Legislature(2021 - 2022)DAVIS 106
05/06/2021 06:30 PM House EDUCATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB164 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 164 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 164-EARLY ED PROGRAMS; READING; VIRTUAL ED
6:32:49 PM
CO-CHAIR STORY announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 164, "An Act relating to early education
programs provided by school districts; relating to school age
eligibility; relating to early education programs; establishing
a parents as teachers program; relating to the duties of the
Department of Education and Early Development; relating to
certification of teachers; establishing a reading intervention
program for public school students enrolled in grades
kindergarten through three; establishing a reading program in
the Department of Education and Early Development; relating to a
virtual education consortium; and providing for an effective
date." [Before the committee, adopted as a working document
during the 4/23/21 House Education Standing Committee meeting,
was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 164, Version
32-LS0731\I, Klein, 4/20/21, ("Version I").]
6:33:57 PM
CO-CHAIR STORY opened public testimony on HB 164, Version I.
6:34:05 PM
RONDA SCHLUMBOHM testified on HB 164. She read her prepared
testimony [hard copy included in the committee packet], which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
I have been teaching beginning readers and writers in
grades k-3 for thirty plus years. I hold a master's
degree in reading, and I have participated in in-depth
professional development by attending and teaching
Alaska's Writing Consortium. This training has helped
me understand the nuances of learning that all
children have. I have never taught two children the
same way because all children vary in skills,
motivation, and interest. I applaud the desire of this
group to help Alaska's children, however I believe
there is much more work to do in this bill to make it
the best it can be.
Please consider the following points as you work.
• The federal government is talking about funding
universal pre-k. Alaska could benefit from this
federal legislation and cut this fiscal part out
of the bill.
• There continues to be no mention of writing in HB
164. Writing is powerful to beginning learners.
When children write, they are applying their
knowledge of phonics, syntax, language,
vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. When a
child creates a piece of writing, he/she is
working at the top of Bloom's Taxonomy. Writing
instructs the teacher about what the child needs
next. Writing can slow down the reading process
to help a child make sense of how words are put
together and which kinds of words do not follow
the phonics rules. Initially we call these words
"sight words" because kids must memorize them by
sight, but all words eventually become sight
words with practice.
Writing also uses the brain in more areas than
reading, thus helping a child strengthen it. When
a child writes, they are perfectly in their zone
of proximal development. If writing is not
included in this bill, my fear is that the
message it sends is that it is not as important
as reading.
• A third part of the bill I would like to address
is a point of confusion. On page 30, line one it
says, "the student will participate in additional
20 hours of individual reading improvement plan
intervention services during the summer before
the student enters grade four." Firstly, the
retention part of the bill is very problematic.
Secondly where did the 20 hours come from? Is
there some research to back up the 20 hours? In
my experience, if a child is struggling to learn
to read, 20 hours is a drop in the bucket to
being proficient, that is unless the child is on
the cusp of being proficient. Malcolm Gladwell
says you need 10,000 hours to be an expert at
something. Which incidentally, I've done the math
and that equates to over 8 years. So new teachers
need to practice years until they become experts
in their fields.
Thank you for allowing educators to speak to this
bill. I will send this letter as written testimony
along with the attachment of Peter Johnston's white
paper, An Examination of Dyslexia Research and
Instruction, With Policy Implications, for your
review.
6:37:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK thanked Ms. Schlumbohm.
6:38:30 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 6:39 p.m. to 6:43 p.m.
6:43:58 PM
POSIE BOGGS, Alaska Reading Coalition, testified in support of
HB 164. She expressed approval of including evidence-based
reading instruction, as well as of its definition in the test of
the proposed legislation. She shared that she was happy to see
the reading intervention service plan, and she cautioned that
selecting the 10 lowest-performing schools may show lagging
performance due to other factors. Might be better for data if
mid-level performance schools are also selected, to show that
the program could work across many levels of performance. She
discussed rank and review of the language arts curricula, saying
that there often isn't evidence of improvement when publishers
are conducting research on their own product. With reference to
the cultural sensitivity aspect of the proposed legislation, she
discussed supporting teachers in both English phonemic awareness
and an immersion language.
6:51:29 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 6:51 p.m. to 6:58 p.m.
6:58:57 PM
REBECCA CRELLEY expressed the viewpoint that legislators are
taking money from the Alaska permanent fund and putting it into
other areas, and that there is no point to putting money into
education because the quality is poor.
7:00:39 PM
CO-CHAIR STORY reminded Ms. Crelley that the committee is
hearing testimony on HB 164.
MS. CRELLEY said she wasn't talking about HB 164.
7:01:16 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 7:01 p.m. to 7:11 p.m.
7:11:47 PM
LESA MEATH read her prepared testimony [hard copy included in
the committee packet], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Thank you for your consideration of this important
initiative. One which has potential to make tremendous
impact if implemented effectively and in partnership
with stakeholders including families, communities and
educators. I want to particularly express appreciation
for scheduling time outside of the workday for giving
input. Providing voluntary PreK opportunities for
Alaska's students is a solid investment, and I am
strongly in favor of this portion of the bill. The
data is clear and there has been excellent testimony
regarding the positive long-term effects of quality
early childhood programs in previous hearings.
As a 30-year educator, I hold both a Master's degree
and [National Board] NB certification in early
childhood education. My career includes working in
rural schools and those on the road system and I have
seen firsthand the disparity in materials, staffing
and professional learning opportunities which are
available in different parts of our state. Some of the
goals of HB 164 can make a real difference in reading
achievement. We also need to be mindful that in an
enthusiasm to measure and quantify learning in only
standardized ways that we do not expand the disconnect
between Indigenous ways of knowing and the
compartmentalized manner of some westernized programs.
Concerns I have are related to the prescriptiveness,
and the reporting requirements in the bill. Many of
the mentions in Article 15 are already taking places
in Alaska's schools. In others, they may have the
components in their plans, but simply do not have the
staffing to implement. How are the paraprofessionals
and teachers going to manage writing the reports,
running parent workshops and after school intervention
opportunities, not to mention the summer learning?
Some of our schools have very few staff members or
have positions unfilled. Even in large districts
acquiring personnel for interventionists and
substitutes is challenging.
The reading services in Sec. 14.30.765 include many
components of an effective early reading program, but
the challenge is "? to the extent practicable." (p.
26, Line 11) This is where input needs to be
explicitly sought from our CSI and TSI identified
schools and other sites in remote villages. What will
make a difference for their staff and students? How
will it be ensured that supports are value added and
not punitive? There is mention of "error correction
and feedback," (p. 26, line 22) which seems a bit out
of place and overly specfic [sic]. Feedback does have
a crucial role in learners' awareness of their errors
and performance. However, immediate correction can
sometimes be harmful if it disrupts a child's time to
think on his/her error and maintain the flow of
communication. Depending on the setting, the lesson
goal, and the individual child, and relationship with
the assessor/interventionist sometimes feedback should
be given afterward.
There are complex reasons that some children have
reading problems and all are not going to respond to
the same interventions in the same way. This is why
school staff meet as PLCs (Professional Learning
Communities) to examine data with colleagues, plan
instruction, meet with families, and have special
educators as a resource.
I applaud the addition of and attention to Culturally
Responsive education, Developmentally Appropriate
practice and the inclusion of oral language. Literacy
is comprehensive and includes reading, writing,
speaking & listening. I do however want to caution
about appropriate assessments, particularly with
second language learners. There needs to be expanded
definitions to have common understanding of Culturally
Responsive and not just a box to check off. Is it
culturally responsive to focus on screeners using
timed oral reading fluency? Is it culturally
responsive to require interventions outside of the
school day preventing students from engaging in family
time, subsistence activities and place-based learning?
Lastly, a great reading teacher evaluates students,
engages in ongoing formative assessment and uses data
to differentiate instruction for individuals, small
groups and the whole class. We build relationships
with each student and inform ourselves about their
interests, and topics they find engaging. We build
libraries to provide them with exciting titles across
genre and read with them noting strategy use,
building on their strengths and addressing areas for
growth. The tools in the toolbox of reading teachers
are many and should be continually expanding with
strong professional development and the availability
of new research. There is no "one size fits all" set
of materials or methods, but we do know that a strong
literacy foundation is learner centered not program
centered.
7:16:43 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND thanked Ms. Meath for taking the time to
provide feedback to the committee.
MS. MEATH shared that she is grateful for the privilege to teach
in Alaska.
7:17:18 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 7:17 p.m. to 7:19 p.m.
7:19:46 PM
CO-CHAIR STORY provided the schedule for public testimony and
committee hearings on HB 164.
[The committee took an at-ease from 7:21 p.m. to 7:31 p.m.
7:31:38 PM
CO-CHAIR STORY, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 164. She then announced
that HB 164 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|