ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
February 6, 2002
8:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Con Bunde, Chair
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Gretchen Guess
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Joe Green
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
WORK SESSION ON TEACHER SHORTAGE:
Service Learning Report
Regional Training Centers Report
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 211
"An Act requiring an annual inflation adjustment of the base
student allocation used in the formula for state funding of
public education; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 211(EDU) OUT OF COMMITTEE
WORK SESSION ON TEACHER SHORTAGE:
Rehiring RIP-Retired Teachers [what became HB 416]
- HEARD
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 11
Proposing an amendment to the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State
Legislature relating to the Education Committee, a standing
committee of the legislature.
- HEARD BUT NOT SCHEDULED
DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE COMMITTEE BILL ON STUDENT SURVEYS [what
became HB 408]
- HEARD
REPORT ON EED AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
- HEARD
WORK SESSION ON TEACHER SHORTAGE:
Health & Liability Insurance Costs Report
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 211
SHORT TITLE:FOUNDATION FORMULA INCREASE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)GUESS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/26/01 0729 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/26/01 0729 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
04/11/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/11/01 (H) Heard & Held -- Location
Change --
04/11/01 (H) MINUTE(EDU)
04/25/01 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/06/02 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HCR 11
SHORT TITLE:UNIFORM RULES: STANDING COMMITTEES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)GUESS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/26/01 0728 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/26/01 0728 (H) EDU, HES
03/26/01 0728 (H) REFERRED TO EDU
01/16/02 1990 (H) COSPONSOR(S): STEVENS
01/22/02 2034 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN
WITNESS REGISTER
WOODY WILSON, Superintendent
Wrangell City School District
P.O. Box 2319
Wrangell, Alaska 99929
POSITION STATEMENT: Reported on Wrangell's service learning
program.
K.D. ROOPE, Student
Wrangell City School District
P.O. Box 2176
Wrangell, Alaska 99929
POSITION STATEMENT: During the service learning report, briefed
members on her experience with service learning in the Wrangell
School District.
CAROL KANE, Executive Director
Alaska Association of Secondary School Principals
P.O. Box 2889
Palmer, Alaska 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of rehiring RIP-
retired teachers.
MARK JONES, UniServe Director
National Education Association - Alaska (NEA-Alaska)
1840 South Bragaw Street, Suite 100
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of rehiring RIP-retired
teachers, informed members of NEA-Alaska's efforts in
establishing teacher mentoring programs.
ELMER LINDSTROM, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110601
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0601
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the department's position on
consent for student surveys; recommended passive parental
consent.
LARRY WIGET, Executive Director
Public Affairs
Anchorage School District (ASD)
P.O. Box 196614
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6614
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of student surveys,
expressed support for modifying the current requirements for
parental consent; reported that the ASD has had difficulty
obtaining active parental consent.
JEAN MISCHEL, Assistant Attorney General
Human Services Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Briefed members on the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) and how it applies to the Department of
Education and Early Development.
BETH NORDLUND, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
801 West Tenth Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: During report to the committee on the APA,
offered to obtain more detailed information.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-4, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR CON BUNDE called the House Special Committee on Education
meeting to order at 8:03 a.m. Representatives Bunde, Porter,
Wilson, Stevens, Joule, and Guess were present at the call to
order.
WORK SESSION ON TEACHER SHORTAGE: Service Learning Report
CHAIR BUNDE announced the first order of business would be the
Service Learning Report.
Number 0130
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON reported that the Wrangell School District
requires a service learning component for seniors and
participants in extracurricular activities.
CHAIR BUNDE indicated his concerns about youths' lack of
"attachment" to society. Service learning has helped to
establish an attachment in some areas of the country, he
offered.
Number 0255
WOODY WILSON, Superintendent, Wrangell City School District,
reported on Wrangell's service learning program. He stated that
service learning "draws a connection from the students to the
community, and [from] the community to the school." One of the
primary reasons Wrangell has a service learning program is to
ensure that the community recognizes the work it does for the
students. The program also helps students recognize the
community's contribution to their lives, and it gives them a
chance to reciprocate. He referenced materials given to members
outlining the three kinds of service learning in Wrangell.
Number 0343
MR. WILSON said the first kind is the senior project required
for graduation. Each senior must complete a project that gives
something back to the community. State standards are integrated
into these projects, he indicated. Public speaking and
presenting is one requirement of the senior project that targets
a standard. He noted that presentations must be electronic;
PowerPoint and electronic video are just two examples of the use
of technology in the senior project presentations.
MR. WILSON explained that the second type of service learning in
Wrangell is the activity participation. Due to budget
constraints, the Wrangell district does not pay for state travel
for students in extracurricular activities. All travel expenses
are paid through fundraising in the community. A student gives
back to the community by performing 16 hours of community
service for each activity in which he/she is involved. This is
in addition to the senior project, he added.
Number 0524
MR. WILSON pointed out that service learning is not provided
without cost. Facilitation of the service learning programs
requires at least one-eighth of a teacher's time and sometimes
in excess of one-fourth of a teacher's time, depending on the
number of students, he indicated.
Number 0574
CHAIR BUNDE inquired how much one-eighth of a teacher costs in
Wrangell.
MR. WILSON responded that with benefits, the cost would be
$8,000 to $12,000.
CHAIR BUNDE suggested that this figure could be used to
extrapolate costs for larger schools.
MR. WILSON noted that Wrangell's service learning programs
require a great deal of organization with recordkeeping and
oversight.
Number 0665
K.D. ROOPE, Student, Wrangell City School District, reported on
her senior project. She explained that she worked with the swim
team coach after school several times a week. She assisted with
the coaching of younger swimmers. She observed that a student's
knowledge and past experience often play a role in benefiting
the community through his/her senior project. She indicated her
presentation would include an "iMovie" [using Apple Computer
software] about her work with swimmers.
Number 0730
CHAIR BUNDE asked if students experience difficulty finding
projects.
MS. ROOPE responded that some students are temporarily "up in
the air" about project selection. She noted a large range of
activities for students to choose from. Students have taught
photography and sign language classes; assisted preschool and
elementary teachers; and organized art festivals, plays,
musicals, and wrestling tournaments. She indicated she didn't
know of any student unable to identify a project.
Number 0794
CHAIR BUNDE inquired if students chose projects such as cleaning
up parks or vandalized property.
MS. ROOPE replied that some students train for their emergency
trauma training (ETT) certification or become junior
firefighters. Students have done recycling projects, she added.
Number 0838
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS commended Ms. Roope for her presentation,
and expressed his appreciation for hearing from a student. He
asked her to identify the value she had received from her senior
project.
MS. ROOPE acknowledged that students might initially be
reluctant to do a senior project. She suggested that one value
of the project is the identifying of interests on the part of
the seniors. Students also receive satisfaction from their work
on the projects.
Number 0927
CHAIR BUNDE asked whether many students felt frustrated or angry
about the requirement.
MS. ROOPE responded, "We might complain a little bit, but I
really don't think there's anyone who would absolutely not do
it."
Number 0953
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE commented that the roles within a family
have changed over the years, especially in outlying areas. The
introduction of modern amenities to villages has eliminated the
need for some important contributions by family members, he
explained; these roles gave family members a "sense of where
their place" was. He observed that much idle time resulted from
this change. He emphasized that when a meaningful role [for a
person] is found in the community, it adds value for the
individual. He commended the Wrangell City School District for
its efforts. He surmised that this validation of students
through service learning programs contributes to higher self-
esteem. He expressed his wish for more districts to do the
same. He emphasized that an important issue is idle time.
Number 1065
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that the community of Wrangell
looks forward to the community service projects and
presentations by the seniors.
CHAIR BUNDE noted that community support is a vital ingredient
in this type of program. He congratulated Ms. Roope for her
leadership.
Number 1191
CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony on service learning.
Number 1232
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS observed that Wrangell's service learning
program offsets student travel costs. Although the program
requires administration costs, it results in a savings to the
district. He noted that many districts might be addressing the
cost of travel.
WORK SESSION ON TEACHER SHORTAGE: Regional Training Centers
Report
CHAIR BUNDE announced that the next order of business would be
the Regional Training Centers Report.
Number 1362
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE thanked Gwen Cornelius for researching this
topic. He described the current situation as including few
teachers, little opportunity to feel a part of the workforce,
and a limited frame of reference for students. He said part of
this concept of regional learning centers is to utilize hub
communities to give students a chance to address academic issues
as well as career and job opportunities. Opportunities provided
by regional learning centers include the exposure to a different
environment, the potential to earn college credit or vocational
[certification], and the chance to gain experience as part of
the workforce.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE suggested that using grades beyond grade 12
would assist some students with a more seamless transition to
postsecondary education. It would also allow students who are
unable to pass the qualifying exam by grade 12 additional
opportunities to advance their education, either through
certification through vocational education programs or by
earning college credit.
Number 1472
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE highlighted what some districts are
currently doing to address this issue. He pointed out that the
Chugach School District has won some national awards and, in his
opinion, has been a model for smaller schools. The Anchorage
House, run by the Chugach district, provides rural students with
an opportunity to live short-term in the city and be responsible
for their own living by following a budget. Students also have
educational opportunities while in Anchorage, he stated.
Students as young as fifth grade begin by visiting Anchorage for
three days at a time; older students visit Anchorage to
participate in on-the-job mentoring and other activities.
Number 1560
CHAIR BUNDE added that participating in the Anchorage House is a
requirement, especially for older students. They must get
hands-on experience at jobs and be responsible for their own
room and board, he said.
Number 1590
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE added that parents are now being brought in
to be more supportive of their children. This program is now
open to students in other districts as well. The Lower
Kuskokwim School District (LKSD) has the Bethel Alternative
Boarding School (BABS) program; it was begun in 1997 to meet the
needs of at-risk students. He said he visited the school
several years ago and met with staff and students, many of whom
were from smaller villages. He pointed out that later in the
day he saw students working at jobs. The program is open to 35
students.
Number 1663
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE discussed a forthcoming LKSD program, Yuut
Elit Naur Diat, for grades 9-12, which is open to students in
the region, not just those in the school district. The district
foresees a 200-250 student capacity, he indicated. The program
is funded by a United States Department of Agriculture and
United States Department of the Interior grant; the governor's
budget proposes an allocation for this program, he stated. Yuut
Elit Naur Diat is a consortium of 19 organizations to provide
vocational education in areas needed in the region including
health, construction trades, technology, and education fields.
The program will run year-round, he added.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE stated that Project Education in Galena
boards 72 students from all over the state; it has been running
for five years and has a 97-percent return rate. The focus of
the program is postsecondary education and careers. The
district has gone beyond state funding and partnered with other
entities such as the U.S. Air Force, Suzuki, General Motors,
Compaq, and Frontier Flying. Project Education has strict
policies on attendance and grade-point average. He also noted
that students in the program who fail to pass any portion of the
exit exam must attend daily, after-school tutoring.
Number 1752
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referenced legislation sponsored by
Representative Richard Foster last year that addressed the
creation of a regional learning center. The Northwest Arctic
Borough School District is considering an expansion to grade 14,
he said. One concern with students coming in [from remote
villages] is the lack of housing. Students would be placed in
the community; a stipend for this housing is a matter that needs
to be addressed. He added that the vo-tech center and the
University of Alaska Fairbanks, College of Rural Alaska, Chukchi
Campus would be used to obtain credits and work toward
certification.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE expressed his interest in the interactive
TV provided in the Aleutians East Borough School District.
Students in remote sites are able to participate in live classes
taught by instructors in a different location; this is 90-
percent funded by E-Rate monies. He stated that this is a way
to utilize teacher expertise and deliver instruction to remote
students. He referenced a report by the Joint Legislative
Budget and Audit Committee that indicates an increased interest
in additional boarding schools. These regional schools allow
for opportunities for instruction and employment in these hub
centers.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE noted that job opportunities in the
villages are limited. He expressed his opinion that some people
might be interested in job sharing in a hub community; this has
worked well in the oil and mining industries. "There may be
some innovative things that we can do in terms of stimulating
the economies ... in those communities," he concluded.
Number 2002
CHAIR BUNDE recognized that Representative Joule had addressed
potential concern that a resurgence in boarding schools would be
a step back to "pre-Molly Hootch" days. He noted that
Representative Joule had also addressed the issue of a "brain
drain" created in villages when people move away to work.
Number 2040
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE agreed these are important issues. He
pointed out that the doctors in Kotzebue are not from the
region; these positions could be job-shared by local residents
trained at a regional learning center run by nonprofits. "I
think the health boards would be tickled pink to ... be able to
hire people from their area, and allow them to come in on a
rotating schedule and job share," he said. Half of a doctor's
salary goes a long way in a village, he added. Subsidized
housing in the hub community would help offset the cost of
living for job-sharing medical workers, he said. He stated that
there are other questions that need to be answered.
Number 2133
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS emphasized the importance of learning
from the past regarding regional boarding schools. He agreed
boarding schools can give students some advantages, but noted
that some disadvantages also exist. He offered that much of the
Native leadership in the state had attended Mount Edgecumbe High
School. He urged members to identify what went wrong with
boarding schools in the past.
Number 2173
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE suggested the committee's role might be to
foster districts' plans for boarding schools, but not to dictate
that regional boarding schools be put in place. He said this
regional learning center concept is different from a boarding
school concept. He added that Native corporations would play a
central role in the regional boarding schools. He continued:
Aviation and ... the federal government, in many parts
of the state, [are] a major employer. We're
continuing to import a lot of our workforce. And this
allows us the opportunity ... to show our students
what their opportunities are right there. ... I think
we'd be remiss not to afford some of those districts
that are willing to take this kind of a step to do
that. ... We have to find a way to grow our own, and
we won't if people do not understand that those
opportunities exist.
Number 2274
CHAIR BUNDE observed that this information gives members and the
public a good understanding of what is happening now and what
could happen. He agreed that the state should not try to impose
boarding schools, but should facilitate ideas from the "bottom
up."
Number 2296
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON offered that individual school district's
plans would spring from a specific need within the district.
Wrangell's service learning program was developed out of a need
for extracurricular funding, she said. She stated that
districts are responding to the need for students who wish to
remain near home to receive their education. Districts have
accounted for shortcomings in the old boarding school model and
are shaping new programs to transition students smoothly from
home. She suggested the committee's role might be to encourage
and allow for districts' development of plans, but not mandate
the formation of boarding schools.
HB 211-FOUNDATION FORMULA INCREASE
Number 2386
CHAIR BUNDE announced the next order of business, HOUSE BILL NO.
211, "An Act requiring an annual inflation adjustment of the
base student allocation used in the formula for state funding of
public education; and providing for an effective date."
TAPE 02-4, SIDE B
Number 2400
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS, sponsor of HB 211, drew members' attention
to Amendment 1, noting that it simply makes HB 211 current.
Amendment 1 reads [original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, line 6, Delete [$3,940], Insert $4010
Page 1, line 10, Delete [1999], Insert 2000
Page 1, line 11, Delete [2001], Insert 2002
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to adopt Amendment 1. There being
no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS stated her intent to move HB 211 out of
committee with members' concurrence. She expressed her belief
that HB 211 is good education policy by inflation-proofing the
Foundation Formula. She expressed her desire for the House
Finance Committee to debate whether HB 211 is good fiscal
policy; she believes it is.
Number 2359
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that she approves of HB 211.
She noted that per-pupil funding in Wrangell has decreased in
the last 11 years, while inflation during that period was 35
percent.
Number 2301
CHAIR BUNDE asked for clarification on the inflation figure.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON responded that this figure resulted from
adding the state's annual inflation rate over those 11 years.
CHAIR BUNDE noted that school funding during the 1980s might
have been an excessive figure on which to base these
calculations. He expressed his opinion that should the
legislature spend any additional money this year, it should be
in education; he said, however, that he thought this money had
already been spent.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE moved to report CSHB 211 [HB 211, as
amended] out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes.
CHAIR BUNDE objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Wilson, Stevens,
Joule, Guess, and Porter voted to move the bill from committee.
Representative Bunde voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 211(EDU)
was moved out of the House Special Committee on Education by a
vote of 5-1.
WORK SESSION ON TEACHER SHORTAGE: Rehiring RIP-Retired Teachers
[Contains discussion of what became HB 416]
Number 2222
CHAIR BUNDE announced that the next order of business would be
the Rehiring of RIP-Retired Teachers.
Number 2167
CAROL KANE, Executive Director, Alaska Association of Secondary
School Principals, testified via teleconference in favor of the
rehiring eligibility for teachers who retired under the
Retirement Incentive Program (RIP). She said she thinks it is
important to include administrators in that eligibility. There
is a critical shortage of teachers, principals, and other school
personnel. This proposed inclusion would help districts meet
needs in special education, counseling, and administration, she
stated; it might also entice people into the profession.
Rehired, experienced teachers and administrators could serve as
mentors to those new to the field. She also noted that
districts would save money on salaries and retirement benefits.
Number 2129
MS. KANE said Alaska no longer has competitive teachers'
salaries when compared to other states. Other states are
offering signing bonuses, living expenses, and loan advantages
to teachers and administrators; these states are taking away
some of Alaska's best retirees, who could benefit Alaska. She
stated that Alaska has exemplary teachers and administrators,
and she encouraged members to help districts retain [these
employees]. She pointed out that principals would be visiting
Juneau and meeting with legislators on April 1 and 2; she
offered the principals' assistance to members.
Number 2079
CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Kane how many teachers would have been
hired under this bill's provisions, had it already been in law.
MS. KANE responded that she didn't have specific numbers, but
said it would have helped her human resources director in his
acquisition of special education teachers and school counselors.
Number 2050
CHAIR BUNDE asked about current shortages in Ms. Kane's
district.
MS. KANE replied that she didn't have specific numbers and
offered to provide them to the committee later.
CHAIR BUNDE indicated these figures would be made part of the
proposed bill's record. He offered that in most cases,
districts have rehired just one or two retired teachers.
Earlier comments suggested that this inclusion of RIP-retired
teachers would not solve the entire problem but would provide an
additional tool, he concluded.
Number 2010
MARK JONES, UniServe Director, National Education Association -
Alaska (NEA-Alaska), pointed out several problems pertaining to
education that are facing all states: How do we enhance the
quality of instruction? How do we attract and retain the best
and the brightest? How do we continually improve the quality of
instruction in the classroom? He offered that he believes
mentoring is a tool that will address most of the aforementioned
issues. Mr. Jones noted that in order to appreciate this
point, one needs to look at the teaching profession
historically. He said:
Historically, teaching is a very lonely and isolated
profession. It's one of the few professions that I
know of where a person comes out of school, is placed
into a confined classroom with four walls and a door,
and is expected to take off and produce high-quality
outcomes from the get-go.
Very few opportunities are built into the school
setting for teachers to interact with each other, to
share ideas, to nurture each other, to learn together.
So, in the bigger picture, mentoring is part of the
creation, I believe, of a learning environment within
a school. It is the creation of a collegial
environment with professional teachers providing
tutoring, mentoring, and educational or instructional
leadership to their colleagues.
Number 1900
MR. JONES noted that he has been working to establish mentor
programs throughout the state. National Education Association-
Alaska has been concerned about new teachers coming into the
state and the correlated high turnover rate when these teachers
arrive ill prepared. Ketchikan has a mentor program in place
that was established by NEA-Alaska about five years ago.
MR. JONES offered insight into mentoring based on NEA-Alaska's
experience. Mentoring is not a casual relationship or a "buddy"
system. Selection of mentors must be based on well-defined
criteria; these mentors must receive a curriculum of study that
helps them understand adult-learning processes; and both mentor
and protégé need time during the day to interact with each other
for demonstration, observation, exchange of ideas, and to
address problems and concerns.
MR. JONES referenced private-sector studies of mentoring
programs that indicate confidentiality in the mentor-protégé
relationship is critical. In several ad-hoc mentoring programs
in the state, administrators are asking mentors for input for
the protégé's evaluation, he noted. As a result, the trust has
deteriorated between the mentor and protégé, so it is an
ineffective relationship.
Number 1829
MR. JONES cited statistics from a study conducted by Marshall
Goldsmith, a well-known mentor trainer. In comparison studies,
the progress of protégés in confidential mentor relationships is
35 percent greater than in mentoring situations in which the
mentor is part of the evaluation process. He said NEA-Alaska is
interested in creating Alaska Native paraprofessional
partnerships with teachers who are new to the community. He
told the committee:
We believe that teachers coming from outside the state
into an Alaska Native village have no concept of what
they're dealing with. Often, by the time they have
discovered what the cultural distinctions are, they
have made mistakes that have alienated them from the
community. They have become ... dissatisfied because
they don't know how to interact with people
effectively, and, as a result, many of them leave. We
believe that if we could effectively train and prepare
Alaska Native paraprofessionals to serve as mentors,
... we would deal with the cultural conflicts that
occur when new teachers arrive in the state.
MR. JONES indicated NEA-Alaska's goal of organizing communities
and bringing them into the mentoring process. He concluded by
stating that mentorship touches on the retention, educational
quality, and induction issues facing members. He offered to
submit written testimony pertaining to these issues.
Number 1707
CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Jones about NEA-Alaska's position on the
rehiring of RIP-retired teachers.
MR. JONES replied that NEA-Alaska is concerned about the use of
the retirement system as a supplementary compensation program
for teachers. However, the organization is sensitive to the
shortage issues schools are facing in special education, speech
[therapy], occupational therapy, school psychology, and some
higher-level math and science courses. He offered that bringing
back retirees as a short-term solution is a critical tool. He
emphasized that long-term solutions to these problems must be
found.
Number 1645
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Mr. Jones to elaborate on the
statistics presented regarding results of mentor programs and
the inclusion of the mentor in the protégé's evaluation.
MR. JONES said he could provide more information in written
form. In general, the success rates in the study were
determined by criteria defined by the employer, the employee,
and the mentor. For example, a protégé might identify classroom
management as a primary concern and then specify particular
classroom management issues with which he/she has problems. The
mentoring partnership would systematically work at remedying
each specific problem. He explained that in situations in which
the protégé knows confidentiality exists, he/she would be more
forthcoming with perceptions and weaknesses. According to these
studies, a 35 percent better success rate in meeting those
defined goals existed in mentoring situations where
confidentiality existed than in situations where the mentor was
involved in the protégé's evaluation process. The definition of
success is individualized in each mentoring situation.
Number 1530
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked for clarification on the parties
setting the goals for improvement.
MR. JONES answered that the goals in most of the studies were
set [collaboratively] by the mentor, the protégé, and the
employer. In private-sector mentoring situations, the mentoring
program is generally established because certain performance
criteria are not being met. In education, he pointed out, NEA-
Alaska is advocating mentoring as a general course in the
induction process.
Number 1433
CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony on the subject of rehiring
RIP-retired teachers. He requested direction from members
regarding potential committee-sponsored legislation to repeal
the RIP prohibition. He recounted that the report from the
Division of Retirement and Benefits is that such a bill would
have no negative actuarial impact on the retirement fund.
Number 1421
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS offered that the committee has studied
this subject quite carefully. He said [a bill to this end]
would provide an additional option to school districts. He
noted the uncertainty regarding how many teachers might actually
be rehired under this proposed legislation, but said it would be
a value to districts. He suggested that the House Special
Committee on Education should sponsor such a bill.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if there was any objection. He noted that
there was no objection and that a committee bill would be
drafted. [The legislation under discussion later was introduced
as HB 416.]
HCR 11-UNIFORM RULES: STANDING COMMITTEES
[Contains discussion of what became HCR 23]
Number 1366
CHAIR BUNDE announced the next order of business to be HOUSE
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 11, Proposing an amendment to the
Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature relating to the
Education Committee, a standing committee of the legislature.
Number 1326
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS, sponsor of HCR 11, noted that she was not
present for previous committee discussion on this subject. She
indicated many committee members have communicated to her their
interest in seeing this bill move forward. She announced her
willingness to reintroduce this as a committee bill and offered
to do the work necessary.
CHAIR BUNDE noted his understanding that HCR 11 would require
adjustments [to become a committee resolution].
Number 1291
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS offered that she would seek direction from
more seasoned members. House Concurrent Resolution 11 has a
companion in the Senate [SCR 3]. She outlined two options: The
committee could go forward with this resolution, see what the
Senate does, and perhaps amend it later; or the committee could
amend it now [to address the establishment of a House Education
Standing Committee]. She said that she has not explored this
subject with the Senate; she noted her willingness to do so.
CHAIR BUNDE requested members' comments on the subject.
Number 1238
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER suggested that if the House wished to
consider a standing education committee for the House alone, a
resolution would be needed to establish a special committee.
CHAIR BUNDE clarified that it would be a standing committee.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER offered that he didn't have a preference
regarding [the education committee's remaining a special
committee or becoming a standing committee], but said it is a
worthwhile discussion.
Number 1180
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said her experience as a member of both
the House Special Committee on Education (HEDU) and the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee (HHES)
is that both committees "have their hands full." So many issues
exist that it is difficult to adequately address them all in one
committee. She pointed out that most states separate education
and health and social services, as two committees.
CHAIR BUNDE concurred with Representative Wilson. He noted that
as a former chair of HHES, he'd received surprised responses
from legislators of other states upon their discovery that
[Alaska's legislature combines education with health and social
services].
Number 1124
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS echoed Representative Wilson's remarks in
response to Representative Porter's comment. She offered an
example. There was a good policy debate in HEDU on HB 211; the
resolution will now move to HHES for the same policy debate.
However, the debate now should be a fiscal policy issue. She
expressed concern that if HEDU remains a special committee, the
policy debate will continue to be duplicated in HHES; she
questioned whether this is the best thing for the House. With
two standing committees, one group would focus on education and
the other on health and social services matters.
Number 1089
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS furnished that much had already been said
that he had wanted to say. He noted that the three freshmen
members on HEDU might not have the same perspective as longer-
serving members. He conveyed his appreciation for the
establishment of the HEDU committee, where members have been
able to concentrate on important issues. These issues are not
going away, he said, and education is a large portion of the
budget. The education issues would have been cumbersome in HHES
in combination with health and social services issues. He
indicated his support for establishing a standing education
committee.
CHAIR BUNDE requested that this be addressed as only a House
issue to be brought before HEDU for consideration.
Number 1020
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS inquired whether Chair Bunde preferred a
House committee resolution or for her to resubmit this
resolution.
CHAIR BUNDE indicated his preference to create a resolution to
establish a standing education committee in the House; the
Senate can do likewise if it deems it necessary.
Number 0978
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER raised the question of whether the House
can establish a standing committee that requires a rule change
without affecting the Senate. He suggested this issue be
broached with Legislative Legal and Research Services.
CHAIR BUNDE agreed with Representative Porter's suggestion. He
added that this proposed resolution might be stronger as a
committee resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS indicated her concurrence to make this a
committee resolution.
Number 0927
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired about the committee placement of
early-development issues; she said she was not present for that
discussion. She offered her understanding that most states put
it in a health and social services committee.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER offered that this administration has given
the Department of Education and Early Development (EED) a title
that includes early development; this may not always be the
case, however. He remarked, "I don't think we should probably
get that adventurous at this stage."
Number 0865
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS expressed her understanding that the
Uniform Rules specify the departments; right now, early
development is in with education. If that changes, then the
Uniform Rules would change, she said. [The committee resolution
under discussion was introduced later as HCR 23.]
DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE COMMITTEE BILL ON STUDENT SURVEYS
[Contains discussion of what became HB 408]
CHAIR BUNDE turned attention to discussion of another possible
committee bill, on student surveys. He explained that the
administration had asked him to address this issue, so he'd
chosen to bring it before the committee.
Number 0802
ELMER LINDSTROM, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Health and
Social Services, offered that the department is interested, for
a variety of reasons, in gathering reliable health data through
anonymous health surveys conducted in the schools. Such surveys
are a longstanding practice, he observed; the Youth Risk
Behavior Survey is the "gold standard" among these surveys.
MR. LINDSTROM explained that several years ago legislation was
passed to change the consent mechanism from passive to active.
The passive consent requires parents to opt out if they do not
want their children to participate in the survey. Active
consent requires parents to choose to have their children
participate in the survey. He stated that this has proven
impossible for school districts to garner a level of
participation that provides for valid data. He pointed to
nationwide research regarding anonymous surveys; information
about this is in the committee packet.
Number 0712
MR. LINDSTROM summarized that most of the research concludes
that parents don't typically object to these surveys being
conducted. "Leakage" occurs between the time a child is given a
document in school and the time it should return to the school.
In most instances, parents do not object to these types of
surveys; parents who object can opt out.
MR. LINDSTROM noted that the department is interested in
returning to the passive parental consent mechanism. Districts'
ability to apply for significant funding is what is at stake;
data from these surveys is used to bolster the need for funding.
He stated that the Department of Education and Early Development
(EED), the public health infrastructure, and other state
agencies have similar uses for this data. He emphasized that
this is valuable information. The current system is not
working, and the department wishes to return to a system that
does work.
Number 0628
MR. LINDSTROM reported that he's had extensive conversations
with the sponsor of the legislation that changed the consent to
active; he said concern was expressed when the legislation was
introduced that active parental consent would prove to be
problematic. Mr. Lindstrom offered that the sponsor had
assured the department at the time that if it proved to be
problematic, he would be willing to revisit the issue. "He is a
man ... of his word and has indicated that he understands how
problematic it has been," Mr. Lindstrom said. He noted that he
felt awkward, as a Department of Health and Social Services
representative, testifying before the House Special Committee on
Education. This is a [proposed] bill that would affect
education statutes, he pointed out. It is an issue important to
both departments.
Number 0554
CHAIR BUNDE related his confidence in Mr. Lindstrom's testimony.
He inquired, however, about a memo from the governor's chief of
staff which indicated, he said, that the Office of the Governor
is going to do what it can to make the governor look good and
the legislative majority look bad. He sought Mr. Lindstrom's
assurance that this was not an attempt to put the legislative
majority "in a box."
MR. LINDSTROM replied, "You have my absolute guarantee on that,
Mr. Chairman, and I will be sitting here at this table speaking
for the administration in support of this [proposed] legislation
every step of the way."
Number 0509
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS asked if this [proposed] legislation would
give the option to school districts to choose passive or active
parental consent.
MR. LINDSTROM noted his uncertainty regarding whether a bill had
yet been drafted.
CHAIR BUNDE confirmed that it had not yet been drafted. He
clarified that the question was how the system of passive
consent had worked before it was changed.
MR. LINDSTROM offered his recollection that districts were
allowed to choose the consent mechanism. He indicated that this
is the department's preference. He stated that he would be
surprised if many districts chose active consent because it is
extremely expensive.
Number 0430
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER recounted that the change from passive to
active consent included specific wording that would exclude
asking students what they had for breakfast, for example. He
asked for more details on the language.
MR. LINDSTROM replied that there are a number of surveys, but
most discussion centered on the Youth Risk Behavior Survey that
surveys topics such as alcohol and drug use, sexual activity,
and other topics. He acknowledged that concerns about that were
understandable. He emphasized that these are anonymous surveys;
in no way are they ever attributable to any individual. A child
always has the ability to not answer a specific question or
simply not take the survey.
Number 0337
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked whether the active consent law
automatically precluded Alaska's receipt of federal grants.
MR. LINDSTROM responded that the lack of a valid, representative
sample results in the survey's uselessness for the purpose of
suggesting to a granting agency that this is what the data
indicates.
CHAIR BUNDE offered his understanding that it was an issue of
the number of students actually participating in the survey.
Number 0264
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS noted the importance of remembering why
education exists. He characterized not knowing what is
happening with students as "flying blind"; changes in student
behavior need to be monitored. He said, "As long as ... it's
anonymous, it seems like it is necessary that we have these
facts so we can help students, which is why we are spending so
much of our money and our energy and our time in education. So,
I think it's a very appropriate thing for us to make this
change."
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS stated, "I think we should do this. I
think not only is it important to have the data, it's important
for local control." She added that the state should not be
telling districts they must do this one way or the other.
TAPE 02-5, SIDE A
Number 0001
LARRY WIGET, Executive Director, Public Affairs, Anchorage
School District, testified via teleconference. He indicated
that the Anchorage School District School Board supports
modifying the requirements for parental permission for student
participation in surveys. He noted that it is difficult to
obtain [reliable] data from surveys and questionnaires with the
use of active parental consent. He pointed to the ASD's Safe
and Drug-Free School (SDFS) program that currently has seven
grants requiring survey data. During the fall of 1999, federal
auditors put the ASD's SDFS program on notice that is was
bordering on noncompliance due to lack of current data. The
SDFS program lost three grants totaling $296,916. Other grants
have not been applied for because the criteria indicated that
without contemporary data, the application would not be
competitive.
Number 0097
MR. WIGET explained that the ASD has tried a number of
strategies to fulfill the requirements of the current statute.
The district's return rates on secondary school surveys are low
- from 5 to 30 percent. He indicated that the district had
spent a substantive amount to gain permission to survey students
with little success. He concluded that the inability for the
district to obtain the necessary data from anonymous surveys is
impeding its ability to successfully compete for federal grants.
CHAIR BUNDE requested that Mr. Wiget submit his written
testimony. He mentioned that Bruce Johnson, Association of
Alaska School Boards, had distributed testimony pertaining to
this matter. Chair Bunde closed public testimony and asked
members for input on pursuing this subject as a committee bill.
Number 0217
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON stated that she thinks this is very
important, and [districts] should be given the option to choose
passive consent.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER noted that he would be asking, upon the
bill's hearing by the committee, whether this is just an easier
way for this information to be obtained, although the school
districts might have done a better job of informing parents.
This [proposed change] would enable both active parent
participation and the [requisite return rate for reliable] data.
He observed, "It would certainly be easy to say, 'Well, it's not
working, because we sent Johnny home with a piece of paper and
it didn't come back.' There's got to be ... a better way of
getting that active permission." He stated his desire to hear
about some strategies that have been tried.
Number 0316
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked if the permission currently
required is blanket permission [for the entire school year] or
is required for each survey administered.
CHAIR BUNDE suggested that questions be reserved to the time of
the bill's hearing. [The legislation under discussion later was
introduced as HB 408.]
REPORT ON EED AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
CHAIR BUNDE announced the final order of business, a report on
the Department of Education and Early Development (EED) and the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
CHAIR BUNDE explained that his office has received inquiries
about why the EED isn't under the APA. He pointed out the logic
of having a uniform way for citizens to appeal decisions by any
department. He noted that Department of Law personnel were
present to give a legal perspective on this matter.
Number 0440
JEAN MISCHEL, Assistant Attorney General, Human Services
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, told
members she represents EED and was present to explain the APA's
applicability to EED programs. She clarified that the APA does
apply to EED in part; it applies to some decisions the
department makes. She noted that this is fairly typical for
state agencies. She referenced Appendix A of the Hearing
Officer's Manual, provided to members, which outlines the types
of agency decisions that are under the APA and those that
aren't; she said that is covered in the [APA] "applicability
section."
Number 0534
CHAIR BUNDE inquired whether "under APA" indicated the [agency]
was fully under the APA, and whether "not under APA" implies the
agency is fully or partially not under the APA.
MS. MISCHEL replied:
Unless there is a specific category of decision-
making, it is total ... for those decisions requiring
due process. Agencies make all kinds of decisions
that don't require due process proceedings. An
example of that from the Department of Education and
Early Development's perspective is special education
complaints.
MS. MISCHEL reported that [EED] does independent complaint
investigation that is not a due process hearing, per se; it is
an independent investigation. Expert consultants are hired to
conduct these investigations; these experts recommend corrective
actions, if any are required. She compared this to [EED's]
oversight, nondecision-making role in special education
identification and placement. These decisions are made at the
local district level.
MS. MISCHEL drew attention to page A-2, wherein a school
district is not under the APA. She said it would be a major
shift in policy to place local decisions under the APA. She
added, "What HB 71 did last year was assign the appointment
responsibilities for hearing officers for those due process
hearings to the state. But the decision itself is a local
decision that's appealed under separate due process rules."
Number 0679
MS. MISCHEL offered that those [separate] due process rules are
largely dictated by federal rules. She stated that it is a
compliance issue for accepting large amounts of federal funding.
It is important to note, she said, that this listing [in
Appendix A] is somewhat incomplete; EED must follow the APA for
teacher certification and child-care facility licensing
decisions. These fit well in the APA because the APA is geared
toward licensing decisions, she added.
CHAIR BUNDE offered his understanding that some functions of the
department are under APA, while others - specifically in the
special [education] arena - aren't.
MS. MISCHEL replied, "That's right." She added that in the
special education arena, there are two types of procedures: one
involves a local decision, and one involves a department
recommendation. She explained that there are many other
decisions that do not fall under the APA. Those decisions
include school funding allocation decisions, capital improvement
project priority decisions, some transportation [decisions], and
bid procedure [decisions]. Regulations, however, set out the
bid procedures and the appeal rights. She added that another
example of a non-APA decision is the future waivers pertaining
to the High School Graduation Qualifying Exam (HSGQE).
Number 0833
MS. MISCHEL said one difficulty with putting the current list of
non-APA decisions in the APA column relates to the lack of
efficiency built into the APA process. She suggested members
compare the requirements between special education due process
requirements and APA requirements. The special education due
process requirements are far more restrictive, more efficient,
and geared toward protecting parent and student rights; the
burden of proof is different, and parents have up to 12 months
to request a due process hearing on a school district decision,
she explained.
MS. MISCHEL further explained that the Administrative Procedure
Act allows a party 15 days to appeal a final decision issued by
a state agency. Once a hearing is requested under the APA, a
decision could take 6 months to a year. The special education
due process requirements call for a decision to be made within
45 days from the date of the hearing request; it is a quick and
efficient system. She added that it keeps the child in the
correct placement or provides appropriate services in a timelier
manner.
Number 0947
CHAIR BUNDE pointed out members' understanding of the need for
the difference between special education and APA regulations.
He suggested that members broaden their questions.
Number 0954
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked for clarification on the federal
regulations' superseding of state regulations.
MS. MISCHEL indicated that [federal regulations supersede state
regulations] only in the sense that a state's noncompliance with
federal regulations risks the loss of federal funding. Alaska
has adopted both statutory and regulatory procedures consistent
with federal requirements; these have been adopted by reference.
In fact, she offered, state law prevails in Alaska, but the law
has been structured to be consistent with federal rules.
Number 1017
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON observed that when parents contest [a
decision] involving a student, a resolution should be reached
before the school year is concluded. She asked Ms. Mischel to
elaborate on this matter.
MS. MISCHEL explained that this matter is the reason for the
short timelines in the special education arena. She offered
that another good example of the difference between the APA
procedures and the special education due process procedures is
that the latter have a "stay put" provision. This means a
child's placement may not change during the hearing proceedings
except in very limited circumstances involving drugs, alcohol,
or weapons, she noted. Even in these limited circumstances,
there is a ten-day time limit on removing the child from the
school. She stated that the intent of the timelines is to get
the student back to where he/she is supposed to be.
CHAIR BUNDE asked EED personnel to expound on the portions of
EED that do fall under the APA.
Number 1107
BETH NORDLUND, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Education and Early Development, indicated that
she was uncertain about this matter. She offered to research
this further and report to the committee. She suggested that
Ms. Mischel, as EED's lawyer, was quite familiar with [which
department decisions are under the APA requirements].
CHAIR BUNDE observed that it would be of interest to the
committee to know which [EED decisions] fall under the APA. He
asked for a breakdown of which procedures currently fall under
the APA and which will do so in the future. He noted that this
would give the public an idea of the appeals process.
MS. MISCHEL said she would be happy to do so. She clarified
that non-APA decisions have a separate set of hearing procedures
that are either in statute or regulation. These procedures are
made known to an appellant by the department, she concluded.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1201
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Education meeting was adjourned at 9:50
a.m.