Legislature(2011 - 2012)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/01/2011 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
8:03:44 AM
CO-CHAIR MEYER announced the consideration of SB 6. [CSSB 6( ),
version B, was before the committee.]
He said that the committee would begin by taking public
testimony and then receive a progress-report from the Department
of Education and Early Development (DEED) on the Alaska
Prekindergarten Pilot Project (AP3).
8:04:45 AM
CO-CHAIR MEYER opened public testimony.
8:05:03 AM
KELLY MCBRIDE, representing herself, testified in support of SB
6. She noted that she is a teacher in the Matanuska Susitna
School District working with the Best Beginnings Matanuska
Susitna Partnership. She explained that in the "Mat-Su" many
children do not have the opportunity to go to preschool because
they do not qualify for special education or their family's
income is too high to qualify for Head Start. She noted that
even if children do qualify for Head Start they may be on a
waitlist. She reminded the committee of Mark Lackey's [executive
director of CCS Early Learning with Head Start in the Matanuska
Susitna Valley] testimony from a previous committee meeting,
where he stated that out of about 400 eligible children in the
"Mat-Su," there are only slots available for about 200 children.
She stressed that there are about 1,200 4-year-olds this year in
the "Mat-Su," of which about 850 do not have the opportunity to
go to a free public preschool. She explained that in the "Mat-
Su" about half of the students entering kindergarten are not
ready to read and, on standardized assessments at the beginning
of the year, 48 percent of the students are below proficient in
the reading indicators.
She said during the previous school year the district had a
pilot preschool program in one of its low socio-economic
schools, with three students who had IEP's [Individual Education
Plan] and the remainder of the classroom filled with typical
peers. She explained that these students are now in kindergarten
and every single one is proficient in reading, have better
social skills, and are more ready to learn. She added that 70
percent of the children who attend the district's special
education preschools will go to kindergarten needing either no
services or solely speech therapy. She said "we know that here
in Alaska early intervention works." She stressed that dollars
spent on early education should not be looked at as solely an
expense, but as an investment. Research has shown that students
who attend preschool are less likely to repeat grades or to
require costly interventions or special education services. She
continued that students are also more likely to graduate from
high school, have a job, and own a home. She urged the committee
to pass SB 6.
8:08:14 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked her to tell the committee more about the
pilot prekindergarten program that the district ran last year
and whether it was funded through the AP3 program or by the
district.
MS. MCBRIDE replied that this was something that the Matanuska
Susitna Valley District did on its own. She explained that as
the coordinator of the special education preschools in the
district, she had several 3- and 4-year-old children who lived
near Willow and the closest preschool was two hours away at Big
Lake Elementary School. She explained that, for this reason, the
district created a half-time preschool in that area and added
seven or eight regular children to the class.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if the teacher was a Matanuska Susitna
Valley School District teacher.
MS. MCBRIDE replied yes.
SENATOR FRENCH asked for confirmation that this program was
located at the Willow Elementary School.
MS. MCBRIDGE replied yes. She noted that "pilot" is not the
correct word; it was a creative solution for what was needed in
that setting.
SENATOR FRENCH said that he doesn't think the label matters. He
noted that it is important to be creative where possible with
such a large school district to cover.
MS. MCBRDIGE replied yes. She said that in looking at this
creatively, SB 6 would give other districts the opportunity to
create similar programs and give families more options.
8:10:18 AM
CARL ROSE, Lobbyist, Association of Alaska School Boards (AASB),
testified in support of SB 6. He said that there is a growing
awareness of the importance of early childhood development and
learning. He said that AASB had a guest speaker at its
conference last November, Dr. Lynn Fielding, an early childhood
specialist, who covered the entire realm of ready for
kindergarten and ready to read. He said that he was surprised to
learn that children begin to group themselves in terms of trend
lines and learning from the time that they are born and are set
by the time that they are 5-years-old. He stressed that when
taking particular care with infants and young children to
prepare them for kindergarten, these children tend to "trend
out" at the higher rates of learning. He emphasized that these
trend lines may not change for the rest of a child's school
career, since schools are good at teaching content, but not
necessarily good at remediation or intervention.
He said that parents, families, and communities can address
childhood development far better than the government until a
child gets to be about 3 or 4 years of age. He explained that
early childhood development and learning goes from infancy to 5-
years-old and then kindergarten through third grade in terms of
reading proficiency. He said that if a child is proficient in
reading, writing, and math by third grade, they are prepared for
success. If a child is not prepared, then they will struggle. He
explained that the growing awareness of the importance of early
education is a "game changer" and SB 6 is one component of how
to prepare Alaska's children for success.
8:14:36 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS commented that he thinks everyone in the
committee believes that the time between birth and 5 years is an
extremely important timeframe for learning. He said that the
issue is trying to convince 30- to 60-year-olds of this
importance.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he is referring to the legislature.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS replied the legislature and the general public.
8:15:39 AM
CHRIS MURRAY, parent, testified in support of SB 6. He explained
that he is the father of an 18-month-old son and whenever he
asks for tips on raising a child, the discussion always turns to
child care and early education. He said that the lack of
quality, affordable child care affects his family on a daily
basis and the issue remains as to how to find good child care at
a reasonable cost. He added that his son's enrollment at a
nonprofit school on a part-time basis in Juneau costs more than
the current cost it would take for him to attend a state
university.
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked what daycare his son attends.
MR. MURRAY replied the Juneau Montessori School; for four hours
a day, the family pays $700 per month.
8:19:43 AM
CO-CHAIR MEYER closed public testimony.
He asked the Department of Education and Early Development
(DEED) to give an update on the pilot prekindergarten program
and how it could possibly join with SB 6.
8:20:40 AM
CYNTHIA CURRAN, Director, Division of Teaching and Learning
Support, Department of Education and Early Development (DEED)
referred the committee to an additional handout regarding the
AP3 [titled Information on the Alaska Preschool Pilot Project,
included in the document packet]. Page 1 discussed the selection
of AP3 grantees and sites and the RFA [Requests for
Applications] process that was used. She said that originally 24
school districts considered applying and that 12 actually
applied. The successful applicants were listed in bold on page
1. She noted that a particular process was used to select
districts using a scoring rubric and was located on the
following 10 pages.
8:22:29 AM
PAUL SUGAR, Education Specialist II, Division of Teaching and
Learning Support, Department of Education and Early Development
(DEED), explained that the rubric was broken down into larger
areas, followed by subareas. Part A, on page 2, included the
applicant's need for a project. He explained that a list of
questions was included specifically geared towards showing proof
of that need. The bottom column included the amount of scoring
for each question within that breakdown (page 2 and 3).
He said he believes that part B, the program design, is the
largest component of the rubric. He noted that the structure is
similar to the previous section and lists a number of questions
that are designed for applicants to demonstrate what their
specific design and approach would be with the pilot. He noted
that some of the requirements included the implementation and
use of the Early Learning Guidelines and developmentally
appropriate practices.
Part C addressed parent support and involvement (page 5) and
included the same question and scoring rubric structure.
Section D focused on the adequacy of resources. He explained
that this section required applicants to describe their staffing
for the proposed program, including job descriptions of the
positions and the various types of professional development
needed in order to provide for the children within the pilot.
Section E was the management plan. He explained that this
section asked applicants to describe the organizational
structure set for the program, the timeline for the program
implementation, and information on the materials that would be
used for the program.
Section F was the program evaluation. He said that within this
section applicants had to describe how the evaluation
information would be used and include a list of the different
types of data that would be used.
Section G focused on previous success or promise of success. He
explained that this gave the applicant an opportunity to show
what experience they have in providing quality early childhood
education. And, if the applicant does not have the experience,
explaining how the structure and model that they have proposed
will lead them to success.
Section H was the budget. He said that all applicants submitted
a proposed budget for the program. He explained that after the
scoring was completed from DEED, the University of Alaska, and
Best Beginnings, the applicant and the department entered into a
negotiation process regarding the budget. He noted that no
applicant received the full amount of dollars that was
originally submitted in the proposed budgets. He explained that
by doing this there was enough money to provide services to six
districts and still maintain a small set-aside for intervention
districts.
8:27:37 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked, if this program continues, whether DEED
will be starting from scratch on this project by soliciting new
applications.
MR. SUGAR replied that DEED would be looking at one more year
with the districts currently in the program in order to get a
third set of data points for the pilot. He explained that after
one more year, should the funding remain, the competition for
that money would be open to all districts.
MS. CURRAN added that DEED will use the data it has collected
from the current pilot to inform the next round of competition.
She explained that the department will look for the pieces of
programs that have, in the past, created the greatest results.
SENATOR FRENCH said that he hoped Ms. Curran or Mr. Sugar could
address the different types of curricula used for the pilots
(page 11).
MS. CURRAN replied that, keeping in mind that collaboration and
transitioning children so that they are ready to learn in
kindergarten was paramount in this project, it was important
that grantees worked with other entities within the boundaries
of the school district. She noted districts were allowed to
choose its own curriculum, though it had to align with the early
learning guidelines put out by DEED. She pointed out that there
were a variety of curriculums. For example, Anchorage used the
Houghton Mifflin (early literacy) curriculum, which is the
literacy program used by the two Title I schools in Anchorage
where an AP3 program was created.
She explained that the Creative Curriculum focuses on all
curricular areas. She pointed out the literacy curriculums that
were used by the various districts. There was an emphasis in all
of the districts on social/emotional and self-regulation
curriculums through Sharing and Learning Place, Conscious
Discipline, and Second Step, she noted.
She said that each grantee was able to choose the curriculum
that would work for it and DEED is currently collecting data on
each of these curriculums. She noted that the results of the
outcome assessments are included in the handout.
SENATOR FRENCH asked what Bering Strait, Nome Public Schools,
and Yukon Koyukuk did in the way of math since these districts
didn't have a specific math curriculum or use the Creative
Curriculum.
MR. SUGAR replied that while Success for All is a literacy
program, the Curiosity Corner is a multi-content area that
includes math.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked for confirmation that the first year began
in September of 2009 and whether there were any missteps that
were changed for the program for the second year.
MR. SUGAR replied in terms of the curricular use, discussions,
and assessments everything has remained the same. He added that
the department did see some bumps in the road with regard to how
processes and programs that have different administrations and
structures work together; for example, when Head Start and a
school district are working together. He explained that this
tended to lead to the recognition of the hard work of developing
new approaches through multiple systems and gave more depth to
the discussion and level of collaboration.
MS. CURRAN noted that the last three pages of the handout
include charts and a brief narrative regarding information on
district level assessments [pages 13-15].
MR. SUGAR gave some examples of assessment data that was
collected on the district level:
· On the PPVT [Peabody Picture Vocabulary test] children in
Yukon-Koyukuk made the highest percentage of growth, with
31 percent of the children scoring in the top half on that
assessment.
· Both Nome and Juneau saw 38 percent of children moving from
the bottom half to scoring in the top half on the DIAL-3
[Developmental Indicators for the Assessment of Learning,
3rd edition] Total Assessment. This assessment looks at all
of language, development, motor development, and concept.
· Motor development was Alaska's children's strongest area on
the DIAL-3. Nome showed the greatest growth with 35 percent
of the children in the project moving from scoring in the
bottom half to scoring in the top half when compared to
their same-aged peers nationally.
· Juneau showed the most growth in Concept Development on the
DIAL-3 with 27 percent of the children moving into the top
half from the bottom half in scoring.
· With a 43 percent change from scoring in the bottom half in
the fall to scoring in the top half in the spring, Nome
made the most growth in Language Development.
8:37:57 AM
CO-CHAIR MEYER said the current funding for the AP3 is $2
million. He asked if the funding amount was $4 million whether
twice as many children could be reached.
MS. CURRAN replied yes; the department would be able to reach
additional children. She noted that cost varies depending on the
area of the state. She said that she could not give the
committee the number of students that the department could
reach, because it would depend on which areas would want to have
the grants and how much the cost would be in those areas.
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked if there are other sites that would like to
participate in the program but weren't able to.
MS. CURRAN replied that there were originally 24 districts that
considered applying, but, for whatever reason did not for this
particular program. She noted that there were 12 districts that
did apply and unfortunately there wasn't enough money to give
all of these districts a pilot program. She said that she
believes the interest in the project is increasing as more is
learned about the AP3 and there will be more districts that
would apply in the future.
CO-CHAIR MEYER said after the second year of the program
positive results are already showing and the demand for these
programs exists. He said "why wouldn't we ask for more money to
keep the program going?" He said that perhaps this question
should be left for the Finance Committees, but, in his opinion,
if there is something that is working, it should be exploited.
8:40:29 AM
SENATOR FRENCH concurred with Senator Meyer. He asked how school
districts selected the children to participate in the program.
MR. SUGAR replied that as part of the application process,
applicants needed to show the department their eligibility
requirements. He explained that in terms of eligibility DEED was
trying to target the "neediest of the needy" first.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if DEED was looking at income levels or
learning abilities.
MR. SUGAR replied that it is very similar to the Head Start
approach described by Mr. Lackey. He explained that the
department looked at a variety of issues including income
eligibility, special needs, other disabilities, children living
in foster homes, etcetera. He noted that two-thirds of the AP3
programs are in partnership with Head Start. He explained that
in terms of finding the children it sometimes meant going out
and knocking on doors to inform parents about the program and
how the application process in order for their children to enter
the program. He noted that Nome in particular used that process.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if it was his sense that there were more
kids than spaces or vice versa.
MR.S SUGAR replied that there were more kids in general, but it
depended on the area.
8:43:02 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked if the attempt was to create a
representative group of kids in the particular area or if there
was an inclination towards children that might potentially
produce the most success.
MR. SUGAR replied that the department did not go into this
trying to prove success, but rather to try and provide a service
to those children in need.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS explained that his question was geared towards
understanding whether each area had a representative group
rather than a sorting process done by a community, which would
lead to more success than could generally be expected. He noted
that in having representative groups the results from the
project could generally be used to understand what to expect in
the future.
MS. CURRAN said that the department has a representative
sampling of the neediest of the needy.
SENATOR FRENCH asked how large the program would need to get in
order to accommodate the "average citizen's" child, such as Mr.
Murray's.
MS. CURRAN said in order to be able to reach the greatest number
of children it would require a statewide program. She reminded
the committee that "one size never fits all," which means that a
variety of programs and processes are necessary so that parents
can choose where they want their child to be. She stressed that
"we need to provide services for everyone, so that everyone will
have a choice."
CO-CHAIR MEYER said that the answer to Senator French's question
may be the fiscal note of SB 6. He noted that Senator Davis'
goal is for a program that would include all students, not only
low income.
8:48:11 AM
MR. SUGAR turned to the handout titled Alaska Early Childhood
Coordinating Council (AECCC) [included in the document packet].
He explained that the purpose of AECCC is to promote positive
development, improved health outcomes, and school readiness for
children prenatal through age eight by creating a culturally
responsive, comprehensive, and accessible service delivery
system. He said that the council will address the integration of
multiple early childhood initiatives at the local, state, and
federal level such as Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) Part C, Part B, and Part B-619 requirements, the
Early Childhood Comprehensive Systems (ECCS) plan, the Head
Start Collaboration needs assessment and plan, the State Child
Care and Development Fund plan, the Alaska Pilot Prekindergarten
Project, early childhood health and nutrition initiatives, and
Best Beginnings priorities.
MS. CURRAN said that the council was created in October of 2010
and will meet quarterly, with the first meeting on May 2, 2011
in Anchorage. She explained that during the first year the
council will be creating a statewide early childhood needs
assessment and a statewide strategic report that would include
recommendations for increasing participation of children in
early childhood learning. She noted that the goal is not a
duplication of services, but coordination of services so that
individuals know what is available to them.
MR. SUGAR said that the Improving Head Start for School
Readiness Act of 2007 was the vehicle that the federal
legislature chose to move this project forward. He noted that
even though the call for all of these various groups to be
represented in a state-level council came through the Head Start
Act, great care was taken to recognize that this was not a Head
Start council; this is an all early childhood council.
He noted that in October the governor issued an administrative
order designating what was then called the Intradepartmental
Early Childhood Coordinating Council (IECCC) as the body that
would become the new state-level advisory council. He explained
that, at that time, only state department individuals were
working on the council. However, now that the council is going
statewide, the council has branched out and new individuals are
being brought in to the structure, in particular from the
private sector.
He explained that in terms of the public sector, the structure
of the council will have staff from the governor's office,
appropriate DEED staff, and representation from the University
of Alaska system. In terms of the private sector, Best
Beginnings, the Alaska Childcare Resource and Referral Network,
the Alaska Chamber of Commerce, and a wide variety of
associations including the Superintendents Association, the
Association of Alaska School Boards, and the Head Start
Association. He noted that the council will also include an
Alaska Native health provider, a mental health provider, a
member of the faith-based community, and a representative parent
who has a young child. He added that the commissioners from DEED
and the Department of Health and Social Services would serve as
the co-chairs of the council.
MS. CURRAN said that as the council meets there will be a
synopsis of what happens at the meetings, which can be provided
to the Senate Education Standing Committee. She added that as
more information comes out of the council and a report
published, DEED can make copies of this available as well.
8:55:08 AM
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked why there are no members of the legislature
on the council.
MS. CURRAN replied that the list was provided to the Division of
Teaching and Learning Support. She noted that members of the
legislature are welcome to attend the meetings. She explained
that she thinks the goal was keep the group as small as
possible. However, as the council's committee structure moves
forward there would be opportunities for other people to join in
on different committees.
CO-CHAIR MEYER said that the council should seriously consider
including a member of the legislature. He explained that as the
appropriating body it is important to keep the legislature's
members educated on what is going on.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS said that this is a fairly lengthy list of
council members. He concurred with Senator Meyer that it would
be helpful to have the governor's office and members of the
legislature discuss where the program is headed and how to get
there. He asked if there is an anticipated date of delivering a
final product or report.
MS. CURRAN replied that in the first year of the council, the
hope is to have the report completed by next May.
CO-CHAIR MEYER noted that there are two different opinions as to
how much money should go to AP3. He said that he would like to
see the legislature more involved with the process. He noted
that SB 6 is a more comprehensive approach, with a large fiscal
note of $83 million. He said, in his personal opinion, that the
committee is not ready to move this bill forward yet. He said
that a more comprehensive and unified approach to
prekindergarten is needed and it seems this is what the council
is trying to do as well. He noted that the committee looks
forward to another update on the AP3 program next year.
8:59:51 AM
SENATOR DAVIS said she appreciates the testimony and the reports
that have been brought forward for the committee. She noted that
very little has been done to address SB 6. She stressed that the
bill is not going to happen overnight and more discussion is
needed. She said that she does not want to expand the pilot
program because it is already known to works. She stressed the
importance of having a preschool program that will pick up all
4-year-olds that need to go to school. She said it is important
to take the time to go through SB 6. She noted that even if the
committee moves the bill out that does not mean that any money
will be appropriated this year or next; the accompanying fiscal
note is for 2013. She acknowledged that the department is doing
a great job for the children that are being served, however
there is a whole group of children that aren't eligible for
these programs. She said that education should be considered
more at the local level, rather than from the state level. She
said that she plans to hold hearings on SB 6; however, the bill
has not been addressed by Senate Education Standing Committee.
CO-CHAIR MEYER said he believes that the committee supports SB 6
in concept. However, he explained that he is not sure if the
districts are prepared for it.
SENATOR DAVIS said "the school districts are saying they are
ready for this program." She said that the legislature should
help as many children as possible to get an early start in
education. She questioned if the education committee can't step
up to the plate then "who's going to do it?"
CO-CHAIR MEYER reiterated that he has not heard from any of the
school districts, except from Superintendent Carol Comeau from
Anchorage who briefly touched on the bill.
9:04:04 AM
SENATOR FRENCH said that he would like to hear a discussion with
the administration over the fiscal note because it does bear
some examination. He noted that there is a struggle to even get
an increase to the BSA [Base Student Allocation] this year in
the legislature. He said that he would rather have SB 6 sit in
the Senate Education Standing Committee so that more work can be
done on it.
SENATOR DAVIS agreed. She explained that she doesn't feel that
the committee has put enough time into the bill. She noted that
she never asked that the bill be moved out of the committee to
the Finance Committee.
CO-CHAIR MEYER announced he would hold SB 6 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|