HOUSE BILL NO. 220 "An Act repealing the secondary student competency examination and related requirements; and providing for an effective date." 9:53:14 AM Co-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee substitute for HB 220, Work Draft 28-LS0947\C, (Mischel, 3/17/14). Co-Chair Austerman OBJECTED for discussion. Co-Chair Stoltze stated that the CS responded to concerns expressed by the House Finance Committee. DANIEL GEORGE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, explained the changes in the CS. In Sections 6 and 7 on page 4 of the previous version there was a transition period where students could continue to take the High School Qualifying Graduation Exam (HSQGE) for one year following its repeal. He noted that the newest version added the language from lines 25 through the end of the bill on page 5. He read the section: RETROSPECTIVE ISSUANCE OF A HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA. (a) At the request of a student made by June 30, 2017, a school district shall issue a high school diploma to a student who did not receive a high school diploma because the student failed to pass all or a portion of the secondary school competency examination but who received a certificate of achievement under former AS 14.03.075. A school district shall mail a notice consistent with this section to each student who qualifies for a diploma under this section to the student's last known address. (b) The Department of Education and Early Development shall post a notice consistent with this section on the department's Internet website with information about how to request a high school diploma. (c) In this section, "school district" has the meaning given in AS 14.30.350. Sec. 7. This Act takes effect immediately under AS 01.10.070(c). Mr. George concluded his presentation on HB 220. 9:55:44 AM Co-Chair Stoltze asked for the bill sponsor's staff to address the committee. THOMAS STUDLER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE PETE HIGGINS, reported that Representative Higgins had no opposition to the new work draft. Vice-Chair Neuman asked why the effective date was not retroactive. Mr. Studler explained that any student that did not pass the exam since its inception in 2004 would be able to request a retrospective issuance of a high school diploma. 9:57:39 AM Representative Gara expressed that he appreciated and supported HB 220. He recalled some studies showing that 3 to 6 percent of school budgets were spent on teaching to the exit exam rather than to curriculum. He asked a similar question to Vice-Chair Neuman regarding the June 30, 2017 request deadline. He wondered why it would be necessary to impose a deadline on any student that had previously received a certificate of achievement. Mr. Studler responded that it would be up to the wisdom of the committee to make a change. Co-Chair Stoltze surmised that a deadline of three years was a reasonable time period for past students to request their diploma. He contended that a cutoff date served as a motivator and affirmed that eliminating the test requirement saved the state a significant amount of money. He supported a request deadline of 2017 and suggested that if there was a large group of students still looking for their diploma, the legislature could revisit the issue. 10:02:04 AM Representative Guttenberg noted the immediate effective date. He asked how many students without a diploma were eligible to take the HSGQE and inquired if they were in limbo. Mr. George deferred his response to Michael Hanley, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development. 10:02:51 AM MICHAEL HANLEY, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, cited that, since 2004, 2,968 students received a certificate of achievement rather than a diploma because they could not pass the HSGQE. Just over 600 of the 2,968 students have retested and passed the test since the time of their initial exam. Currently, about 2,300 students would be eligible to receive their diploma if the legislation passed. He reported that 48 percent of the 2,300 were students with disabilities. The governor suggested a three-year transition as one way of removing the HSGQE. Ultimately, the department supported the removal of the HSGQE without reference to the method. One way to implement the legislation would be to make the bill retroactive, which he supported. He mentioned that there was an $8,000 component in the fiscal note that provided for the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) to help school districts notify the 2,300 students about the change in law. Representative Wilson asked the commissioner how many of the 2,300 students received their General Education Diploma (GED). 10:05:12 AM Commissioner Hanley responded that he did not have a number. He also informed the committee that the GED was conducted by the Department of Labor and Workforce Development and was separate from a high school diploma. Representative Wilson asked for clarification as to the maximum number of students that could retrospectively request their diploma. Commissioner Hanley stated that the maximum number of students included the current year's cohorts plus 2,300 past students. Representative Wilson again requested clarification that the current high school seniors would be eligible to receive their diploma if they completed their coursework. Commissioner Hanley replied that current seniors would still be required to pass the HSGQE prior to the legislation becoming law. However, students that did not pass the test and only had a certificate of achievement would be able to request their diploma after the law took effect. 10:06:56 AM Representative Wilson wanted additional clarification about whether or not students would receive their diploma if the law took effect prior to graduation of the current year. She also wanted confirmation that the current high school seniors were not included in the 2,300 number the commissioner provided. Commissioner Hanley verified that current seniors would receive their diplomas if the law became effective prior to graduation. He also affirmed that the current year's cohorts were not a part of the 2,300 past students that would be eligible to receive a diploma under HB 220. 10:07:57 AM Representative Munoz supported the legislation. She asked for details regarding communication to past students with attendance certificates. Specifically, she wanted clarification about whether it would be the high school or the department that would be following up with and issuing diplomas to students. She also asked how DEED would work with high schools to get the message out to the public about the law, if it passed. Commissioner Hanley reported that high schools issued diplomas. The department would partner along-side the school districts to get word out to the public, hence the $8 thousand fiscal note. The fiscal note addressed mailings, public service announcements, and postings around the state. Representative Munoz suggested that legislators make an announcement via their newsletter in order to get the word out to constituents if and once the legislation passed. Commissioner Hanley agreed emphatically. 10:09:43 AM Vice-Chair Neuman was concerned with eligible military personnel being able to meet a request deadline of 2017. He did not want to see service members miss an opportunity to receive a diploma because of an extended tour of duty overseas or because of an accessibility issue. Commissioner Hanley responded that the bill did not specify that a student would have to physically return to their high school to make a request. Past students could contact their school remotely. He furthered that students who received a certificate of completion but wanted a diploma were most likely making arrangements to take the HSGQE and, therefore, would have access to any change in graduation requirements. He was not as concerned about students who were no longer pursuing their diploma after three years. Vice-Chair Neuman opposed having a three-year request deadline. 10:12:01 AM Representative Guttenberg asked why anyone would take the HSGQE if it was apparent that the legislation would pass. Commissioner Hanley reported that the test was given in October and April of each year. In the current year the test would be given in April prior to the legislation passing. 10:12:38 AM Representative Thompson clarified that members of the military were required to have a diploma. He was concerned that civilian contractors, who wanted to join the military, would be ineligible if they missed a cutoff date. Co-Chair Stoltze suggested removing the objection and adopting the CS in order to offer any changes. Co-Chair Austerman WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, Work Draft 28-LS0947\C was ADOPTED. Representative Gara agreed with Representative Neuman and Representative Thompson on their point about imposing a deadline. He wanted to know what grade level the HSGQE tested at and how much of teachers' time was spent teaching to the exam. Co-Chair Austerman asked if Representative Gara's question was directly related. Co-Chair Stoltze noted the savings of $1.4 million with the elimination of the HSGQE. He directed the commissioner to provide information about the practicality of having a deadline and any other fiscal issues. 10:15:39 AM Commissioner Hanley stated that the fiscal note was a decrement of $2.75 million. Co-Chair Stoltze wanted further clarification about the $2.75 million figure because of conflicting reports from Mr. Morse about the state's obligations to the contractor. Commissioner Hanley replied that the only difference was a very small increment of $8 thousand from the current year to the next. The $8 thousand was designated for mailings and disseminating information to the public. 10:16:34 AM Representative Thompson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 28- LS0947\N.I, Mischel, 2/26/14 (copy on file): Page 1, line 2, following "requirements;": Insert "relating to an annual performance report to the legislature by the Department of Education and Early Development;" Page 1, line 6, following "year": Insert "by electronic means" Co-Chair Austerman OBJECTED for discussion. Representative Thompson detailed the amendment. The amendment changed the reporting format from paper to electronic means. The amendment helped to reduce the use of paper. Co-Chair Stoltze supported Amendment 1 but asked Representative Thompson to make it a conceptual amendment to conform to the new CS. Representative Thompson MOVED that his amendment be a conceptual amendment. Co-Chair Austerman WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Amendment 1 was ADOPTED. 10:19:25 AM Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2 (copy on file): Page 4, line 26: Delete "made by June 30, 2017" Co-Chair Austerman OBJECTED for discussion. Representative Gara described the amendment. The amendment would allow students to apply for a diploma at any time if they completed their course requirements. He did not see any reason to treat people who completed the same coursework differently due to a diploma request deadline. He suggested removing the cutoff date entirely. Representative Wilson asked if there was an established period of time school districts were required to retain their records. She questioned whether it was the student or the school district that was responsible for verifying graduation qualifications. Commissioner Hanley answered that records would be available and that districts would be mailing out notices to students who received their certificate of achievement. Representative Wilson asked whether a high school would have the ability to verify a student's eligibility if the student requested a diploma at some point in the future. Commissioner Hanley confirmed that records would be available. 10:22:00 AM Representative Edgmon asked the commissioner to explain the counterpoint to having a deadline in place. Commissioner Hanley replied that the deadline allowed students to either pass the HSGQE now or request the issuance of their diploma within three years. He didn't see the applicability of someone making a request at 30 or 40 years of age. 10:22:51 AM Co-Chair Stoltze disputed that the amendment was a punitive measure. He believed that people respond well to deadlines and that they served as good motivators. He emphasized that he wanted to make sure kids get their diplomas, deadline or no deadline. He had no objection to the amendment. Co-Chair Austerman WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Amendment 2 was ADOPTED. 10:24:36 AM Co-Chair Austerman asked for any objections. Co-Chair Stoltze MOVED to REPORT CSHB 220 (FIN) as amended out of committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, CSHB 220 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with one new fiscal impact note from the Department of Education and Early Development.