HOUSE BILL NO. 181 "An Act relating to mental health education." 9:38:21 AM Co-Chair Johnston asked for a brief reintroduction of the bill. REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, SPONSOR, provided brief remarks. He believed updating the health education standards to include mental health was long overdue. The bill would not establish a required curriculum and would allow local school districts to determine whether they wanted to go down the path included in the bill. The bill provided guidelines for work taking place in many districts across the state. Representative Claman shared that he had two concerns about the fiscal note. First, he believed the notion the bill would require bringing in 20 to 30 people in twice by airplane to conferences in Anchorage to come up with updated health curriculum to include mental health seemed like far too much money and had no justification. He explained that much of the work could be done remotely. He thought the fiscal note seemed unusually high. Second, he was troubled the department had included $6,000 for regulations and needed legal support for the regulations. He explained that the Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) only included one section related to education standards - AAC 4.04.140. He detailed that AAC 4.04.140(b) specified that the content standards for physical education was set out in the department's publication entitled Alaska Physical Education Standards as revised or adopted by reference. He did not believe that equated to $6,000 worth of legal support for regulation. He recognized there may be some costs associated with the bill, but he thought the department's fiscal note was much too high and out of touch with reality. Co-Chair Johnston asked to hear from the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED). LACEY SANDERS, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR (via teleconference), addressed the sponsor's comments on the fiscal note. She explained that historically each bill requiring DEED to work with the Department of Law (DOL) on regulations cost $6,000 to go through the process based on DOL's standard billing. She explained that anytime DEED had to deal with regulations it cost the department money. She spoke to the travel costs in the fiscal note. She detailed that the bill's intent language outlined several representatives DEED would work with to develop the guidelines for instructions. She elaborated that DEED worked via teleconference as often as possible and it had determined that in order to bring the involved voices together to have the best conversation about what was being developed, two in-person meetings were required. The cost was based on the number of people identified in the bill. 9:42:28 AM Representative Wool asked if the number of people that would participate in the roundtable policy discussion was 30. Ms. Sanders replied that the fiscal note identified between 20 and 30 representatives of mental health organizations. Vice-Chair Ortiz asked for more detail on the stated need to have two in-person meetings. He asked why the in-person meetings were necessary. Ms. Sanders answered that she was new to the department. Her understanding was that in the past not all voices may be heard when meetings were held only via teleconference. She relayed that a colleague was available and may have more information on the need for the two meetings. 9:44:02 AM TAMARA VAN WYHE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF INNOVATION AND EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference), relayed that DEED had a structure for gathering stakeholder input when it came to the development and revision of standards. She highlighted how important it was for Alaskans to have a voice at the table. She elaborated that when discussing standards for students and learning it was critical to have voices from across the state representing many of the state's school districts of various sizes and in different regions. She confirmed that virtual communication was doable and was utilized frequently by DEED. She highlighted that the current experience [with COVID-19] may change the way things were done in the future, but historically it had been important to have stakeholders together in the same room to discuss standards face-to-face and ensure that all of the educators understood the standards. She elaborated that it was important for educators to have an opportunity to learn from content area experts and work with facilitators to result in standards that had significant buy-in. She explained that the standards would not be implemented in the school districts if they did not have buy-in. The goal was for standards to be meaningful when they reached the classroom where student learning occurred. Co-Chair Johnston noted that the process described had less to do with the standards and general outcome and more to do with involving the educational community as a whole in order to ensure "the wheels on the bus are all going the same direction." When she first saw the bill, she thought that perhaps the development of the curriculum could be contracted out and then discussed with communities. However, she believed DEED was saying it took all the communities to be part of the development of the curriculum to work statewide. Ms. Van Wyhe agreed. She explained that it was not just a document or a set of standards that mattered; it was the process that mattered. She elaborated on the importance of allowing educators to play a role in developing and vetting those standards before the standards went to the state board for approval and to school districts for implementation. 9:47:15 AM Co-Chair Johnston considered that there may be a need to develop new forms of communication. She asked if it would be fair for the fiscal note to reflect one in-person meeting and one follow up teleconference meeting. Ms. Van Wyhe answered that things had changed dramatically over the past couple of weeks related to distancing practices. She explained that the fiscal note was based on the department's current practice (two in-person meetings and virtual meetings in between), which had worked very well over many years. She believed people globally would be reconsidering the way they gathered (e.g. the way DEED gathered to obtain stakeholder input). She considered that it was possible to convene one face-to-face meeting followed by additional distanced conversations. She reiterated that the note was based on the department's existing practice that had worked well for many years. Co-Chair Johnston looked at the $35,000 for a one-year contract, $60,000 for travel, $6,000 for legal costs, and $12,000 to print booklets. She surmised that the committee could consider reducing the fiscal note by $30,000. She asked if the remaining funds would meet the one-time meeting commitment. Ms. Van Wyhe deferred to Ms. Sanders. Ms. Sanders replied that DEED could have an internal conversation and follow up with a final response. Representative Josephson remarked that the first time he had seen a committee change a department's fiscal note he had been surprised. However, he considered the $35,000 contract and remarked on the thousands of mental health experts in Alaska. He did not mean to diminish the seriousness of the work but surmised that a set of standards could be developed over the course of a weekend. He believed the two separate in-person meetings could be cut to one meeting, which would cut the fiscal note in half. He would vote in support for a motion to change the note. 9:50:46 AM AT EASE 9:52:01 AM RECONVENED Co-Chair Johnston was pleased to hear the department was willing to review the fiscal note. She announced an amendment deadline for the following afternoon. Representative Claman understood that DEED often received a bill from DOL for $6,000 for regulatory work. However, he found it hard to believe DOL would charge $6,000 to modify one paragraph in regulation if there were not additional regulations apart from the one he had identified. He understood DOL may have standard rates, but he would like DEED to find out more about what regulations needed to be changed. He was skeptical of the $6,000 cost. Representative LeBon stated that the language in the bill specified that the mental health element to the health curriculum a school district presented to students needed to be established by DEED. He continued that the department had two years to develop the material to present to school districts. He asked if districts were expected to accept the DEED recommendations. Alternatively, he wondered if districts could look at the recommendations and adopt the mental health component of the program based on their own goals and objectives. He wondered if a school board would be expected to give a stamp of approval without much input. Representative Claman replied that he read the bill language a bit differently. He pointed to Section 3(b), where the board developed guidelines. He highlighted that the current content standards for health guidelines were two pages. He anticipated the guidelines that came back from DEED would not be significantly longer, which would leave curriculum development largely to local school boards. He thought there would be some expectation the department would provide some information beyond the guidelines in terms of what school boards may look for in their individual curriculum. He did not believe the Fairbanks or Anchorage school boards started the curriculum development process in a vacuum. He believed they looked to see what information was available. Representative Claman thought the school boards would look to the state to see what resources were available, but he believed it would be completely up to local school boards to develop curriculum. He hoped that on a statewide level there would be some similarity from one school district to the next. He did not believe the state would dictate what the curriculum would look like. Alternatively, he believed the state would provide guidelines. For example, he highlighted skills for healthy living guidelines that were broad and left significant room for school districts to decide what was best after consultation with parents and faculty. He did not see the bill as imposing any specific curriculum on any district. He believed the existing guidelines supported the notion it would be easy to fit within those guidelines. 9:56:36 AM Representative LeBon could not help reading into things, particularly if the topic would come before the school board. He stated that if it was the expectation for school boards to rubber stamp the DEED recommendations, the school boards would want to see the recommendations as early as possible. Additionally, school boards would want to see what the content would look like, whether there was a fiscal element, whether it crowded out other aspects of their health program, and whether it fit in well. He reasoned there were considerations that each school district and each school board would have to weigh. He was not reading into the bill that it would be mandated by the state to all school districts. Co-Chair Johnston stated that Representative LeBon may have made the argument for the fiscal note. She pointed out that DEED had talked about getting buy-in from all parties to a certain extent. Representative Claman pointed to Section 3 (AS 14.30.360(b)) and noted that the only thing being added to existing law was mental health. He elaborated that curriculum specialists were in existing law; therefore, the presumption was that the position already existed. He believed the fiscal note was only related to the guideline development and not to the existing role of the specialist in the department. He shared that his conversations with school districts had consistently been that they had significant leeway in what they wanted to do. Ms. Van Wyhe clarified that the topic was standards. She pointed out that there was a difference between standards and curriculum. She relayed that DEED supported the work of developing standards and the State Board of Education had very high standards for the standards developed by DEED in terms of the processes followed by the department and ensuring there was significant stakeholder input. She furthered that once standards were adopted - standards in general were voluntary as were the standards in the bill - the districts would take the standards and develop curriculum, select instructional materials, and determine precisely how the standards and expectations of the standards rolled out in the districts. She noted there had been a bit of confusion between standards and curriculum in the past several minutes of discussion. 9:59:37 AM Representative Wool looked at Section 3 of the bill and noted that it specified that a school health education specialist position shall be established and funded in the department to coordinate the program statewide. He assumed it was already in place for the physical health program. He asked if the same person would be tasked with the mental health program to eliminate the need to hire another education specialist. He did not want to keep layering specialists on if possible. Representative Claman answered that it was existing law and therefore, there should be an existing position. He clarified that the bill did not call for adding another position. Representative Wool recognized that health education was being broadened all of the time to include not only physical health but topics like substance abuse, healthy relationships, mental health including depression, mental illness, suicide and other related topics. He asked if the department envisioned another class. He remarked that often times the physical education teacher was tasked with the topic. He shared that at his kid's school the class alternated between health and gym. He thought it seemed like a significant amount to ask of a physical education teacher. 10:01:55 AM Ms. Van Wyhe answered that the decisions were completely up to individual school districts. She highlighted that the standards were voluntary, and it would be up to each district to determine how to implement them, what the course offerings would look like, and which staff would teach the course. The department had no jurisdiction over the decisions. Representative Wool asked what the department envisioned for implementation. Ms. Van Wyhe deferred to the bill sponsor. Representative Claman envisioned that the state board would adopt new guidelines, which would be supportive of more districts incorporating mental health into their health education curriculum. HB 181 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration. Co-Chair Johnston reviewed the schedule for the following meeting.