ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE  HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE  April 26, 2023 8:00 a.m. DRAFT MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Jamie Allard, Co-Chair Representative Justin Ruffridge, Co-Chair Representative Mike Prax Representative CJ McCormick Representative Tom McKay Representative Rebecca Himschoot Representative Andi Story MEMBERS ABSENT  All members present OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT    Representative Jennie Armstrong Representative Zack Fields Representative Ashley Carrick COMMITTEE CALENDAR  HOUSE BILL NO. 111 "An Act relating to public school students who are deaf or have a hearing impairment." - HEARD & HELD HOUSE BILL NO. 106 "An Act authorizing lump sum payments for certain teachers as retention and recruitment incentives; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED HB 106 OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 105 "An Act relating to parental rights in a child's education; relating to access to school records; relating to sex education, human reproduction education, and human sexuality education; relating to school disciplinary and safety programs; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED CSHB 105(EDC) OUT OF COMMITTEE PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION  BILL: HB 111 SHORT TITLE: EDUCATION FOR DEAF & HEARING IMPAIRED SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) ALLARD 03/13/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 03/13/23 (H) HSS, EDC 03/22/23 (H) HSS REFERRAL REMOVED 03/22/23 (H) BILL REPRINTED 04/24/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106 04/24/23 (H) Heard & Held 04/24/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC) 04/26/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106 BILL: HB 106 SHORT TITLE: TEACHER RECRUITMENT; LUMP SUM PAYMENT SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR 03/08/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 03/08/23 (H) EDC, FIN 03/13/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106 03/13/23 (H) Heard & Held 03/13/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC) 04/12/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106 04/12/23 (H) Heard & Held 04/12/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC) 04/24/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106 04/24/23 (H) Heard & Held 04/24/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC) 04/26/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106 BILL: HB 105 SHORT TITLE: SEX/REPRODUCTION EDUCATION; SCHOOLS SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR 03/08/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 03/08/23 (H) EDC, JUD 03/13/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106 03/13/23 (H) Heard & Held 03/13/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC) 03/29/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106 03/29/23 (H) Heard & Held 03/29/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC) 03/30/23 (H) EDC AT 5:15 PM DAVIS 106 03/30/23 (H) Heard & Held 03/30/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC) 04/13/23 (H) EDC AT 5:15 PM BARNES 124 04/13/23 (H) Heard & Held 04/13/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC) 04/24/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106 04/24/23 (H) Heard & Held 04/24/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC) 04/26/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106 WITNESS REGISTER CLARA BALDWIN, representing self Anchorage, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Gave invited testimony in support of HB 111. PAMELA MUELLER-GUY, representing self Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 111. HEIDI LIEB-WILLIAMS, Chair Governor's Council on Disabilities and Special Education Department of Health Anchorage, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 111. AMY BOBICH, representing self Anchorage, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 111. HEIDI TESHNER, Acting Commissioner Department of Education and Early Development Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB 106. ACTION NARRATIVE 8:00:18 AM    CO-CHAIR JAMIE ALLARD called the House Education Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. Representatives Ruffridge, Prax, McCormick, McKay, Himschoot, and Allard were present at the call to order. Representative Story arrived as the meeting was in progress. Also present were Representative Jenny Armstrong, Representative Zach Fields, and Representative Ashley Carrick. The committee took an at-ease from 8:00 a.m. to 8:05 a.m. HB 111-EDUCATION FOR DEAF & HEARING IMPAIRED  8:05:03 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 111, "An Act relating to public school students who are deaf or have a hearing impairment." [Before the committee, adopted as the work draft on 4/24/23, was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 111, Version 33- LS0504\S, Marx, 4/22/23, Version S.] 8:05:42 CLARA BALDWIN, representing self, gave invited testimony in support of HB 111. [Ms. Baldwin signed her testimony, which was spoken by an ASL interpreter.] She provided her background in overseeing the Alaska State School for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (AKSDHH) and related that she is deaf. The reason she is here today, she said, is that she was born in a deaf family, which is rare. She shared that she is a fifth-generation deaf person, which can be seen as an advantage, although she indicated there is nothing wrong with a baby born to a family who does not know sign language. She relayed that every deaf child is unique. She acknowledged that from birth, she had an advantage in that her parents were signing to her; therefore, she learned social cues long before school began. Deaf children who do not have that advantage must catch up starting in kindergarten, but schools are not able to provide a full grade curriculum. The proposed bill, she advised, would make deaf and hard of hearing children's presence known and show that Alaska "has their back." She reiterated that she had been privileged and now wants the same for every deaf and hard of hearing student and future generations in Alaska to have an accessible experience, which would start with HB 111. 8:10:21 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD invited questions from the committee. 8:10:31 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT directed a question to Ms. Baldwin's interpreter. [The interpreter, who was not fully identified for the record, spoke briefly about the qualifications of interpreters.] 8:12:08 AM REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked Ms. Baldwin to speak on AKSDHH and her experiences there. 8:12:38 AM MS. BALDWIN responded that she is very proud of the school, which currently is a self-contained program in a public school building. She said it allows students to learn social skills with their hearing peers during recess and during some special classes. Counseling services are offered through a deaf counselor, as well as additional language services to train students appropriately. She added that ages 3 to 22 are currently served, which includes the adult community transition program. There are leadership opportunities for students, clubs, theater, fundraising training, and every student can engage in after school sports with their hearing peers. She noted that interpreters are provided throughout. 8:15:15 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD asked Ms. Baldwin whether she felt the bill would open up more doors. MS. BALDWIN replied, "Yes, yes, definitely." 8:15:41 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY questioned how the state is doing with the availability of interpreters for all students. MS. BALDWIN replied that the state has an interpreter shortage. Additionally, some people are getting ready to retire and transition. The state has the minimum requirements, but she said she wants more. She stated that her interpreter today is also a program coordinator who hires and supervises all of the interpreters and, through partnering with an agency, now has five interns from the Lower 48. In response to a follow-up question, she said there is a shortage in the area of interpreters as a result of the challenge of scheduling and serving such a vast state. 8:18:55 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT referenced children in rural Alaska and recognized that there are more choices that must be made. She asked whether it is more important for a student to be amongst their family, peers, and culture, or more important to be in the special school in Anchorage. She asked Ms. Baldwin whether, if the bill addresses what the "least restrictive environment" is, a child would have to leave their community and go to Anchorage. 8:20:05 AM MS. BALDWIN replied that there is a program called Rural Deaf Support Services (RDSS), which finds host families that provide licensed foster homes, and there are many different families that qualify. She clarified that the bill would not force a student to have to attend the school in Anchorage. She added that virtual services are available if, for example, a student comes to Anchorage from rural Alaska and finds that the school is not for them. In addition, there is an annual statewide deaf retreat in Eagle River, Alaska, for secondary students and above which provides an opportunity to meet peers in person and then go back to their respective villages. REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT stated that her concern is with the designation of "least restrictive environment", which carries legal weight. She asked Ms. Baldwin whether the bill would still work if something other than that term were used. 8:22:47 AM MS. BALDWIN replied that there are two different perspectives. She stated it can be narrowed down, and that the bill could be amended. 8:23:08 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRAX observed there must be alternatives other than ASL for "least restrictive." He questioned what may be available. MS. BALDWIN replied that students can be mainstream, and some students thrive with just hearing aids. She said she prefers a sign language interpreter, whereas some students thrive sitting near the teacher where they have access to auditory input. 8:24:26 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD asked about the services provided to other municipalities compared to the school in Anchorage and how the bill would help in that aspect. MS. BALDWIN explained that other schools are smaller and more isolated than AKSDHH. She said the bill would make the school more known and provide the ability to reach out further, in addition to providing virtual services. She stated she has opportunities to travel to other municipalities to support their schools in hopes of informing everyone statewide that they have the help of AKSDHH. CO-CHAIR ALLARD asked whether the proposed legislation is an incentive to encourage other interpreters to come forward because the state is offering more support. MS. BALDWIN agreed. She added that the deaf community is a small community, but it can make a huge impact. 8:26:45 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked what support the school district may provide for parents to learn sign language. MS. BALDWIN replied that a sign language class is offered, and there is frequent communication with parents regarding their child's individual education plan (IEP). 8:28:44 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRAX brought up the term "profoundly deaf" and asked whether ASL was the only alternative. MS. BALDWIN replied she was not sure. She said that some individuals that are considered profoundly deaf can speak very clearly with repetition and training behind them. 8:29:28 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD offered a personal example of a friend and asked whether Ms. Baldwin could speak on his situation. In addition, she explained that she uses a coil that is integrated into her phone and hearing aids and asked Ms. Baldwin to speak on what a coil means. MS. BALDWIN replied that the individual in question can speak as well as being fluent in sign language. She explained that sometimes, if it is, for example, a big room with a lot of stimuli, that individual will depend on the interpreter for the competing noise. In response to a follow-up question, she spoke about the use of coils providing sound to those hard of hearing or deaf. 8:32:10 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD opened public testimony on HB 111. 8:32:31 AM PAMELA MUELLER-GUY, representing self, testified in support of HB 111, noting that she has been [in Juneau] since 1974. She said she agrees with what the lady said - "excellent." She spoke about her experience as a deaf person in school, relating that her teacher wore a microphone and she wore headphones, someone would point to the person talking, and she could learn by reading lips. She talked about words having five different meanings in sign language and about parents learning to sign. She said video phones are helpful to deaf people working at jobs that use the telephone. In response to Co-Chair Allard, she confirmed that she supports HB 111. 8:38:59 AM HEIDI LIEB-WILLIAMS, Chair, Governor's Council on Disabilities and Special Education, Department of Health (DOH), testified in support of HB 111. She explained she is a strong advocate for the autism and disability community. She informed the committee that she is functionally deaf and hard of hearing; it depends on the moment whether she has her hearing or not. She shared that she has undergone hundreds of ear surgeries to get the hearing she currently has, and recently, she almost lost the hearing she has. She said she wished she knew ASL to help her with communication, and she described some of the difficulties she has endured due to communication barriers. She stated she is working on getting hearing aids, and the reason HB 111 is so important is so parents can choose for their child, instead of just relying on the districts. She urged the committee to pass HB 111. 8:45:05 AM AMY BOBICH, representing self, testified in support of HB 111. [Ms. Bobich signed her testimony, which was spoken by an ASL interpreter.] She explained she is both a teacher of deaf and hard of hearing children and a deaf individual. She said she was born deaf but her parents did not find out until later; therefore, she did not learn any language until later. Her family made the decisions on how she could best get her education and how she could access information, she said. She stressed the importance of access to language for deaf children, as there are many opportunities missed during the first five years of life. She opined that parents should not have to fight to receive the information and resources for their deaf children, and HB 111 is "amazing and powerful" because all the resources would be provided in one place and would be accessible. 8:50:20 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD, after ascertaining there was no one else who wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 111. 8:50:45 AM MS. BALDWIN thanked the committee for letting her have the platform today and encouraged anyone to reach out with questions. 8:51:18 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that HB 111 was held over. HB 106-TEACHER RECRUITMENT; LUMP SUM PAYMENT  8:51:24 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 106, "An Act authorizing lump sum payments for certain teachers as retention and recruitment incentives; and providing for an effective date." 8:51:36 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD opened public testimony on HB 106. After ascertaining no one wished to testify, she closed public testimony. 8:52:25 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT acknowledged missing the amendment deadline but said she had prepared a conceptual amendment to HB 106. 8:52:36 AM The committee took an at-ease from 8:52 a.m. to 8:54 a.m. 8:54:05 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to HB 106. 8:54:20 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRAX objected. 8:54:31 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT wished to incorporate the language about allowing Legislative Legal Services to make any conforming changes. She added that Amendment 1 makes the lump sum payments a permanent feature of the system. It removes the three years and makes it wide open that teachers who commit to teaching in Alaska would receive the payments without an end date, she said. 8:55:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY noted that Conceptual Amendment 1 may dramatically change the fiscal note. 8:55:45 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT stated that there is not a fiscal note. 8:56:19 AM HEIDI TESHNER, Acting Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development (DEED), answered questions regarding the discussion on a fiscal note. She said that $57.9 million per year is the grant funding total for the teacher incentive pay. 8:56:58 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that the purpose of the amendment is to take a good idea and make it a permanent idea. It is known that the state is not competitive in its pay to teachers, and it is one way to increase the pay and to keep it there. Her concern with the bill, she said, is the existing retirement system not requiring people to stay more than five years, and having this incentive for only three years is another way to support teachers. 8:57:52 AM REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY recalled that the purpose of the bill was to do a pilot program for three years and determine whether the raises had an effect on retention. MS. TESHNER responded that is correct. The intent of the bill was to create a study to see if it is something that improves retention. 8:58:39 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY offered her opinion that the ability to raise teacher pay and keep that going is something very much needed. She confirmed her support for the amendment. 8:59:28 AM CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE appreciated the amendment; however, HB 106 was designed to be a pilot program, and it may not be the appropriate way to raise pay for teachers. He stated he would not support the amendment. 9:00:13 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked Ms. Teshner how it would be known whether the three-year incentive worked or not. MS. TESHER responded it would be learned through the process of the data collected and then reporting it out. 9:01:20 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRAX offered his opinion that it is not a good idea to negotiate salaries through the "central authority." 9:02:00 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD pointed out that when unions are involved, salaries are not negotiated for the teachers, it is done through the school districts. She offered her belief that is something individual districts must do, and although she supported incentives, she stated the bill is good as-is. 9:02:25 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT stated that perhaps Conceptual Amendment 1 could have been a little different, but her concern is that there is no fiscal note or study at the end. She said it seemed like a good idea to provide this incentive so the districts could use it as a recruiting tool. 9:02:58 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRAX maintained his objection. 9:03:03 AM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McCormick, Himschoot, and Story voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 1. Representatives Prax, McKay, Allard, and Ruffridge voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1 failed to be adopted by a vote of 3-4. 9:03:42 AM The committee took an at-ease from 9:03 a.m. to 9:04 a.m. 9:04:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2 to HB 106. 9:04:31 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRAX objected. REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT spoke to amendment 2 and related her experiences as a teacher. She said in addition to teachers, there are shortages in support staff; therefore, she wanted to open the idea up to include paraprofessionals and support staff. 9:05:31 AM REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY opined that the proposed amendment was a similar problem to Conceptual Amendment 1 in that there is no fiscal note to estimate additional costs. 9:05:54 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY offered her belief that it is an important part of the puzzle for students doing very well to have consistent help through support staff. She opined it would be a good incentive and investment in Alaska's resources for this amendment, even though the fiscal note would increase. 9:06:28 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRAX commented that adding paraprofessionals increases the risk of getting nothing "if we push too far." 9:07:12 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT offered her insight that the best way to increase salaries is an increase in the base student allocation (BSA), but since that is uncertain, this [amendment] is one way to make sure staff are incentivized to stay and it would increase recruitment for districts. She brought up an example of when the Department of Law (DOL) did a 20 percent increase, and they now have the lowest vacancy rate of any department; therefore, incentives work. 9:08:07 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRAX maintained his objection. 9:08:12 AM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McCormick, Himschoot, and Story voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 2. Representatives Allard, Prax, McKay, and Ruffridge voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 2 failed to be adopted by a vote of 3-4. 9:08:43 AM CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE moved to report HB 106 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. 9:09:01 AM REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK objected. He stated he supported HB 106, but offered his belief that it is not a good replacement to increase the BSA. He added that in Bethel, he was told by educators it was something they did not want; they wanted good benefits and an increase to the BSA. REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK removed his objection. 9:09:55 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected. She mirrored Representative McCormick's comments that it should not be a replacement for funding the BSA. She said that working conditions are very important for Alaska's teachers and students to thrive; therefore, we must keep up with increasing costs, which also has a lot to do with local control. She briefly mentioned the practices other states have attempted to adopt. REPRESENTATIVE STORY removed her objection. 9:12:07 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT stated that her objection lies in the fact this creates a difficult position to be in, and she acknowledges that teachers are underpaid and any time there is a chance to increase their salaries, it should be done. On the other hand, she said, a way to do that is to fund the BSA and provide increases on a regular basis to fund the schools and the salaries. 9:12:55 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD offered her support for teachers and added that there is no guarantee that the BSA would increase teacher salaries; that is up to their individual unions and school boards. She said she believed this increase is an incentive and recruitment tool, as stated in the bill, and reiterated she is in strong support of HB 106. 9:13:19 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT maintained her objection. 9:13:23 AM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Story, Allard, Prax, McCormick, McKay, Himschoot, and Ruffridge voted in favor of HB 106. Therefore, HB 106 was reported out of the House Education Standing Committee by a vote of 7-0. 9:14:20 AM The committee took an at-ease from 9:14 a.m. to 9:15 a.m. 9:15:02 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that HB 106 passed from committee. 9:15:28 AM The committee took an at-ease from 9:15 a.m. to 9:18 a.m. HB 105-SEX/REPRODUCTION EDUCATION; SCHOOLS  9:18:39 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 105, "An Act relating to parental rights in a child's education; relating to access to school records; relating to sex education, human reproduction education, and human sexuality education; relating to school disciplinary and safety programs; and providing for an effective date." 9:18:49 AM REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY, in response to Co-Chair Allard, said he "removed" Amendment 1 [in committee packet but never moved for adoption], and "withdrew" Amendment 2 [in committee packet but never moved for adoption]. 9:19:01 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to adopt Amendment 3 to HB 105, labeled 33-GH1072\A.2, Marx, 4/14/23, which read as follows: Page 1, line 2, following "records;": Insert "relating to school funding; relating to  charter schools; relating to state boarding schools;" Page 3, following line 21: Insert new bill sections to read:  "* Sec. 5. AS 14.03.260(a) is amended to read: (a) A local school board shall provide an approved charter school with an annual program budget. The budget shall be not less than the amount generated by the students enrolled in the charter school less administrative costs retained by the local school district, determined by applying the indirect cost rate approved by the department up to four percent. Costs directly related to charter school facilities, including rent, utilities, and maintenance, may not be included in an annual program budget for the purposes of calculating the four percent cap on administrative costs under this subsection. A local school board shall provide a charter school with a report itemizing the administrative costs retained by the local school board under this section. The "amount generated by students enrolled in the charter school" is to be determined in the same manner as it would be for a student enrolled in another public school in that school district and includes funds generated by grants, appropriations, federal impact aid, the required local contribution, the local contribution under AS 14.17.410(c), special needs under AS 14.17.420(a)(1), [AND] secondary school vocational and technical instruction under AS 14.17.420(a)(3),  and parental involvement initiatives under  AS 14.17.420(a)(4). A school district shall direct state aid under AS 14.11 for the construction or major maintenance of a charter school facility to the charter school that generated the state aid, subject to the same terms and conditions that apply to state aid under AS 14.11 for construction or major maintenance of a school facility that is not a charter school.  * Sec. 6. AS 14.17.410(b) is amended to read: (b) Public school funding consists of state aid, a required local contribution, and eligible federal impact aid determined as follows: (1) state aid equals basic need minus a required local contribution and 90 percent of eligible federal impact aid for that fiscal year; basic need equals the sum obtained under (D) of this paragraph, multiplied by the base student allocation set out in AS 14.17.470; district adjusted ADM is calculated as follows: (A) the ADM of each school in the district is calculated by applying the school size factor to the student count as set out in AS 14.17.450; (B) the number obtained under (A) of this paragraph is multiplied by the district cost factor described in AS 14.17.460; (C) the ADMs of each school in a district, as adjusted according to (A) and (B) of this paragraph, are added; the sum is then multiplied by the special needs factor set out in AS 14.17.420(a)(1), [AND] the secondary school vocational and technical instruction funding factor set out in AS 14.17.420(a)(3), and the parental  involvement initiatives funding factor set out in  AS 14.17.420(a)(4); (D) the number obtained for intensive services under AS 14.17.420(a)(2) and the number obtained for correspondence study under AS 14.17.430 are added to the number obtained under (C) of this paragraph or under (H) and (I) of this paragraph; (E) notwithstanding (A) - (C) of this paragraph, if a school district's ADM adjusted for school size under (A) of this paragraph decreases by five percent or more from one fiscal year to the next fiscal year, the school district may use the last fiscal year before the decrease as a base fiscal year to offset the decrease, according to the following method: (i) for the first fiscal year after the base fiscal year determined under this subparagraph, the school district's ADM adjusted for school size determined under (A) of this paragraph is calculated as the district's ADM adjusted for school size, plus 75 percent of the difference in the district's ADM adjusted for school size between the base fiscal year and the first fiscal year after the base fiscal year; (ii) for the second fiscal year after the base fiscal year determined under this subparagraph, the school district's ADM adjusted for school size determined under (A) of this paragraph is calculated as the district's ADM adjusted for school size, plus 50 percent of the difference in the district's ADM adjusted for school size between the base fiscal year and the second fiscal year after the base fiscal year; (iii) for the third fiscal year after the base fiscal year determined under this subparagraph, the school district's ADM adjusted for school size determined under (A) of this paragraph is calculated as the district's ADM adjusted for school size, plus 25 percent of the difference in the district's ADM adjusted for school size between the base fiscal year and the third fiscal year after the base fiscal year; (F) the method established in (E) of this paragraph is available to a school district for the three fiscal years following the base fiscal year determined under (E) of this paragraph only if the district's ADM adjusted for school size determined under (A) of this paragraph for each fiscal year is less than the district's ADM adjusted for school size in the base fiscal year; (G) the method established in (E) of this paragraph does not apply to a decrease in the district's ADM adjusted for school size resulting from a loss of enrollment that occurs as a result of a boundary change under AS 29; (H) notwithstanding (A) - (C) of this paragraph, if one or more schools close and consolidate with one or more other schools in the same community and district and, as a result of the consolidation, basic need generated by the district's ADM of the consolidated schools as adjusted under (A) - (C) of this paragraph decreases, the district may use the last fiscal year before the consolidation as the base fiscal year to offset that decrease for the first four fiscal years following consolidation according to the following method: (i) for the first two fiscal years after the base fiscal year, the district's ADM of the consolidated schools as adjusted under (A) - (C) of this paragraph is calculated by dividing the sum of the district's ADM of the consolidated schools as adjusted under (A) - (C) of this paragraph for the base fiscal year by the sum of the district's ADM of the consolidated schools for the base fiscal year without adjustment, and subtracting the quotient obtained by dividing the district's ADM of the consolidated schools for the current fiscal year as adjusted under (A) - (C) of this paragraph by the sum of the district's ADM of the consolidated schools for the current fiscal year without adjustment, multiplying that number by the sum of the district's ADM of the consolidated schools for the current fiscal year without adjustment, and adding that number to the sum of the district's ADM of the consolidated schools for the current fiscal year as adjusted under (A) - (C) of this paragraph; (ii) for the third fiscal year after the base fiscal year, the district's ADM of the consolidated schools as adjusted under (A) - (C) of this paragraph is calculated by dividing the sum of the district's ADM of the consolidated schools as adjusted under (A) - (C) of this paragraph for the base fiscal year by the sum of the district's ADM of the consolidated schools for the base fiscal year without adjustment, and subtracting the quotient obtained by dividing the sum of the district's ADM of the consolidated schools for the current fiscal year as adjusted under (A) - (C) of this paragraph by the sum of the district's ADM of the consolidated schools for the current fiscal year, multiplying that number by the sum of the district's ADM of the consolidated schools for the current fiscal year without adjustment, multiplying that number by 66 percent, and adding that number to the sum of the district's ADM of the consolidated schools for the current fiscal year as adjusted under (A) - (C) of this paragraph; (iii) for the fourth fiscal year after the base fiscal year, the district's ADM of the consolidated schools as adjusted under (A) - (C) of this paragraph is calculated by dividing the sum of the district's ADM of the consolidated schools as adjusted under (A) - (C) of this paragraph for the base fiscal year by the sum of the district's ADM of the consolidated schools for the base fiscal year without adjustment, and subtracting the quotient obtained by dividing the sum of the district's ADM of the consolidated schools for the current fiscal year as adjusted under (A) - (C) of this paragraph by the sum of the district's ADM of the consolidated schools for the current fiscal year, multiplying that number by the sum of the district's ADM of the consolidated schools for the current fiscal year without adjustment, multiplying that number by 33 percent, and adding that number to the sum of the district's ADM of the consolidated schools for the current fiscal year as adjusted under (A) - (C) of this paragraph; (iv) to calculate the district's basic need for each fiscal year, the number obtained through the calculation in (i), (ii), or (iii) of this subparagraph is added to the number obtained under (C) of this paragraph for the remainder of the district; (I) if the basic need calculated under (H)(i) - (iii) of this paragraph for one of the first four fiscal years after consolidation is less than the basic need calculated under (A) - (C) of this paragraph for that fiscal year, the basic need may not be adjusted under (H) of this paragraph for that fiscal year; (J) a district may not offset a decrease under (H) of this paragraph if (i) a new facility is constructed in the district for the consolidation; or (ii) the district offset a decrease under (E) of this paragraph in the same fiscal year; (K) a district that offsets a decrease under (H) of this paragraph may not reopen a school that was closed for consolidation in the district until (i) seven or more years have passed since the school closure; and (ii) the district provides evidence satisfactory to the department that the schools affected by the consolidation are over capacity; (L) a district may not reopen and reconsolidate a school that was consolidated in the district more than once every seven years for purposes of the calculations made under (H) of this paragraph; (M) a district offsetting a decrease under (H) of this paragraph shall provide the department with the list of schools participating in the consolidation and the corresponding ADM; (2) the required local contribution of a city or borough school district is the equivalent of a 2.65 mill tax levy on the full and true value of the taxable real and personal property in the district as of January 1 of the second preceding fiscal year, as determined by the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development under AS 14.17.510 and AS 29.45.110, not to exceed 45 percent of a district's basic need for the preceding fiscal year as determined under (1) of this subsection.  * Sec. 7. AS 14.17.420(a) is amended to read: (a) As a component of public school funding, a district is eligible for special needs, [AND] secondary school vocational and technical instruction,  and parental involvement initiatives funding and may be eligible for intensive services funding as follows: (1) special needs funding is available to a district to assist the district in providing special education, gifted and talented education, vocational education, and bilingual education services to its students; a special needs funding factor of 1.20 shall be applied as set out in AS 14.17.410(b)(1); (2) in addition to the special needs funding for which a district is eligible under (1) of this subsection, a district is eligible for intensive services funding for each special education student who needs and receives intensive services and is enrolled on the last day of the count period; for each such student, intensive services funding is equal to the intensive student count multiplied by 13; (3) in addition to the special needs and intensive services funding available under (1) and (2) of this subsection, secondary school vocational and technical instruction funding is available to assist districts in providing vocational and technical instruction to students who are enrolled in a secondary school; a secondary school vocational and technical instruction funding factor of 1.015 shall be applied as set out in AS 14.17.410(b)(1); in this paragraph, "vocational and technical instruction" excludes costs associated with (A) administrative expenses; and (B) instruction in general literacy, mathematics, and job readiness skills; (4) in addition to the special needs,  intensive services, and secondary school vocational  and technical instruction funding available under (1)  - (3) of this subsection, parental involvement  initiatives funding is available to assist districts  in the district's implementation of the requirements  of AS 14.03.016(a)(3), (a)(7), and (a)(8),  AS 14.03.115, AS 14.30.361(e) and (f), and  AS 14.33.120(a)(10), including the costs of additional  administrative and educational support personnel and  modification of locker rooms and restroom facilities;  a parental involvement initiatives funding factor of  1.005 shall be applied as set out in  AS 14.17.410(b)(1).  * Sec. 8. AS 14.17.440(a) is amended to read: (a) Except as provided in AS 14.17.400(b), funding for state boarding schools established under AS 14.16.010 includes an allocation from the public education fund in an amount calculated by (1) determining the ADM of state boarding schools by applying the school size factor to the student count as described in AS 14.17.450; (2) multiplying the number obtained under (1) of this subsection by the special needs factor in AS 14.17.420(a)(1), [AND] the secondary school vocational and technical instruction funding factor set out in AS 14.17.420(a)(3), and the parental  involvement initiatives funding factor set out in  AS 14.17.420(a)(4) and multiplying that product by the base student allocation; and (3) multiplying the product determined under (2) of this subsection by the district cost factor that is applicable to calculation of the state aid for the adjacent school district under AS 14.17.460." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly [No audible objection was captured on the recording.] 9:19:28 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT spoke to Amendment 3. She said the amendment provides funding support for school districts to implement the requirements of HB 105, as well as a parental involvement initiatives funding factor. She said that as much communication with families this bill will require, it comes with a cost, such as extra staffing, and teachers following up on required paperwork. She gave brief examples of how the tasks of meeting requirements can slightly change depending on the size of the district. She added there would also be increased records requests, and if students are opting out, those students still need to be somewhere they are supervised. The funding factor, she said, would cover the one-time capital cost for modifications to buildings which the bill asks schools to do. Without this amendment and the bill passed, [the state] would be putting another unfunded mandate on schools. 9:23:09 AM REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK suggested adopting the proposed committee substitute prior to discussing this amendment. CO-CHAIR ALLARD explained that Amendment 3 pertains to the original bill version of HB 105. 9:23:30 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY sought more information regarding the initiatives for informing parents. She acknowledged that there would be an unfunded mandate with the bill, and all the other steps that would need to be taken add to a huge amount of communication. She said it would be helpful to have a parental liaison at schools to help encourage parent involvement. She stated she was worried about not resourcing help for teachers as well. 9:25:02 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT responded that right now, in her experience, there is quite a bit of communication that happens between classroom teachers and parents. Finding time outside of the normal school day, she said, to reach out to parents takes time and money and schools should have the resources they need. 9:26:56 AM REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY requested a roll call vote on Amendment 3. 9:27:08 AM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Himschoot, Story, Prax, and McCormick voted in favor of Amendment 3 to HB 105. Representatives Allard, McKay, and Ruffridge voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 was adopted by a vote of 4-3. 9:28:01 AM The committee took a brief at-ease at 9:28 a.m. 9:28:06 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD withdrew Amendment 4 [in committee packet but never moved for adoption]. 9:28:40 AM CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE moved to adopt the proposed Committee Substitute (CS) for HB 105, Version B, also referred to as 33- GH1072\B Marx 4/15/23 as the work draft. There being no objection, Version B was before the committee. 9:29:01 AM The committee took an at-ease from 9:29 a.m. to 9:42 a.m. 9:42:46 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD [returned to discussion of the original bill version of HB 105]. REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE, in response to Co-Chair Allard, moved to rescind action in adopting Amendment [3] to HB 105. 9:43:36 AM REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE restated his motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 105. 9:43:57 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD noted that there had been no objection to the motion to rescind the committee's action in adopting Amendment [3]. CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced there being no objection, Version B was adopted. 9:44:33 AM The committee took two consecutive at-eases from 9:44 a.m. to 9:45 a.m. 9:45:23 AM REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE spoke on the changes made in committee substitute for HB 105, Version B. He said the bill would require that parents receive notification for all activities, classes, or programs that a child is involved in at least two weeks in advance. He added that it would allow parents to choose what their child participates in. The parent would also provide the school with names, nicknames, and pronouns that the school shall use for identification and records. 9:46:57 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to HB 105, Version B. 9:47:10 AM REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that the costs had been researched with her staff, and there is no fiscal note now, but it would be approximately $6 million. She added to give Legislative Legal Services permission to make any necessary conforming changes to Amendment 1 [which was originally drafted for the original bill version]. 9:48:25 AM REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE maintained his objection. 9:48:27 AM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Story, Prax, McCormick, and Himschoot voted in favor of the motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to HB 105, Version B. Representatives Ruffridge, McKay, and Allard voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1 to HB 105, Version B, was adopted by a vote of 4-3. 9:49:26 AM The committee took a brief at-ease at 9:49 a.m. 9:50:00 AM REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK questioned what sort of protections may remain in place for students who might be from an abusive home and a student could potentially end up in a dangerous situation when they are forced to share certain information. REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE explained that there are protections already in place for teachers, and teachers are still mandatory reporters if such a situation would arise. REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK asked Representative Ruffridge to clarify a "return." REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE explained that through testimony and conversations regarding HB 105, teachers were found to be not a neutral third party and found themselves uncomfortable. The teachers, he said, may have information they are not certain what to do with and the Version B clarifies that. 9:53:10 AM REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE moved to report CSHB 105, Version 33- GH1072\B, Marx, 4/15/23, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. 9:53:39 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT objected and spoke to her objection. She paraphrased a previous testifier who stated that there may be some poor parenting, but so does her profession as a teacher. She added that she thought the bill was "using a butcher knife where a scalpel would do." The bill, she said, takes focus away from things that should be done, such as supporting schools in a predictable and stable way, as well as recruiting and retaining. She stated that passage of the bill would be passing a mandate that feels threatening to some of the most vulnerable population. She reiterated her opposition to the bill and the committee substitute. 9:55:23 AM REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY called the previous question on Version B, as amended. 9:55:32 AM The committee took a brief at-ease at 9:55 a.m. 9:55:43 AM REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK objected to the call to question. 9:56:09 AM The committee took a brief at-ease at 9:56 a.m. 9:56:53 AM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Ruffridge, Prax, McKay, and Allard voted in favor of the call to question. Representatives Himschoot, Story, and McCormick voted against it. Therefore, the call to question was so ordered. 9:57:30 AM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McKay, Allard, Prax, and Ruffridge voted in favor of HB 105. Representatives McCormick, Himschoot, and Story voted against it. Therefore, HB 105 passed out of the House Education Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3. 9:58:12 AM The committee took an at-ease from 9:58 a.m. to 9:59 a.m. 9:59:12 AM REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD announced that CSHB 105(EDC) had moved from committee with permission for Legislative Legal and Research Services to make conforming changes. 9:59:28 AM The committee took an at-ease from 9:59 a.m. to 10:04 a.m. 10:04:01 AM REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY stated, "I withdrew my previous motion to call the question on HB 105, committee substitute, as amended." REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD stated, "I'm going to go back and rescind action in regards to what had happened when you had called the question, based on the fact that you have to have two-thirds of the vote. So, I apologize, I moved a little too quickly." 10:04:53 AM The committee took an at-ease from 10:04 a.m. to 10:06 a.m. 10:06:11 AM REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE restated the motion to move CSHB 105, Version 33-GH1072\B, Marx, 4/15/23, as amended, with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. 10:06:39 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected and spoke to her objection. She offered her belief regarding the importance of parental rights, and that they are key. She added that in current law, parents are to be notified of any sensitive topic two weeks prior to it being given and have the right to opt out. She expressed her concern that the bill switches an opt out to an opt in, and she said she believed kids would miss out on very important information. Most parents want their children to have information on the sensitive age-appropriate topics, she said. She opined that it puts up a barrier for returning permission slips and stressed that she would not want students to be at risk. She stated that youth need an affirming adult in their lives to stop self-harm, and she observed that the bill may put teachers in a very awkward place as well as the student. She said [legislators] must think about local control and violations of a student's rights to privacy. The regulations in the bill garner much more serious thought, she said. 10:11:37 AM REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK noted that suicide is a leading but preventable public health crises in Alaska and is the leading cause of death in youths ages 10 through 24. Suicide prevention activists, he said, have identified the proposed legislation as a problem and have testified before the committee that it could lead to higher rates in suicide. He offered his belief that not enough has been changed in the bill, and that it strips young people of the ability to make choices for themselves, denying them the ability to live with dignity. He referred to HB 111, stating that the legislature was doing something to help people. He opined HB 105 would make life harder for people. He gave an example of growing up in rural Alaska where life is hard, and he said he ran to make life easier for rural kids. He reiterated his opposition to HB 105. 10:13:32 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRAX offered his opinion that this is an imperfect world, and that parents have a moral responsibility to raise their children, but someone turned it into a legal obligation. He believed that parents have the moral responsibility to raise children, not the legislature, and even if parents make mistakes, they must have that right, he said. He stressed that the bill poses challenges, and the state must think critically about this. 10:15:47 AM REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE thanked committee members for their comments. He said the legislature was in an important spot in returning to a conversation regarding what is happening inside of Alaska's schools and its children. He said he believed the bill actually strengthens the ability for students to have private access to restrooms and potentially a greater aspect to safety. He stated that while it may not be a perfect bill, it started the conversations about what the role of teachers and parents are, and how to better engage them. He said he valued parent's rights tremendously and that he looked forward to more legislative sessions on the subject. 10:18:34 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY drew attention to page 2, line 9 of the bill in reference to a religious holiday and whether Legislative Legal Services needs to make any changes. REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE explained that the language is already in state statute and not part of the bill. 10:19:48 AM REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK maintained his objection. 10:19:50 AM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McKay, Ruffridge, Prax, and Allard voted in favor of the motion to report CSHB 105, Version 33-GH1072\B, Marx, 4/15/23, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. Therefore, CSHB 105(EDC) was reported out of the House Education Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3. 10:20:39 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD relayed that when there are other legislators present, they must be respectful to the chairs and not interrupt. She added that aides are present for assistance. 10:21:11 AM The committee took an at-ease from 10:21 a.m. to 10:23 a.m. 10:23:41 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD briefly discussed future business. 10:24:10 AM ADJOURNMENT  There being no further business before the committee, the House Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:24 a.m.