Legislature(2013 - 2014)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
01/29/2014 08:00 AM Senate EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB107 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 107 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 107-ESTABLISH K THROUGH 3 READING PROGRAM
8:00:51 AM
CHAIR STEVENS announced that the only order of business would be
SB 107. He said some refer to the bill as the READ Act. He
stated that the committee would hear the bill, take public
testimony, and hold it for further review.
8:01:49 AM
TIM LAMKIN, Staff, Senator Gary Stevens, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, provided information regarding SB
107 on behalf of the sponsor. He related that the bill closely
models legislation enacted in 2012 in Colorado - the Colorado
READ Act. The bill recognizes a trend that if students are not
proficient in reading by third grade, they have great difficulty
in the rest of their academic career. SB 107 sets up a program
to encourage districts and the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED), to ensure that students are reading by the
third grade.
MR. LAMKIN discussed the sectional analysis of the bill. Section
1 includes a requirement that low performing schools or
districts identify in their improvement plans a reading program
that would address K-3 reading deficiencies.
Section 2 requires DEED to implement reading assessments for K-
3, and target instructional practices and staff development
programs to coincide with the reading program in low performing
schools.
Section 3 requires that schools attach accreditation to their
having a K-3 reading program. He noted that few elementary
schools pursue accreditation, an issue districts and DEED will
have to sort out. Section 3 also requires DEED to review and
approve reading assessments, instructional practices, and staff
development programs, and post them on its website.
Section 4 requires that the State Board of Education review and
adopt statewide assessments, instructional practices, and staff
development.
Section 5 sets up the requirements of the K-3 reading program
which every district would be required to have. It sets up the
district's role regarding assessments, diagnostics, and reading
plans, in conjunction with parents. There is an exemption for
English Language Learners (ELL), for some disabled students, and
for those students who have had an extended history of
difficulty with reading. Section 5 contains a requirement that
documentation be established for students and a retention
procedure to follow if students continue to fail. Parents would
retain the final word as to whether a student should be held
back.
8:06:46 AM
SENATOR GARDNER asked if the first section describes the
response to intervention (RTI) for students who are not reading
at grade level.
MR. LAMKIN said yes. He deferred to the Department of Education
and Early Development (DEED) to explain RTI.
SENATOR GARDNER asked if the diagnostic reading assessment
mentioned in the second section requires approval by DEED or by
some other entity.
MR. LAMKIN responded that it is reviewed and recommended by DEED
and ultimately approved by the State Board of Education.
SENATOR GARDNER inquired about the accreditation standards found
on page 3, line 14, of the bill. She wondered if the standards
applied to all schools, including charter schools.
MR. LAMKIN understood that accreditation is optional; it is up
to local districts. Accreditation does require a reading program
to be in place.
SENATOR GARDNER asked who does the accreditation.
MR. LAMKIN replied that there is a national accreditation
organization.
SENATOR GARDNER requested more information about accreditation.
She said she assumed that all public schools were accredited.
CHAIR STEVENS suggested asking DEED.
8:09:00 AM
SENATOR GARDNER asked if "reading deficiency" in Section 5 means
not reading at grade level, or failing to make a year of
progress during a year of schooling.
MR. LAMKIN referred Senator Gardner to the last page of the bill
where the definitions are listed. "Significant reading
deficiency" means that a student does not meet the minimum skill
levels for reading competency in the areas of phonemic
awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, and reading fluency,
including verbal skills and reading comprehension, under
standards established by the state board for the student's grade
level.
CHAIR STEVENS invited DEED to present.
8:09:53 AM
LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education and
Early Development (DEED), Juneau, Alaska, introduced himself.
SUSAN MCCAULEY, Ph.D., Director, Teaching & Learning Support,
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED), Juneau,
Alaska, introduced herself.
MR. MORSE began by explaining how accreditation works in Alaska.
Schools choose to become accredited through a regional
organization that has a strong Alaska presence. The organization
recommends to the state board what the accreditation standards
should be. Recently, the regional organization decided to change
accreditation standards and made the decision to work with a
private international organization.
CHAIR STEVENS asked if "regional" means Northwest Accreditation
Association.
MR. MORSE said yes; Northwest Accreditation Association (NAA)
now uses the accreditation processes of AdvancED, an
organization that works with international and American schools.
The State School Board adopted AdvanceED's accreditation
standards and rules.
He explained that schools choose to be accredited or not, and
more often secondary schools make that choice due to scholarship
eligibility requirements. Those schools that meet accreditation
standards are accredited by DEED.
8:13:42 AM
CHAIR STEVENS requested examples of accreditation standards.
MR. MORSE related that the old accreditation system really got
into counting things, such as books. The new standards from
AdvancED revolve more around quality, such as quality of
leadership, professional development, and recruitment. There is
a lot of choice and flexibility of standards, depending on the
location and school.
SENATOR GARDNER asked if there is data showing that accredited
schools are better than unaccredited schools. She inquired how
many schools are accredited.
MR. MORSE offered to provide data on public and private schools.
SENATOR GARDNER said she was very interested in the answer.
MR. MORSE said the new standards address quality of schools and
this year is the first year of the new accreditation system. He
suggested it would be useful to compare data after the newer
system has been in place for a few years.
8:17:09 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS recalled that college acceptance, grants, and
athletics are affected by accreditation. He remarked that it is
usually the principal that initiates a request for
accreditation. He asked Mr. Morse to comment.
MR. MORSE thought that decision was dependent on districts. He
said when he worked in the Juneau School District, every high
school was required to be accredited. Mount Edgecombe, the one
school that is under the authority of DEED and the State Board
of Education, is now required to be accredited. For students,
one of the biggest impacts of accreditation is the opportunity
for NCAA scholarships.
DR. MCCAULEY agreed that accreditation standards resonate more
at the school level than the district level. They consist of
conditions that are under the control of school leadership, such
as the quality of professional development.
CHAIR STEVENS remarked that at UAS, accreditation was a positive
experience.
8:19:45 AM
MR. MORSE said he would like feedback in order to see if the
committee finds the reading standards sufficient. He added that
once the state board adopts the standards, they send a letter to
the legislature which has the option to reverse the action.
He turned attention to page 5, language designed to find an
appropriate balance between state and district responsibilities.
The department is currently having a discussion about line 17,
which deals with materials for the core content areas, line 23,
which provides for instructional materials, and line 24,
regarding coaching services or strategies.
8:22:44 AM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked if those reference the new state
standards where the curriculum and approaches remain at the
local level.
MR. MORSE said that is correct. Under current law the local
school board is responsible for instructional material.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked if the aforementioned language means that
the state would assume responsibility for some of the
curriculum, resources, and approaches, instead of the local
school board, if the bill would pass.
MR. MORSE clarified that for reading the state might provide a
list of evidence-based resources. The department wants to
balance that with local control.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY stated that the curriculum should remain in the
hands of the local district.
MR. MORSE agreed with Senator Dunleavy. The current statute says
that instructional materials are left up to the districts.
CHAIR STEVENS clarified that the intention of the bill is not to
take the curriculum responsibly away from districts. He
summarized that Mr. Morse was offering to provide assistance to
districts that requested it.
MR. MORSE agreed. He said technical assistance would be
available and appropriate, especially to small districts.
8:26:21 AM
MR. MORSE addressed the term "diagnostic assessment" versus a
more general term or a more specific one. Typically, teachers
give a screening assessment and then a diagnostic assessment if
there is a concern. There is an on-going discussion whether to
generalize terms related to assessment and leaving it up to
regulation or to become more specific using current terms.
He said Section 5 related more to district responsibilities. On
page 9, line 15, the terms "effective" or "highly effective" are
used to describe teacher performance. The department would
prefer to have flexibility at the regulation level to define
those terms more clearly. The department would define them to
mean "to achieve a higher level rating" on a teacher evaluation.
He noted that districts could also make that determination.
8:29:31 AM
MR. MORSE stated the importance of dealing with standards and
assessments at the earliest grade level. He opined that SB 107
provides an opportunity to have an incredibly important
discussion between the department and the legislature. It
contains good reading approaches.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked about a law regarding a reading program
under former-Commissioner Sampson.
MR. MORSE replied that there were two reading-related bills
proposed under Commissioner Sampson. One was about teacher
recertification which addressed a reading requirement and did
not pass. The second bill dealt with a voluntary, evidence-based
reading program and did pass.
8:31:50 AM
CHAIR STEVENS stated that SB 107 was as a result of a discussion
with Colorado legislators about their READ program. He asked Mr.
Morse if some districts are already doing what is contained in
the bill.
MR. MORSE recalled in the last two sessions the department put
forth two proposals; a summer reading institute called "I Am
Ready" in conjunction with Best Beginnings, and funding for
screening assessments. Grants for those proposals will go out
this year. He requested that Dr. McCauley address the question
as to how many districts were already doing what is contained
the bill.
DR. MCCAULEY remarked that the larger districts have programs
that mirror many elements contained in the bill: strong response
to instruction programs, evidence-based reading materials,
screening and diagnostic assessment, and intervention. There is
some variation across the state in the use of evidence-based
programs. There is also a variation in terms of intervention
structures, such as accommodating school schedule and
professional development.
8:36:04 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS asked if Lindamood-Bell reading processes are
still in practice.
DR. MCCAULEY said yes, but not at a district-wide level.
CHAIR STEVENS asked Senator Huggins to explain the processes.
SENATOR HUGGINS explained when the program was introduced in the
Mat-Su District. He shared a story that showed how programs come
and go on depending on who supports the program.
He expressed disappointment about the reading level in Alaska.
He recalled asking a superintendent if he graduates students who
can't read. There was a positive response. He wondered if
waiting until third grade for reading mastery might be right; he
suggested it might not be right for certain students. He had
hoped this problem would have been solved years ago.
8:39:51 AM
CHAIR STEVENS said it is surprising that some functioning adults
still cannot read.
He said he understands the difficulties for smaller districts to
implement an early reading program. He stressed that SB 107 is
not going to be rushed or pushed through the system. It merits
further discussion.
SENATOR GARDNER addressed the issue of third grade being the
correct cut-off place. She recalled developmental learning
stages and shared a person experience about reading.
DR. MCCAULEY agreed that developmental stages are a
consideration, but also timing and teacher instruction. Good
instructional programs include both developmental maturation and
quality instructional standards. After third grade the
curriculum expands and students who struggle with reading
struggle across the board. She shared that reading success later
in life is well established. It is harder after third grade to
"catch a student up." Earlier on, the challenge to identify and
diagnose is easier. Catching up is much more challenging.
8:45:40 AM
CHAIR STEVENS summarized that remedial training after third
grade is expensive, difficult, and not always successful.
DR. MCCAULEY added time consuming. Problems compound when a
child cannot master content.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY pointed out that Finland has a literacy rate of
100 percent. He asked what age they begin to teach reading.
DR. MCCAULEY said age 7.
8:47:36 AM
POSIE BOGGS, representing herself, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
in favor of SB 107. She shared her involvement in literacy-in-
reading programs. She said the bill will help her as a reading
tutor and she expressed thanks for the bill. She shared that she
still gets non-reading 8th graders to tutor.
She agreed that after third grade it is difficult to help
students read, but maintained that the effort is worth it. She
said she is familiar with the Colorado READ model. She suggested
within teacher certification, candidates be required to pass a
basic reading competency assessment to learn about intervention
strategies. She said the MTEL Foundations of Reading Test is a
good one to use. She gave a specific example of a vocabulary
lesson in history class.
She remarked that kindergarten teachers and reading specialists
need to be able to pass a reading competency exam. She offered
to send documents from Literate Nation to the committee. She
concluded that SB 107 should become law to make it last. She
agreed that programs come and go depending on the staff. She
suggested assessing teachers' reading knowledge by using the
MTEL Foundations of Reading Test.
8:57:48 AM
CHAIR STEVENS asked about the 8th grader with a reading problem
who slipped through the cracks.
MS. BOGGS thought it happened all the time. The NAEP scores of
67 percent show that many students are not competent readers.
Some teachers do not have the knowledge to teach remedial
readers. She said she is troubled that SB 107 does not apply to
students with IEP's or difficulties. She maintained that SB 107
should especially apply to them.
SENATOR GARDNER thanked Ms. Boggs. She asked whether
phonological memory is an innate ability or if it takes
practice.
MS. BOGGS said it is an innate ability that can be measured. She
further explained that phonological memory is more difficult to
remediate than phonemic awareness. She shared a personal
experience and an example of a child's phonological memory
issue.
9:03:07 AM
SENATOR GARDNER said the discussion was very interesting. She
gave an example of "spaghetti" as a frequently mispronounced
word.
9:03:35 AM
MIKE COONS, representing himself, Palmer, Alaska, testified on
SB 107. He praised Ms. Bogg's testimony and Senator Huggins'
comments. He referred to page 1, lines 13 and 14, and page 2,
lines 1 - 5, and wondered about the causes of reading problems.
He questioned the role of standards, assessments, and staff
development.
He disagreed with the "fixes" for reading problems listed in the
bill. He also thought teachers would not work more closely with
parents on reading problems. He stressed the importance of
student interest in the subject matter. He shared a personal
experience.
He suggested students should not be passed on to the next grade
if they do not have passing grades. He opined that all schools
should be accredited. He reserved approval of the bill.
9:10:44 AM
SENATOR GARDNER referred to proposed legislation about teachers
not being allowed to recommend a specific provider to a family
when they believe the child has a problem.
SENATOR HUGGINS stated that teachers cannot make a diagnosis.
SENATOR GARDNER confirmed that teachers can only make a
recommendation to the family.
SENATOR HUGGINS said he heard Ms. Boggs say that the number of
students who graduate and cannot read is much higher than
reported. He stated it is "time to get on with it."
CHAIR STEVENS agreed SB 107 should apply to special needs
students.
He reiterated that SB 107 is a work in progress.
9:13:41 AM
SENATOR GARDNER asked if there are some children who cannot be
taught to read.
DR. MCCAULEY said her experience and what she knows is indicated
in research and various methods are successful with children.
The research supports a skill-based approach to reading as most
successful with those children. Diagnosis and intervention is
vital. She concluded that most children can effectively learn to
read when there are evidence-based systems in place early on.
9:15:40 AM
CHAIR STEVENS asked Dr. McCauley to respond to the story about
the 8th grade student who could not read.
DR. MACAULEY said there are unknown variables that may have
contributed to that student's inability to read. At that age, an
inability to read would interfere with that child's daily
education.
[SB 107 was held in committee for further consideration.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01_SB107_K3_Reading_BillText_VersionA_01222014.pdf |
SEDC 1/29/2014 8:00:00 AM |
SB 107 |
| 02_SB107_K3_Reading_SponsorStaement_VersionA_01222014.pdf |
SEDC 1/29/2014 8:00:00 AM |
SB 107 |
| 03_SB107_K3_Reading_Sectional_VersionA_01222014.pdf |
SEDC 1/29/2014 8:00:00 AM |
SB 107 |
| 04_SB107_FiscalNote_VersionA_01272014.pdf |
SEDC 1/29/2014 8:00:00 AM |
SB 107 |
| 05_SB107_ColoradoREAD_Act_Summary.pdf |
SEDC 1/29/2014 8:00:00 AM |
SB 107 |
| 06_SB107_ColoradoREAD_Act_Implementation.pdf |
SEDC 1/29/2014 8:00:00 AM |
SB 107 |