Legislature(2023 - 2024)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/16/2024 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB168 | |
| SB215 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 168 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 215 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 16, 2024
9:02 a.m.
9:02:30 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stedman called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Jesse Kiehl
Senator Kelly Merrick
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Donny Olson, Co-Chair
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Jesse Bjorkman, Sponsor; Raymond Matiashowski,
Staff to Senator Bjorkman; Joe Felkl, Legislative Liaison,
Department of Fish and Game; Lisa Purinton, Legislative
Liaison, Department of Public Safety; Lisa Parady,
Executive Director, Alaska Council of School
Administrators; Kelly Manning, Deputy Director, Division of
Innovation and Education Excellence, Department of
Education and Early Development.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Ted Spraker, Former Chair, Alaska Board of Game, Soldotna;
Rebecca Schwanke, Self, Glennallen; Ryan Scott, Director,
Division of Wildlife Conservation, Department of Fish and
Game; Colonel Bernard Chastain, Director, Alaska Wildlife
Troopers Division, Department of Public Safety; Sarah
Pinsky, Senior Director, Policy, National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards.
SUMMARY
SB 168 COMPENSATION FOR WRONGFULLY SEIZED GAME
SB 168 was heard and HELD in Committee for
further consideration.
SB 215 TEACHERS: BOARD CERTIFICATION INCENTIVE
SB 215 was heard and HELD in Committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Stedman discussed the agenda.
SENATE BILL NO. 168
"An Act relating to wrongfully seized game."
9:04:07 AM
SENATOR JESSE BJORKMAN, SPONSOR, explained that SB 168
dealt with instances in which game had wrongfully seized
from hunters by the Department of Public Safety (DPS), and
then found to be legal. He hoped there would be
compensation in the form of comparable game meat, but if
not possible the goal of the bill was to provide cash
compensation. He discussed the training and preparation
necessary for a hunt. He discussed animal identification
for the purposes of legal harvest.
Senator Bjorkman mentioned Alaskas selective harvest
regulations based on horn composition and mentioned
disagreements between hunters and law enforcement. He
described a scenario in which game was seized while the
court addressed the matter, during which time the meat was
given to another person. Even if a hunter was in the right
and the seized animal was legal, the meat could not be
returned. He relayed that hunters had described being put
on the roadkill list as compensation for seized game. He
asserted that trading a roadkill animal for a well cared
for hunted animal was not just compensation. The bill
sought to provide monetary compensation for the seized
animal, so a hunter could purchase meat of their own
choosing.
9:07:12 AM
RAYMOND MATIASHOWSKI, STAFF TO SENATOR BJORKMAN, read from
a Sectional Analysis (copy on file):
Section 1: Amends AS 16.05 by adding a new section, AS
16.05.197, which compensates hunters who have had
certain edible animals seized by the state and are
later found not guilty of violating the statute the
animal was seized under. The value of this
compensation comes from the restitution schedule found
in AS 16.05.925(b).
Section 2: Amends AS 16.05.925(b), by increasing the
penalty imposed on hunters who unlawfully take any of
the animals listed in the subsection.
9:08:06 AM
Senator Kiehl observed that the restitution schedule was
increased for animals that were eaten as well as animals
that were not eaten. He noticed that in the section, all
bears were included. He noted that not all bears had a
requirement to salvage edible meat. He asked if the sponsor
had looked at differentiating getting paid only if the hide
and skull and claws were confiscated.
Senator Bjorkman relayed that he had considered many
circumstances when deciding whether or not to include bear
in the legislation. After discussion it was decided to
include bear. He discussed eating bear. He thought it was
difficult for hides to be cared for properly if not under a
hunters watchful care and supervision. He thought if a
hunters animal could not be satisfactorily restored, the
hunter deserved compensation if the animal was wrongfully
seized.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for the sponsor to help clarify the
difference between edible black bears and brown bears. He
was not aware of anyone that ate brown bears, wolves, or
wolverines. He asked the sponsor for more detail.
Senator Bjorkman did not know anyone that ate wolf or
wolverine, but knew that many people ate brown bear. He
noted that all bears should be cooked well. He noted that
as he updated the restitution schedule to accommodate for
inflation, the amounts for the entire restitution schedule
were adjusted.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if there was testimony from the
department to indicate the frequency of wrongfully seized
game and the geographic spread.
Senator Bjorkman thought there had been differing
recollections. He thought there had been instances of
animal seizure in the Fall of 2021 that were legal
according to many in the hunting community. The situation
had caused the Board of Game to take action to change moose
harvest regulations on the Kenai Peninsula. He thought
invited testifiers could provide perspective on the issue
and the reasoning for the boards action.
9:12:53 AM
TED SPRAKER, FORMER CHAIR, ALASKA BOARD OF GAME, SOLDOTNA
(via teleconference), spoke in favor of the bill. He
supported the bill primarily because of fairness to
hunters. He relayed that he had worked as a wildlife
biologist for the Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) for
over 28 years and had served on the Board of Game for 18
years. He thought the bill addressed an important issue. He
mentioned previous testimony that iterated that the
occurrence of improper game seizure happened only once or
twice per year. He was puzzled and thought the instances
happened more frequently.
Mr. Spraker continued that if a hunter took an illegal
moose, the hunter was fined and could be subject to
equipment seizure and payment of restitution. He pondered
the improper seizure of game and thought restitution should
be paid to the hunter. He thought compensation of $1,800
was not sufficient. He knew that the Alaska Wildlife
Troopers did their best to compensate hunters that were
subject to wrongful game seizure by moving the hunter up
the roadkill list. He mentioned that in his many years
working for the department, he had dealt with many roadkill
issues and had found that the majority of the animals
suffered significant damage. He discussed the process of
caring for game and described the difficulty of applying
proper field dressing techniques to a roadkill moose. He
considered that roadkill was not a substitute for hunted
game.
9:16:46 AM
REBECCA SCHWANKE, SELF, GLENNALLEN (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. She was a lifelong
Alaskan, avid hunter, and had taught hunter education for
20 years. She was a wildlife biologist that had worked for
ADFG and as a consultant. She described that she had worked
as an expert witness for Dall sheep cases. She acknowledged
the work of Alaska State Troopers. She discussed cases of
wrongfully seized game, and the need for appropriate
compensation. She discussed the prospect of losing hunted
meat through the improper seizure. She thought the troopers
needed to make more of an effort to properly keep and store
seized game. She did not think roadkill was an acceptable
alternative for compensation. She thought the bill was a
remedy.
Co-Chair Stedman asked how many times that the proposed
bill would have been implemented over the previous decade.
9:21:11 AM
RYAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (via teleconference), noted
that the instance of mistaken game seizure happened
predominantly with sheep and moose. He noted that he had
been a biologist for many years and had been involved in
some related cases. He thought the situations had been
limited and estimated that there were two to three per
year.
Co-Chair Stedman asked how people in Southeast were
compensated for wrongfully confiscated moose.
Mr. Scott answered that if there was a court proceeding in
the near term, another seized moose would be given.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for more data. He was unaware of any
moose being run over by a car or boat in Southeast. He
thought more definitive answers were needed and thought the
species and location could be identified.
Mr. Scott identified that road kills of moose primarily
occurred in Haines and Yakutat.
Senator Kiehl asked if the department was in the position
to seize game meat, or if the task was taken on by law
enforcement.
Mr. Scott relayed that typically ADFG was the first contact
with hunters, and if there was a question, the troopers
would be contacted for guidance.
9:25:52 AM
JOE FELKL, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME, noted that DPS also had its own fiscal note. He
addressed a new fiscal note from DFG, OMB Component Number
473. He noted that if a person was found guilty of
illegally taking game, the court may impose restitution to
the state in the amounts under AS 16.05.925(b). The
restitution payments were transferred into the Fish and
Game Fund in accordance with statue. The deposits were the
focus of the fiscal note. The department anticipated a
positive revenue impact as a result of the legislation. If
enacted, the bill would increase the amount of revenue per
restitution payment for the species listed by 55 percent.
The amount received by the Division of Wildlife
Conservation would also increase by 55 percent.
Mr. Felkl noted that the Analysis section of the fiscal
note included restitution amounts identified in different
years, with a low of $30,000 and a high of over $100,000.
The increase could range from approximately $20,000 to a
high of approximately $60,000. Based on the uncertainty,
the department submitted an indeterminate fiscal note,
however it estimated a net positive due to the increased
restitution amounts.
9:28:40 AM
Senator Wilson asked how an individual would seek
restitution under the bill, or if a lawsuit would be filed
for restitution.
Mr. Felkl noted that the Committee Substitute from the
Senate Resources Committee (SRES) clarified the matter, and
the restitution would be upon the court overturning a
guilty conviction or having a finding a person not guilty.
The departments position was that restitution would be
automatic. He thought the Court system could address the
question.
Senator Wilson mentioned the expense of a sheep hunt and
pondered restitution of only $2000 as proposed in the bill,
which might not cover the airfare for a hunt. He asked if a
person could engage in a civil suit against the department,
and how often such a thing occurred.
Mr. Felkl deferred the question to another agency.
9:30:40 AM
LISA PURINTON, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY, addressed a new fiscal note from DPS, OMB Component
2746. She identified that the department had a small fiscal
note for $10,800. The cost was derived from research
compiled by Alaska Wildlife Troopers, from taking a five-
year average of cases in which an individual with seized
game was found not guilty. The results showed one to two
cases per year. The bill would require that the
compensation would be required to pay for the seized game
and using adjusted restitution rates for two muskoxen. She
noted that there had been no data on cases that were
appealed or set aside. She believed that there was staff
from the Alaska Wildlife Troopers available for questions.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if Ms. Purinton had indicated there
had been one case per year.
Ms. Purinton relayed that there had been one to two cases
per year based on the five-year average.
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the frequency that the
compensation would be implemented and asked for history
about the data gathering for the five-year average.
9:33:12 AM
COLONEL BERNARD CHASTAIN, DIRECTOR, ALASKA WILDLIFE
TROOPERS DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (via
teleconference), indicated that when considering the
impacts of the bill, the department had done a five-year
lookback to cases that were found not guilty in court. He
continued that Alaska Wildlife Troopers were required by
law to seize animals that were determined to be not legal
in the field. Animals were seized before a legal process
was underway. Once through the court process, a case could
be dismissed. Within the five-year lookback, there had been
one to two cases per year found not guilty, including
seizures of moose, sheep, caribou, and other animals across
the state. He thought it was important to note that statute
required law enforcement to seize an animal that was
thought to be illegally taken.
Co-Chair Stedman thought the reasons for animal seizure
were clear. He asked if Mr. Chastain could provide the
committee with the data from the five-year lookback,
including species and location.
Col. Chastain agreed to provide the information.
Senator Kiehl asked about types of violations and
associated trooper policy that would include animal
seizure.
Col. Chastain relayed that there were different categories
of violations and crimes within statute. Some of the
violations were listed on the bail schedule, which he
likened to a traffic ticket. He mentioned a citation for
failure to include evidence of animal sex, after which an
animal would not be seized. He noted that typically if a
violation was not on the bail schedule, the default crime
was a misdemeanor, and the troopers would determine whether
the animal would be seized. He mentioned examples of a sub-
legal moose, or a cow moose taken out of season, and
described scenarios in which an animal would be seized.
9:38:25 AM
Senator Bjorkman appreciated the clarification from Col.
Chastain regarding the one to two instances per year of
cases going to court and not including cases that had been
dismissed. He noted that it was his intention for the bill
to include language for cases that were dismissed or
dropped. He contended that a hunter should not have to go
all the way through a court process to get property
returned in order to receive just compensation.
Senator Bjorkman explained that the reason the bill was
coming forward was to ensure that hunters were compensated
appropriately, and for hunters to be presumed innocent
until proven guilty. He mentioned instances on the Kenai
Peninsula in the fall of 2021 in which a hunters moose was
seized and later charges were dropped, or the animal was
determined to be legal. He emphasized that it was just for
the hunter to receive compensation, and many hunters had
not. He discussed actions by ADGF in which a panel of three
biologists determined whether a moose was legal. The Board
of Game had changed ceiling requirements to eliminate the
problem and minimize the number of moose that were
wrongfully taken. He wanted hunters to be duly compensated
when animals were taken that should not have been.
Co-Chair Stedman thought the bill mentioned a court order
to pay restitution. He asked if the sponsor suggested
reverting to an earlier version of the bill, whether he
supported amending the bill, or whether he supported the
SRES version of the bill.
Senator Bjorkman recounted that there had been discussion
in the SRES Committee that indicated a desire for a change
to be made in order for hunters to be compensated when they
were not found guilty.
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the bill language.
Senator Bjorkman relayed that the bill did not currently
have the language, but he would support an amendment to
ensure that hunters were compensated fairly if they were
not found guilty.
SB 168 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 215
"An Act relating to teacher incentive payments for
national board certification; and providing for an
effective date."
9:42:17 AM
Senator Jesse Bjorkman, Sponsor, explained that SB 215 was
designed to raise pay for the states most highly qualified
teachers and encourage other educators to engage in the
best professional development in their field and to become
nationally board certified. He cited studies that showed
that national board-certified teachers obtained better
educational outcomes and were better teachers after
completing the steps of the four-part certification
process. The National Board of Certified Teachers was a
board that required to undergo a rigorous and personal
training program.
Senator Bjorkman continued that teachers in the program
were required to demonstrate content knowledge and the
ability to teach to every student. He highlighted elements
of the program that included recordings and reflection for
improvement, submission of student work, and the provision
of video teaching samples. He thought that the process
showed teachers reflecting on teaching methods and success.
He emphasized the importance of teacher recruitment and
retention, and of improving educational outcomes.
9:44:22 AM
AT EASE
9:44:43 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stedman relayed that the director for the National
Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) would
give a presentation.
9:45:03 AM
SARAH PINSKY, SENIOR DIRECTOR, POLICY, NATIONAL BOARD FOR
PROFESSIONAL TEACHING STANDARDS (via teleconference),
relayed that NBPTS was an independent, non-profit
organization was founded more than 30 years ago and worked
to advance accomplished teaching. She discussed a
presentation entitled "Using National Board Certification
to Strengthen the Teaching Workforce" (copy on file).
Ms. Pinsky showed slide 2, What is National Board
Certification.
Ms. Pinsky read slide 3, By Teachers, For Teachers:
National Board Certification is a voluntary advanced
credential that signifies the teacher is an
instructional expert in their grade and subject level.
Ms. Pinsky noted that the certification was recognized as
the gold standard in teacher certification. She emphasized
that the professional expertise of educators was the
foundation of everything NBPTS did. She continued that the
standards that were the foundation of the certification
process were developed by panels of expert teacher
practitioners that came to consensus on what accomplished
teachers should know and be able to do in the certification
areas. There were 25 certification areas in each level.
Ms. Pinsky showed slide 4, "Peer-reviewed, Performance-
based":
This student-centered process requires teachers to
demonstrate evidence of the impact they have on
student learning through
?samples of student work,
?videos of their teaching, and
?deep reflection and analysis of their practice.
They must also demonstrate their understanding of
their grade-appropriate subjects through a content
knowledge exam.
Ms. Pinsky showed slide 5, "Maintenance of Certification:
?Maintenance of Certification (MOC) is the pathway for
National Board Certified Teachers (NBCTs) to keep
their certification active.
?Successfully meeting MOC requirements will extend an
NBCT's certificate five years.
?The process is designed to ensure that NBCTs continue
to grow professionally while substantially impacting
student learning.
9:47:34 AM
Ms. Pinsky showed slide 7, "Impact on Teaching":
Teachers who engage with the National Board standards
report making specific changes to their instructional
practice including:
• Adjusting lesson plans to meet the needs of
individual students
• Gaining and/or deepening knowledge in content areas
• Using data in new ways to assess student progress
Ms. Pinsky showed slide 8, "Impact on Students":
More than a decade of research from across the country
confirms that students taught by National Board
Certified Teachers (NBCTs) learn more than other
students.
?Estimates of the increase in learning are on the
order of an additional one to two months of
instruction.
?A 2017 Mississippi study found Kindergarten students
taught by an NBCT are 31% more likely to be proficient
on the Kindergarten Readiness Assessment (see image).
?Students of NBCTs demonstrate evidence of deeper
learning.
Ms. Pinsky showed slide 9, "Impact on the Teaching
Profession":
• National Board Certified Teachers remain in the
profession longer than their colleagues.
• National Board Certified Teachers are more likely to
host student teachers than other teachers.
• New teachers who are mentored by National Board
Certified Teachers exhibit improvement and generate
additional student learning
Ms. Pinsky cited that in the most recent year, the turnover
rate for board certified teachers was about one-third of
the average rate.
Ms. Pinsky looked at slide 11, "Leveraging Policy. She
relayed that she would discuss state policy approaches and
reasoned that policy could be a critical lever and could
create the right conditions for teachers to pursue and
achieve national board certification. She referenced three
kinds of policies: financial incentives, fee support, and
support programs for teachers pursuing certification. She
cited that certification cost approximately $1,900.
Ms. Pinsky looked at slide 12, which showed a national map
identifying 29 states that offered financial incentives for
certified teachers. She noted that states that were wildly
different with regard to population, size, and politics all
found the incentive to be worthwhile.
Ms. Pinsky turned to slide 13, "Salary Incentive
Structures":
Increase for all NBCTs
Example: North Carolina
NBCTs placed on salary schedule 12% above base
pay.
Example: Wyoming
NBCTs earn an annual $4,000 stipend.
Increase for NBCTs in high-need schools
Example: California
Both increase for all NBCTs and additional increase
for NBCTs in targeted schools
Example: Utah
9:52:53 AM
Ms. Pinsky reviewed slide 14, and addressed Delaware's
policy whereby board-certified teachers earned a stipend
equal to 12 percent of base salary. She cited that over
about four years there had been a significant increase in
the number of national board-certified teachers. She
anticipated further growth.
Ms. Pinski showed slide 15, which addressed program
highlights of Texas' financial incentives. The state
allocated between $3,000 and $9,000 for each national
board-certified teacher. Teachers could get closer to the
$9,000 by teaching at rural schools or schools with a high
percentage of low socio-economic students. The state also
reimbursed for the initial cost of certification as well as
the maintenance of certification that was needed every five
years. She identified a pattern similar to that of
Delaware.
Senator Bishop asked if Ms. Pinsky was aware of any state
universities that taught to the national certification,
whereby graduates would have the national board
certification.
Ms. Pinsky explained that the standards were somewhat
advanced for students that were pursuing completion of pre-
service preparation programs. She noted that programs
aligned standards or taught the baseline framework but was
not certain if Alaska had adopted standards for future
licensure. She noted that the standards were for
accomplished practitioners and were more aligned to those
with more expertise and experience than a teacher coming
right out of college.
Senator Bishop asked for Ms. Pinsky's professional opinion
regarding a timeline for new teachers to apply for national
certification.
Ms. Pinsky noted that previously teachers were required to
have three years of experience before beginning the board
certification process. Recently the rule had changed, and
teachers were allowed to start the process in the first
year of teaching, while still being required to have three
years of teaching experience to complete the certification.
9:58:18 AM
LISA PARADY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COUNCIL OF SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATORS, introduced herself and relayed that the
Alaska Council of School Administrators (ACSA) was in
support of the bill. The council felt that SB 215 was an
important policy bill for education. The council supported
the certification because it believed that every Alaskan
student deserved a qualified effective teacher, and
promoting national board certification was a proven pathway
to the goal. She referenced ACSAs joint position statement
(copy not on file) that listed priorities that education
leaders had identified. She noted that recruiting,
retaining, and preparing qualified educators was a top
priority.
Ms. Parady pointed out that research demonstrated that
teacher quality was the most effective school-based factor
in student achievement. She considered that the bill would
aid with the goal of student achievement. She referenced a
study by the Journal of Research on Education Effectiveness
that found that students with a board-certified teacher
produced gains of up to a month and a half to two months of
additional learning when compared to non-board-certified
teachers with similar experiences. She continued that
national board certification promoted teacher quality by
encouraging teachers to reach the highest available
benchmarks in the field.
Ms. Parady noted that as of January 20, 2022, Alaska ranked
44th in the nation, with only 200 (or 2.7 percent) of
teachers with national board certification. The council
believed the state should encourage teachers to pursue the
certification. She noted that a majority of states already
did so, and noted that once there were incentives, about 2
percent of teachers pursued the certification every year.
She highlighted that teachers with the certification took
on enhanced leadership roles and mentored new teachers,
which also improved new teacher quality.
10:01:46 AM
Ms. Parady discussed the significant cost of obtaining the
national certification, which was rigorous and took three
years to complete. She noted that the process required
taking examinations at an authorized testing site, which
was only available at 12 testing centers in the state. She
considered that by offering a bonus for teachers that had
completed the certification, the state could ensure that
certification was financially accessible to all teachers.
Ms. Parady emphasized that the incentive was a retention
mechanism. She relayed that ACSA and its members strongly
encouraged the development of a comprehensive statewide
program to prepare, attract, and retain high-quality
diverse educators and professionals. She thought increasing
the share of the states teachers with the certification
was a critical step to improve Alaskas school for all
students. She added that ACSA was especially appreciative
that the bonus would be a state-funded incentive available
to all districts, rather than relying on district budgets.
10:03:54 AM
Senator Bishop pondered why the state would not work with
the University system to incorporate the curriculum in
order to start the process of obtaining the certification.
Ms. Parady noted that Alaska used benchmarks in the
University to align with the certification. She thought
that it generally took a couple of years for teachers to
practice in the classroom before being ready to take on the
rigors of the program. She likened the certification to a
Ph.D. program and thought the University pre-service was
preparing students to teach at the highest levels, but that
board certification would add an additional layer of rigor
that teachers may not be ready for right from the start.
She agreed that elements of the certification should be
included in teacher education.
Senator Bishop asked if Ms. Parady knew of any Alaskan
districts that were currently offering the certification to
teachers.
Ms. Parady thought there some districts offering the
certification. She mentioned work on the North Slope, which
had the certification as part of its agreement. She thought
some districts offered the opportunity because of the
strong research that showed the impact on students. She
thought given the current financial situation in school
districts; the certification would not be the highest
priority for a district. She thoguht state funding would be
a high priority in being able to offer the certification to
all school districts.
10:08:42 AM
KELLY MANNING, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF INNOVATION AND
EDUCATION EXCELLENCE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY
DEVELOPMENT, discussed a new fiscal note from the
Department of Education and Early Development, OMB
Component 2796. She identified that the CS had presented
additional costs. She continued that the note showed an
estimate of $1,456,000 for year one, with anticipated
growth over time. She identified that the bill provided for
an incentive payment of $5,000 for each teacher that held a
current and valid national board certification. In
addition, the bill noted costs incurred to achieve board
certification.
Ms. Manning continued that the board certification cost an
average of $1,900 per candidate, with $475 for each of the
four components. The amount could be higher if an educator
needed to retake any of the components. Additional costs to
achieve board certification may include supplies. She
referenced required videos and videography supplies. There
were retake fees for the certification components, and
there could be travel requirements. The assessment sites
for the state were mostly at the states universities. She
noted that there could be travel required to observe other
teachers. She mentioned registration fees. All the
components had an estimated average of about $10,000 for
full certification.
Ms. Manning noted that states with similar incentive
programs that covered the cost of certification were found
to have a 2 percent increase, which was factored into the
fiscal note.
10:12:19 AM
Ms. Manning continued to address the fiscal note. She made
note of an anticipation of $1,075,000 for grants in year
one to cover the incentivization of $5,000 per board-
certified teacher and $6,000 in legal fees. The amount
increased over each year based on the anticipated increases
in certified educators. She listed a cost of $375,000 in
year one for covering reimbursement of board certification
costs. She noted that the costs were estimates without
knowing the number of teachers that would pursue board
certification. The estimates were based on other states
that had funded the costs and incentives.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if the department supported the
program.
Ms. Manning relayed that the Teacher Recruitment and
Retention Working Group had determined that teacher
incentives was a potential avenue for increasing certified
teachers. She thought looking at different incentives was
an outflow of the working groups work.
Co-Chair Stedman considered that looking at something and
implementing it were two different things. He asked if the
department had a position.
Ms. Manning relayed that the department was neutral on the
particular approach in the bill, but definitely supported
incentivization of getting teachers in the door and getting
them to stay in positions.
Senator Wilson mentioned recertification for teachers every
five years. He asked if the national board certification
would qualify for recertification in lieu of professional
development classes, either for recertification or for pay
increases and bonuses.
Ms. Manning agreed to research Senator Wilson's question
and get back to the committee with the information.
Senator Kiehl mentioned a comment about an increase in
board certified teachers in states that funded the cost of
the certification. He asked if Ms. Manning had examples.
Ms. Manning noted that she did not have the information at
hand but would get back to the committee. She thought that
Maine was one of the states in question.
Senator Kiehl appreciated that the department had done
diligent work to see how much more effective the
legislation could be.
10:16:11 AM
Senator Bjorkman thought the committee had heard of the
many benefits, proven through research, that indicated
students who learned from national board-certified teachers
learned more and learned more effectively. He spoke to
Senator Bishop's questions pertaining to why the state did
not start training teachers on the material at the
university level. He explained that teachers in training
programs had much to learn about pedagogy and how to handle
the everyday rigors of teaching, which often involved more
than just instruction of students. He thought teachers
needed some on-the-job training to be ready for the level
of training involved in the board certification.
Senator Bjorkman discussed the in-depth content related to
certified subject areas, and the required teaching video to
reflect active teaching and demonstrate skills developed in
the first years of teaching. He asserted that the
certification being discussed was difficult and was for the
most skilled teachers. He emphasized that when the process
was incentivized and the state invested in the process, the
results would come. He discussed the benefits of teachers
going through the process together in job-alike groups to
become better together. He described collective teacher
efficacy, which he cited as the primary factor that made
teachers better as a team.
SB 215 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Stedman relayed that there would be no afternoon
meeting. He discussed the agenda for the following day.
ADJOURNMENT
10:20:53 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB168 Explanation of Changes Ver. A to Ver. R.pdf |
SFIN 4/16/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 168 |
| SB 168 Ver. R Sectional Analysis 3.27.24.pdf |
SFIN 4/16/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 168 |
| SB 168 Ver. R Sponsor Statement 3.27.24.pdf |
SFIN 4/16/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 168 |
| SB 215 NBCT Incentives by state 02.07.2024.pdf |
SEDC 2/14/2024 3:30:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 215 |
| SB 215 Research LAUSD NBCT report 02.07.2024.pdf |
SEDC 2/14/2024 3:30:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 215 |
| SB 215 Research NBCT Impact Brief 02.07.2024.pdf |
SEDC 2/14/2024 3:30:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 215 |
| SB 215 Research NBCT Mississippi Reading Outcomes 02.07.2024.pdf |
SEDC 2/14/2024 3:30:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 215 |
| SB 215 Research NBCT Retention Information 2020 02.07.2024.pdf |
SEDC 2/14/2024 3:30:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 215 |
| SB 215 Research NBPTS Certification 02.07.2024.pdf |
SEDC 2/14/2024 3:30:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 215 |
| SB 215 Sponsor Statement 02.07.2024.pdf |
SEDC 2/14/2024 3:30:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 215 |
| SB 215 Summary of Changes Version S to Version U 02.26.2024.pdf |
SEDC 2/26/2024 3:30:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 215 |
| SB 215 Testimony - Received as of 02.17.2024.pdf |
SEDC 2/19/2024 3:30:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 215 |
| SB 215 Ver U Sectional Analysis 2.2.24.pdf |
SFIN 4/16/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 215 |
| SB 215 EDC EED SSA 041224.pdf |
SFIN 4/16/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 215 |
| SB 168 DFG DWC 941324.pdf |
SFIN 4/16/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 168 |