SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE February 22, 1999 1:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Mike Miller, Chairman Senator Pete Kelly, Vice-Chairman Senator Gary Wilken Senator Drue Pearce Senator Kim Elton MEMBERS ABSENT All members present COMMITTEE CALENDAR Briefing on AASB Standards by the Association of Alaska School Boards SENATE BILL NO. 27 "An Act relating to school records and driver license records of certain children." -HEARD AND HELD PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION No previous action to report WITNESS REGISTER Mr. Norm Wooten, President The Association of Alaska School Boards Kodiak Island Borough School District Kodiak, Alaska Ms. Mari-Anne Gross, President-Elect The Association of Alaska School Boards Kenai Peninsula Borough School District Kenai, Alaska Mr. Carl Rose, Executive Director The Association of Alaska School Boards 316 W. 11th St. Juneau, AK 99801 Ms. Jana Sam, Student Yukon-Koyukuk School District Huslia, Alaska Senator Loren Leman Alaska State Capitol Juneau, AK 99801-1182 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 27 Mr. Mike Pauley, Staff Senator Loren Leman Alaska State Capitol Juneau, AK 99801-1182 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 27 Ms. Mona Maehara, Director Council on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault 450 Whittier St. Juneau, AK 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 27 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 99-06, SIDE A Number 001 CHAIRMAN MILLER called the Senate Health, Education and Social Services (HESS) Committee to order at 1:30 p.m. and announced the order of business would be a half-hour update by the Association of Alaska School Boards (AASB), followed by SB 27. NORM WOOTEN, President of the AASB, introduced Mari-anne Gross, President-elect, and informed committee members that for the past few years, AASB has been working to enhance student achievement, and has implemented a long range plan that uses a deliberate and logical method to assist public school students. CARL ROSE, Executive Director of the AASB, discussed performance- based budgeting and referred to an AASB publication entitled, Pathways Long Range Plan. The plan is used as an example for school boards throughout the state. In 1990, AASB identified a set of goals (listed on page 6). Legislative services, board development, and information were AASB's initial goals; those goals have been accomplished and incorporated into AASB's operations. Board standards and advocacy are AASB's most recent goals. School boards have been notified that if a board does not have a resolution addressing its concern and/or a board concern is not among those listed by the AASB, the issue will probably not be addressed by AASB because its budget is limited. MR. ROSE explained AASB has worked on standards for students, teachers and administrators, as well as governance standards for school boards. Alaska is a local control state. If AASB's goals do not tie into student achievement, it needs to ask why it is headed in that direction. Number 093 MR. WOOTEN stated AASB members were elected to local school boards to improve student achievement. He noted sometime ago, HB 465 was enacted; it addressed standards for teachers and administrators. Since the enactment of that legislation, school districts have spent a lot of time creating and developing assessments and plans for grading teachers to ensure that the best teachers are hired and maintained, and that those teachers remain current on the best teaching practices. School districts also have plans for improvement of under-performing teachers and administrators. SB 36, passed last year, requires exit exams for students. All school districts are in the midst of creating plans to do so, and many districts have volunteered to be test sites for the exams administered by the Department of Education. AASB supports those standards and believes a student's diploma should mean that the student is ready to enter into the world to do what they want to do. AASB decided that once standards for teachers, administrators, and students have been established, the next logical place to implement standards is on board members. He referred to a pamphlet entitled, Board Standards: The Framework for Alaska School Boards. The AASB determined five areas of importance in creating standards for board members: vision; structure; accountability; advocacy; and conduct and ethics. The indicators for each deal directly with student achievement. MARI-ANNE GROSS discussed the school board goal of advocacy. School board members have advocated on the behalf of students in the areas of intervention, early parent training, early childhood development, support of alcohol treatment programs, prevention of alcohol abuse, smoking, teen pregnancy, fetal alcohol syndrome, and other youth related problems. Children need to be whole on the inside as well as on the outside if they are to succeed. AASB has developed a booklet to be used throughout Alaska based on an asset building model developed by the SEARCH Institute in Minnesota. The SEARCH Institute model contains 40 indicators, or assets, that children need to be successful. The indicators are based on common sense, and include such things as family support, a caring community, involvement in youth activities, and time spent at home. A very strong statistical correlation exists among children who display at least 30 of the assets and those who become successful adults. Children with less than 20 of the assets are at risk of going to jail, dropping out of school, or teen pregnancy. The booklet contains suggestions for parents, school staff, and the community to foster each of the 40 assets. This model is pro- active and will help children succeed. The demand for training sessions for this program is so great, AASB can meet the need only by training trainers. The booklet was developed in conjunction with the Department of Health and Social Services. Number 290 MR. ROSE added that research shows that community involvement in schools is a very valuable component in enhancing student achievement. This project is not a program with a budget, it is common sense empowerment. CHAIR MILLER noted the presence of Senators Wilken and Green. SENATOR WILKEN stated Alaska has 53 school boards for about 100,000 students, and asked if AASB has worked with school districts to actively pursue consolidation with the thought that they might have more access to funds. MR. ROSE replied that issue has been before the AASB for quite sometime. Some areas of the state have pursued consolidation of their own volition to tap valuable resources. Some areas of the state appear to be moving in that direction, and although they may have maintained local autonomy, they share a lot of services. AASB is in the process of getting information about shared services among school districts. He explained that while many school boards would be willing to combine services for the sake of efficiency, the concern behind consolidation is maintaining local autonomy. SENATOR WILKEN asked if AASB has been in discussions with the 13 school districts that are unable to meet the provision in SB 36 that requires 60 percent of funds to be used for instruction. SENATOR PETE KELLY asked Mr. Rose to explain the provision of SB 36 referred to by Senator Wilken. MR. ROSE explained the new foundation formula calls for a minimum instruction component of 60 percent in the first year, 65 percent in the second year, and 70 percent in the third year. Inadvertently, principals were included in the area of administration. The majority of the criteria for the standards for performance for principals are instructional based. Therefore, principals are instructional leaders in the schools, but that portion is being omitted from the compilation therefore it is difficult to meet the standard under those circumstances. Second, when HB 465 passed four years ago, a tremendous burden was placed on administrators to do the evaluations prescribed by law. Also, any improvements made in the area of technology are not included within the 70 percent instructional portion. The adequacy study may clarify some of the problem areas and make the provisions of HB 465 more applicable. SENATOR WILKEN questioned how the example of technology rolls into the 70 percent. MR. ROSE replied expenditures for technology used in instruction, particularly delivery systems, are not included in the 70 percent. SENATOR WILKEN asked if Mr. Rose was aware of any school districts that have suffered negative impacts from the enactment of SB 36. MR. ROSE said the blocking of special education, bilingual, and vocational education funds is an area of great concern. In the past, funds for special education and bilingual programs were based on need. Five years ago the Special Education Task Force determined that schools were labeling and over identifying children for the purpose of generating revenue. It decided that 18 percent of school funds would be a fair amount to use for a block grant. That approach would decrease the number of students who are over identified, and the paperwork. That recommendation was also applied to bilingual programs in the foundation formula. He indicated the Lower Kuskokwim and Lower Yukon School Districts have high incidents and needs for both bilingual and special education funds, so combining and capping the funds for those programs at 20 percent has had a negative impact. The Skagway School District is at the other end of the spectrum as it has a low incidence of bilingual and special education students, however it receives 20 percent of its funding through that component. He suggested the Special Education Task Force recommendation to use a certain percentage to address special education needs, but to base bilingual education funds on need. Number 410 SENATOR WILKEN maintained the Lower Kuskokwim and Lower Yukon School Districts did not lose any funds, although the funds they received were allocated into different components. He asked if AASB has discussed with school districts in unorganized areas how to form third class cities to help themselves with school funding. MR. ROSE said that discussion took place yesterday. AASB has a number of ways to account for how areas generate dollars and how that money is incorporated. In many of those areas, the property value is very low and the people live a subsistence lifestyle, so limited revenue could be generated. The issue of taxation still looms in the question of PL 874. AASB understands the argument but has no answers. One concern about an income tax is that a lot of responsibility for public education has been passed on to the municipalities over the past few years, so to impose an income tax on top of that without an adjustment to lessen the local burden needs to be considered. Number 435 SENATOR ELTON stated PL 874 does require a local contribution from the school districts, and some of the smaller rural school districts are suggesting that PL 874 not be taken in at 90 percent, but rather that the local contribution be capped at 4 mills. MR. ROSE noted AASB has discussed that option with Senator Stevens who has received a few requests that the dollars be allowed to flow to school districts. Mr. Rose thought because Alaska is an equalized state and collects the money for redistribution through the foundation formula, allowing the money to flow directly would create some inequities, especially within the Railbelt area. The following written testimony was submitted in person by student Jana Sam to committee members. Greetings My name is Jana Sam from Huslia, AK. I represent the students of Yukon Koyukuk School District. As a student I have a few concerns about the funding of education. But - my first concern is that many students come to school hungry. And we need a breakfast and hot lunch program. At my village school we haven't seen a hot lunch program since before I was born. This state has appropriated funding to send one thousand prisoners to Arizona and they are given 3 meals a day. Unfortunately, many of our students come from dysfunctional families and go to school hungry. These students are our future leaders. Why are we fighting over where the funding will come from when this state provides funds for prisoners in Arizona? Are we not as important as them? Ana Bassee, Thank you. CHAIR MILLER noted the presence of Senators Pearce and Leman. The committee took a brief at-ease. Number 456 SB 27-ACCESS TO DRIVING/SCHOOL RECORDS OF CHILD CHAIRMAN MILLER brought up SB 27 and stated that the prime sponsor Senator Leman is present to testify. SENATOR LOREN LEMAN said that he introduced SB 27 in response to a constituent complaint. A mother in Anchorage was concerned that her minor daughter might be driving with a suspended driving license. When she contacted the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) she was denied access to that information. The DMV told her that privacy protections in the law prohibited the state from disclosing any information about her daughter's driving record. He stated that others on the committee who have had teenagers are aware of the responsibilities parents must assume once a child receives a driving license. The parent must consent before the license is issued, and then the law holds the parent responsible for any damage caused by negligence or wilful misconduct while the child is operating the vehicle. In the example of the Anchorage mother who called him, SENATOR LEMAN stated she was denied the information but if her daughter had been arrested for driving with a suspended license, the police would have called her, the parent, first. He said he suspects this provision in state law was unintentional. The statutes governing DMV include a provision that keeps all driving records "confidential and private." This makes sense in relation to adults, but it doesn't make sense in the context of the parent-child relationship. SENATOR LEMAN referred members to the statute in the bill packet and pointed out an exception that allows law enforcement personnel to have access to the information. There is no such exception for parents, and SB 27 will correct this problem. While the legislation was being drafted, he also asked Legal Services to research another area of the statutes and determine if there's any provision in state law guaranteeing parents the right to access their children's school records. He learned there is no such law. There is a statute (AS 25.20.130) that guarantees a non- custodial parent the same access to school records that is allowed for custodial parents but nowhere does the law define what access rights a custodial parent has. For that reason, Section 1 of the bill adds a provision that also guarantees parental access to school records. The Anchorage School District already has this policy, and it may be the policy in other school districts in the state, but he said he is not sure. There is a federal law, also in the bill packets, that denies federal funding to any educational agency or institution that does not allow parental access to children's school records. For that reason, SENATOR LEMAN said he feels it is prudent to state clearly in the statutes that parents have a right to this information. SENATOR LEMAN concluded his remarks and said that Mike Pauley, Staff Aide, would remain to answer questions. Number 511 CHAIRMAN MILLER referred to the two fiscal notes in the bill packet and asked Senator Leman about support or opposition, and if there have been problems with the Administration on the bill. SENATOR LEMAN replied that DMV says this makes sense and they are willing to work on it. The only concern relating to school district records was voiced by the Council on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault (CDVSA) that the residence address of the child would be divulged to the non-custodial parent who may have a judgment or restraining order against him. SENATOR LEMAN stated that it could be worked out and if it's part of a court order, the school district shouldn't have to release that information. It could be a policy established by regulation rather than put in statute and that would be consistent with the intent of this legislation. That is the only concern that has been raised. Number 528 SENATOR ELTON asked Mike Pauley, Staff to Senator Leman, about residence records in case of a restraining order, and how a school record is defined. In some districts, a law enforcement officer may have notes on students or may be keeping a record. Federal law defines school record as academic records, and there are exclusions. Is it the Senator's intent to use the federal definition? MIKE PAULEY replied it is not defined in the statute and it could be addressed in regulation or left to the discretion of the individual school districts. Regarding his first concern, he and the Senator don't feel the child's physical address is relevant to their driving or academic records. Both the Department of Education (DOE) and the CDVSA have expressed concern about this. This information could be excluded from the child's records either by regulation or administrative discretion. SENATOR ELTON stated Anchorage school district provides for the release of records, but excludes medical and psychological records of children. Under the broad language in the bill, he is unsure those exclusions would be applicable or that Anchorage would be allowed to continue to exclude certain records. He gave as an example the disincentive for a student to go to the school health clinic if he has a sexually transmitted disease and that record could be released to the custodial parent, non-custodial parent or step parent. MR. PAULEY responded the bill as it is drafted is merely neutral on that question. It would not prevent the disclosure of such information, but neither would it require it. It is a discretionary matter, and the sponsor would not object to providing further clarity, but they have tried to state policy in the statute without trying to "micro manage" or imagine every case scenario. NUMBER 571 CHAIRMAN MILLER clarified the controversy is in Section 1. He asked Mr. Pauley to explain again why Section 1 was inserted. Section 2 speaks for itself. MR. PAULEY replied that they asked Legal Services to look for other precedents to guide how the bill should be drafted. Legal researched existing law on granting parents access to school records, planning to model the driving records language after it, and discovered there was nothing directly addressing parental access to school records. MR. PAULEY reiterated the statute 25.20.130 which states " a parent who is not granted custody has the same access to the medical, dental, school, and other records of the child as the custodial parent." The noncustodial parent having the same rights as the custodial parent seemed odd, leading them to question what rights parents have. They felt it would add clarity to state it specifically in the statutes that the custodial parent has the right to access this information. The federal law withholds funds to any agency or institution which denies this access. Section 1 is consistent with federal law and adds clarity to the existing state law. Number 591 SENATOR WILKEN said that on Page 1, Section 2(c) it appears that if the department asks for the records, a fee is not charged, but if the parent asks, it is. He asked why the difference, and why not have the department furnish the records to a parent without the fee. TAPE 99-05, SIDE B Number 587 MR. PAULEY replied that in light of the current budget situation, they tried to generate a bill with two zero fiscal notes and they succeeded. If the committee wants to remove the fee, the sponsor wouldn't object, but the Finance Committee might. SENATOR WILKEN stated it ought to be reversed, with free records to the parent and a charge to the department. He deferred to CHAIRMAN MILLER. CHAIRMAN MILLER asked if the apparent problem could be fixed by changing language in Section 1, on lines 4 and 5, to "upon the request of a custodial parent or a custodial guardian." MR. PAULEY replied he believes that language change would place this statute in conflict with the existing one in 25.20.130 that says just the opposite -- that a non-custodial parent has this access. The sponsor's intent is not to deny all non-custodial parents access to that information, because there are only a small number of non-custodial parents with a restraining order against them for domestic violence. The concern of staff from DOE and CDVSA is simply the address of the child. Again, the address is not relevant to a driving or school records, and it could be defined that it's not to be included in the accessed information. He repeated it could be done either through regulation or administrative discretion. Number 569 SENATOR ELTON said he applauds the focus of both sections of the bill and feels parents should have access. He suggested language saying "access to school education records," which would limit release of non-academic information including addresses, school records of a medical or psychological nature, or the log book of a police officer. MR. PAULEY again stated the intent was not to "micro manage" too much. If they state "academic" records, it would have to be defined and whether or not it includes disciplinary action against the child. Some people would argue that it does have relevance, others would disagree. The sponsor does not want to dictate to the DOE and the school districts how to implement that in the details. Number 550 MS. MONA MAEHARA, Acting Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, stated the council supports the sponsor's intention that parents have access to their child's driving and school records. However, their concern is that these documents would provide the address for both the minor and the parent. This information given to parents with restraining or protective orders against them could endanger the minor and the other parent. She stated her appreciation of the committee's understanding of the problem and effort to resolve it. The council is working with the sponsor's staff, and has been told by DMV that they can dock the address before they issue the driving abstract. The council wants to minimize the time and effort placed on school districts to protect both child and family. She offered to work with the sponsor and the committee. Number 527 SENATOR WILKEN moved a conceptual amendment with the intent to remove any fee being charged to the parent. The text would read: Page 1: on line 13, strike the first "or" add "agency," after "administrative" strike the second "or" after "judicial agency" add "or a parent or guardian" on line 14, strike ";and (2) upon payment of a fee determined by the on line 15, strike "commissioner, furnish a parent or guardian of a driver" SENATOR WILKEN then read through the proposed language change. CHAIRMAN MILLER offered it as a formal amendment. SENATOR KELLY suggested striking the words "without charging a fee" on line 12. He said it is intent language that the drafters would pick up. SENATOR ELTON expressed support for the amendment. CHAIRMAN MILLER asked if there was objection to the amendment. There being none, the amendment was adopted. The Chairman noted there remain serious concerns regarding Section 1, and said he would like the section to be redrafted. He requested Ms. Maehara, Mr. Pauley and Sharon Clark work together on a compromise committee substitute by Thursday's meeting so that the committee can move the bill out. There being no further discussion, the committee adjourned at 2:30 p.m.