HOUSE BILL NO. 31 "An Act requiring school districts to develop and require completion of a history of American constitutionalism curriculum segment; and providing for an effective date." 10:05:16 AM REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER, SPONSOR, thanked the committee for hearing the bill again. He pointed to the substantive section of the bill on page 2, line 15; the provision would require the chief school administrator of a school district to develop and submit a curriculum to the governing body of a school district for approval. The purpose of the curriculum was to teach American constitutionalism as found in the U.S. Constitution, early states' constitutions, Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers, and other. He believed there was enthusiasm about the topic nationwide and noted that it was not inconsistent with curriculum chosen by public schools. He read from the Alaska public school content standards (copy on file): A student should understand the constitutional foundations of the American political system and the democratic ideals of this nation. A student who meets the content standard should (1) understand the ideals of this nation as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights... Representative Keller relayed that the related curriculum in the content standards fell under a "soft" mandate. He referred to letters of support from various schools. He was typically uneasy with mandated curriculum; however, he believed constitutionalism was an exception. He stressed the importance of keeping sight of the values that made the United States a great country; he believed the topic was in danger of falling through the cracks. The bill placed responsibility on school superintendents to ensure the curriculum was taught at their schools. Districts would use their standards to measure whether a student successfully completed the curriculum. He asked for the committee's support on the legislation. 10:08:12 AM Co-Chair Stoltze looked at page 2, line 25 of the legislation and did not believe the language was a soft mandate. Representative Keller wanted the mandate to be meaningful and not too soft. He detailed that the provision would not allow a district to issue a secondary school diploma to a student who did not successfully complete the curriculum approved by the superintendent. Representative Wilson remarked that the bill implemented an unfunded mandate to be placed on the state's school districts; districts would need to develop the curriculum. She wondered how many districts did not provide the course currently. She asked how much the mandate would cost particularly related to smaller districts. Representative Keller answered that he had nothing firm to provide. He furthered that [free] curriculum was available on websites such as icivics.org. He pointed to support from multiple school districts and no opposition from any others and inferred that there would be no significant fiscal imposition on districts. Representative Wilson asked if the intent was to test on the curriculum in order for a student to pass and graduate. She wondered about special needs children who may be unable to pass the test. She noted that the legislature was looking to eliminate the current graduation test. She wondered if the bill included a provision for students who may not be able to accomplish the goal. Representative Keller answered that the decision would be left up to the district. He noted that districts all had standards for measuring the competency and accomplishment of special needs students. He added that four students from Tri-Valley High School had testified in a recent House State Affairs meeting and had a "stunning" understanding of the values of American constitutionalism. 10:11:43 AM Representative Munoz asked if the sponsor intended for American constitutionalism to be part of the American history curriculum requirement currently in place. She wondered about the length of a curriculum segment. Representative Keller confirmed that the segment fell under history requirements. He had selected the history approach over a civics option. He communicated that the length of the segment would be left up to districts to decide. Representative Munoz asked for verification that the segment would fall under the current history requirement. She wondered if two or three years were required. She understood that the requirement included a half year of Alaskan history. Representative Keller confirmed that the segment would fall under the current history requirement, but he did not know the required course length. 10:13:02 AM Representative Guttenberg recalled that his secondary school experience had included courses on the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and early American history. He asked if the subject was not currently taught. Representative Keller replied that he had observed that the subject was slipping [from school curriculum]. The legislation aimed to remind districts to bring focus back to the topic. He believed the nation was experiencing a renewal in the understanding of the U.S. Constitution's value. Representative Guttenberg asked about the difference between American constitutionalism history and American constitutional history. Representative Keller replied that the difference was related to constitutional values. He pointed to inherent rights including all people being created equal. He mentioned rights as sovereign citizens versus having a monarch in power. He stated that the spectrum was broad and included items that were important to the country. The content standards included ideals found in the U.S. Constitution. Representative Guttenberg discussed expanding school options throughout the state and observed that home schooling and religious institutions were not included. He noted that the state had no control over the other institutions, but it did have control over equivalency tests. He wondered if another educational entity included the proposed American constitutionalism requirement its students would not be required to pass a literacy or standard test. He surmised that theoretically the students could take competency tests without the curriculum background and may not be able to answer related questions. He thought it may put the students at a disadvantage. Representative Keller answered that the issue was outside of the bill's scope. Co-Chair Stoltze believed constitutional history was being mistaught on many occasions. He referred to guest speakers sponsored by the National Education Association who explained that the Second Amendment was not really about individual rights. 10:17:08 AM Representative Guttenberg relayed that he had attended and judged high school We the People constitutional competitions. He discussed that the variety of answers and context of questions covered a broad spectrum. He communicated that the students were learning many things and applying the competition in a multitude of ways. Representative Wilson wanted to ensure that the bill would include students who were home schooled in a public process. She asked for verification that the only students the bill would not apply to would be independent home schooled students and private schools. Representative Keller answered in the affirmative. He relayed that the bill was directed at public schools, public school correspondence programs, charter schools, and homeschool support programs. 10:18:37 AM PAMELA GOODE, SELF, DELTA JUNCTION (via teleconference), spoke in support of the legislation. She served as a board member on the Deltana Community Corporation where she interfaced with forestry, city council, and board members. She relayed that whenever issues were discussed the first thing she brought up was constitutionality. She had been surprised to learn that many of the individuals did not think about constitutionality as an issue. She discussed that the constitution was written so everyone should be able to understand it. She detailed that the constitutionality of an issue was not dictated to U.S. citizens by a higher authority. She found it disturbing that leaders of the community did not think about the constitution. She reasoned that children were not thinking about constitutionality if it was absent from the minds of leaders and role models. She believed it was disheartening that a law needed to be made to ensure that the issue was taught in schools. She believed the subject should be mandated in private schools as well. She noted that there may be a conflict because it was not possible to teach the rich history of the country's founding documents without addressing biblical values. 10:22:18 AM Representative Guttenberg asked if Ms. Goode was on the school board. Co-Chair Stoltze replied that Ms. Goode had testified that she belonged to the Deltana Community Corporation. He explained that unincorporated communities had umbrella corporations to allow the communities to accept state funds and engage in certain community activities. CHRISTINE HUTCHINSON, SELF, KENAI (via teleconference), spoke in support of the legislation. She understood that the subject was currently taught in schools; however, it was not a requirement. She pointed to a specific teacher in Nikiski who did an incredible job teaching the subject. She believed the difference between constitutionalism and teaching the constitution was to teach the foundation on which the constitution was based. She stressed that teaching the constitution did not provide students with knowledge of the foundation on which it was based. She did not believe it would be cumbersome to make the subject a high school graduation requirement. She opined that requiring graduates to take the course was a benefit to the entire community. She did not believe the cost would be substantial. She had heard a government class testify in a House State Affairs Committee meeting earlier in the day about a convention of states; she was impressed by the testimony. She thought a convention of states could be important. She did not like requirements, but she stressed that the subject would not be taught without the mandate. She reiterated her support. 10:27:23 AM Representative Gara did not believe many people in the legislature would disagree that students should be taught about the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and other; however, it was important to make sure teachers had time to teach subjects adequately. He pointed to a bill provision that would require teaching about the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Bill of Rights, and other. The bill also included a requirement to teach all of the first state constitutions (a total of 13). He wondered if the provision was important to Ms. Hutchinson. He believed the requirement would take a significant amount of time away from other subjects. Ms. Hutchinson replied that the first states were much different than the current 50 states. She discussed that many states in the West included the Blaine Amendment in their constitutions, which the nation was now addressing many years later. She did not believe that teaching to about the 13 first state constitutions would be excessive. She believed it would be useful for students to see how the U.S. Constitution had been applied individually to the first states. She had been following a convention of states project; she compared the issue to a treaty concept for different countries. She believed the teaching would be of value and did not believe the language created a burden. Co-Chair Stoltze communicated that the Blaine Amendment originated from anti-Catholic sentiment. 10:32:21 AM MARY NANUWAK, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in support of the legislation. She did not believe people should be partial when it came to education. She noted that villages were shorthanded when it came to budgeting. She opined that the state's larger cities including Fairbanks, Anchorage, and Juneau received everything. She hoped that if the cities had shortfalls it would help them to understand what rural Alaska was going through. She believed that everything the legislature discussed year after year was interrelated. She stated that everyone did well when they had the desire to succeed. She discussed encouragement she offered to young people about succeeding. She shared a personal story about a Chevak resident's contribution to environmentally responsible programs. She discussed that it was important for youth to be involved in the community because they would be responsible in the future. She thanked the committee for its hard work. She spoke about the impact young teachers had on students. She urged the committee members to start listening with their hearts. 10:39:48 AM Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony. Representative Costello MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1: Page 2, Line 29 Delete "2013" Insert "2014" Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion. Representative Costello explained that the amendment updated the effective date of the legislation from July 1, 2013 to July 1, 2014. Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED. 10:41:29 AM Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2: Page 2, line 21: delete "the first state constitutions" Page 2, line 26, after "the" insert "course in which the" Page 2, line 26, after "section" insert "is contained" Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion. Representative Gara explained that out of fairness to the sponsor he wanted to discuss the first line of the amendment. He spoke to the goal of the language, which was to ensure teachers had enough time to teach all subjects. He wondered if teaching the 13 first state constitutions would take too much class time. He asked to hear from the sponsor. Representative Keller clarified that the bill only required districts to teach the values and ideals encompassed in the 13 first constitutions. He recognized that a comprehensive list would be problematic. He believed that including the first state constitutions was incredibly important. He stated that the first time constitutions were printed was a significant time in history. He detailed that the colonies included an amendment process in their constitutions reflecting their struggle to determine how government should be run. He remarked that an early draft of the U.S. constitution included an amendment process that required two-thirds of the congressional vote; the process had been changed in order to allow the involvement of the states. He believed the information was difficult to understand without the context of the values included in the first state constitutions. He stated that the documents had created the greatest nation on earth. Representative Gara noted his intent to amend Amendment 2. He asked how much time teaching the first 13 state constitutions would take up in the curriculum. Representative Keller answered that he would leave the issue up to teachers to decide. He did not believe a specified time would be productive, healthy, or possible. Representative Wilson stated that districts would decide what to include based on their current teachings. She recalled that she had been required to learn the state constitution in 8th grade and the U.S. constitution in high school. She surmised that the length of time it would take to teach the items would depend on the existing curriculum. She hoped students learned about the constitution prior to high school. She observed that the "soft" part of the legislation entailed that schools would not be required to go through the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) and there would be no set curriculum. 10:47:39 AM Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that studying 13 states was more manageable than studying all of the existing states. Representative Costello liked the requirement related to teaching the values in the first state constitutions. She stated that it was not possible to discuss the U.S. Constitution or the Declaration of Independence without talking about Thomas Jefferson and the first constitutions. She believed that adding the state constitutions helped to frame the discussion about the background of the U.S. Constitution. She appreciated Representative Gara's intent to amend the amendment. Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that Thomas Jefferson had wanted his gravestone to include that he had been the drafter of the Declaration of Rights for the State of Virginia. He opined that it would be difficult to talk about the U.S. Constitution without discussing the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He was uncomfortable pretending to be a school board or board of education member. 10:49:21 AM Representative Gara MOVED to AMEND Amendment 2 by deleting the following language: Page 2, line 21: delete "the first state constitutions" There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Representative Gara MOVED AMENDED Amendment 2. He explained that line 2 of Amendment 2 had been discussed in committee the prior year. He hoped the amendment would honor the intent of the sponsor. He wanted students to take and complete a course in history. He elaborated that the current bill could imply that a student would be required to separately complete the segment within a course. He did not know how that would be determined. The amendment would require a student to complete a course in which all of the requirements were taught. Representative Keller believed the amendment would complicate the bill. He thought the current language was clear. He surmised that superintendents could determine how to address the issue. He thought the amendment may narrow the options available to the superintendent by implying that the subject had to be part of a course. 10:52:07 AM Representative Edgmon contended that the amendment would actually provide more flexibility to superintendents. He spoke to various thresholds in the bill. Co-Chair Stoltze asked if there was objection to amended Amendment 2. There being NO OBJECTION, amended Amendment 2 was ADOPTED. Representative Costello pointed to the zero impact fiscal note from DEED. Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that the fiscal note pertained only to DEED and did not address whether there would be fiscal impacts on school districts. Representative Guttenberg asked whether the fiscal note reflected the fact that curriculum was already in place. He noted that the committee had not heard from school districts. Co-Chair Stoltze interjected that school districts had been welcome to testify on the legislation. Representative Guttenberg continued on his point. He recalled that the concepts had been taught when he had been in school. He did not object to the fiscal note. He wondered if it reflected that the curriculum was ready to use or currently in place in schools. Representative Wilson stated that the fiscal note only applied to the department. She discussed that the bill did not require the department to take any action. She hoped the curriculum was already in place in the state's schools. She was concerned about the implementation of unfunded mandates that could ask schools to do more and more with existing funds. She was in favor of the bill because she believed the majority of the districts had the curriculum in place or that it could be easily incorporated into current curriculum. She noted that the subject materials were available free of charge; Fairbanks used the We the People organization. She believed that in the future it would be appropriate to involve districts to determine whether legislation would impact them financially. 10:56:01 AM Representative Costello relayed that the fiscal note had been replaced with an updated zero impact note dated January 21, 2014. Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT CSHB 31(FIN) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion. Vice-Chair Neuman communicated that he would not vote against moving the bill from the committee, but he was not supportive of mandating school curriculum. He compared the issue to opposing federal oversight in Alaska. He discussed that school districts were trying to downsize because of costs. He believed Southeast was considering moving to a four-day school week to reduce costs. He wondered if there would be enough time to teach the class. He spoke in support of local control. 10:58:36 AM Representative Edgmon agreed with comments made by Vice- Chair Neuman. He applauded the bill sponsor for introducing the bill and believed that the concept was sound. However, he believed the language in the bill was prescriptive and included multiple items detailing what school districts would be required to do. He pointed to various examples in the bill language. He was concerned about how small rural schools would meet the objectives. He planned to discuss the bill with his district's schools to get a better sense on the true fiscal impact prior to hearing the bill on the House floor. Representative Costello appreciated the previous comments, but believed that the voice of the founding fathers of the country were of the utmost importance. She opined that their voices had not been heard throughout the process. She believed that there were abuses by the federal government regarding the states. She remarked on the benefit of more students reading about the U.S. Constitution. She shared that she had recently traveled to the East Coast and had had the opportunity to visit the home of Thomas Jefferson. She noted that some students had the same opportunity. She opined that the experiences were profound. She stated that the men and women who were a part of the country's foundation deserved a nod. She had struggled with requiring that the subject be taught in schools, but had determined that the voices of the founding fathers needed a place to be heard. 11:01:39 AM Representative Guttenberg stated that clearly teaching American constitutional history was important. He discussed opportunities to visit various historical sites. He was concerned about the use of the word "constitutionalism," which he believed meant something less than American constitutional history. He thought the bill should include a list of some of the values encompassed in the word constitutionalism. He remarked that the public testifiers seemed to think that the word had definitive values. Representative Gara read the bill to mean that schools would be required to teach the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and items that lead to the documents. He did not believe the term "ism" was a problem. He believed the bill's goal was to teach students about American constitutional history. He remained concerned about including teaching on the first 13 constitutions in the requirement. He had discussed the idea of requiring physical education (PE) in schools with Representative Costello and Senator Lesil McGuire; however, school districts had communicated that because of the multitude of subjects they were required to teach, there was not time for PE. He agreed that it was important for students to understand the country's history and constitutional history. He understood that there were certain key players, state constitutions, and provisions that were important for students to learn; however, he wondered if it was necessary for students to learn everything about the first 13 state constitutions. He thought the teachings could take longer than teaching the U.S. Constitution. He was concerned that schools would be squeezed out of teaching subjects such as physical education. He expressed his intent to discuss the possibility of narrowing the scope with the sponsor. 11:06:46 AM Representative Wilson cited language on page 2, line 19 through 20 specifying that an approved syllabus would be required to ensure a student's understanding of the history of American constitutionalism as included in each of the documents listed [lines 21 through 24]. She stated that each of the documents had to do with how the U.S. Constitution was developed. She observed that the bill did not include language requiring schools to teach the state constitutions for all of the first 13 states. She elaborated that the point was how the state constitutions had influenced the development of the U.S. Constitution. She was very concerned that the legislature was mandating something that hopefully schools were already teaching. She expressed intent to discuss the issue with schools in her district to get more information. She remarked that schools were already struggling in the current environment. She believed the legislature had previously passed a bill related to the teaching of the Alaska Constitution. Co-Chair Stoltze communicated that the state Board of Education had mandated the teaching of the Alaska Constitution. Representative Wilson continued to discuss her concern. She did not intend to hold the bill up from moving out of committee; however, she observed that some proponents of the bill were in the same group that opposed federal mandates on what should be taught in schools. She believed it was important to know whether the subject was currently being taught in the state's schools. She stressed the importance of understanding how legislation impacted municipalities. She agreed that everyone believed the subject should be taught, but surmised that perhaps the action should have been taken by the Board of Education. Co-Chair Stoltze shared some of the same concerns. He recalled voting against Alaska history curriculum in the past due to similar concerns and noted that the subject was one of his passions. He believed the bill language was definitive. Additionally, he opined that the language was broad enough that it would become part of existing curriculum. He believed the schools would interpret the language in the same way. He believed that often the subject was not taught. He hoped the public viewed the bill as requiring more meaningful curriculum. He remarked on other subjects taught in schools that he thought were less important. He had visited the home of Thomas Jefferson and recognized his accomplishments. He had also looked at the slave quarters and remarked that the experience had provided a whole package of history. He referred to a comment made by John F. Kennedy to a group of noted people that it was probably the most distinguished and educated assemblage of people ever to be at the White House with the exception of the time Thomas Jefferson had dined there alone. He opined that curriculum including Thomas Jefferson could not be a negative thing. Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, CSHB 31(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with "no recommendation" and with one new zero fiscal note from the Department of Education and Early Development.