Legislature(2021 - 2022)DAVIS 106
01/31/2022 03:30 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 | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 164-EARLY ED PROGRAMS; READING; VIRTUAL ED
3:40:25 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").]
CO-CHAIR STORY noted that at its last hearing, the committee had
heard about a new proposed committee substitute ["version G"]
but had not yet adopted it. She said the remaining amendments
from Version I had been incorporated into Version G and
amendments for Version G had been submitted.
3:42:44 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 164, Version 32-LS0731\G, Klein, 6/18/21,
as a working document.
3:43:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX objected. He indicated that the House
version had already had significant changes made as compared to
the companion bill in the Senate, and he did not want "to talk
about this 'til the cows come home."
3:44:47 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Zulkosky, Hopkins,
Drummond, and Story voted in favor of the motion to adopt CS for
HB 164, Version 32-LS0731\G, Klein, 6/18/21. Representatives
Cronk and Prax voted against it. Therefore, Version G was
adopted as a working document by a vote of 4-2.
3:45:32 PM
CO-CHAIR STORY announced the committee would entertain
amendments to Version G, of which there were 17 submitted.
3:46:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 164,
Version G, labeled 32-LS0731\G.1, Klein, 1/24/22, which read as
follows:
Page 4, line 14:
Delete "who is at least four years of age at the
beginning of the school year"
3:46:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS spoke to Amendment 1. He said the
amendment would support reading at an earlier age, "not just one
year before kindergarten starts." He said it could increase the
fiscal note, but said the committee has a responsibility to put
forth good legislation to support educators and ensure the early
success of students.
3:47:44 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 3:48 p.m.
3:48:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS withdrew his motion to adopt Amendment 1.
3:48:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt Amendment 2 to HB 164,
Version G, labeled 32-LS0731\G.2, Klein, 1/19/22, which read as
follows:
Page 5, line 29:
Delete "three-year"
Insert "five-year"
Page 6, line 19:
Delete "three-year"
Insert "five-year"
Delete "one-year"
Insert "two-year"
Page 6, line 20:
Delete "one additional fiscal year"
Insert "two additional fiscal years"
Page 6, lines 22 - 23:
Delete "that fiscal year"
Insert "the two fiscal years"
3:48:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS spoke to Amendment 2. He explained that
the extension for grant funding of pre-k programs from three
years to five years would allow districts more time to put pre-k
programs into base student allocations and get them "up and
running."
3:49:28 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked whether the bill sponsor's staff could
comment on Amendment 2.
3:49:34 PM
MIKE MASON, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Tuck, prime sponsor of
HB 164, offered his understanding that the only impact that
Amendment 2 would have would be a fiscal one.
3:49:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS noted the department may [emphasis on
"may"] grant funding for a five-year period but would not be
required to do so; therefore, the fiscal impact is unknown at
this time.
3:50:24 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND observed that the extension of the grant
remains optional; under Amendment 2 it just changes the time
from three years to five years.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS responded that that is his understanding.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND said she is not certain that that much time is
necessary because it should not take more than three years. She
suggested it could be left at three years, with the option to
request more time.
3:52:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked whether the duration of time being
discussed pertained to "the early education grant, itself."
3:52:53 PM
MR. MASON deferred to Lki Tobin.
3:53:27 PM
LÖKI TOBIN, Staff, Senator Mark Begich, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that when assessing early education
offerings in a district, if the department realizes the district
does not meet the standards established under regulation, it can
award a three-year grant to assist that district in bringing up
the quality of its program. A one-year extension is allowed
after the three years, and again after the fourth year. She
concluded, "So, up to five years of funding is allowed within
this section of the bill."
3:54:36 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND directed attention to page 6, line 3, of
Version G, which shows a limit on the total amount of grant
funding is $3 million. She figured that means some districts
applying for years two and three may not receive funds because
of other districts applying for a fourth or fifth year of grant
funds. She said she does think that is wise considering "we
need to get this out to as many districts as possible."
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS noted that he has an upcoming amendment
that will address that issue
3:55:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked for confirmation that the purpose
of Amendment 2 is not to expand the monetary funding available
to school districts but rather to offer flexibility in terms of
the timeline of the grant.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS confirmed that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY pointed out that not all school
districts "start at the same starting line" in terms of internal
capacity or turnover levels. She said she supports offering
greater latitude for school districts that "might not have
capacity"; therefore, she supports Amendment 2.
3:57:21 PM
MS. TOBIN, in response to Co-Chair Story and Mr. Mason,
clarified that Amendment 2 would make "every grant a five-year
grant cycle." She referenced language on page 5, line 29, and
emphasized that [with adoption of Amendment 2], it would specify
funding for a five-year period, not "up to" five years.
CO-CHAIR STORY asked for clarification.
MR. MASON, after some study of the language, ascertained that
Amendment 2 would be for five years, with two remediation years.
4:00:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said he would welcome an amendment to
Amendment 2 but thinks flexibility is needed.
4:01:22 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND expressed confusion, saying it sounds like
Amendment 2 would not allow the department to stop giving a
grant before five years, even if a district was meeting the
standards. She expressed concern that taking away the option
for adding two years to the three years is actually restricting
flexibility.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said he thinks Ms. Tobin said the
department can [stop giving the grant funds] if the district is
doing a good job.
MR. MASON directed attention to language on page 5, line 26, of
Version G, which he interpreted as showing that the department
has discretion.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS observed the flexibility noted in that
language was the opposite of what he had just said, because the
language talks about cutting off funds due to failure, not
success. He asked Ms. Tobin to confirm whether [the department]
can move [a district's program] to base student allocation early
based on success.
4:03:27 PM
MS. TOBIN confirmed that the department can approve a program a
program at any time. She added, "That approval means rolling it
into the [average daily membership] (ADM)."
4:03:51 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked if that which Ms. Tobin was confirming
is found on page 6, lines 27-29.
MS. TOBIN answered that is correct.
4:04:43 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Zulkosky, Hopkins,
Drummond, and Story voted in favor of the motion to adopt
Amendment 2. Representatives Prax and Cronk voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 2 was adopted by a vote of 4-2.
4:05:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt Amendment 3 to HB 164,
Version G, labeled 32-LS0731\G.3, Klein, 1/20/22, which read as
follows:
Page 6, lines 2 - 3:
Delete "Unless the legislature appropriates
another amount, total grant funding awarded to
districts under this subsection may not exceed
$3,000,000 in a fiscal year."
Page 13, line 12:
Delete "and (f)"
Page 13, lines 18 - 28:
Delete all material.
Page 29, line 31, through page 30, line 7:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
4:05:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS spoke to Amendment 3. He emphasized the
importance of not limiting how much funding can be moved
forward, specifically by not having a cap of $3 million. He
highlighted giving the department flexibility.
4:07:01 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Hopkins, Zulkosky,
Drummond, and Story voted in favor of the motion to adopt
Amendment 3. Representatives Prax and Cronk voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 3 was adopted by a vote of 4-2.
4:07:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt Amendment 4 to HB 164,
Version G, labeled 32-LS0731\G.4, Klein, 1/20/22, which read as
follows:
Page 4, line 14:
Delete "four"
Insert "three"
Page 7, lines 4 - 6:
Delete all material and insert:
"(3) "early education program" means a
program, the primary function of which is educational,
for children ages three through five years."
Page 9, line 7:
Delete "four and five years of age"
Insert "ages three through five years"
Page 11, lines 19 - 20:
Delete "four and five years of age"
Insert "ages three through five years"
Page 12, line 5:
Delete "four and five years of age"
Insert "ages three through five years"
Page 12, line 13:
Delete "four and five years of age"
Insert "ages three through five years"
Page 13, lines 15 - 16:
Delete "four and five years of age"
Insert "ages three through five years"
Page 13, lines 18 - 19:
Delete "four and five years of age"
Insert "ages three through five years"
4:07:57 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS spoke to Amendment 4. He said it would
start education earlier, which would give students more time to
prepare for kindergarten and first-, second-, and third-grade
reading programs. He said science shows additional benefit to
students by starting them at three years of age.
4:09:36 PM
CO-CHAIR STORY mentioned the shortage of preschool teachers in
Alaska, space constraints when "gearing up for something like
this," and the possibility of giving flexibility to districts in
terms of including three- to five-year-old children. She asked
if Amendment 4 would allow for that flexibility.
4:10:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS answer no but pointed out that without
Amendment 4, districts cannot lower the age. He talked about
having a smooth transition from programs within the Department
of Health and Social Services (DHSS) to programs within the
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED).
4:11:32 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked Representative Hopkins to clarify
whether there is a gap between services offered through DHSS and
school districts, in which case she said she would be amenable
to Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS answered that within the Head Start
program, there is "a discrepancy in that year three age that
they work with." He said he is a proponent of age three being
the starting point within the programs of DEED. In response to
a follow-up question, he said he would have to do some research
to find out whether other states have programs that include
three-year-old children.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND recalled testimony from child care providers
concerned about losing those 3-year-olds to school districts,
which would mean their losing business. She explained that is
her concern with approving Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS acknowledged that concern, but he pointed
to the lack of child care exacerbated by the pandemic, and he
indicated he would like to see ways of bringing in more private
child care programs through HB 164. He added, "It does hold the
Head Start program - and other pre-k programs in place -
harmless, so they would not be losing funding in discrepancy
with this bill." He urged action taken on the lack of childcare
that is resulting in people leaving the workforce and students'
ability to learn being inhibited.
4:15:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked for a recap on concerns related to
the Head Start program and pre-k.
4:16:33 PM
MR. MASON responded the intent of the bill is not to impact Head
Start, while Amendment 4 may do so, because parents may choose
to send their children to a pre-K program rather than a Head
Start program. He deferred to Ms. Tobin for further
information.
4:17:05 PM
MS. TOBIN noted that past testimony had addressed the ability of
Head Start to serve the populations within its communities. The
program described under HB 164 would allow districts to
communicate with Head Start and other early development programs
- private or nonprofit - to develop a holistic system. She
indicated that the change proposed under Amendment 4 to three
years of age not only would increase the fiscal note of the bill
but may also result in direct competition with those programs,
putting in jeopardy the ability of Head Start "to serve
communities in a particular way."
4:17:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked Ms. Tobin to reference the
language in the bill that relates to school districts consulting
with Head Start providers in the development of programs.
MS. TOBIN cited language on page 6, lines 8-11, and on page 11,
beginning line 21. She cited language in other parts of the
bill that allow Head Start to continue in perpetuity without
interference from DEED, in Section 4, on page 2, and in Section
11, [paragraph (2)], on page 10. She explained that the intent
of these sections is to ensure the Head Start programs are not
[adversely] impacted by HB 164 and to direct any district to
consider Head Start offerings as they develop their early
education programs.
4:20:20 PM
CO-CHAIR STORY expressed hope that Alaska would be expanding its
early childhood programs, and she expressed interest in finding
out what the increase to the fiscal note would be as a result of
Amendment 4.
4:21:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY drew attention to language on page 6,
lines 8-12, of Version G, which read:
A district is eligible for a grant if the department
determines an insufficient number of children in the
district attend high quality child care programs,
including head start programs, early education
programs provided by a local government, and early
education programs provided by child development
agencies, that
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY she said she does not see that as a
child in larger population areas but asked how that would work
in a smaller community that might have "just enough children to
go into a Head Start program." She said she would like a
refresher from DEED regarding a full program with potential to
draw students into a pre-k program.
4:22:58 PM
SUSAN MCKENZIE, Director, Innovation and Education Excellence,
Department of Education and Early Development, said she would
need to research and return to the committee with an answer.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY said she would like to hear back from
DEED. She indicated that she would be amenable to Amendment 4
if she had a better understanding of how the department would
interpret the language on page 6.
4:24:29 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND suggested the committee delay a decision on
Amendment 4, since the committee would be meeting again at 3:30
p.m. and on Friday.
4:25:04 PM
MS. MCKENZIE, in response to Co-Chairs Drummond and Story,
confirmed she could get an answer to the committee later in the
week.
4:25:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to table Amendment 4. [There being
no objection, Amendment 4 was tabled.]
4:26:21 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:26 p.m. to 4:33 p.m.
4:33:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked to [not offer] Amendment 5, [which
is in the committee packet but had not yet been moved for
adoption].
CO-CHAIR STORY indicated Amendment 5 would [not be offered at
the present time].
4:34:22 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND moved to adopt Amendment 6 to HB 164, Version
G, labeled 32-LS0731\G.9, Marx/Klein, 1/21/22, which read as
follows:
Page 22, line 30, through page 23, line 15:
Delete all material and insert:
"(3) provide grants to a participating
school district to hire a reading specialist and
prescribe the specialist's duties in the grant award;"
Page 24, lines 21 - 23:
Delete all material and insert:
"(1) ensure that a reading specialist is
not required to perform functions that divert the
reading specialist from the duties assigned to the
reading specialist;"
Page 25, line 21:
Delete "The department"
Insert "A school district"
4:34:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK objected.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND explained that Amendment 6 had come from the
bill sponsor's office.
4:34:54 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:35 p.m. to 4:37 p.m.
4:37:37 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND withdrew Amendment 6.
CO-CHAIR STORY announced there being no objection, Amendment 6
was withdrawn.
[Amendments 7 and 8 exist in the committee packet, but because
the originator of the amendments was not known, they were not
offered.]
4:39:24 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:39 p.m. to 4:40 p.m.
4:40:20 PM
CO-CHAIR STORY asked Ms. Tobin to address Amendment 9.
4:40:26 PM
MS. TOBIN offered her understanding that Amendment 9 was drafted
prior to an amendment the committee adopted which changed
previous bill language that established a virtual language
consortium, by changing "consortium" to "library"; therefore,
Amendment 9 would no longer be applicable to current bill
language.
CO-CHAIR STORY said Amendment 9 [would not be offered].
4:41:02 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND moved to adopt Amendment 10 to HB 164, Version
G, labeled 32-LS0731\G.13, Klein, 1/19/22, which read as
follows:
Page 27, line 16, following "districts":
Insert "and state-based professional development
platforms"
4:41:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK objected.
4:41:30 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:41 p.m. to 4:43 p.m.
4:43:04 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND relayed she had learned Amendment 10 was
redundant; therefore, she [withdrew] Amendment 10.
CO-CHAIR STORY announced [there being on objection], Amendment
10 was withdrawn.
4:43:33 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND explained that she had been told the same
thing regarding Amendment 11, that it had been made redundant as
a result of other changes already made to the proposed
legislation; therefore, she said she would not offer it.
4:43:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS, pointing to language on page 28,
regarding how the library is structured, offered his
understanding that Amendment 11 [not yet moved for adoption]
would make "culturally responsive, evidence-based reading
instruction" available to school districts, help teachers and
paraprofessionals know what is available to them, lay out some
of the things that could be available in the library, allow data
analysis, and create support for educators. He asked Ms. Tobin
for confirmation of that understanding.
4:45:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX called a point of order, offering his
understanding that the amendment needed to be moved for adoption
before being discussed.
4:45:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt Amendment 11 to HB 164,
Version G, labeled 32-LS0731\G.15, Klein, 1/19/22, which read as
follows:
Page 28, lines 2 - 11:
Delete all material and insert:
"(1) working with stakeholders to sustain a
virtual library or catalog of locally developed,
culturally relevant reading curricula for educators;
(2) working with local institutions to
offer virtual continuing education and professional
development training in culturally responsive,
evidence-based reading instruction to school
districts;
(3) coaching and mentoring teachers,
paraprofessionals, and staff in evidence-based reading
instruction with an emphasis on prioritizing time in a
manner that has the greatest positive effect on
student achievement;
(4) supporting school district development
of capacity for supporting community reading outreach;
(5) training teachers and paraprofessionals
in data analysis and using data to differentiate and
individualize instruction;
(6) leading and supporting reading
leadership teams consisting of school staff who
volunteer to participate; and
(7) reporting on school and student performance to
the department."
4:45:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK objected.
4:46:07 PM
MS. TOBIN offered her understanding that Amendment 11 adds line
3, [paragraph] (1), line 5, [paragraph] (2), and line 11,
[paragraph] (4) as new components to the five subsections
currently listed under AS 14.30.800, subsection (c). As
indicated on Amendment 11, she noted that this language begins
on page 28, beginning on line 2, of Version G. She offered her
understanding that "the new additions in the amendment" are
[paragraphs] (1), (2), and (4).
4:47:03 PM
CO-CHAIR STORY asked whether the other [paragraphs] are
duplicative.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS offered his understanding that they are
not duplicative, just renumbered, with the aforementioned three
new [paragraphs] added.
4:48:00 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND offered her understanding that the bill
drafter added "consisting of school staff who volunteer to
participate" - on lines 15 and 16, [as numbered on the hard copy
of Amendment 11] - "to make it match what it used to say" in
"the section we're replacing."
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS, in response to Co-Chair Story, recapped
the changes that would be made by adopting Amendment 11.
4:49:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK maintained his objection.
4:49:58 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Hopkins, Drummond,
Zulkosky, and Story voted in favor of to the motion to adopt
Amendment 11. Representatives Prax and Cronk voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 11 was adopted by a vote of 4-2.
4:51:00 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND said she would not be offering Amendment 12.
CO-CHAIR STORY confirmed that Amendment 12 would not be offered.
4:51:36 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:51 p.m. to 4:52 p.m.
4:52:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked for more time to work on Amendment
13, which she had brought forward last year [to a different
version of the proposed legislation] and wanted to "make sure
it's in a good spot for the committee's consideration."
CO-CHAIR STORY said Amendment 13 would be "tabled 'til
Wednesday."
4:53:15 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND moved to adopt Amendment 14 to HB 164, Version
G, labeled 32-LS0731\G.18, Klein, 1/21/22, which read as
follows:
Page 27, following line 3:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(2) "dyslexia" means a specific learning
disability that is neurobiological in origin,
characterized by difficulties with accurate or fluent
word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding
abilities; those difficulties typically result from a
deficit in the phonological component of language that
is often unexpected in relation to other cognitive
abilities and the provision of effective classroom
instruction; secondary consequences may include
problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading
experience that can impede growth of vocabulary and
background knowledge;"
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
4:53:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK objected.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND stated that it is critically important to
define dyslexia, because "up to now it has not been considered a
... learning disability that has attracted sufficient
attention." She emphasized that it takes time to identify that
a child has dyslexia, which influences his/her ability to read.
She noted that dyslexia requires different approaches compared
to other disabilities.
4:54:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked Representative Cronk if there might
be a better definition or if his concern may be specifically
about including a definition of dyslexia in the proposed
legislation.
4:54:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK opined that the original version of HB 164
"would cover all this," and he cautioned that the more the
committee adds to the proposed legislation, the more unworkable
it will become. He added that it is the job of a reading
specialist to figure out whether a child is dyslexic.
4:55:13 PM
CO-CHAIR STORY agreed that the bill is "getting big." She said
she believes "a definition can be helpful," but she acknowledged
the concern expressed by Representative Cronk.
4:55:29 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND pointed out that the original bill was 40
pages long; the amendments introduced last May reduced it to 30;
what is being done now is cleanup. She stated that she does not
think the bill is getting too large.
4:56:17 PM
CO-CHAIR STORY moved Amendment 1 to Amendment 14, to add
[paragraph] 3 to Amendment 14, to read:
(3) districts shall report the program they're
using, or specific strategies teachers are using, to
respond to students with dyslexia
CO-CHAIR STORY explained she thinks this information is
important for the department to know.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND objected to Amendment 1 to Amendment 14
because the language proposed is a reporting requirement being
added to a definition section.
4:58:00 PM
CO-CHAIR STORY withdrew the motion to adopt Amendment 1 to
Amendment 14.
4:58:15 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Zulkosky, Drummond,
Hopkins, and Story voted in favor of the motion to adopt
Amendment 14. Representatives Cronk and Prax voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 14 was adopted by a vote of 4-2.
4:59:16 PM
CO-CHAIR STORY determined the committee would wait to consider
further amendments.
[HB 164 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 164 Culturally Responsive Assessment Article.pdf |
HEDC 1/31/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HB 164 |
| HB 164 01-31-22 amendment actions.pdf |
HEDC 1/31/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HB 164 |