Legislature(2011 - 2012)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/25/2011 08:00 AM Senate EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB6 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 6-PREKINDERGARTEN SCHOOL PROGRAMS/PLANS
8:03:36 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS announced the consideration of SB 6.
He reminded the committee of the presentation given by Bill
Millet on March 9, 2011, which addressed the economic impact of
early childhood education. He noted that much of the testimony
that the Senate Education Standing Committee has heard over the
last few years has been about the importance of early education.
8:04:49 AM
SENATOR DAVIS, co-sponsor of SB 6, said this is an important
bill that needs to be addressed. SB 6 is here solely to begin
the process of providing prekindergarten to all schools in the
state. She noted that the bill does not imply that districts
will have to provide all of the services that will be provided,
since there are some programs that are currently working in
small towns and villages. She stressed that SB 6 is not trying
to get rid of Head Start, Best Beginnings, or Parents as
Teachers; the intention of the bill is to put prekindergarten
into statute as part of the foundational formula. The money
addressed in the attached fiscal note, which is based off of the
number of children the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED) believes would be in the program, is not
needed for the first year to begin planning. She emphasized that
prekindergarten works and Alaska is one of the only states that
doesn't have a pre-K program in school districts.
8:06:46 AM
SENATOR FRENCH, co-sponsor of SB 6, said that there is very
strong public support for prekindergarten. He informed the
committee that the number three item mentioned from individuals
who called in to comment on the operating budget was for
requests to add funds for early learning and Best Beginnings.
Another item that was frequently commented on by the public was
an increase in funding to Head Start. He said "if you add those
two together they come out ahead of every other single item
mentioned by the public in talking about the operating budget."
He said that he believes there is no better way to "bend the
curve" on the outcome of a young child's life than to give them
early learning opportunities.
He read the following quote from a pamphlet put out by the
National Scientific Council Center on the Developing Child at
Harvard University, entitled The Science of Early Childhood
Development:
The basic principles of neuroscience and the
technology of human skill formation indicate that
later remediation for highly vulnerable children will
produce less favorable outcomes and cost more than
appropriate intervention at a younger age.
He continued by discussing some facts that were put out by the
Federal Reserve Bank of Minnesota [fact sheet located in the
document folder for the March 9, 2011 Joint Education Committee
meeting]. One of the facts included was that children who go to
preschool are more likely to graduate from high school. He said
"what are we planning to do about the horrific drop-out rates
that we have in Alaska?" He noted that he has not seen a
concrete way to increase the state's level of high school
graduates. Other facts included were that children who go to
preschool are more likely to earn a higher degree later in life,
are less likely to commit a violent crime, and are more likely
to be self-reliant as adults. He reminded the committee of the
presentation given by the university's Board of Regents [during
the Joint Education Committee meeting on February 23, 2011] when
the regents discussed the amount of time and money that is being
spent on remedial education. He suggested that this money be
spent on early learning so that the need for remedial education
can possibly be eliminated.
8:11:40 AM
At ease from 8:11 a.m. to 8:13 a.m.
8:13:49 AM
CO-CHAIR MEYER moved to adopt CSSB 6( ), labeled 27-LS0058\B, as
the working document. Hearing no objection version B was before
the committee.
8:14:28 AM
THOMAS OBERMEYER, staff to Senator Davis, co-sponsor of SB 6,
read the following sponsor statement:
Pre-K programs are growing in popularity across the
country. Developmental research, neuroscience, and
program evaluations have found that a child's
experiences from birth to age five shape the brain's
architecture and influence later life outcomes. SB 6
provides for a prekindergarten (Pre-K) program within
Alaska school districts for students four and five
years of age. Parents are not required to enroll their
children in a Pre-K program. School districts are not
required to initiate Pre-K programs but they must be
supported in funding and development if they do.
Students who are enrolled in a prekindergarten program
will be counted in the "average daily membership"
count for foundation formula funding.
Early education programs are one of the best public
investments available to states. Over 40 states and
the District of Columbia offer state-funded
prekindergarten and at least 17 states have provided
funding supplements to Head Start. Early childhood
policies vary from state to state, as well as program
options, such as private child care, preschools,
federally funded Head Start, and state prekindergarten
programs. State leaders are responding to the
realities of today's working families, federal and
state policy pressures, and demands of the No Child
Left Behind Act. More women with young children are in
the workforce than in previous decades, and many
children spend full workday hours in the care of
others. For every dollar invested in Pre-K, there is
an estimated $4 to $9 return to society in higher
graduation and employment rates, higher earnings, less
crime, less need for special education services, less
use of a public welfare systems, and better health.
Alaska not only has the benefit of building on a long
history of successful early education programs for the
last decade, but it now has the experience and results
of the Alaska Pilot Prekindergarten Project (AP3)
funded by the Legislature in 2009. Year one of the
Pilot Pre-K Project found high numbers of children
exceeding expected growth. While there is still
extremely high need for the majority of children
coming to the Pilot Pre-K Project behind typically-
developing peers, this program shows what can be done
with unprecedented levels of cooperation,
coordination, and collaboration between Head Start
programs and the school districts which helped in
alignment, transition, common planning and training.
SB 6 expands on the $2 million start up funding in the
Pilot Prekindergarten Project in an effort to make
prekindergarten a reality and available to all Alaska
children statewide.
8:18:14 AM
MR. OBERMEYER explained that there were districts that were
concerned about whether this program would be required. Version
B clarifies the optional nature of the prekindergarten program,
which was not explicit within the original bill. Further, the
drafter, in drafting this bill, found inconsistencies to the
existing statues that were passed in 2008. Version B amended AS
14.03.060(e) by deleting the prohibition on including pre-
elementary students in the count under AS14.17; this would
provide for part time inclusion of these students for funding
purposes. He explained that decisions pertaining to program
curriculum, teacher qualifications, and part-time funding status
for prekindergarten are all delegated to DEED under version B.
8:21:38 AM
MR. OBERMEYER walked the committee through a brief sectional
analysis of version B.
Section 1 was a description of an elementary school to include a
prekindergarten program.
Section 2 established that an elementary school would consist of
an optional prekindergarten program.
Section 3 amended the age requirement to include four- and five-
year-olds who attend a prekindergarten program.
Section 4 added a new subsection which reads:
(g) A child who is four or five years of age on or
before September 1 following the beginning of the
school year and who is under school age may enter a
public school prekindergarten program.
Section 5 indicated that DEED would exercise general supervision
over public schools: page 3, lines 17-18 added "and district
prekindergarten programs" to include prekindergarten programs
under the department's supervision.
Section 6 included a minor change on page four, line 31, which
added "of age." Page 5, lines 1-2 added ", and a prekindergarten
program for children four to five years of age that is provided
by a school district." He explained that this indicates, he
believes, that it is not mandatory for a school district to have
a prekindergarten program.
Section 7 provided regulations for the implementation of a
prekindergarten program by a district, using the model
curriculum developed by DEED under AS 14.07.030(13).
Section 8, page 5, lines 29-31 added ", and except as provided
in (c) of this section, a prekindergarten program provided by a
school district for students four and five years of age". He
noted that subsection (c) is located on page 6, lines 8-10.
MR. OBERMEYER reiterated that the bill in its original form did
not include the prekindergarten children in the average daily
membership. The changes made in version B made sure that this
age group would be recognized in statute.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked for confirmation that the prekindergarten
program is optional, not mandatory for districts. In regards to
the funding in Section 9, line 10, he asked whether this funding
is referring to state and federal money.
MR. OBERMEYER replied that he is unsure whether the funding in
this section is referring to private school or federally
chartered schools. He said that DEED could answer this question
better than he could.
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked if the committee would be hearing from the
various superintendents.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS replied not today, but it is his intention to
hear from them.
CO-CHAIR MEYER explained that the reason he asked is because
most schools are overcrowded. He said he does not know what this
bill would do by opening up the school for 3 to 5 year-olds.
MR. OBERMEYER noted that he spoke with Superintendent Carol
Comeau with the Anchorage School District, who indicated that
she will be in Juneau through next Tuesday and might be able to
answer some of the committee's questions.
8:29:43 AM
SENATOR DAVIS added that many of the schools may be maxed out in
numbers, but it would be left up to the various school districts
to decide what programs would be implemented and how this would
be done. She noted that not all of these programs need to take
place within the school facilities as long as the requirements
laid out by DEED are met. She said that there are some school
districts that have the space and would like to have this
program; SB 6 gives districts the option.
CO-CHAIR MEYER said he is not concerned with that, but it may be
a concern to some of the superintendents. He explained that he
wants to make sure that the bill works in conjunction with the
superintendents. He noted that there are some public schools, he
believes, that already offer some pre-K programs.
SENATOR DAVIS said some of the Title I schools have a pre-K
program.
CO-CHAIR MEYER said that he would like to hear from
superintendents about any current prekindergarten programs
currently available in schools. He asked for confirmation that
Head Start would still continue under this bill.
SENATOR DAVIS replied yes.
CO-CHAIR MEYER said that he thinks this is a good program and he
wants to make sure that all of the existing programs can be
coordinated with this one.
8:33:23 AM
SENATOR STEVENS said it seems, to him, that the curriculum of
the program is extremely important and he would like to hear
about what is being covered from the experts. For example, he
heard that there was a prekindergarten Athabaskan immersion
program and he questioned whether this takes students forward.
He noted that the assumption is prekindergarten prepares
children step-by-step for success in life. He asked where the
committee can get this type of information and how school
districts will pay for the program.
8:35:25 AM
CYNTHIA CURRAN, Director, Division of Teaching and Learning
Support, Department of Education and Early Development (DEED),
said with regard to preschools that already exist in the state,
under special education law (IDEA) schools are required to have
programs for special needs children.
She explained that in regards to the Athabaskan culture course
Senator Stevens referred to, one of the districts used this
course as an add-on to the curriculum, Open Court. The Open
Court curriculum is in use throughout the state for reading and
literacy for prekindergarten through sixth grade.
8:37:33 AM
MS. CURRAN turned to a summary of the report, The Alaska Pilot
Pre-Kindergarten (AP3) Project. [The summary and the full report
are located in the document packet.] She reminded the committee
that the legislature provided DEED $2 million for the preschool
pilot project and there has been a lot of success with it.
Students came into the project substantially lower in skill
ability compared to their peers nationally. She said "we have
seen great growth, but we also know we have a lot more to do in
order to close all of the gaps." One of the caveats in applying
for the funding, she explained, was the district needed to
partner with the entities that were already providing services
within the district area.
She noted that within the Division of Teaching and Learning
Support it is believed that more students will graduate from
high school when programs work together and all students come to
school ready to learn.
She explained that the districts and programs used the funding
from AP3 in a variety of ways. Some districts added new
classrooms with certified teachers and others enhanced existing
programs. She added that some of the districts were able to hire
early childhood experts with some of the funding as well.
Page 2 included a list of where the programs were located in the
state. She explained that DEED also granted money to an outside
entity to perform the pre- and post-assessments using the Early
Childhood Environmental Rating Scale (ECERS). She noted that the
results of these assessments can be located in the document.
ECERS assessed not only child outcomes, but program outcomes.
The child outcomes were measured by the Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test (PPVT), which provides information on vocabulary
and receptive language development. The Developmental Indicators
for the Assessment of Learning (DIAL-3) was also used and gave
information on three areas of school readiness: motor
development, concept development, and language development.
She continued that the first chart [titled PPVT Expected Growth]
on page 3 showed that 72 percent of the children assessed had
more months of growth than the number of months between the
assessments. The second chart on page 3 [titled PVT Age
Equivalent Growth] showed that 31 percent of the children ended
the project at or above a typically developing peer on a
national level.
8:41:36 AM
SENATOR STEVENS asked for clarification on what the 72 percent
statistic included.
MS. CURRAN replied the orange color in the first chart shows the
percentage of children that showed less growth than was
expected.
SENATOR STEVENS asked for confirmation that the rest of the
children showed more growth.
8:42:19 AM
PAUL SUGAR, Education Specialist, Division of Teaching and
Learning Support, Department of Education and Early Development
(DEED), replied that 25 percent of the children showed lower
growth than expected, 3 percent showed the expected amount of
growth, and the remaining 72 percent of the children showed
greater growth for the time between the two assessments.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked if the programs were developed by or in
conjunction with DEED or if the individual districts developed
the programs.
MS. CURRAN replied that each district was allowed to choose a
curriculum to use, however it needed to align with the Early
Learning Guidelines.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked, with regard to the first chart on page 3,
whether an assessment was done for each individual program in
order to figure out which one was the most effective.
MS. CURRAN replied that DEED has that information and can
provide it to the committee.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked if the individual curriculums used by each
program could be included with this information as well.
MS. CURRAN answered yes.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked how districts were chosen to participate
in the pilot prekindergarten project.
MS. CURRAN replied that a request for applications (RFA) was
issued and districts were required to meet certain criteria. At
the beginning of the process 24 districts showed interest in
applying and 12 districts ended up applying. She explained that
early childhood experts from DEED and the University of Alaska
read the applications, scored them against a rubric, and
determined which applications met the criteria.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS noted that more information on the application
process would also be helpful.
8:46:11 AM
SENATOR STEVENS said when doing a pilot project it is important
to see what worked and what didn't. He said that this is a topic
that he hopes will be discussed.
MS. CURRAN noted that the report would provide the committee
with a lot of that information and DEED can also provide a more
succinct form of the data. She explained that the department is
looking into things that did work and if the pilot program
continues to be funded the department will be helping districts
make different choices if its current program is not working.
She added that as more districts apply for the program, the
criteria would be different due to the knowledge that has been
gained from the project thus far.
She continued with the report summary. The first two charts on
the top of page 4 showed that 17 percent of the children moved
from the bottom two quartiles to the top two quartiles in
overall percentages of growth. She reminded the committee that
students came into the program with significant needs. She said
"we know we are closing the gaps. We know there is more to do."
She referred to the "State Dial-3 Total Score Percentages"
charts on the bottom of page 4. She explained that, when
compared nationally, the total scores showed, once again, that a
vast amount of the children entered the project in the bottom
half of the assessment [see the graph titled AP3 Dial 3 Total
Score Percentages (Fall)]. By the end of the year 52 percent
finished scoring in the top half [see the graph titled AP3 Dial
3 Total Score Percentages (Spring)].
8:49:04 AM
SENATOR FRENCH said that, to his understanding, both sets of
graphs on page 4 compare how the children looked at the
beginning of the program in the fall and at the conclusion of
the program in the spring. He said that these are troubling
graphs to look at, with 72 percent of the children beginning the
project in the fourth quartile. He said "that's three-quarters
of our kids coming into a program that are at the bottom of the
scale as far as their abilities…" He noted that it is important
to recognize that the program has moved an enormous amount of
children out of the bottom quartile by the spring. He explained
that it was these numbers that was encouraging for him in
regards to the pilot project.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS referred to the chart on the bottom of page 3,
which states "The following chart illustrates the students'
growth in relation to an age-equivalent typically-developing
child on a national level." He asked if this caveat can be
assumed for the graphs referred to on page 4.
MS. CURRAN replied yes.
SENATOR FRENCH asked what the pie graphs on the top of page 4
are measuring in comparison to the bottom of the page 4.
MS. CURRAN replied that, with regard to the pie graphs on the
top of the page, PPVT measures the child's receptive and
vocabulary development.
SENATOR FRENCH asked what receptive means.
MS. CURRAN replied what a child understands versus what a child
produces or, in other words, the thinking process. She gave an
example of how this might be determined and evaluated.
SENATOR FRENCH asked what the Dial-3 results measured in the
bottom pie charts.
MS. CURRAN answered areas of school-readiness. This included
motor development, concept development, and language
development.
She noted that Alaska's children scored highest in motor
development during the pre- and post-assessment [shown in the
two pie graphs at the top of page 5, titled State Dial-3 Motor
Score Percentages].
She said in regards to concept and language development [see the
graphs titled State Dial-3 Concept Score Percentages], 60
percent of the children began the program in the bottom
quartile. She noted that there was a significant amount of
movement by the end of the year, with only 38 percent of the
children remaining in the fourth quartile.
She continued on page 6 regarding the language scores. She
pointed out that 87 percent of the children entered the program
in the bottom two quartiles and 35 percent finished the program
in the top two quartiles.
8:54:28 AM
MS. CURRAN explained that the Early Childhood Environmental
Rating Scale (ECERS) on page 7 measured what the program's
environment was like for the children and for the adults. The
top part of the table included space and furnishings, language-
reasoning, activities, interaction, program structure, and
parents and staff. She explained that all of these things relate
to the quality of a program. The bottom table noted the
improvement that was made in the state; the project showed
almost one full point of growth in the first year. She noted
that this is highly significant with regard to this measurement.
She continued that DEED also looked at outcomes for the state.
She explained that through this program the department has been
able to help districts develop its capacity to work together, so
that there is a concerted effort in the area of early childhood.
She explained that ECERS has been used in the past, but it has
been on a voluntary basis and used mostly in urban areas.
Through the Pilot Pre-Kindergarten Project the department was
able to broaden the use of ECERS and found out that it can be
used in a variety of areas. The information DEED has gathered
will help move early childhood education forward in the state.
8:57:33 AM
SENATOR STEVENS asked how many hours a day a child spends in
preschool.
MR. SUGAR replied that DEED provided a series of standards that
were set during the RFA, which allowed communities flexibility
in making that decision. The general guideline was that
preschool should be no less than 14 hours per week and no more
than 5 hours per day. He noted that most of the programs are
around three hours per day.
SENATOR FRENCH said one of the constant themes that will be
brought up and where resistance will be met during the
prekindergarten discussion will be cost. He said that with the
pilot prekindergarten project the cost per child is about
$6,200. He asked if there are economy of scales to be had and
where the financial pitfalls and benefits are.
MR. SUGAR replied that the cost varies from place to place. He
explained that the largest number of classroom proposals that
DEED received came from the most remote sites, so that the
economy of scale was lost. He noted that the cost of the pilot
program correlates closely with schools in that it varies
depending on the location and he would not expect the cost per
child to differ greatly with a larger population of students.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if the pilot programs hired new teachers.
MR. SUGAR replied that it was a mix, some hired new individuals,
while others incorporated existing staff.
9:01:18 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked if these costs are similar to what Head
Start costs per student.
MR. SUGAR answered that the cost is similar and possibly
slightly less. He explained that through a partnership and
collaboration approach DEED was able to leverage a larger number
of groups and dollars from each group.
SENATOR DAVIS asked if DEED could make a chart for the committee
that shows the amount a school district participating in the
prekindergarten program would receive if program was part of the
foundation formula.
MS. CURRAN replied yes.
SENATOR DAVIS asked what "Thread" is.
MS. CURRAN replied Thread is the state's child care resource and
referral.
SENATOR DAVIS asked for confirmation that this is the
organization called Thread.
MS. CURRAN replied yes. She explained that DEED contracted
through Thread to do the assessments.
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked for confirmation that Thread used to be the
Child Care Connection.
MS. CURRAN replied yes.
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked what the difference is between Thread and
Best Beginnings and whether the two groups are providing
different services. He said his question can wait until next
week to be answered.
[SB 6 was held in committee.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| AP3 Brief and Numbers I (2).pdf |
SEDC 3/25/2011 8:00:00 AM |