CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 20(FIN) "An Act relating to teaching certificates for teachers holding out-of-state certificates." 2:33:51 PM Co-Chair Merrick indicated there was one amendment for SB 20. 2:34:05 PM Representative Thompson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 32- LS0202\W.1, (Marx, 5/2/22)(copy on file): Page 1, line 1, following "Act": Insert "relating to the right of a child of school age to attend school; relating to correspondence study programs; and" Page 1, following line 2: Insert new bill sections to read: "* Section 1. AS 14.03.080 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (g) A child of school age who does not reside in the state is entitled to attend public school under this section through a district or statewide correspondence study program if the child (1) is a dependent of a member of the armed forces of the United States, the Alaska National Guard, the Alaska Naval Militia, or the Alaska State Defense Force who is (A) a state resident as defined in AS 43.23.295; and (B) transferred or pending transfer to a military installation outside the district while on active military duty under an official military order; and (2) was a resident of a school district immediately before the transfer under (1)(B) of this section. * Sec. 2. AS 14.17.500 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (d) A child who is attending public school through a correspondence study program as provided in AS 14.03.080(g) may be counted as a student for the purpose of calculating the ADM of the correspondence program. *Sec. 3. AS 14.17.600 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (c) A child who is attending public school through a correspondence study program as provided in AS 14.03.080(g) may be included in the report required under (a) of this section for the purpose of calculating the ADM of the correspondence study program." Page 1, line 3: Delete "Section 1" Insert "Sec. 4" Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion. Representative Thompson reviewed the amendment, which added a new subsection to AS 14.03.080. The new subsection allowed a student who did not reside in-state to continue to attend public schools through a district or statewide study program as long as the student was a member of the armed forces of the United States, the Alaska National Guard, the Alaska Naval Militia, or the Alaska State Defense Force. He elaborated that the student's parents had to be state residents as defined in the Permanent Fund Dividend statutes. Additionally, parents had to be transferred or pending transfer to a military installation outside the district while on active military duty under an official military order. Representative Thompson continued to explain the amendment, which would change AS 14.17.500 related to student count estimate. Under the statute, districts provided their projected student count for the succeeding fiscal year, due th on November 5 each year. The numbers were used by the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) for budgeting purposes only. He relayed that if a district anticipated having a child that fell under the provision, the district should include the student in its projected average daily membership count. The amendment changed AS 14.17.600 under Section 3 related to the student count period. Districts provided their actual student count for the 20-day period in October; the numbers were due to DEED within two weeks of the end of the count period. If the district had a child who fell under AS 14.03.080(g), the district should include the student in its actual average daily membership count. He noted that adoption of the amendment would require a title change resolution. He explained the topic had been brought to his office by a military family that wanted to remain with the school district it had been remotely using. He noted that if a family qualified for the PFD, they were required to say they were moving back to Alaska. 2:36:56 PM Representative Josephson thanked the sponsor for the amendment. He considered the PFD and the requirement that a person intended to return [to Alaska]. He did not see the requirement included in the amendment. He thought it meant the allowance could be indefinite such that the state was paying for a Florida child's education for 11 years if they left the state in the first grade. He asked if it was possible. Representative Thompson responded that the child would have to qualify for the PFD. He stated that if he recalled accurately, even military members that tried to continue to qualify for the PFD had to return to the state every two years. He was not certain about the details of the requirement. 2:38:12 PM Representative Wool looked at Section 2 in the amendment related to a child attending a public school through a correspondence study program who may be counted for the purpose of calculating the average daily membership of the correspondence program. He believed it was the way they calculated the district formula. He provided an example of students registered for a correspondence program in Galena. He stated that Galena would count the students in its average daily membership. He thought it was already happening and did not understand what the change proposed in the amendment meant. Co-Chair Merrick listed individuals online for questions. Representative Edgmon suggested hearing from the bill sponsor first. He remarked that the amendment was multidimensional, and he did not understand it in some ways. Co-Chair Merrick would go to the departments first and then the bill sponsor. 2:40:11 PM SONDRA MEREDITH, ADMINISTRATOR, TEACHER EDUCATION AND CERTIFICATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference), deferred to a colleague. DEBORAH RIDDLE, OPERATIONS MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference), asked Representative Wool to restate his question. Representative Wool restated his question. He asked if the Section 2, subsection (d), lines 21 through 23 made any changes to existing statute. He asked for verification that currently a child in a correspondence program was counted in the district where the program was housed. Ms. Riddle indicated he was correct. Representative Wool asked if the amendment was creating new law or whether it was already in statute. He did not understand what the amendment did. Ms. Riddle responded that currently it was in statute for in-state students. Representative Wool asked for verification that the amendment only pertained to students who were out-of-state taking correspondence because either they had just left Alaska or were about to come to Alaska. 2:42:29 PM Representative Thompson offered to have his staff explain the amendment further. SENATOR GARY STEVENS, SPONSOR, highlighted the teacher shortage in Alaska. He remarked that the bill helped solve the problem. He stated that the bill did not lower standards and cut red tape to allow teachers in good standing from other states to come to Alaska and quickly become certificated to teach in the school system. He relayed the bill was supported by school districts. He emphasized the amendment had nothing to do with the bill. He stated the legislation was simple and he asked the committee to avoid messing it up with the amendment. Representative Thompson reiterated the intent of his amendment. Co-Chair Merrick MAINTAINED the OBJECTION. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Thompson, Carpenter, LeBon, Rasmussen OPPOSED: Ortiz, Edgmon, Josephson, Wool, Merrick, Foster Representative Johnson was absent from the vote. The MOTION to adopt Amendment 1 FAILED (4/6). 2:45:55 PM Representative Carpenter remarked that Section 3 of the bill deleted the requirement to pass a competency examination and inserted the words "complete education requirements under" two new statutes AS 14.20.20 (h) and (k) within 90 days. He stated the statutes were provided in Sections 6 and 7. He detailed that Section 6 dealt with multicultural education and cross cultural communications and subsection (k) pertained to alcohol and drug related disabilities (i.e., students with learning disabilities), suicide prevention, and dating violence. He asked what was currently in the competency exam that would no longer be covered without the competency exam. Senator Stevens indicated that the goal was to get the teachers into the system as quickly as possible, not to eliminate any of the responsibilities such as taking suicide prevention classes and Alaska history and cultural studies. He relayed that the teachers had to pass all of the items over time. He asked his staff to provide further detail. 2:47:49 PM TIM LAMKIN, STAFF, SENATOR GARY STEVENS, reminded committee members the bill was a direct result of emergency regulations that had been written and adopted by the current administration in the context of COVID-19. He expounded it had successfully resulted in getting teachers in classrooms more quickly during the epidemic. He explained the statute in the bill was crafted in alignment with the regulations to create efficiencies. For example, it was presumed the individuals had taken a competency exam when they had obtained their regular certification in another state. The legislation maintained requirements for courses on sexual abuse awareness, alcohol and suicide prevention, and cultural awareness, but provided more time for teachers to complete them. Representative Carpenter appreciated the need to address getting teachers into the state. He noted there was other legislation in the building that was trying to address a reading deficiency problem. He had been informed that there were baccalaureate degree programs that did not actually teach teachers how to teach kids how to read. He had been told there were teachers employed in Alaska who did not know how to teach kids how to read. He remarked that the legislation would eliminate the competency exam requirement and trust that a teacher from another state knew how to teach Alaska's kids how to read. He asked if the competency examination tested or confirmed that a teacher knew how to teach kids how to read. He asked how Alaska would assess whether a teacher from another state knew how to teach kids to read. Senator Stevens responded that the bill was about teachers being hired by a district. He remarked that the legislature was not involved in the hiring process. He stated that school districts would not hire someone who was incompetent. Mr. Lamkin aligned himself with the senator's comments. He stated it had been a concern voiced through the committee process. There were stringent processes individuals had to go through in order to get an Alaska certification. He stated the bill was an effort to try to make it less burdensome but not eliminate something such as a competency exam. He deferred to Ms. Meredith as the person who made the approvals. 2:51:28 PM Ms. Meredith asked for Representative Carpenter to restate his question. Representative Carpenter restated his question. Ms. Meredith responded that she administered teacher certification for the state. She stated the competency exam was a basic test related to reading, writing, and math and most states had an exam as part of their licensure requirements. The bill would remove the requirement for teachers to provide the documentation within a year. In terms of a teacher's ability to teach reading, there was not a specific test. There were currently proposals in other legislation to include the concept as a requirement. The other types of exams taken by teachers were content specific. Presently, an elementary teacher would have to take a broader test that would test the person's ability to teach all content areas. She noted the requirements were currently regulatory, not statutory. Representative Carpenter asked if the broad array of assessments would change under the bill. Ms. Meredith responded that the basic competency exam requirement was the only exam that would be removed by the legislation. She noted the additional regulatory requirements for content area exams. Vice-Chair Ortiz stated as a former principal he could relate to the initial answer by the bill sponsor. He stated that the process of determining a teacher's ability to teach reading would not be covered in an objective exam. He detailed the responsibility resided with the hiring district, the principal, and hiring committee. He continued that hopefully there was a thorough process through letters of recommendation and other methods to assess a teacher's ability to teach reading rather than relying on a specific exam. 2:57:02 PM Representative Carpenter begged to differ. He stated that one of the other bills the committee had seen included phonics and phonetic reasoning. He stated the concepts were taught in some but not all schools. He thought a multiple choice test could be devised to test an individual's knowledge on the areas. He did not think removing the competency examination was in the best interest of Alaskan students. Vice-Chair Ortiz believed the other bill working its way through the body was about an assessment of an incoming primary age student and where their ability was in recognition of basic reading skills. He explained it was a measurement of a student's reading readiness or their ability to read by the third grade. He stated it was a different thing than having a teacher apply to a district. He stated the ability to teach kids to read was the question; the question was not about having the skills to be a reader. 2:59:16 PM Representative Josephson asked how many people who took the competency exam did not pass. Ms. Meredith estimated there was a 3 percent to 5 percent failure rate for the competency exam. There were others that had been adopted and abilities for an educator to retake the test. She noted it was often very difficult, particularly in rural communities, for the retakes to take place. She stated individuals often had to fly at their expense to retake the test. Vice-Chair Ortiz asked about the practice Ms. Meredith had mentioned. He assumed it did not relate to teaching reading itself to primary age students. He noted Ms. Meredith had spoken previously about content such as basic math, science, history, and other. He wondered if the exam tested a teacher's ability to teach reading. Ms. Meredith reported that the basic competency exam did not look at a person's ability to teach reading or the knowledge behind the science of reading. The exam tested reading comprehension. 3:02:16 PM Representative Johnson noted Alaska was 49th in the nation for its education system. She remarked on the state's teacher shortage. Her biggest concern was not people who were qualified to teach in Alaska. Her bigger concern was about the unique conditions teachers may encounter in Alaska, especially in rural areas. She highlighted the point of the legislation was to expand the state's teacher base. She remarked that many times teachers from out-of- state were often already in Alaska because they were married to a military member stationed in the state. Co-Chair Merrick acknowledged Representative Mike Cronk in the room. Senator Stevens agreed with the statements made by Representative Johnson. He explained the purpose of the bill was workforce development. The bill aimed to cut the red tape and get certificated teachers who were successful in other districts to have the ability to apply for teaching jobs in Alaska. He recalled past testimony from a superintendent of the Anchorage School District that 7 percent of the district were military spouses. He remarked that sometimes military members were only in Alaska for two to three years and if a person had to wait a year to get accepted into the education system, a year had been lost. He added there were also other teachers who wanted to teach in Alaska who were certificated in other states. 3:04:52 PM Representative Carpenter appreciated that Alaska needed more teachers; however, he emphasized that Alaska did not need more teachers who fit into the 3 to 5 percent practice test failure rate. He surmised they would just assume the situation would no longer occur. He remarked that the bill would no longer require the competency exam. He suggested that it was a concept that businesses and military organizations had when they had a recruiting problem. The question was whether standards should be lowered to fill positions. He asked how the bill sponsor knew the legislation would not lower standards. He emphasized they would not know because they were not asking. Mr. Lamkin clarified Section 2 of the bill. He explained the target population of the bill was teachers with years of experience. The teachers held a baccalaureate degree and currently held a legitimate teaching certificate in another state. He highlighted that other state's certification processes always included a competency of some kind. The bill recognized that teachers had completed the test previously; therefore, they would not have to take it again to teach in Alaska. It was an expensive and onerous test and sometimes relied on spotty internet in rural Alaska. Ms. Meredith concurred with Mr. Lamkin. The cases that she saw with difficulty often involved teachers in the rural areas in Alaska. She remarked that individuals ended up being successful, but it was a laborious process. 3:08:06 PM Representative Carpenter wondered if he had just heard that teachers with years of experience had to take the competency exams multiple times. Ms. Meredith agreed that teachers had to take a competency exam. She explained they may have passed one of the exams in the past but due to various aspects of the testing companies they were unable to bring the exams forward to DEED, meaning they had to take another exam that was sometimes very difficult to pass. Representative Carpenter disagreed with removing the requirement for a competency exam that experienced teachers had a challenge passing. He stated it reduced the state's standards. Vice-Chair Ortiz appreciated Representative Carpenter's concerns. He understood that everyone had a concern of not lowering the bar in relationship to the community of teachers in Alaska. He referenced the portion of the bill that enabled incoming teachers to not immediately take the competency exam. He emphasized the exam did not measure the competency to teach. He detailed the test measured content about a person's knowledge of history or math. He stated he could have all kinds of knowledge about history but that did not mean he could teach it. He stated the responsibility resided with the local district, hiring committees, and principal to look at the applicant, their letters of reference and years of experience to determine whether the person was in the best interest of meeting the kids' needs in the classroom. Vice-Chair Ortiz believed an individual would not be hired if the district did not think they would provide good education to the students. He considered it may be further complicated due to the shortage of teacher applicants and districts may have to be more accepting of applicants than they may have been in the past; however, the competency exam would not change the situation. 3:11:52 PM Representative Wool appreciated the conversation and the need to get teachers in schools. He highlighted that Fairbanks was in desperate need for substitute teachers. He believed on any given day there were hundreds of substitute teachers teaching kids. He stated he knew of kids who had substitute teachers for weeks who were not teachers and were not required to have a degree. He asked how many substitute teachers were teaching Alaskan children on any given day. Ms. Riddle replied that he did not have the information on hand but could get back to the committee. Representative Carpenter thought the committee was placing significant trust in teachers from out-of-state if it was not requiring a competency exam. Senator Stevens reminded members the purpose of the bill was to fill a shortage with competent teachers by hiring certificated teachers from out-of-state. He remarked that the bill did not mean that every certificated teacher who wanted a job in Alaska would be hired. He shared he had been on school boards for many years, and he knew the districts were very careful to hire the proper teachers. He added that 7 percent of the teachers in Anchorage were military spouses. He stated that without the bill the state would lose years of experience in the classroom. The bill did not solve all of the problems, but it did help. 3:15:41 PM AT EASE 3:16:32 PM RECONVENED Co-Chair Foster MOVED to report CSSB 20(FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. Representative Carpenter OBJECTED. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Rasmussen, Thompson, Wool, Johnson, Josephson, LeBon, Ortiz, Foster, Merrick OPPOSED: Carpenter Representative Edgmon was absent from the vote. The MOTION PASSED (9/1). CSSB 20(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with five "do pass" recommendations, one "do not pass" recommendation, three "no recommendation" recommendations, and one "amend" recommendation and with one previously published fiscal impact note: FN3 (EED). 3:17:50 PM AT EASE 3:19:10 PM RECONVENED