Legislature(2021 - 2022)DAVIS 106
04/20/2022 08:00 AM 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 | |
| HB413 | |
| SB111 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 111 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 413 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 111-EARLY EDUCATION; READING INTERVENTION
8:08:14 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY announced that the final order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 111(FIN) am, "An Act relating to the
duties of the Department of Education and Early Development;
relating to public schools and school districts; relating to
early education programs; relating to funding for early
education programs; relating to school age eligibility; relating
to reports by the Department of Education and Early Development;
relating to reports by school districts; relating to
certification and competency of teachers; relating to screening
reading deficiencies and providing reading intervention services
to public school students enrolled in grades kindergarten
through three; relating to textbooks and materials for reading
intervention services; establishing a reading program in the
Department of Education and Early Development; relating to the
definition of 'parent' in education statutes; relating to a
virtual education consortium; and providing for an effective
date."
8:08:40 AM
SENATOR ROGER HOLLAND, Alaska State Legislature, introduced CSSB
111(FIN) am, sponsored by the Senate Education Committee, on
which Senator Holland serves as chair. He explained that the
proposed legislation is a bipartisan effort to improve reading
skills through increased accountability, well-places resources,
and modernization efforts. To accomplish these goals, he stated
the legislation proposes multiple avenues: the Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED) would establish reading
screening tools to identify students that are falling behind;
school districts would provide intervention services to those
students, as needed, utilizing the Read by Nine program; reading
specialist positions would be added to DEED to work directly
with statewide teachers to improve the quality of reading
instruction in Alaska; the State Board of Education and Early
Development would establish training and testing requirements in
evidence-based reading instruction; access to professional
development courses for Alaska's teachers would be modernized;
and a virtual education consortium, managed by DEED, would be
created. He stated that the consortium has been under
consideration since before the 2020 [COVID-19] pandemic, but a
timely effort would leverage recent investments in virtual
learning. He expressed the belief that students who did well
with remote learning could continue to do so.
8:10:44 AM
SENATOR TOM BEGICH, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of the
Senate Education Committee, sponsor, on which Senator Begich
serves as a member, stated that one of the key components of
CSSB 111(FIN) am is the early education component. This element
would establish a financial incentive for districts by including
the early education programs in the foundation formula. He
stated that the bill would create a grant program for low-
performing districts that need to develop or improve their early
education programs. He added that the House Education Standing
Committee's HB 164 would inform the final passage of [CSSB
111(FIN) am] by combining the effort with the involved
committees. He stated that the proposed legislation unanimously
passed in the Senate with only one amendment, and that amendment
ensured the legislation would be named The Alaska Reads Act.
8:12:43 AM
ED KING, Staff, Senator Roger Holland, Alaska State Legislature,
co-presented a PowerPoint presentation, sectional analysis, and
fiscal analysis and answered questions during the hearing on
CSSB 111(FIN) am, sponsored by the Senate Education Standing
Committee, on which Senator Holland serves as chair. He began
on slide 2 of the PowerPoint presentation [included in the
committee packet] with a summary of the 2022 reading report from
DEED that demonstrated there is an inconsistent approach with
inadequate quality control measures for reading instruction
across the state. He voiced the opinion that Alaska students
need a comprehensive reading [program] grounded in science-based
reading instruction and intervention for pre-K through third
grade. He stated that [a goal] of the proposed legislation
would be to create a consistent statewide policy for students.
MR. KING highlighted [in slide 3] the current ways the state is
investing in early education programs: a pre-elementary grant
program, which services about 1,400 students with estimated
funding of $3 million per year; the Head Start program for early
education, which provides services to an estimated 989 4-year-
old students a year; and the Parents as Teachers program, which
would be reinstituted into statute.
MR. KING said that the proposed legislation is the product of
significant debate between committee members and stakeholders.
He stated that the ideas in the proposed legislation have been
ongoing within the legislature since [2014]. To highlight what
the bill would seek to accomplish, he listed the three main
components [on slide 4]: the early education component, which
would include 4-year-old students in pre-K programs; the
evidence-based reading instruction component, which would
provide intervention for students that need additional help; and
the virtual consortium component, which would promote efficient
professional development.
8:16:02 AM
LÖKI TOBIN, Staff, Senator Tom Begich, Alaska State Legislature,
co-presented a PowerPoint presentation, sectional analysis, and
fiscal analysis and answered questions during the hearing on
CSSB 111(FIN) am, sponsored by the Senate Education Committee,
on which Senator Begich serves as a member. [Discussing slides
5 and 6] she explained that stakeholders, such as rural
legislators, advocates, and educators, met with the Senate
Finance Standing Committee. From these meetings several
amendments were adopted to the proposed legislation. She listed
the intended results of the adopted amendments: strengthen the
cultural components of the legislation by striking all
references to assessments and high-stakes testing; strengthen
the language in the reading screeners to ensure cultural
responsiveness; create a stronger relationship between the
districts and the Head Start early learning program; provide
reading specialists to give additional training in Indigenous
languages; and create a title-wide definition of parent and
guardian, which would codify the Parent as Teacher program.
MS. TOBIN continued that the stakeholder group would review the
implementation of the proposed legislation and the regulatory
process. She stated that, to reflect the settlement from Moore,
et al. v. State of Alaska, 3AN-04-9756 CI, (2010), the proposed
legislation would provide for the removal of the cap on the
number of low-performance schools that could participate in the
targeted reading intervention program. She related that one of
the key pieces in the proposed Alaska Reads Act is the early
education components. She indicated that the legislation would
build on the locally successful programs recognized in the
department's reading report. The pre-elementary grant program
would be expanded to ensure every district would have access to
training and support funds from the department to grow and
improve pre-K programs. These programs would qualify to have
their students count as one half in the average daily membership
(ADM).
8:19:05 AM
MR. KING began [on slide 7] with the next major component of the
proposed legislation. Reading intervention services would
identify students in early grades who need additional help. He
stated that the culturally responsive reading program would not
be a test to determine whether students could advance to the
next grade. Instead, it would ensure that students' learning
needs were met. He explained that reading screeners would
assess students up to three times [per year]. Only students who
did not pass the first or second [screener] would have to take a
third screener in the spring. He stated that the screening
process would make sure the individual reading improvement plans
are updated to meet students' needs. He offered that, reflected
in the fiscal note, DEED would develop primary screening tools.
Another component in the fiscal note would be the $500,000 in
funding for the development of screening tools in multiple
languages. The districts would also have the ability to create
their own screeners rather than use the screeners provided by
the department. He reiterated that the important part of the
reading plan would be to identify students who need help, so
their plans could be tailored to their needs.
MR. KING continued [to slide 8], stating that the legislation
would direct the department to hire reading specialists to train
teachers. The reading specialists would use evidence-based
materials to train teachers how to conduct interventions and
teach using science-based reading instruction. He stated that
the reading specialist positions would be state employees funded
by DEED. These specialists would be responsible for building
local capacity in communities, so this knowledge would stay in
the districts and further invest in the students.
8:22:01 AM
MS. TOBIN, referencing [slide 9], stated that the bill also
contains the codification of state support for virtual
education. She related that the [COVID-19] pandemic
demonstrated that educators and students should always have
access to high-quality education; thus, the proposed bill would
focus on leveraging gains and investments [made during the
pandemic] to ensure the state would be prepared for whatever the
future holds.
MS. TOBIN continued that the bill would affirm locally directed
education and parent engagement and choice, [slide 10]. She
stated that if a student is identified to have a reading issue,
an individual reading plan would be provided. These
interventions would be unique to each student in their
individual reading trajectory, and the conversation would
include the teacher, student, and parent or guardian. She
stated that the legislation would provide an expanded definition
of parent or guardian as an adult who is in charge of the
student's academic career. She added that this parent or
guardian does not have to be a biological parent, but the role
could be associated with a stepparent, grandparent, foster
parent, aunt or uncle, or another individual in the community.
She stated that the legislation focuses on codifying Alaska
Statute 14.03.016, which provides that a parent has complete
control of the direction of his/her child's education. The
parent would be able to opt the student out of any screener,
assessment, classroom, or curriculum. She stated that the
legislation reinforces the existing statute which provides that
it is always the parent's choice. She stated that, before a
decision is made on a student's trajectory, there would be
multiple notifications and conversations taking place over the
year, and, if a decision needs to be made, the parent would be
at the forefront of the conversation. She maintained that the
bill would be about early intervention, not retention.
8:24:45 AM
MR. KING stated that, to create accountability, almost
everything in [CSSB 111(FIN) am] would have a sunset provision
in 2034 [as seen on slide 11]. He stated that, because the
programs would be new, the sunset provisions would make sure
programs are working before the continuation of funding. The
legislation would require annual reporting and analysis of
programs. Before the sunset of the legislation, a large report,
culminated from the annual reports, would be submitted to the
Thirty-Eighth Alaska State Legislature. From this review the
functioning programs could be extended, while programs that have
not been functioning would be revisited. He stated that [the
sunset clauses] would provide accountability. For example, if a
school district would like to continue a program, it would be
required to meet expectations and provide evidence that the
program is working. From this point the legislature would act
accordingly.
MR. KING pointed out that the last two slides graphically
represent the process of students being enrolled into the ADM
over time, as the bill would have a $3 million per year funding
limit for ADM inclusion. He explained the red triangle on the
left [of slide 12] represents the estimated 1,400 4-year-old
students currently enrolled in a district pre-K program. He
stated that the blue bar held at a constant through the years
represents the Head Start program. He indicated that, because
of restraints in the eligibility of the Head Start program, this
constant is an assumption. He explained that the graph depicts
two options for districts to fund their 4-year-old students.
One option would be the program approved directly through DEED
immediately include students in the ADM. For districts without
a program, the option would be a three-year grant to begin a
program and [gradually] roll their students into the ADM. He
pointed out that the yellow area on the graph represents the
gradual end of grant program in fiscal year 2032 (FY 32), when
all districts would have had the opportunity to include their
ADM into programs and universal pre-K would begin. He pointed
out that the last slide depicts the legislation's education
funding. The funding would escalate over time to spread out the
budgetary impact. He explained that the rationale for the $3
million per year funding limit is so the growth trajectory of
the education funding could continue until all the students were
included in the ADM.
8:28:05 AM
MS. TOBIN began the sectional analysis on CSSB 111(FIN) am,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 1 Establishes this Act as the Alaska Reads Act.
Sec. 2 AS 14.03.040, relating to day-in-session
requirements, is amended to address a gap in the
current law. The change makes clear that kindergarten
and early education programs are not subject to the
requirements. Section 20 clarifies that the state
board of education should adopt regulations for those
programs.
Sec. 3 AS 14.03.060(e), relating to the definition of
an elementary school, is amended by:
• Changing the term "pre-elementary" to "early
education" (defined in sections 14 and 17).
• Adding the term "approved by" to conform to the
addition of AS 14.03.410(a)(2) (added by section 14).
• Making clearer the relationship between Head
Start agencies and DEED.
• Removing the language regarding ADM count, as
it is moved to AS 14.03.410(f) (within section 14) and
AS 14.17.500 (section 25).
Sec. 4 AS 14.03.060(e), relating to the definition of
an elementary school, is amended in 2034 to reverse
the addition of "approved by" in section 3. This
change is required to conform with the repeal of AS
14.03.410 (related to early education funding).
Sec. 5 Amends AS 14.03.072, related to providing
information to K-3 parents, by changing the word
"literacy" to "reading," inserting a requirement that
the intervention strategies be culturally responsive,
incorporating the reading intervention services added
by section 33, replacing "retention" with
"progression," and adding a requirement to provide a
list of resources to improve adult literacy.
Sec. 6 Removes the reference to reading intervention
services after the repeal of AS 14.30.765 in 2034.
8:29:58 AM
MR. KING continued with the sectional analysis, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 7 Amends AS 14.03.078(a), related to DEED
reporting requirements, by:
adding school districts as a recipient of the
DEED's annual report.
• expanding the reporting requirement to
incorporate all reports in AS 14.03.120, including
those listed below.
• adding ratios of administrative employees to
students, administrative employees to teachers, and
teacher to student ratios to the annual report.
• adding a progress report of the reading
intervention programs established by section 33.
• Adding a report on the effectiveness and
participation of the parents-as-teachers program
established by section 14.
Sec. 8 Repeals the reports on reading intervention and
parents-as-teachers when the programs sunset in 2034.
Sec. 9 Adds two subsections to AS 14.03.078, relating
to department reporting requirements, which requires
reports to be posted online and defines an
administrative employee (as referenced in section 7).
Sec. 10 Amends AS 14.03.080(c), related to under
school age children entering public school, by
limiting participation to four- and five-year-old
children and clarifying that a child in an early
education program does not need to move to
kindergarten at age five.
Sec. 11 Reverses the changes in section 10 in 2034.
Sec. 12 Reinstitutes the language from the current AS
14.03.080(d), returning to the current language after
the sunset of the early education program takes
effect.
Sec. 13 Adds two new subsections to AS 14.03.120,
relating to district reporting requirements.
(h) establishes an annual report regarding
student performance metrics in kindergarten through
third grade.
(if) improves public access to the data collected
under AS 14.03.120.
8:32:18 AM
MS. TOBIN continued with the sectional analysis, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 14 Establishes early education programs and
grants under AS 14.03, which includes the following
subsections:
• AS 14.03.410(a) directs DEED to provide
training to help districts develop.
• AS 14.03.410(b) authorizes DEED to award 3-year
early education grants up to $3M per year.
• AS 14.03.410(c) requires DEED to rank the
districts and prioritize lower ranked districts. This
subsection also limits eligibility if there is
insufficient need in the district due to Head Start or
other programs.
• AS 14.03.410(d) authorizes up to two additional
years of grant funding if the program is not able to
qualify for ADM inclusion at the end of the 3-year
grant.
• AS 14.03.410(e) requires DEED approval of a
program meeting high-quality standards for ADM
inclusion.
• AS 14.03.410(f) makes clear that the grants are
subject to appropriation.
• AS 14.03.410(g) is a requirement that districts
consult with Head Start programs before applying for a
pre-k grant.
• AS 14.03.410(h) provides definitions.
• AS 14.03.420 codifies the Parents-as-Teachers
program.
Sec. 15 Amends AS 14.07.020(a), relating to duties of
the Department of Education and Early Development, by:
• Adding supervision over, and approval of, early
education programs.
• Adding the support and intervention
requirements relating to reading intervention programs
(from section 33).
• Requiring an annual convening of stakeholders
to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs
established by this bill and to review the regulations
adopted by the Board to implement this bill. Sec. 16
Reverses the changes in Section 15 in 2034.
8:34:26 AM
MR. KING continued with the sectional analysis, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 17 Changes AS 14.07.020(c), relating to the
duties of the department, to update the term "pre-
elementary school" to "early education program."
Sec. 18 Alters AS 14.07.050, relating to the selection
of textbooks, to incorporate the new sections AS
14.30.765 and 14.30.770, which are added under section
33 of this bill.
Sec. 19 Reverses the changes in section 18 in 2034.
Sec. 20 AS 14.07.165(a), relating to the regulations
adopted by the State Board of Education, is amended to
establish the standards for early education programs.
Sec. 21 A new paragraph is added to AS 14.07.168,
relating to the annual report by the state board of
education to the legislature, which requires the
inclusion of a review of the effectiveness of the
virtual consortium added by section 34 of this bill.
Sec. 22 Reverses the changes in section 21 in 2034.
Sec. 23 Amends AS 14.07.180(a), relating to school
districts curricula, by requiring the board to utilize
the components of evidence-based reading instruction
(Phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development,
reading fluency, oral language skills, and reading
comprehension).
Sec. 24 AS 14.14.115(a), relating to cooperative
arrangements, expands the ability of a school district
to form agreements with private businesses, non-
profits, and government agencies, but prohibits state
funds from benefiting private educational
institutions.
Sec. 25 Add new subsections to AS 14.17.500, relating
to student count estimates, which allows
• districts to count early education students
from approved programs at one-half of a full-time
equivalent student.
• prohibits including early education students
that participate in another state or federally funded
program.
• provides a process for limiting the budget
increase related to including early education students
in the ADM count to $3M per year.
Sec. 26 Sunsets the inclusion of early education
students in a district's ADM in 2034.
8:36:25 AM
MS. TOBIN continued the sectional analysis, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 27 AS 14.17.905, relating to defining a school
for calculating school size factors, is amended to
account for the inclusion of early education students
when defining an elementary school in a district with
between 101 and 425 students.
Sec. 28 Reverses the change in section 27 to conform
to the sunset in 2034.
Sec. 29 Amends AS 14.20.015(c), related to preliminary
teacher certificates, by adding a requirement that
teachers with preliminary certificates complete board
required coursework, training, and testing in
evidence-based reading instruction.
Sec. 30 Reverses the change in section 29 in 2034.
Sec. 31 Amends AS 14.20.020(a), related to teacher
certificates, to require the state board of education
to periodically reevaluate the acceptable level of
demonstrated competency required to issue a teacher
certificate.
Sec. 32 Adds a new subsection AS 14.20.020(l), related
to teacher certificates, which requires teachers to
complete board required coursework, training, and
testing in evidence-based reading instruction.
8:37:48 AM
MR. KING continued the sectional analysis, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 33 This section adds several new sections of law
related to reading intervention:
? AS 14.30.760 directs DEED to establish a
statewide screening tool to identify students with
reading deficiencies and establishes a timeline in
which screenings are conducted.
MR. KING provided that the change from "assessment" to
"screening tool" could be found throughout this section. He
also pointed out that a change made by the Senate Finance
Standing Committee [ensures the inclusion of] "any" language in
the programs. He continued with the sectional analysis, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
? AS 14.30.765(a) directs each school district to
offer intensive reading intervention services to K-3
students exhibiting a reading deficiency and to
communicate with parents and guardians.
? AS 14.30.765(b) directs school districts to
provide individual reading improvement plans for K-3
students exhibiting a reading deficiency and defines
the plan's components.
? AS 14.30.765(c) requires districts to notify a
student's parents that their child has demonstrated a
reading deficiency along with corresponding
information about remedying the deficiency.
? AS 14.30.765(d) requires a parent-teacher
conference for K-2 students with a reading deficiency
to discuss delayed progression as a potential
intervention strategy of last resort.
? AS 14.30.765(e) established a statewide policy
to determine if a student is ready for promotion to
the fourth grade.
? AS 14.30.765(f) requires a parent-teacher
conference for third grade students with a reading
deficiency to discuss delayed progression as an
intervention and establishes a parental waiver to
allow a student to advance to fourth grade without
being prepared, which requires an additional 20 hours
of summer intervention services.
? AS 14.30.765(g) establishes best interest
considerations for superintendents required to decide
if a student should progress to the next grade.
? AS 14.30.765(h) provides an opportunity for a
parent that misses the required conference to
discussion delaying progress to reschedule that
conference.
? AS 14.30.765(a) directs the district to provide
additional intervention for students that do not
promote or promote with a waiver.
? AS 14.30.765(j) directs the district to provide
a path for mid-year promotion (upon request) when a
student does not promote with their peers.
? AS 14.30.765(k) establishes a policy for mid-
year promotion of a K-3 student that does not progress
to the next grade.
? AS 14.30.765(l) requires that a student
promoting mid-year continue the individual reading
improvement plan.
? AS 14.30.765(m) limits retention by a
superintendent to one year.
? AS 14.30.765(n) provide a definition for
reading teacher.
? AS 14.30.770 directs the department to
establish a statewide reading program, including
department-funded reading specialists, to assist
schools in setting up their intervention services and
coaching teachers on how to conduct evidence-based
reading instruction.
? AS 14.30.775 requires the department to adopt a
definition of "dyslexia" in regulation.
? AS 14.30.780 provides definitions.
MR. KING stated that in this section the amendment removes the
reference to "five" in terms of the number of reading
specialists. He stated that the number of reading specialists
would remain open until the budget process determined the
appropriate number of specialists that the department would
utilize.
8:42:10 AM
MS. TOBIN noted that on page 36, line 14, an amendment, in
collaboration with Indigenous stakeholders, added the provision
that the reading specialists would receive additional coursework
in training in Indigenous languages and culturally responsive
education. She continued with the sectional analysis, at
Section 34, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Sec. 34 Adds a new section of law, AS 14.30.800, which
establishes a virtual education consortium. This
consortium allows districts to offer virtual access to
student courses and professional development courses
through a statewide system hosted by the department of
education. This section also creates a reading
specialist position to remotely assist districts to
improve reading instruction.
Sec. 35 Provides title-wide definitions for
"culturally responsive" and "parent or guardian
Sec. 36 Adds "early education program" to the
definition of "organization" in AS 47.17.290, which
pertains to mandatory reporters.
Sec. 37 Repeals AS 14.03.080(d), related to five-year-
old students starting kindergarten (to conform to the
changes in section 10) and AS 14.03.290(4) (to conform
to the definition of "parent or guardian" added in
section 35).
MS. TOBIN stated that Section 38 contains sunset provisions,
which would be repealed on June 30, 2024. She continued with
the sectional analysis, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Sec. 38 Sunset provision which repeals the following:
? AS 14.03.120(h) (report of reading improvement
statistics added in section 13)
? AS 14.03.410 (early education funding added in
section 14).
? AS 14.03.420 (Parents-as-Teachers program added
in section 14).
? AS 14.17.500(e) and (f) (limiting funding of
early education programs added in 25)
? AS 14.20.020(l) (increased requirements for
teaching certificates added in section 33)
? AS 14.30.760 (K-3 reading screeners added in
section 33)
? AS 14.30.765 (district reading intervention
services added in section 33)
? AS 14.30.770 (department reading specialists
added in section 33)
? AS 14.30.775 (definitions related to reading
interventions added in section 33)
? AS 14.30.800 (virtual education consortium
added in section 34)
Sec. 39 Sets a deadline for the department of
education to complete the set-up of the virtual
education consortium by July 1, 2024.
Sec. 40 Applicability language related to the reading
instruction requirement added by section 32 of this
bill, which allows teachers with preexisting teaching
certificates until July 1, 2024, to meet the new
requirements.
Sec. 41 Requires a report from DEED to the legislature
on the effectiveness of programs created by this bill
to the thirty-eighth legislature, which allows the
legislature to consider extending the programs before
they sunset.
Sec. 42 Transition language, which directs DEED on how
the BSA inclusion of currently operating early
education students should occur.
Sec. 43 Transition language, which allows DEED to
begin writing regulations before the bill takes
effect.
Sec. 44 Provides an immediate effective date for
section 43, which gives the department authority to
draft regulations.
Sec. 45 Provides an effective date of June 30, 2034,
for sections 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 16, 19, 22, 26, 30, 32,
and 40 (these are the sunset provisions).
Sec. 46 Provides an effective date of July 1, 2023,
for all other sections.
MS. TOBIN noted that this concluded the sectional analysis.
8:46:15 AM
HEIDI TESHNER, Acting Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Education and Early Development, presented the five fiscal notes
on CSSB 111(FIN) am, included in the committee packet. She
began by referencing the Early-Learning Coordination fiscal
note, Office of Management & Budget (OMB) component 2912. She
stated that the fiscal note outlines the costs to operate the
early education grant program and provide training and support
to the grantees. It is estimated that the program would require
three [new] staff members. She continued that, in addition to
the salary and benefit costs, the fiscal note reflects
department chargeback costs of $10,600 per position, a one-time
cost of $5,000 per position for supplies and equipment, and a
one-time cost of $6,000 in legal services to establish the
regulations for the early education program. She provided that
the total estimated cost for fiscal year FY 23 is $833,300. She
explained that $385,600 of this amount is the requested
appropriation. The remaining $474,700 is the appropriation for
the Parent as Teacher program, which is already included in the
governor's FY 23 budget.
MS. TESHNER next referenced the Pre-Kindergarten Grants fiscal
note, OMB component 3028. She stated that this fiscal note
outlines the costs required for the grants for the early
education programs. She directed attention to page 3 of the
fiscal note which shows the funding breakdown by fiscal year for
the three-year grant program. She stated that since the
proposed legislation would set a $3 million annual cap on the
program, the fiscal note represents the maximum number of
eligible students as 638. She added that this number is based
on the half-time average cost per student of $4,702. She
directed attention to Table 3 which shows the eligible cohorts
in each of the 11 years of the program. She pointed out the
visual representation on Table 4 depicting the cohorts'
transition to the foundation formula after the completion of the
three-year grant program. She stated that FY 34 would be the
last year of the three-year grant program with the total cost of
approximately $33 million. She indicated that, for purposes of
the committee, it has been assumed that all the participants in
the three-year grant program were approved and would not require
any additional time in that grant process.
8:49:21 AM
MS. TESHNER indicated that the next two fiscal notes address the
addition of four-year-old students to the foundation formula.
She explained that no costs are seen in the Foundation Program
fiscal note, OMB component 141, because the funding mechanism
for this program is a general fund transfer to the Public
Education Fund fiscal note, OMB component 2804. She stated that
any associated costs would be reflected in the Fund
Capitalization fiscal note. She calculated the average cost per
ADM by dividing the total amount of projected state aid by the
total number of ADM. She stated that the proposed legislation
would fund a student at half of the average, or $4,702. She
explained that the [projected amount] is an average cost based
on FY 22 and districts could possibly receive more.
MS. TESHNER continued that there would be nine cohorts of
students going through the early education grant program. The
first cohort would transition into the foundation formula in FY
27. The fiscal note assumes that all programs developed in the
first cohort would be approved by the end of the three-year
grant, and this assumption is carried out through all of the
cohorts. She stated that the proposed legislation includes
transition language for districts with existing early education
programs. Once these programs are approved by the State Board
of Education and Early Development, the amount available for
distribution would be limited in FY 23 to $3 million. In the
subsequent years there would be no more than a $3 million
increase over the prior year. Once all students have
transitioned and been included in the ADM count, state aid would
be estimated to increase to $24 million.
MS. TESHNER stated that the Student and School Achievement
fiscal note, OMB component 2796, reflects the costs related to
the comprehensive reading intervention program and the virtual
education consortium. She noted that each program would be
addressed individually. She stated that DEED would manage and
operate the comprehensive reading intervention program by
directing coursework, training, and testing opportunities
related to evidence-based reading instruction. She stated that
the department would be responsible for the following:
soliciting and convening stakeholders annually to receive
feedback on program implementation; establishing a recognition
program; and providing direct support and training for all K-3
teachers on the use of screening-tool results and the science of
reading. She provided that these functions would require three
staff members to manage and operate the program. She stated
that the staff would be required to participate at statewide
conferences for professional development, but only the Education
Administrator III position is budgeted to travel, as reflected
in the fiscal note. She stated that, in addition to the salary
and benefits costs of the three positions, on the fiscal note
there is a department chargeback cost of $10,600 per position
and a one-time cost of $5,000 per position for supplies and
equipment.
MS. TESHNER continued that the comprehensive reading
intervention program would require the adoption and
administration of a statewide screening tool to identify
students in grades K-3 with a reading deficiency. She stated
that there are approximately 40,000 students in grades K-3 in
Alaska schools. The statewide screener cost is approximately
$15 per student, equaling around $600,000 for total cost. She
stated that DEED could use federal receipts to cover the
screener in FY 23, but there would be a general fund cost in FY
24. In addition, there is a $500,000 cost on the fiscal note
beginning in FY 24 for the development of alternate screening
tools for the use in the culturally relevant immersion and
bilingual programs. There is a one-time cost of $18,000 for the
legal services associated with adopting regulations to implement
this program. She reiterated that the program would be repealed
on June 30, 2034.
8:54:19 AM
MS. TESHNER continued that the school improvement reading
program is also associated with this fiscal note. She stated
that DEED would provide direct support and intervention for
these programs. She explained that each year the department
would determine how many schools could adequately be served by
the reading specialists. The department would select the lowest
[performing] 25 percent of these schools to participate in the
reading program. She stated that DEED anticipates it would
employ one to five reading specialists in year one, and five in
the subsequent years. The fiscal note reflects hiring five
specialists in the first year, and the outyears would be
adjusted based on the implementation of the program. She said
that there is a department chargeback cost of $10,600 per
position, a one-time cost of $5,000 for supplies and equipment,
and a one-time cost of $12,000 for legal services associated
with the development of the regulations for the program. She
continued that the department expects virtual participation at
statewide conferences, so there is only one budgeted traveler.
MS. TESHNER stated that the fiscal note reflects the cost
associated with the purchase of supplemental reading textbooks
and materials for school districts in connection with the
reading intervention services. She stated that when a district
adopts a new reading curriculum there is a $250 cost per
student. She provided that [data from] school years 2019 and
2020 has been used to approximate the 40,000 students in grades
K-3, in the 391 schools. She divided 40,000 students by 391
schools for the result of 102 students per school. She
multiplied the estimated 5 schools per year by the 102 students
per school and multiplied this result by $250 per student, which
resulted in the cost of $127,500 [for materials per year]. She
stated that, related to this program, there is also the annual
fee of $50,000 beginning in FY 23 for an independent contractor
to establish and collect the baseline data needed in order to
conduct the data analysis of the program's effectiveness for the
final report due to the Thirty-Eighth Alaska State Legislature.
She reiterated that the program would be repealed on June 30,
2034.
MS. TESHNER stated that the virtual education consortium is also
associated with this fiscal note and would be established by
DEED in cooperation with school districts. She stated that the
department would need two positions to manage and operate the
statewide virtual education learning management system. These
positions would review the courses, review the professional
development, provide virtual education, and provide virtual-
instruction training. In addition, there would be a reading
specialist position to provide reading intervention services to
districts participating in the virtual education consortium.
She said that, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, in FY 21
the department established a statewide license for the virtual
education learning management system. The department plans to
continue the license through FY 23 using the federal COVID-19
relief funding at an annual [estimated] cost of $1.1 million.
She stated that the two permanent full-time positions would
manage the learning management system by reviewing coursework,
reviewing professional development, and providing virtual
instruction training. She stated that federal COVID-19 relief
fund would support the one-time reading specialist position
through FY 23. She said that beginning in FY 24 state funds
would be needed to support the learning management system and
those associated positions. She added that the fiscal note
provides a one-time increment of $12,000 in 2023 for legal
services associated with developing regulations around the
virtual education consortium.
MS. TESHNER continued that the fiscal note reflects two
additional costs: a $200,000 cost in FY 32 for an independent
contractor to assist DEED in compiling and evaluating the
required multiyear data analysis, and a $115,000 cost beginning
in FY 24 for the annual convening of the panel to review and
comment on the effectiveness of the new programs. She said,
"The FY 23 general fund cost to implement these programs overall
for this fiscal note is $4,187,400."
9:00:37 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND expressed appreciation for the bill sponsors
and their staff. She acknowledged that the concerns of the
House Education Standing Committee were addressed, [as the
proposed legislation reflects language] included in HB 164.
Referencing the PowerPoint presentation, she questioned the
number of students currently in the Head Start and pre-K
programs in the state.
9:02:06 AM
MS. TOBIN directed attention to the graph depicting current
participation in these programs [on slide 12] of the Power Point
presentation. She stated that the Head Start program currently
serves approximately 900 students. She indicated that
eligibility requirements prohibit additional student
participation in the program, and the program is capped at 900
students. She stated that, as part of the pre-elementary grant
program, there are a little over 14,000 students currently
enrolled in the pre-K programs in the districts. She stated
that the proposed legislation would add students, as seen on the
two graphs on [slide] 12. She stated that, as Ms. Teshner
indicated, there are approximately 10,000 students per grade,
but because the program is voluntary, it is estimated that
statewide participation is around 88 percent.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND indicated that the graph represents around 80
percent participation in statewide pre-K and Head Start
programs, leaving about 20 percent of the students in private
preschool or in-home care. She directed attention to [slide] 5
of the presentation, expressing appreciation that all references
to assessments have been removed, but she suggested that
accountability information could be requested. She questioned
whether this information could be provided without assessments.
MS. TOBIN responded that the goal of the legislation is not to
have students compete on a national level with high-stakes,
standardized tests; rather, the goal is to help inform classroom
teachers how to understand the students' needs. She stated that
the materials provided from the House Education Standing
Committee helped ensure screeners would be culturally
responsive, while the language adopted in the Senate Finance
Standing Committee helped ensure teachers would use formulative
analysis to direct students on the right path to learn to read.
She stated that, while there would be no proficiency
requirement, students would need to meet mental benchmarks to
make sure they are on the right trajectory. The classroom
teacher would discern students' accomplishments and deficiencies
and ensure they are on the right path with tailored plans. She
maintained that, in terms of accountability, conversations
between parents and teachers would confirm that all students
receive the same basic level of care when learning to read. She
stated that the proposed legislation is not about reaching a
"magical benchmark." She expressed the belief that if the
interventions were done well, and support had been provided to
educators and families, all expectations would be exceeded. She
surmised that national tests would be passed naturally.
9:07:05 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND said she appreciates that "retention" has been
changed to "progression," mirroring the change in [HB 164]. She
held the opinion that the parent should have complete control
but expressed concern that the proposed legislation could be
seen as a "retention bill." She requested that this concern be
addressed.
SENATOR BEGICH responded that every district has the policy that
the superintendent can either progress or not progress a student
based on the recommendation of the principal or teacher. He
stated that the difference is [CSSB 111(FIN) am] would set out
parameters for when the discussion would take place, and the
final decision would be up to the parent or guardian. He
continued that this would be left to the superintendent only
after multiple attempts to contact the parent, and the parent
remains nonresponsive. He stated that if the superintendent
were to make the decision, there would still be a provision for
the parent to appeal. He listed the three outright prohibitions
on retention that would be in the bill: if English is not the
student's first language; if the student suffers a learning
disability; and if a student has already been retained. He
stated that the second and third prohibition does not exist
under current law. He concluded that the proposed bill would
actually be the opposite of a retention bill, as the final
promotion decision would be in the hands of a parent, who would
be fully informed from working with the teacher. He reiterated
that the legislation would require most screening be done at the
beginning of the year, giving the student the opportunity for a
full year to improve. He argued that there would not be an
arbitrary retention of students concerning their first language,
learning disability, or past learning struggles. He concluded
that the bill moves in the opposite direction of [a retention
bill].
9:12:13 AM
MS. TOBIN responded to a follow-up question stating that, after
multiple committee conversations, it had been decided there
could be instances when a parent would not want their child to
progress but rather have an additional year of preschool. The
proposed legislation would provide that the districts allow an
additional year at the request of the parent.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND referenced Section 27 in the sectional
analysis, regarding the definition of an elementary school in a
district [with ADM] between 101 and 425 students. She
questioned whether this would define the size of an elementary
school or the size of a school district. She gave the example
of the [Lower Yukon School District] and the Hooper Bay School.
She questioned whether the definition would apply to grades K-12
or just the elementary school.
SENATOR BEGICH responded that the language is possibly a
standard definition for DEED. He pointed out that the language
is on page 22, line 6, in [CSSB 111(FIN) am]. He deferred to
Ms. Teshner.
9:15:22 AM
MS. TESHNER stated that the language ensures the [ADM] of the
elementary school would include the students who are part of the
early education program . She suggested that there should be a
closer read of the legislation, and a response to the committee
could be provided at a later time.
CO-CHAIR STORY stated that [HB 413], which pertains to the
Hooper Bay School, has language that would exclude a charter
school [within this definition]. She conjectured that the
language in [CSSB 111(FIN) am] would need to reflect this as
well.
MS. TESHNER answered that this concerns the same statute that
addresses the Hooper Bay School. She stated that if the Hooper
Bay legislation passed, the language in this legislation would
need to conform.
9:16:51 AM
SENATOR BEGICH stated that the amended language would ensure the
population of schools includes the early education program. He
stated that, for example, if the Hooper Bay bill passed, the
language would change in the statute and just be part of that
statute. He recalled that a 2017 version of the proposed bill
ensured that students enrolled as half of an ADM would be
counted toward the school population. He stated that otherwise
they would not be counted in the schools' ADM because the early
education program had not been included. He concluded in
agreement that this would specifically be related to the ADM
count.
9:18:18 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND referred to Section 33 of the sectional
analysis which defined that a parent could sign a waiver to
allow their child to advance to the fourth grade without being
prepared. She stated that this would require an additional 20
hours of summer intervention services [directed by the parent].
She questioned whether there would be a consequence if the
parent were not to participate, and the 20 hours of summer
intervention services were not fulfilled.
9:19:06 AM
MS. TOBIN responded that this provision had been inserted at the
request of a Senator in the Senate Education Standing Committee.
The Senator became adamant that once a child had been deemed to
be unprepared to progress, and the parent knowingly asked that
their child be progressed, that parent should ensure the child
receive additional interventions over the summer. She continued
that there would be no stakes in the bill to direct the parent,
rather it would a good faith agreement with the understanding
that the parent would provide those additional services or reach
out to additional resources. She shared that school staff has
been excited and interested to have this conversation. She
directed the committee to page 3, line 3, of the legislation
which provides that the parent would receive additional
information and a list of organizations to help with the
student's literacy. She expressed hope that parents would
utilize the resources obtained from teacher conferences. She
warned that the guarantee would only be in the notification of
the parent and their signature [on the waiver].
9:20:53 AM
SENATOR BEGICH remarked that the idea the state would force a
parent to do the right thing by their child had been "repugnant"
to the committee. He expressed the belief that, if the ongoing
conversation between the parent and teacher led to the final
decision by the parent to progress the child, and the parent did
not follow through, the suffering would go to the child. He
expressed the belief that the proposed legislation implies that
conferences between the teacher and the parent would leave the
parent responsible, but no coercive action would be on the
parent. He reasoned that if a parent chose to advance the child
with a learning deficiency, it would be difficult to force the
parent to follow through.
9:22:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY, referring to the earlier comment that
retention policies occur in every district, voiced the opinion
that the statement is not factual. She argued that the Cordova
School District does not have a retention policy. She related
the idea that districts may have concerns that "short term gains
could have longer harms for students." She questioned whether
the legislation is a retention bill.
SENATOR BEGICH responded that every district has the ability to
retain a child, but districts can make their own official
policy. He offered that this could be confirmed by DEED. He
argued that data shows retention should be a last resort and has
very little impact improving a student's ability to learn to
read. He reiterated that the proposed legislation strictly
stipulates reasons a child could not be retained, as the parent
would be given the opportunity to control any decisions made by
a local district about his/her/their child. He stated that the
bill relates five basic components that would help a child
acquire the skill of reading. He added that these are
scientific-based components, regardless of the language. He
argued that the bill supports early education as the time to
prepare the child to learn; if things are done collectively and
collaboratively, the child is likely to learn to read. He said
he appreciates the question, but the bill would restrict the
ability of the districts to retain students. He maintained that
the legislation is not a retention bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY directed attention to the removal of the
term "assessment" as seen on slide 5 of the presentation and
expressed the understanding that the intention of the
legislation would be to move away from the use of a retention
tool. She argued that, regardless of the term, the function of
a screener tool would lead to a high-stakes decision point,
whether made by a parent or by the school district. She
maintained that the legislation would have similar strategies to
No Child Left Behind, as there would be a high-stakes decision
point in a child's educational path. She expressed interest in
understanding how the screener could function differently. She
argued that currently the language in the bill does have a high-
stakes decision point, which is ultimately made on one aspect of
the child's educational performance. She expressed interested
in hearing about other strategies to ensure the bill would not
function as a high-stakes decision point.
SENATOR BEGICH, in response, requested an example in the bill.
He stated that he crafted the legislation and worked with others
on the Senate Education Standing Committee, particularly in
terms of the screener [language]. He stated that the screener
would be similar to screeners used in districts today that are
applied at the end of the year. He stated that [in contrast
with] the screener tool used today, this tool would be developed
by either DEED or the districts. He described the screener as
an observational, evidence-based tool that would be utilized at
the beginning of the school year to determine if a child is
struggling with learning. He continued that the teacher would
work with the parent and child to develop a plan to address any
issues. The child would be assessed again with a second
screener in the middle of the school year. If there has been no
progression, the teacher would retool the plan. He asserted
that the teacher would be supported by DEED to trust his/her
skill as a reading instructor. The teacher would have two
opportunities to work with the parent and the child to develop
the reading skills before the end of year. He continued that if
the child is showing progress there would be no need for a third
screener. At the end of the screening process, if the child has
not shown sufficient progression, the teacher's role would be to
discuss the various options available with the parent. He
reiterated that the legislation would not create a high-stakes
screener, rather it would create an opportunity to inform and
engage the parent, with the parent having the decision point on
the child's progression in the end. He expressed confusion how
the proposed legislation would create a high-stakes situation
that would be any different than the current situation.
9:30:18 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY expressed the opinion that there are places in
the bill which indicate a [high-stakes decision point]. She
acknowledged familiarity with the Juneau reading program that
assesses students reading progression as much as every six
weeks. In addressing the framework of the bill, she stated that
it would not matter the type of assessment, as a structured
reading program would have to have an assessment. She expressed
the belief that feedback needs to be given [throughout the
school year] so instruction could be adjusted. She held the
opinion that the students are very capable, but somehow the
instruction has been missed. She pointed to page 30, line 15,
in the legislation that references when a parent is not
available to make the determination on their child's
progression. She stated that in some areas of the state this
may be difficult for parents, as there may not be internet
access, phone service, or mail service. She stated that [in
rural areas parents may not be available during subsistence time
in the spring], and if a parent could not be reached, the
language in the legislation should reflect that more attempts be
made until the parent or guardian is reached.
SENATOR BEGICH responded that Sections 15 to 19 in the bill
reference that multiple contacts should be attempted before a
default is made to the superintendent or superintendent's
designee. He maintained that this would be the case only if
there had been no engagement with the parent or guardian. He
considered that the language may need to be adjusted or
modified.
9:33:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY directed attention to slide 7 concerning
districts having local control. She stated that this would be
the best approach for a culturally and linguistically diverse
state like Alaska. She asserted that school districts should be
better equipped to understand the cultural and linguistical
needs of students, but "the legislature has not been ...
meaningfully fulfilling support for the department in a way that
sets our students up for success, and I think that brings us all
to this very honest and candid and difficult conversation about
how do we thread that needle with the resources that we have."
She expressed interest in the resources that would be available
for districts to develop their own screeners and culturally
based curriculum. She stated that some small school districts
have been able to development curriculum through external
grants, but there have not been resources meaningfully provided
by the state. She related that an analogy in her district says,
"How do you teach students about curbs when there are no curbs
and sidewalks ... in the community." She stated that for reform
there must be assurances that the state would provide resources
to districts to initiate or augment the development of
culturally based curriculum. She requested a response from the
bill sponsor or the department.
SENATOR BEGICH expressed appreciation for the question and
responded that this is at the heart of the state's education
difficulties, in particular with the most underserved
populations. He stated that many years ago the legislature
began to cut the capacity of the districts to support education.
He referenced that Moore had been filed because of the inability
of DEED to support any district, much less the underserved
districts. He explained that, based on DEED's policies, the
judge ruled against the plaintive and for the state. The
judge's decision expressed that the department's policies read
well and that the state had been doing as directed. A footnote
in the decision expressed that the judge would like to revisit
the issue if the department shows it cannot [maintain support of
rural school districts]. He offered the opinion that the
department has failed to show it could provide support to those
districts in the intervening years. He stated that this is
precisely the issue Representative Zulkosky just described: the
state provides teaching and support in such a limited way that
districts do not have the ability to work with their own
students and parents. He said, "The state won that lawsuit by
showing that we failed our kids. That is precisely why we
should support this bill."
SENATOR BEGICH stated that language has been added to the
proposed legislation which would give the responsibility to the
department for writing screening tools, particularly in
alternative languages. He argued that there must be more than
one person in the department who has the ability to understand a
fifth of the state's population, and this version of the bill
insists this must happen. He stated that the bill builds DEED's
support capacity, specifically looking at the Moore lawsuit and
DEED's failure to meet the needs of the state's rural students.
He added that the needs of second-language learners are not
being met in the urban areas either. He offered the opinion
that the state is failing and appealed for collaboration on
[CSSB 111(FIN) am]. He requested that a representative from the
department speak to this topic.
9:39:38 AM
MS. TESHNER responded that the fiscal note provides $500,000 for
a contractor to develop culturally responsive screeners for
districts to utilize. She stated that currently there is no
other support in the fiscal notes for curriculum development at
the district level. She further said that districts could
utilize their existing foundation funds for this.
REPRESENTAIVE ZULKOSKY expressed appreciation for the inclusion
of culturally relevant interventions but offered that this would
only measure a student's progress. She stated that this does
not engage and teach students within the classroom or address
the material they are encountering. She argued that "we are
addressing a problem downstream and instead of the root cause,"
as rural districts are not equipped with culturally based
curriculum. She referenced past discussions within the
committee on the success of reading interventions in high-
poverty areas and said, "I want to be on the record and very
clear that poverty and culture are not synonymous." She
requested there be an explanation of the resources DEED would
supply to districts, so districts could develop their own
curriculum materials.
MS. TESHNER responded by readdressing the fiscal note. She
stated that the fiscal note reflects a cost of $127,500 for
supplemental materials and a reading specialist. The reading
specialist would provide services to schools that participate,
and the supplemental materials would be responsive to the
particular school district to ensure the curriculum is
culturally relevant. She said, "That's not going to be a one
size fits all. What might be needed in one district is not
going to be needed in another." She expressed hope that those
supplemental materials would help meet the districts' requests.
REPRESENTAIVE ZULKOSKY, referencing the bill sponsor's comment
that "local control is best," stated that DEED should provide a
"pipeline" for resources to districts, so districts would be
able to "flex" their local knowledge. She stated that, whether
it is the development of curriculum or the purchasing of
materials, rural school districts need culturally based
curriculum. She gave the example of the Northwest Arctic
Borough School District's statement made during a recent
committee meeting. The statement relayed that, if the district
had the opportunity, it would develop its own curriculum, but
there have been no resources for that. She agreed that
intervention tools should be culturally relevant, but she
stipulated that materials helping students should also be
culturally relevant. She said that students are "only going to
be successful if they see themselves reflected in their
curriculum."
MS. TESHNER stated that DEED is already committed to developing
a list of available curricula for districts. The districts
would not have to do the research but could choose from the
list. She stated that those services could help alleviate the
districts.
9:44:58 AM
MS. TESHNER, in response to Co-Chair Story, stated that the
department has had discussions, and this would be [funded]
through normal functions. A new fiscal note would not be
needed.
9:45:23 AM
SENATOR BEGICH stated that DEED has invested $2 million in the
Alaska Federation of Natives and in the Cook Inlet Tribal
Council toward the development of curricula. In terms of the
local control elements and the purchase of curricula, he
concluded that this is consistent with the proposed legislation.
He added that this part of the legislation could be more robust.
He referenced that the [Alaska Native Language Preservation and
Advisory Council], created in 2012, has made recommendations,
but none have been considered by the state, legislature, or
governor. He stated that virtually all of the recommendations
have been ignored, so perhaps this legislation would create a
little more robustness.
9:46:54 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY referenced that the bill would require a report
on [the ratio] of administrators to students and teachers to
students. She questioned whether the report should include the
number of paraprofessionals to students. She stated that
paraprofessionals participate in many hands-on interventions
with students and leaving this participation out would give a
skewed idea of the number of students who receive hands-on
feedback.
9:48:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK expressed the opinion that the legislation
would not be a retention bill. He referenced his experience as
a teacher and provided his opinion that the bill describes what
has always been done; [any retention of a student] always went
through the parent, and if there had been no communication with
the parent, the school would advocate for the child. He
maintained that the bill states clearly that parents would have
the choice. He voiced the opinion that the legislation would
not be a retention bill but a parent-advocacy bill. He stated
that, when he was a teacher, if a child were retained, the
retention had more to do with the student's lack of maturity
rather than a developmental issue.
SENATOR BEGICH, in response Representative Story, stated that
the paraprofessional [language] should be added to the bill.
9:50:00 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY announced that CSSB 111(FIN) am was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| ANLPAC 2022 Report to the Governor and Legislature.pdf |
HEDC 4/20/2022 8:00:00 AM |
|
| CSSB 111 (FIN) am.PDF |
HEDC 4/20/2022 8:00:00 AM |
SB 111 |
| SB 111 Presentation to HEDU 4.20.2022.pdf |
HEDC 4/20/2022 8:00:00 AM |
SB 111 |
| SB 111 Committee Packet 4.20.2022.pdf |
HEDC 4/20/2022 8:00:00 AM |
SB 111 |
| SB 111 Sectional Analysis version R.A.pdf |
HEDC 4/20/2022 8:00:00 AM |
SB 111 |
| SB 111 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 4/20/2022 8:00:00 AM |
SB 111 |
| SB111CS(FIN)-EED-ELC-3-16-22.pdf |
HEDC 4/20/2022 8:00:00 AM |
SB 111 |
| SB111CS(FIN)-EED-FP-3-16-22.pdf |
HEDC 4/20/2022 8:00:00 AM |
SB 111 |
| SB111CS(FIN)-EED-PEF-3-16-22.pdf |
HEDC 4/20/2022 8:00:00 AM |
SB 111 |
| SB111CS(FIN)-EED-PK-3-16-22.pdf |
HEDC 4/20/2022 8:00:00 AM |
SB 111 |
| SB111CS(FIN)-EED-SSA-3-16-22.pdf |
HEDC 4/20/2022 8:00:00 AM |
SB 111 |
| 4.13.2022 (H)EDC Hearing DEED Follow-Up.pdf |
HEDC 4/20/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 413 |