PowerPoint [hardcopy included in the committee
packet], titled "HB 236: UA Major Maintenance and Modernization
Act." He proceeded to slide 2, titled "Problem," which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:'
.notdef UA System has an extensive Deferred Maintenance (DM)
backlog
.notdef 40% of Alaska state buildings are university-
owned
.notdef 68% of Alaskas DM backlog is in the UA system
.notdef Currently no clear fiscal plan for catching up on
deferred maintenance projects
MR. MENKE added that projects within the university system are
capital projects which require individual appropriations, and it
is not conducive to creating a predictable source of funding for
the university to catch up on its deferred maintenance backlog.
9:14:02 AM
MR. MENKE moved to slide 3, titled "Map of UA System," showing a
visual representation of the state's main and satellite
campuses. The deferred maintenance backlog is spread across
almost all campuses throughout Alaska, and HB 236 has a solution
for reducing the expensive backlog and making the university
system more marketable, he said.
9:14:31 AM
MR. MENKE moved to slide 4, titled "HB 236's Solution:," which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
.notdef Create a reliable fund that the UA system can use to
catch up on deferred maintenance projects
.notdef Ensure the fiscally responsible expenditure of funds
being used for deferred maintenance projects
.notdef Maintain respect for legislative constitutional
appropriation authority
9:15:07 AM
MR. MENKE gave the section analysis for HB 236 shown on slides 5
through 7, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Section 1: - Adds the duty for the Board of Regents to
develop a comprehensive plan for applicable projects
to be funded from the UA Major Maintenance and
Modernization Fund
Section 2: - Adds the duty for the Board of Regents to
present a detailed, written report to the Alaska
Legislature within the first 30 days of each regular
session about current and proposed major maintenance
and modernization project.
Section 3: - Defines "major maintenance and
modernization project"
Section 4: - Creates the UA Major Maintenance and
Modernization Fund which will consist of: -
Appropriations from the legislature - Transfers from
the Board of Regents - Interest and investment income
- Donations - Establishes procedures in the event that
the legislature disapproves of a proposed project -
States the intent of the legislature to appropriate
$35,000,000 /year - Defines: - "Board of Regents" -
"Fund" - "Major Maintenance and Modernization Project"
Section 5: - Repeals the UA Building Fund (AS
37.05.555)
Section 6: - Outlines current projects that the Board
of Regents can leverage funds from the UA Major
Maintenance and Modernization Fund without further
appropriation
Section 7: - Provides for an immediate effective date
9:16:48 AM
MR. MENKE moved to slide 8, titled "Projects Approved in HB 236
(Section 6)." The slide showed the improvements needed to all
three major universities and a list of all the projects
contained in the bill. He reminded committee members they have
additional attachments in their committee packets.
9:18:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX brought up the report to the legislature as
opposed to just letting regions "do their business." He said
the legislature does not know about deferred maintenance, and he
asked, "Why the legislature?"
REPRESENTATIVE STAPP replied that the legislature is the
accountability body and controls the appropriations. He added
that the legislature, being the approving body, seemed to be the
most effective way to have resources attributed.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether the legislature needed to come
up with a definition to establish deferred maintenance.
REPRESENTATIVE STAPP responded there were people online who
would explain more in depth.
9:21:31 AM
CHAD HUTCHINSON, Director of State Relations, University of
Alaska (UA), explained the definition of deferred maintenance
and how it associated with the age of the building, the amount
of construction work needed, as well as being prioritized by
student use and both electrical and mechanical issues.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX opined that there are necessary compliance
needs, and improvements are not maintenance.
MR. HUTCHINSON said that the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) compliance is a component of UA's focus, but the
predominant focus is out-of-date mechanical equipment, leaking
fuel tanks, and insufficient electrical systems. He said UA's
hope is to become more self-sufficient and less dependent on
state dollars.
9:24:01 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD asked how much [money] is in deferred
maintenance.
MR. HUTCHINSON answered that it is approaching 1.48 billion. He
added that the top three projects are at the University of
Alaska Anchorage (UAA). He also spoke to the amount of wear and
tear, such as roofing issues, at the University of Alaska
Southeast (UAS) due to weather conditions. He noted that the
governor has had conversations with UA's president, Pat Pitney,
regarding creative solutions for sustained funding.
9:26:37 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD expressed her frustration at the university not
"maintaining its home," and now pleading with the legislature
for "all this money" now and each year thereafter. She gave an
example wherein she had dereliction of duty and not maintained
her home but expected insurance to cover the damages.
MR. HUTCHINSON referred to the 1.5 billion dollars and the "red
book" on page 56 that showed a chart, and the lack of capital
appropriations over the years.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD interjected Mr. Hutchinson and opined that what
he began stating is just an excuse and it was alarming that UA's
finances have not been figured out. She questioned what UA's
capital budget money went to.
REPRESENTATIVE STAPP suggested to think about who appropriated
the money in the first place, which was the state, having a
constitutional obligation to the university system. He further
explained that the university gets its money through various
entities and the budget is transparent as to where those funds
actually go.
9:30:12 AM
LUKE FULP, Chief Financial Officer, University of Alaska System,
explained that the deferred maintenance priority had been a top
capital priority for the Board of Regents for the last 20 years,
with most recently a $50-million request before the legislature
every year with a specific slate of projects. He added that UA
had adjusted its approach, and now comes with a request for $35
million, which he stated was "a modest request." He said UA is
a very large system with many facilities within. He stressed
that UA is not just looking to the legislature to "solve the
problem" for it but has designed a plan to use its own funds to
contribute starting in 2028. If HB 236 were enacted, UA would
pay $10 million per year and receive $35 million per year from
the legislature.
9:35:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked how the Board of Regents and the
president [of UA] have been involved, as well as the involvement
at the legislative level.
REPRESENTATIVE STAPP said there is a lot of technical thought to
unwind the problem. He said that outside of state
appropriation, the primary purpose is tuition. He gave an
example of a maintenance backlog and the possibility of then
raising tuition; however, if that type of policy were enacted to
solve the problem, it incentivizes Alaska children to pursue
education elsewhere for more reasonable tuition. He said
deferred maintenance is a problem that has gotten progressively
worse, and in turn gets progressively more expensive over time.
He said the concept behind HB 236 is to make the velocity of
money more efficient so it can go further.
9:39:25 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE referred to page 5 of the bill and that he
was seeing prescribed language referencing specific places and
things. He asked if someone could speak to the specific
language.
MR. MENKE replied the specific language built into the bill is
based off of the capital projects that UA had requested and is
designed that if the bill were passed, these projects in Section
6 would be the projects that the Board of Regents would be
allowed to use funds for.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE commented about a possible statutory process
to alter the bill and asked whether there would be a simpler way
or a potential change that may need to be made 20 years down the
road.
MR. MENKE replied that he did not see a simpler way. If there
were new projects that came up, a similar process would be
needed, and he opined that the proposed way is a more
streamlined way.
9:41:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT commented that the bill looked like a
creative solution to a very real problem, and she supported it.
She added that it was important to recognize the state's K-12
system lacks the same opportunities UA has to meet its own
needs.
9:42:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX advised that the proposed legislation must
be evaluated carefully, and he noted that modernization is not
maintenance.
REPRESENTATIVE STAPP stated that he agreed; however, when
looking at building operations it is wise to look at replacement
costs and modernizing systems to reduce overall operation costs.
9:44:32 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE announced that HB 236 was held over.
9:44:49 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:44 a.m. to 9:45 a.m.
HB 230-OUT-OF-STATE TCHG EXPERIENCE & SALARIES
9:45:43 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 230, "An Act repealing the limit on the
number of years of out-of-state school experience that may be
substituted for in-state experience in teacher salary scales."
9:46:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT, as prime sponsor, presented HB 230.
She explained she had a multitude of goals for HB 230, and
paraphrased the sponsor statement [included in the committee
packet], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
HB 230, OUT-OF STATE TCHG EXPERIENCE & SALARIES is a
single line bill that repeals the existing limit on
the number of years of teaching experience gained
outside the state that can be used to determine a
teacher's salary. This bill will help address our
teacher shortage and bring in more experienced
teachers from out-of-state.
Teachers are currently only allowed to count eight
years of out-of-state teaching experience, if they
have a masters' degree, and six years of out-of-state
teaching experience, if they have bachelors' degree,
for the purpose of determining the correct placement
on a district's salary scale, even if they taught out
of state for much longer. Repealing this limit is one
of the recommendations from the "2021 Teacher
Retention and Recruitment Action Plan," the plan is a
product of the Alaska Governor's working group on
teacher retention and recruitment that was established
in 2020.
Districts across Alaska are having an extremely
difficult time filling teaching positions. First day
teacher vacancies in Alaska have increased from about
155 in 2019 to about 394 in 2022 according to the
Department of Education and Early Development and this
shortage impacts both urban and rural districts. With
the passage of this bill, state statute will no longer
inhibit districts from hiring the most experienced
out-of-state candidates, and in turn teachers will be
fairly compensated for their experience.
9:48:30 AM
BARBARA ADAMS, Consultant, Adams Analytic Solutions, provided a
brief background and related that she started work on teacher
retention and recruitment in 2020. She explained that HB 230
would remove the criteria put on districts so they can be more
flexible while trying to recruit teachers. She clarified that
the action plan [in the playbook] could be provided to the
committee.
9:50:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked for examples in the working group as
to why its members felt it was an important statute change.
MS. ADAMS replied there is a superintendent available who could
better speak to that.
9:51:20 AM
DAN POLTA, Superintendent of Schools, Denali Borough School
District, provided his educational background and shared a story
about interviewing a U.S. teacher candidate who was American
educated but working in international schools. Because of the
statute, he said, he could only offer a limited contract and
could not legally offer the candidate a better placement. He
added that the candidate had to regretfully turn down the
position.
9:55:02 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE invited closing comments on HB 230.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT opined that "we could do good things
with this bill," and offered to talk offline as well.
9:55:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY expressed what he considered troubling, in
that the principal of Sand Lake [Anchorage, Alaska] informed him
that he puts out job ads for elementary teachers and gets many
applications from the Philippines. He noted that the University
of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) still does not have its accreditation
for teaching certificates, and he suggested that the legislature
should "do a dive into the problem" and find out why.
9:57:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY thanked Representative McKay for bringing
his experience up but stated her understanding was that UAA
could work with the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) because
it could certify teachers.
9:58:09 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE stated that time could be specifically
dedicated to a UA discussion at a later date.
[HB 230 was held over.]
9:58:51 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:59 a.m.