Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/22/1999 01:30 PM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
February 22, 1999
1:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Mike Miller, Chairman
Senator Pete Kelly, Vice-Chairman
Senator Gary Wilken
Senator Drue Pearce
Senator Kim Elton
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Briefing on AASB Standards by the Association
of Alaska School Boards
SENATE BILL NO. 27
"An Act relating to school records and driver license records of
certain children."
-HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to report
WITNESS REGISTER
Mr. Norm Wooten, President
The Association of Alaska
School Boards
Kodiak Island Borough School District
Kodiak, Alaska
Ms. Mari-Anne Gross, President-Elect
The Association of Alaska
School Boards
Kenai Peninsula Borough School District
Kenai, Alaska
Mr. Carl Rose, Executive Director
The Association of Alaska
School Boards
316 W. 11th St.
Juneau, AK 99801
Ms. Jana Sam, Student
Yukon-Koyukuk School District
Huslia, Alaska
Senator Loren Leman
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 27
Mr. Mike Pauley, Staff
Senator Loren Leman
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 27
Ms. Mona Maehara, Director
Council on Domestic Violence
& Sexual Assault
450 Whittier St.
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 27
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-06, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN MILLER called the Senate Health, Education and Social
Services (HESS) Committee to order at 1:30 p.m. and announced the
order of business would be a half-hour update by the Association of
Alaska School Boards (AASB), followed by SB 27.
NORM WOOTEN, President of the AASB, introduced Mari-anne Gross,
President-elect, and informed committee members that for the past
few years, AASB has been working to enhance student achievement,
and has implemented a long range plan that uses a deliberate and
logical method to assist public school students.
CARL ROSE, Executive Director of the AASB, discussed performance-
based budgeting and referred to an AASB publication entitled,
Pathways Long Range Plan. The plan is used as an example for
school boards throughout the state. In 1990, AASB identified a set
of goals (listed on page 6). Legislative services, board
development, and information were AASB's initial goals; those goals
have been accomplished and incorporated into AASB's operations.
Board standards and advocacy are AASB's most recent goals. School
boards have been notified that if a board does not have a
resolution addressing its concern and/or a board concern is not
among those listed by the AASB, the issue will probably not be
addressed by AASB because its budget is limited.
MR. ROSE explained AASB has worked on standards for students,
teachers and administrators, as well as governance standards for
school boards. Alaska is a local control state. If AASB's goals
do not tie into student achievement, it needs to ask why it is
headed in that direction.
Number 093
MR. WOOTEN stated AASB members were elected to local school boards
to improve student achievement. He noted sometime ago, HB 465 was
enacted; it addressed standards for teachers and administrators.
Since the enactment of that legislation, school districts have
spent a lot of time creating and developing assessments and plans
for grading teachers to ensure that the best teachers are hired and
maintained, and that those teachers remain current on the best
teaching practices. School districts also have plans for
improvement of under-performing teachers and administrators. SB
36, passed last year, requires exit exams for students. All school
districts are in the midst of creating plans to do so, and many
districts have volunteered to be test sites for the exams
administered by the Department of Education. AASB supports those
standards and believes a student's diploma should mean that the
student is ready to enter into the world to do what they want to
do. AASB decided that once standards for teachers, administrators,
and students have been established, the next logical place to
implement standards is on board members. He referred to a pamphlet
entitled, Board Standards: The Framework for Alaska School Boards.
The AASB determined five areas of importance in creating standards
for board members: vision; structure; accountability; advocacy;
and conduct and ethics. The indicators for each deal directly with
student achievement.
MARI-ANNE GROSS discussed the school board goal of advocacy.
School board members have advocated on the behalf of students in
the areas of intervention, early parent training, early childhood
development, support of alcohol treatment programs, prevention of
alcohol abuse, smoking, teen pregnancy, fetal alcohol syndrome, and
other youth related problems. Children need to be whole on the
inside as well as on the outside if they are to succeed. AASB has
developed a booklet to be used throughout Alaska based on an asset
building model developed by the SEARCH Institute in Minnesota. The
SEARCH Institute model contains 40 indicators, or assets, that
children need to be successful. The indicators are based on common
sense, and include such things as family support, a caring
community, involvement in youth activities, and time spent at home.
A very strong statistical correlation exists among children who
display at least 30 of the assets and those who become successful
adults. Children with less than 20 of the assets are at risk of
going to jail, dropping out of school, or teen pregnancy. The
booklet contains suggestions for parents, school staff, and the
community to foster each of the 40 assets. This model is pro-
active and will help children succeed. The demand for training
sessions for this program is so great, AASB can meet the need only
by training trainers. The booklet was developed in conjunction
with the Department of Health and Social Services.
Number 290
MR. ROSE added that research shows that community involvement in
schools is a very valuable component in enhancing student
achievement. This project is not a program with a budget, it is
common sense empowerment.
CHAIR MILLER noted the presence of Senators Wilken and Green.
SENATOR WILKEN stated Alaska has 53 school boards for about 100,000
students, and asked if AASB has worked with school districts to
actively pursue consolidation with the thought that they might have
more access to funds.
MR. ROSE replied that issue has been before the AASB for quite
sometime. Some areas of the state have pursued consolidation of
their own volition to tap valuable resources. Some areas of the
state appear to be moving in that direction, and although they may
have maintained local autonomy, they share a lot of services. AASB
is in the process of getting information about shared services
among school districts. He explained that while many school boards
would be willing to combine services for the sake of efficiency,
the concern behind consolidation is maintaining local autonomy.
SENATOR WILKEN asked if AASB has been in discussions with the 13
school districts that are unable to meet the provision in SB 36
that requires 60 percent of funds to be used for instruction.
SENATOR PETE KELLY asked Mr. Rose to explain the provision of SB 36
referred to by Senator Wilken.
MR. ROSE explained the new foundation formula calls for a minimum
instruction component of 60 percent in the first year, 65 percent
in the second year, and 70 percent in the third year.
Inadvertently, principals were included in the area of
administration. The majority of the criteria for the standards for
performance for principals are instructional based. Therefore,
principals are instructional leaders in the schools, but that
portion is being omitted from the compilation therefore it is
difficult to meet the standard under those circumstances. Second,
when HB 465 passed four years ago, a tremendous burden was placed
on administrators to do the evaluations prescribed by law. Also,
any improvements made in the area of technology are not included
within the 70 percent instructional portion. The adequacy study
may clarify some of the problem areas and make the provisions of HB
465 more applicable.
SENATOR WILKEN questioned how the example of technology rolls into
the 70 percent.
MR. ROSE replied expenditures for technology used in instruction,
particularly delivery systems, are not included in the 70 percent.
SENATOR WILKEN asked if Mr. Rose was aware of any school districts
that have suffered negative impacts from the enactment of SB 36.
MR. ROSE said the blocking of special education, bilingual, and
vocational education funds is an area of great concern. In the
past, funds for special education and bilingual programs were based
on need. Five years ago the Special Education Task Force
determined that schools were labeling and over identifying children
for the purpose of generating revenue. It decided that 18 percent
of school funds would be a fair amount to use for a block grant.
That approach would decrease the number of students who are over
identified, and the paperwork. That recommendation was also
applied to bilingual programs in the foundation formula. He
indicated the Lower Kuskokwim and Lower Yukon School Districts have
high incidents and needs for both bilingual and special education
funds, so combining and capping the funds for those programs at 20
percent has had a negative impact. The Skagway School District is
at the other end of the spectrum as it has a low incidence of
bilingual and special education students, however it receives 20
percent of its funding through that component. He suggested the
Special Education Task Force recommendation to use a certain
percentage to address special education needs, but to base
bilingual education funds on need.
Number 410
SENATOR WILKEN maintained the Lower Kuskokwim and Lower Yukon
School Districts did not lose any funds, although the funds they
received were allocated into different components. He asked if
AASB has discussed with school districts in unorganized areas how
to form third class cities to help themselves with school funding.
MR. ROSE said that discussion took place yesterday. AASB has a
number of ways to account for how areas generate dollars and how
that money is incorporated. In many of those areas, the property
value is very low and the people live a subsistence lifestyle, so
limited revenue could be generated. The issue of taxation still
looms in the question of PL 874. AASB understands the argument but
has no answers. One concern about an income tax is that a lot of
responsibility for public education has been passed on to the
municipalities over the past few years, so to impose an income tax
on top of that without an adjustment to lessen the local burden
needs to be considered.
Number 435
SENATOR ELTON stated PL 874 does require a local contribution from
the school districts, and some of the smaller rural school
districts are suggesting that PL 874 not be taken in at 90 percent,
but rather that the local contribution be capped at 4 mills.
MR. ROSE noted AASB has discussed that option with Senator Stevens
who has received a few requests that the dollars be allowed to flow
to school districts. Mr. Rose thought because Alaska is an
equalized state and collects the money for redistribution through
the foundation formula, allowing the money to flow directly would
create some inequities, especially within the Railbelt area.
The following written testimony was submitted in person by student
Jana Sam to committee members.
Greetings
My name is Jana Sam from Huslia, AK. I represent the students
of Yukon Koyukuk School District.
As a student I have a few concerns about the funding of
education.
But - my first concern is that many students come to school
hungry. And we need a breakfast and hot lunch program. At my
village school we haven't seen a hot lunch program since
before I was born.
This state has appropriated funding to send one thousand
prisoners to Arizona and they are given 3 meals a day.
Unfortunately, many of our students come from dysfunctional
families and go to school hungry. These students are our
future leaders.
Why are we fighting over where the funding will come from when
this state provides funds for prisoners in Arizona? Are we
not as important as them? Ana Bassee, Thank you.
CHAIR MILLER noted the presence of Senators Pearce and Leman.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
Number 456
SB 27-ACCESS TO DRIVING/SCHOOL RECORDS OF CHILD
CHAIRMAN MILLER brought up SB 27 and stated that the prime sponsor
Senator Leman is present to testify.
SENATOR LOREN LEMAN said that he introduced SB 27 in response to a
constituent complaint. A mother in Anchorage was concerned that
her minor daughter might be driving with a suspended driving
license. When she contacted the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
she was denied access to that information. The DMV told her that
privacy protections in the law prohibited the state from disclosing
any information about her daughter's driving record.
He stated that others on the committee who have had teenagers are
aware of the responsibilities parents must assume once a child
receives a driving license. The parent must consent before the
license is issued, and then the law holds the parent responsible
for any damage caused by negligence or wilful misconduct while the
child is operating the vehicle.
In the example of the Anchorage mother who called him, SENATOR
LEMAN stated she was denied the information but if her daughter had
been arrested for driving with a suspended license, the police
would have called her, the parent, first.
He said he suspects this provision in state law was unintentional.
The statutes governing DMV include a provision that keeps all
driving records "confidential and private." This makes sense in
relation to adults, but it doesn't make sense in the context of the
parent-child relationship. SENATOR LEMAN referred members to the
statute in the bill packet and pointed out an exception that allows
law enforcement personnel to have access to the information. There
is no such exception for parents, and SB 27 will correct this
problem.
While the legislation was being drafted, he also asked Legal
Services to research another area of the statutes and determine if
there's any provision in state law guaranteeing parents the right
to access their children's school records. He learned there is no
such law. There is a statute (AS 25.20.130) that guarantees a non-
custodial parent the same access to school records that is allowed
for custodial parents but nowhere does the law define what access
rights a custodial parent has.
For that reason, Section 1 of the bill adds a provision that also
guarantees parental access to school records. The Anchorage School
District already has this policy, and it may be the policy in other
school districts in the state, but he said he is not sure. There
is a federal law, also in the bill packets, that denies federal
funding to any educational agency or institution that does not
allow parental access to children's school records. For that
reason, SENATOR LEMAN said he feels it is prudent to state clearly
in the statutes that parents have a right to this information.
SENATOR LEMAN concluded his remarks and said that Mike Pauley,
Staff Aide, would remain to answer questions.
Number 511
CHAIRMAN MILLER referred to the two fiscal notes in the bill packet
and asked Senator Leman about support or opposition, and if there
have been problems with the Administration on the bill.
SENATOR LEMAN replied that DMV says this makes sense and they are
willing to work on it. The only concern relating to school
district records was voiced by the Council on Domestic Violence &
Sexual Assault (CDVSA) that the residence address of the child
would be divulged to the non-custodial parent who may have a
judgment or restraining order against him. SENATOR LEMAN stated
that it could be worked out and if it's part of a court order, the
school district shouldn't have to release that information. It
could be a policy established by regulation rather than put in
statute and that would be consistent with the intent of this
legislation. That is the only concern that has been raised.
Number 528
SENATOR ELTON asked Mike Pauley, Staff to Senator Leman, about
residence records in case of a restraining order, and how a school
record is defined. In some districts, a law enforcement officer
may have notes on students or may be keeping a record. Federal law
defines school record as academic records, and there are
exclusions. Is it the Senator's intent to use the federal
definition?
MIKE PAULEY replied it is not defined in the statute and it could
be addressed in regulation or left to the discretion of the
individual school districts. Regarding his first concern, he and
the Senator don't feel the child's physical address is relevant to
their driving or academic records. Both the Department of
Education (DOE) and the CDVSA have expressed concern about this.
This information could be excluded from the child's records either
by regulation or administrative discretion.
SENATOR ELTON stated Anchorage school district provides for the
release of records, but excludes medical and psychological records
of children. Under the broad language in the bill, he is unsure
those exclusions would be applicable or that Anchorage would be
allowed to continue to exclude certain records. He gave as an
example the disincentive for a student to go to the school health
clinic if he has a sexually transmitted disease and that record
could be released to the custodial parent, non-custodial parent or
step parent.
MR. PAULEY responded the bill as it is drafted is merely neutral on
that question. It would not prevent the disclosure of such
information, but neither would it require it. It is a
discretionary matter, and the sponsor would not object to providing
further clarity, but they have tried to state policy in the statute
without trying to "micro manage" or imagine every case scenario.
NUMBER 571
CHAIRMAN MILLER clarified the controversy is in Section 1. He
asked Mr. Pauley to explain again why Section 1 was inserted.
Section 2 speaks for itself.
MR. PAULEY replied that they asked Legal Services to look for other
precedents to guide how the bill should be drafted. Legal
researched existing law on granting parents access to school
records, planning to model the driving records language after it,
and discovered there was nothing directly addressing parental
access to school records. MR. PAULEY reiterated the statute
25.20.130 which states " a parent who is not granted custody has
the same access to the medical, dental, school, and other records
of the child as the custodial parent." The noncustodial parent
having the same rights as the custodial parent seemed odd, leading
them to question what rights parents have. They felt it would add
clarity to state it specifically in the statutes that the
custodial parent has the right to access this information. The
federal law withholds funds to any agency or institution which
denies this access. Section 1 is consistent with federal law and
adds clarity to the existing state law.
Number 591
SENATOR WILKEN said that on Page 1, Section 2(c) it appears that if
the department asks for the records, a fee is not charged, but if
the parent asks, it is. He asked why the difference, and why not
have the department furnish the records to a parent without the
fee.
TAPE 99-05, SIDE B
Number 587
MR. PAULEY replied that in light of the current budget situation,
they tried to generate a bill with two zero fiscal notes and they
succeeded. If the committee wants to remove the fee, the sponsor
wouldn't object, but the Finance Committee might.
SENATOR WILKEN stated it ought to be reversed, with free records to
the parent and a charge to the department. He deferred to CHAIRMAN
MILLER.
CHAIRMAN MILLER asked if the apparent problem could be fixed by
changing language in Section 1, on lines 4 and 5, to "upon the
request of a custodial parent or a custodial guardian."
MR. PAULEY replied he believes that language change would place
this statute in conflict with the existing one in 25.20.130 that
says just the opposite -- that a non-custodial parent has this
access. The sponsor's intent is not to deny all non-custodial
parents access to that information, because there are only a small
number of non-custodial parents with a restraining order against
them for domestic violence. The concern of staff from DOE and
CDVSA is simply the address of the child. Again, the address is
not relevant to a driving or school records, and it could be
defined that it's not to be included in the accessed information.
He repeated it could be done either through regulation or
administrative discretion.
Number 569
SENATOR ELTON said he applauds the focus of both sections of the
bill and feels parents should have access. He suggested language
saying "access to school education records," which would limit
release of non-academic information including addresses, school
records of a medical or psychological nature, or the log book of a
police officer.
MR. PAULEY again stated the intent was not to "micro manage" too
much. If they state "academic" records, it would have to be
defined and whether or not it includes disciplinary action against
the child. Some people would argue that it does have relevance,
others would disagree. The sponsor does not want to dictate to the
DOE and the school districts how to implement that in the details.
Number 550
MS. MONA MAEHARA, Acting Executive Director, Council on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault, stated the council supports the
sponsor's intention that parents have access to their child's
driving and school records. However, their concern is that these
documents would provide the address for both the minor and the
parent. This information given to parents with restraining or
protective orders against them could endanger the minor and the
other parent. She stated her appreciation of the committee's
understanding of the problem and effort to resolve it. The council
is working with the sponsor's staff, and has been told by DMV that
they can dock the address before they issue the driving abstract.
The council wants to minimize the time and effort placed on school
districts to protect both child and family. She offered to work
with the sponsor and the committee.
Number 527
SENATOR WILKEN moved a conceptual amendment with the intent to
remove any fee being charged to the parent. The text would read:
Page 1:
on line 13, strike the first "or"
add "agency," after "administrative"
strike the second "or"
after "judicial agency" add "or a parent or guardian"
on line 14, strike ";and (2) upon payment of a fee determined by
the
on line 15, strike "commissioner, furnish a parent or guardian of
a driver"
SENATOR WILKEN then read through the proposed language change.
CHAIRMAN MILLER offered it as a formal amendment.
SENATOR KELLY suggested striking the words "without charging a fee"
on line 12. He said it is intent language that the drafters would
pick up.
SENATOR ELTON expressed support for the amendment.
CHAIRMAN MILLER asked if there was objection to the amendment.
There being none, the amendment was adopted. The Chairman noted
there remain serious concerns regarding Section 1, and said he
would like the section to be redrafted. He requested Ms. Maehara,
Mr. Pauley and Sharon Clark work together on a compromise
committee substitute by Thursday's meeting so that the committee
can move the bill out. There being no further discussion, the
committee adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|