SENATE BILL NO. 53 "An Act relating to the duties of the Board of Regents of the University of Alaska." 9:05:39 AM SENATOR GARY STEVENS, SPONSOR, thanked the committee for hearing the bill. He pondered how many college degrees had been completed by the committee members. He thought the loss of accreditation by the University of Alaska for it's teaching program in Anchorage was tragic. He had been surprised that the president and Board of Regents had not known of the impending loss of accreditation. The bill would require that the legislature to twice a year investigate the accreditation of the University. He lamented that once accreditation was lost it could take up to 5 years to gain it back. He relayed that there were 65 accreditations around the University. He said that it was very important that the Board of Regents and the resident track the accreditation of the University. 9:10:07 AM TIM LAMKIN, STAFF, SENATOR GARY STEVENS, discussed the Sectional Analysis for SB 53 (copy on file): Co-Chair von Imhof asked how the Board of Regents could have approached Senator Stevens with the issue of accreditation. Senator Stevens had not communicated with the Board of Regents regarding the issue. He thought that the loss of accreditation had been an error on the board's part. He discussed teacher accreditation. 9:12:08 AM Senator Olson asked whether the Universitys accreditation could have been saved if legislation like SB 53 had already existed. Senator Stevens replied in the affirmative. He noted that the bill required the Board of Regents to report to the legislature twice a year concerning accreditation. 9:13:12 AM Mr. Lamkin reviewed the Explanation of Changes: From Version A to Version U (copy on file): Section 1 & 2: Conforming Report Recipients  For consistency with other various reporting requirements of state agencies, both the existing requirement for reporting on UA teacher training, and the new UA accreditation report are required to be submitted to the Legislature (Senate Secretary / House th Chief Clerk) by the 30 legislative day. The reports are subsequently to be presented in a formal hearing setting to the education committees: a. The teachers report remaining biennial (beginning of each new Legislature) b. The accreditation report being submitted semiannually, twice per year: i. By the 30th legislative day (approx. Feb 15); and ii. On or by July 1st Section 2: Report Detail  Language detailing report content was amended to align with common terms used in academia as regards accreditation, and cross referenced from: a. a current report submitted to the Board of Regents, disaggregating report components; b. the fiscal note, citing existing Board of Regents policy (P10.06.010). The intent of the changes in this section is to make this new reporting requirement fairly align with what is currently reported to the Board of Regents, broadening the awareness of such reports to include the legislature. Reporting detail calls for particular emphasis on any potential loss of accreditation in the future. 9:15:08 AM Senator Micciche wondered why there was not a reference to meeting the requirements for the Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP). Mr. Lamkin stated that the bill was an accountability measure. It was presumed that the report would necessitate more scrutiny of the process and the following of regulation. Senator Stevens reminded the committee that there were 65 accreditation agencies, and that CAEP was only one of those agencies. He did not think it was easy for the university to keep track of all the various accreditations but that they had a responsibility to do so. He reiterated that there had been a lack of attention that resulted in the loss of accreditation. 9:17:50 AM Senator Micciche referenced Section 1, which was specifically about teachers. He thought that the bill was important but wondered what set of standards would be used to craft the biannual report sent to the legislature. Senator Stevens was not sure how to address Senator Micciche's question. He reiterated that the review process was complicated. Co-Chair von Imhof thought after reading the accreditation requirements for the School of Education, there were 5 standards that had to be met in order to meet accreditation standards. She suspected that in the reporting there would be a listing of each requirement needed to maintain accreditation, along with a description of how the University was meeting those requirements. Senator Stevens did not want to go overly into detail. He wanted the bill to result in increased attention to accreditation. He did not think that the bill needed to get into the minutia, due to the 65 different accreditation agencies. 9:21:06 AM PAUL LAYER, VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMICS AND RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), testified in support of the bill. He said that the University had the ability to reply with the requests outlined in the bill. He stated that the University currently reported annually to the Board of Regents regarding accreditation. He described the loss of accreditation as an avoidable tragedy. He noted that there were problems that the University had not been unaware but that steps were being taken for quarterly reporting to the board and to the president of the University. He said that the different national organizations that did the accreditation had different requirements and methods of reporting, some were very specific, and some did not want their recommendations made public. 9:24:00 AM Co-Chair von Imhof understood that the University was looking to get accreditation back for the School of Education at the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA). She asked how long the process was expected to take. Mr. Layer responded that an assessment was being done to determine whether the UAA programs should be reaccredited. He stated that the University was drafting documentation about the process and the board would be meeting in April 2019 to make a recommendation. He continued that UA was also considering whether the currently accredited programs at the University of Alaska Southeast (UAS) and University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) could meet the needs of students in Anchorage who were pursuing teaching accreditation. Moving forward with reaccreditation of UAA programs would take a couple of years to compile the necessary data and demonstrate proficiency. He said that the question was what to do for students in the meantime who were currently enrolled in those programs. 9:25:36 AM Senator Shower had concerns about the loss of accreditation. He thought it was the duty of the legislature to investigate the issue. He asked whether Mr. Layer thought the loss of accreditation would lead to a more robust focus on requirements. Mr. Layer thought the incident would lead to a more robust analysis and feedback mechanism. He lamented that information and concerns for the teaching program had not been conveyed up through the administrative structure. He thought there would be more scrutiny and increased transparency as a result of the process. He continued that the university was considering how the different programs reported to the board. He thought reporting to the legislature would help in the process. 9:28:12 AM Senator Bishop hoped that the University would take the lessons learned from the event and move forward with a plan for it never to happen again. He discussed his experience in the oil and glass and construction business; where there would be a "stand down" process after an incident. He hoped that there would be internal controls and the addition of checks and balances. He noted that the University used general fund dollars and should be making all accreditation information public. 9:30:05 AM Co-Chair von Imhof asked whether Mr. Layer wanted to respond to Senator Bishop's comments. Mr. Layer thought Senator Bishop's analogy of an industrial accident was apt. He opined that there had been checks and balances in place but there had clearly been a lack of oversight. He assured that committee that steps were being taken to make sure that loss of accreditation did not happen again. 9:31:28 AM Senator Wilson was concerned about the students who might be relocated from Anchorage. He wondered whether the University had considered transferring student to a private entity in the area. Mr. Layer affirmed that UAA had been working with Alaska Pacific University (APU), which did not have the breadth of programs offered by UAA. He reiterated that APU had limited capacity. 9:32:57 AM Senator Micciche wondered how the report proposed by the bill was different than the status quo, if there were not guidance documents that relayed standards. He referenced his background in engineering. He thought most often there were multiple layers of failure at work that resulted in the loss of accreditation. If the University provided a report to the legislature, he wondered how the body would have any reference to act as a check against what the University provided. Mr. Layer stated that he was not an expert in teacher accreditation, and had difficulty assessing what an accreditor might recommend. He thought it was a challenge to assess a comment from an accreditor. He recalled a report with concerns, but it was unclear whether those concerns were of the caliber that would result in a loss of accreditation. Most accreditation reviews had comments, but he found it difficult to assess the severity. He was not sure how the legislature would assess the report proposed in the bill. He relayed that all the University could do was provide the reports from accrediting agencies, when possible, of quality concerns. 9:36:17 AM Senator Bishop commented that UAS and UAF had not experienced problems with accreditation. 9:36:42 AM Senator Shower asserted that accountability was important. He asked whether anyone had been held accountable for the loss of accreditation at UAA. Mr. Layer wanted to clarify that UAF underwent a successful review in the previous year, and UAS was currently undergoing an accreditation review process and self-study. Mr. Layer thought accountability was a big issue and reminded that there was new leadership at UAA and in the School of Education. New reporting would identify a person as a responsible party for an accreditation review. The new reporting would require that a person be identified as the lead for the accreditation review, those names would be associated with each of the accreditation reviews and responsible parties would be identified. 9:39:57 AM Co-Chair von Imhof OPENED public testimony. 9:40:10 AM Co-Chair von Imhof CLOSED public testimony. Senator Bishop reviewed FN 1 from University of Alaska, OMB component 1296. He read from the analysis on page 2 of the fiscal note: The University of Alaska estimates that this legislation would have no fiscal impact on current operations. Under current law, AS 14.40.190, the Board of Regents of the University of Alaska must prepare a report that provides: a) the condition of university property; receipts and expenditures; administration and disposition of appropriated and restricted funds, including the unexpended balance of university receipts; and on the educational and other work performed by the university during the preceding year. This report is due annually at the beginning of each regular legislative session. b) information on teacher preparation, retention and recruitment programs and initiatives at the University of Alaska. This report is to be entitled "Alaska's University for Alaska's Schools" and is due no later than the 30th day of the first regular legislative session. It is sometimes referred to as the SB 241 Report, after the 2008 bill establishing the requirement [Chapter 71, SLA 2008]. This legislation would add a third reporting requirement by adding a new subsection (c) to AS 14.40.190. The board would be required to prepare a biennial report on the status of national, regional, and programmatic accreditations at the University of Alaska, and describing the efforts being made to maintain or achieve those accreditations. The report would be presented to the House and Senate Education Committees no later than the 30th day of the first regular legislative session. 9:41:34 AM SB 53 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration.