SB 36-U OF A REGENTS REPORTING REQUIREMENTS  9:30:31 AM CO-CHAIR STORY announced that the final order of business would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 36(EDC), "An Act relating to reporting requirements of the Board of Regents of the University of Alaska." 9:30:52 AM SENATOR GARY STEVENS, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor, presented CSSB 36(EDC). He stated that in 2019 the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) lost accreditation in its education program. He stated that the "embarrassing situation" resulted from a lack of communication "between the university, various arms of the university, the department, the president and all involved." He explained that the proposed bill would specify that the University of Alaska (UA) include accreditation plans in its biannual report to the legislature. He stated that the legislation would align with the existing requirement that the university administration report components to the UA Board of Regents, drawing attention to any program that may be compromised. He offered that the bill would not be intended as punitive and assured everything at the university is functioning properly. He offered his respect to the UA's current administration and expressed confidence that the legislation is a priority of the president and the UA Board of Regents. He asserted that the goal would be preemptive by keeping the legislature informed on accreditations and avoid the communication errors that occurred in the past. SENATOR STEVENS stated that after the education accreditation at UAA was lost, UA brought in faculty from the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) and the University of Alaska Southeast (UAS) to provide the needed degrees. He added that Alaska has a great need for teachers, and it is a "shame" the biggest campus in Alaska does not have accreditation for an education program. He acknowledged that the accreditation process is complicated. He stated that the Northwest Commission for Colleges and Universities (NWCCU) offers accreditation to universities in the western part of the country. He outlined the process in that an accreditation team, made up of professors, department chairs, presidents, and deans, would be sent to a campus to review programs and make recommendations. The university would then be given time to make any changes, and the team would return to check progress. He stated that the process is long and involved but achieves high quality programs. He stated that when the education program lost its accreditation, the president of UA was blindsided, which exemplifies that there was a lack of communication. He expressed hope that the proposed legislation would make sure this type of mistake does not reoccur. 9:34:59 AM REPRESENTATIVE CRONK offered his understanding that, despite the loss of accreditation, no one lost his/her job at the university. He deduced that if there were no jobs lost over this issue, there is zero accountability. He stated concern about [the lack of] accountability and expressed that [without any] accountability, it would be difficult for him to support the proposed legislation. SENATOR STEVENS stated that the bill would improve accountability, as it requires the university to report to the legislature. He stated that it is not up to him to report the details on the loss of accreditation, and who was at fault, but that question should be asked of the university. 9:36:53 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRAX stated that the situation needs to be addressed. He expressed the opinion that no one at the university would sabotage the accreditation process, insisting there has to be standards. He questioned whether the proposed legislation would provide guidelines or requirements that the university relay meaningful information [to the legislature]. He agreed with Representative Cronk that there needs to be accountability. SENATOR STEVENS responded that it was "disastrous" to lose the accreditation, and he is not aware of this ever occurring in another university. He stated that the NWCCU's accreditation guidelines are very clear, aligning with the goal to provide the best possible education to students. He stated that the bill would not change the process but directs the university to follow the advice of the accrediting organization. He stated that the bill would not need to be more prescriptive, as this part comes from the accrediting organization. 9:40:20 AM PAUL LAYER, PhD, Vice President, Academics, Students, and Research, University of Alaska System, answered questions on CSSB 36(EDC). He indicated that there are different types of accreditations. Institutional accreditation indorses the entire institution and the Board of Regents, and the U.S. Department of Education sanctions this type of accreditation. He stated that NWCCU has given each of the three universities within the UA system institutional accreditation. In example, he stated that UAA went through a midcycle review last fall and received high marks in all areas, with no recommendations, but several accommodations. He stated that UA has had strong evaluations from NWCCU for as long as the university has existed, and the university is proud of its record with NWCCU from an institutional standpoint. He continued that, in addition to the institutional accreditation, the UA system has over 100 individual programs that hold specialized accreditations. Different organizations offer specialized accreditation for each program, such as engineering, nursing, and education. Each of these accrediting organizations has its own set of standards. He stated that it was one of these specialized accreditors that did not [renew UAA's education program in 2019]. He stated that, in reviewing records, he found that UA has never before had any issue with specialized accreditation. He stated that accreditations are valuable to assure students and employers that UA has quality programs. He added that in the NWCCU's review there were no questions about the quality of the graduates from UAA's education program. He explained that the denial of accreditation had to do with how the program was "using input, feedback, improving the program, tracking the students, et cetera." He reiterated that graduates from that program have continued to receive high marks from school districts and their employers. He stated that the 2019 denial of accreditation was an "unfortunate event," and none of those interim leaders remain at the university. He expressed the belief that the quality of the programs now reflects the new leadership. 9:43:27 AM DR. LAYER stated that the programs that were not renewed for accreditation are called initial licensure programs. Since that time, the State Board of Education and Early Development has given approval to reestablish the initial licensure program in early education and admit students to the program while accreditation is being pursued. He said, "It is sort of a chicken and egg thing: you have to have students to get accreditation, but we have to have our graduates be licensed in the state of Alaska." He stated that, as Senator Stevens mentioned, UAF and UAS are providing education programs in the Anchorage area, so the needs of students seeking teaching degrees are being meet. He stated that last fall the UA Board of Regents approved modifications to its accreditation policy to incorporate some of the reporting language from AS 14.40.190. The proposed legislation would reflect this language while representing board requirements. He stated that the UA Board of Regents has now formalized reporting, making it a requirement that each chancellor inform the president and the board if there are concerns, even if the concerns are emerging and early in the status of accreditation. He emphasized that lessons learned from the 2019 incident have been taken seriously, and the university has identified responsibility and established clear reporting policies. He stated that UA provides an annual report on accreditation to the UA Board of Regents, and the proposed legislation would incorporate this reporting. He stated that the UA Board of Regents is ultimately responsible for the university and takes that responsibility seriously, especially in the realm of accreditation, as the Alaska State Constitution has provided that the UA Board of Regents is the governing body of UA, and accreditation is a key part of its responsibility. 9:46:34 AM DR. LAYER, in response to Co-Chair Drummond, stated that when the UAA's School of Education lost its accreditation, the dean, the provost, and the chancellor were all interim. He stated that those individuals are no longer with the university. He stated that UAA hired a new chancellor in the middle of the accreditation crisis, and the new chancellor tried to alleviate concerns, but the decision had been made. DR. LAYER, in response to Representative Prax, stated that the guidelines for certification and accreditation are very explicit and easy to follow. He stated that when UAA was undergoing the review with the education accrediting organization, UAF was also going through the same process with the same organization. He stated that accreditation is a major undertaking, and UAF was able to move through the process with no problem. He added that UAS also underwent the same review with the same organization the following year. He stated that each university approaches the process differently, and some of the other schools of education at UAA came through the process with no problem. He pointed out that UAA lost its accreditation for the initial licensure programs, but last year gained the accreditations of specialized degree programs for returning graduates within the School of Education. He stated that UAA is trying to reestablish the initial licensure programs through the accreditation process. DR. LAYER, responding to a follow-up question, stated that the university reviewed the circumstances surrounding the loss of accreditation and identified the issues. He pointed out there was a failure to consult experts at the university for guidance due to "the feeling that one group could do it on their own." He stated that the "failure of communication up the chain to discuss the severity of the problem" was a factor. He stated that, because this was unprecedented, there was the idea that the university may only get a warning, but the accrediting organization chose to go in a different direction with its review. He witnessed the unprecedented process unfold and expressed that the university never wants it to happen again. In response to a follow-up question, he stated that he would be able to provide the report on the investigation to the committee. 9:52:28 AM CO-CHAIR STORY opened public testimony on CSSB 36(EDC). After ascertaining that there was no one who wished to testify, she closed public testimony. 9:53:20 AM CO-CHAIR STORY announced that CSSB 36(EDC) was held over.