Legislature(2019 - 2020)SENATE FINANCE 532
01/23/2020 03:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SB6|| SB151 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 151 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 6-PRE-K/ELEM ED PROGRAMS/FUNDING; READING
SB 151-PRE-K/ELEM ED PROGRAMS/FUNDING; READING
3:33:06 PM
CHAIR STEVENS announced the consideration of SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE
FOR SENATE BILL NO. 6, "An Act relating to early education
programs provided by school districts; relating to funding for
early education programs; relating to the duties of the
Department of Education and Early Development; establishing a
reading intervention program for public school students enrolled
in grades kindergarten through three; establishing a literacy
program in the Department of Education and Early Development;
and providing for an effective date" and SENATE BILL NO. 151,
"An Act relating to early education programs provided by school
districts; relating to funding for early education programs;
relating to a department literacy program; relating to a
comprehensive reading policy; relating to the duties of the
state Board of Education and Early Development; and providing
for an effective date."
He noted that SB 6, sponsored by Senator Begich, and SB 151,
sponsored by the governor, are very similar and speak to early
learning and literacy. He stated his intention to introduce both
bills simultaneously, get the conversations on the table,
understand the differences, and hold the bills in committee for
further review. He called Senator Begich and Commissioner
Johnson to the table.
3:34:39 PM
SENATOR BEGICH pointed out that the committee packets contained
a document comparing the bills. He recognized Senator Hughes and
Representative LeDoux as champions of reading and stated that a
lot of Senator Hughes's work is reflected in the bills. He also
acknowledged the work of the Commissioner of Education and the
governor and their desire to see effective change in education
policy. He met with the governor initially in December 2018 to
assess the wat makes for effective prekindergarten (pre-K). He
and the governor have had a series of conversations since then
on that issue. The Department of Education and Early Development
(DEED) wrote some of the bill years ago and the pre-K bill
section has had input from the early learning community.
SENATOR BEGICH said the governor's commitment and the districts'
support for reading and literacy are critical components for
successful pre-K. Further, effective reading cannot happen if
kids are not prepared when they come to school. Those two
components are merged in this bill. In the last three years, the
committee has heard testimony about the importance of parental
engagement with kids and with schools and the need for parents,
schools, and teachers to be more integrated. He and the governor
understand turnover and other comprehensive issues. Although
everything cannot be dealt with in one bill, this bill will
create a continuum from preschool to third grade to help prepare
kids to graduate.
3:39:12 PM
SENATOR BEGICH said he has worked extensively with the governor
on this bill, putting aside traditional partisan labels to focus
on what kids need to learn. This resulted in these two bills, he
said. The difference between the two bills is minor. First, the
Department of Law and Legislative Legal Services draft things
differently. However, the same language is contained in
different sections of the bills and the fiscal notes are
identical. Second, the governor's bill has legislative intent
language but SB does not. Third, SB 6 has transition language to
give the commissioner more flexibility because of the
complexities in these bills. He pointed out that there are
slight differences in scheduling for pre-k, which was actually
an error. Still, the bills are almost identical.
SENATOR BEGICH revealed that he and the governor have received
some pushback on the bills. Some people have decided that there
might be reasons not to support a piece of legislation if either
he or the governor endorse or support it. "In the end, this
won't be our bill. This will be your bill. It will be Alaska's
bill. That is what we have intended from the very beginning. And
so, we are willing to take the flak, we are willing to push for
what's important for our kids. And we are doing so on the backs
of the learning and advice that we have from the other members
here at the table," he said.
3:41:42 PM
SENATOR BEGICH said early learning is imperative for the state.
When examining its long-term economy and opportunity for all
Alaskans, it is essential to consider how Alaska increases
productivity as well as how Alaska reduces potential drains
resulting from the unrealized potential of its citizens. This
bill will allow the state to be on that path. Early education
and the ability to read makes that happen. The markers for
success develop early in life, and brain science underscores
that how people use their brains in the crucial early years and
how well prepared children are before entering kindergarten will
have a dramatic impact on their ability to learn. The state's
ability to ensure that the supports are in place for reading and
reading preparation will ensure that the state does not lose the
gains made with prekindergarten.
SENATOR BEGICH said research shows that children who live in
poverty have an incredibly difficult time catching up with
others when they come to school ill prepared. That same research
shows that those who have a high-quality preschool experience go
on to future academic and personal success. Studies such as the
Perry Preschool Project Study, which, with a recent update, is
multigenerational, show that every dollar invested in high-
quality pre-K can save up to $7 in government expense in the
long run by reducing the need for remedial education and
involvement in the criminal justice and public assistance
systems. High-quality pre-K, supported by a strong learning
component, ensures that the state builds citizens who do not
become a burden to the state. High-quality education programs
are an investment in our children's' futures. Early education
for students before they enter kindergarten improves school
readiness, reading levels, and long-term economic performance.
The state's own pre-K programs, such as those available in
Anchorage, Mat-Su, the Lower Kuskokwim, and Nome school
districts, which DEED has data on, show that these early
education programs, including early education programs like Head
Start, Best Beginnings, and Parents as Teachers, provide
families with access to high-quality early education. Still,
only 10 percent of Alaska's kids are covered with these
programs.
SENATOR BEGICH stated that SB 6 would take the lessons learned
from over a decade of the state's own pre-K programs and apply
them across the state. This bill will also establish a statewide
literacy program and intensive reading intervention services for
students experiencing reading deficiencies from kindergarten
through grade three. The DEED will provide direct support and
reading intervention to up to 10 struggling schools for an
entire school year. That bill section will provide up to five
years of support. The DEED-funded reading intervention
specialists will support staff in those districts, engage and
build community understanding of evidence-based reading, and
work with local teachers and staff to improve reading scores and
assessments through evidence-based reading instruction. This
bill would require reading proficiency screenings or assessments
in first, second, and third grade. These two bills draw from the
work of the Task Force on Reading Proficiency and Dyslexia and
will consider different types of reading deficiencies.
SENATOR BEGICH emphasized the importance of early education
since children's pace of intellectual development peaks at the
age of six. Children develop all their synaptic connections in
the brain by the age of two. The ones used are the ones kept
between ages two and ten. That determines who people are going
to be and how they are going to be. School outcome data and
academic research show that if children participate in early
education programs, soft skills tied to future success are
developed, including conscientiousness, perseverance,
sociability, and curiosity. Those results are shown nationally
and in Alaska. Children in early education programs in Alaska
showed dramatic growth between fall and spring. All should share
in these successes, and it is time for all Alaskan children to
have that opportunity to participate. This legislation, crafted
by the governor, himself, and DEED, working with the advice they
have received over the years, does that.
SENATOR BEGICH said the Alaska Reads Act will offer school
districts the opportunity to develop high-quality early
education programs that are culturally appropriate and tailored
to their students through a three-year grant process. It is
based on successful work in Oklahoma and other states. Smart
investments in the past have made Alaska one of the most
economically equitable in the country. Similar smart investments
in early education have the potential to create a generation of
Alaskans prepared to make the greatest impact anyone can
imagine. He thanked Senator Hughes for her work as the chair of
the Education Committee when he first became a senator and her
work identifying the importance of reading in education.
3:48:35 PM
MICHAEL JOHNSON, Ph.D., Commissioner, Department of Education
and Early Development (DEED), Juneau, Alaska, noted that the
work the senators in the Education Committee put in is reflected
in the bills. The governor came to this project as an educator,
teacher, principal, superintendent, school board president, and
comments about how as a father that it was important to teach
his own kids to read.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON shared that the governor has spent
substantial time the last few months digging into the details of
this bill. He has held conversations with some of his former
colleagues and others he has worked with on reading issues. The
governor often referenced his own experience in the classroom as
they worked through the bill. He often talked about the moral
imperative that rises above politics when it comes to kids
learning to read.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON pointed out that so many in the audience
have dedicated so much time to making sure kids get a great
education. They will have opportunities to share their
perspective with the committee on how to make the best bill
possible. He also acknowledged the work teachers are doing today
to teach kids how to read.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON reviewed the mission statement of DEED: an
excellent education for every student every day; and the vision
statement in statute: all students will succeed in their
education and work, shape worthwhile and satisfying lives for
themselves, exemplify the best values of society, and be
effective in improving the character and quality of the world
about them. He added that none of that can happen if students
cannot read well. The department's role is to provide
information, resources, and leadership to support educators and
families around the state as they provide an excellent education
for every student every day. For the last few years, many
Alaskans have gathered, including members from both legislative
education committees, to develop the Alaska Education Challenge.
The challenge started with shared commitments to improve student
success. Reading is fundamental to that. In September 2016, the
State Board set strategic priorities, and the department
recently received a grant aligned with those priorities.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON shared the first goal of five, support all
students to read at grade level by the end of the third grade.
Since so many people participated in the Alaska Education
Challenge (AEC), the priority of reading came from many
Alaskans. The AEC has three shared commitments, which are to
increase student success, support responsible and reflective
learners, and cultivate safety and well-being. This challenge
includes five measurable goals, targeted priorities, and
strategies.
3:54:38 PM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON said the Alaska Legislative Task Force on
Reading Proficiency and Dyslexia, which was led by Posie Boggs,
noted that years of evidence show that almost all students are
capable of learning to read. Students who do not learn to read
by third grade fall further and further behind. He shared this
quote from the task force:
"The students that do not read proficiently by third grade
fall further and further behind. As their peers use reading
skills to acquire new skills, these students remain on
square one."
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON said the need in the state is great. Lots
of great instruction is happening, but the 2019 National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data that he displayed
on slide 10 of his presentation shows that Alaska is last in the
nation for fourth grade reading. The state's PEAKS (Performance
Evaluation for Alaska's Schools) assessment show 34 to 36
percent of grade three students are proficient in language arts.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON showed data on slide 12 that compared third
grade reading proficiency to high school dropout rates.
Districts with low reading proficiency levels have high dropout
rates and districts with high reading proficiency levels have
low dropout rates. Reading proficiency rates in third grade
correlate to graduation rates.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON said the Alaska Reads Act turns a priority
into policy. This bill represents the work of many people over
many years. The Alaska Reads Act has three main components. It
came from many discussions in the Senate Education Committee
about how to address reading issues. Some people focused on pre-
K, while others talked about reading intervention. These are
combined into one act. The first part of the bill is high-
quality pre-K. He stressed the importance of high-quality pre-K.
The bill includes specific language about standards related to
pre-K programs. The second part is a comprehensive K-3 reading
intervention policy that includes specific language related to
screening and intervention for dyslexia. The third part focuses
on school improvement. The state has low performing schools that
have been there for years. The bill provides specific
opportunities for the department to provide resources, including
people, in those schools to help build capacity for quality
reading intervention and reading instruction programs.
3:59:01 PM
CHAIR STEVENS said he appreciated everyone working together on
this. It is proof of what can be accomplished if people do not
care who gets credit, which applies to the governor, the
commissioner, Senator Begich, DEED staff, and this Education
Committee. They have made great progress and he appreciated
everyone's willingness to find a way to make this work and do
what is best for the kids of Alaska.
3:59:33 PM
SENATOR HUGHES thanked the commissioner and Senator Begich for
bringing this forward. It is so important to Alaska's children
and their future and the future of this great state. She cannot
think of anything more important to accomplish this session in
terms of impacting the future. She likes the title Alaska Reads
Act because it is for the state and the children of the state.
She recalled the many types of meetings she has attended, such
as on crime reduction or the budget. It did not matter what the
topic was. When the question was asked, what can be done, she
brought up reading because it impacts the future so much. For
years, people have said that in America the great equalizer is
education. However, if children do not master the objectives at
each grade level and they move through the system, the diploma
is meaningless. Education has not been the great equalizer it is
supposed to be. She sees that children, perhaps for generations,
have been trapped in families in poverty and they have not been
successful in school. The act will give them the tools to be
successful. These are children who might otherwise be
incarcerated at great cost to the state, as Senator Begich
mentioned. These are children who might be on public assistance,
on Medicaid. The act will open opportunities for these children.
And what the state will look like in 15 to 20 years will be
drastically different just because of the reading portion of
this bill. She was happy to see it was getting traction,
momentum, and support from across the aisle.
SENATOR HUGHES noted that the commissioner had said that DEED
will provide support and resources for school improvement. She
asked if there is an accountability piece for the school
improvement part for the department and districts.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON answered absolutely. The Alaska Reads Act
enhances the accountability system the department has in place
through the federal Every Student Succeeds Act. The department
will work to integrate all the work seamlessly for
accountability purposes. The department does not want to create
multiple accountability systems. It wants the current
accountability system to work in sync with the Alaska Reads Act
and the department believes it can do that.
4:03:46 PM
SENATOR BEGICH replied that a specific section directly relates
to accountability. Agreement was reached about adding it in,
partially because of what is happening with the Colorado Reads
Act. Chair Stevens had introduced a bill, perhaps in the 2013
session, based on that original Colorado Reads Act. After that
act passed, Colorado found some issues that needed to be
corrected and addressed in a second act. Even today Colorado is
looking at the accountability section of the Colorado Reads Act.
As a result, accountable measures are embedded in the Alaska
Reads Act.
CHAIR STEVENS asked for the sectional presentation.
4:05:09 PM
LOKI TOBIN, Staff, Senator Tom Begich, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, and Erin Hardin introduced themselves.
4:06:08 PM
ERIN HARDIN, Legislative Liaison, Department of Education and
Early Development (DEED), Juneau, Alaska, said she would
highlight the few differences between SB 6 and SB 151. The first
is simply a result of the drafting differences between
Legislative Legal and the Department of Law, such as singular
vs. plural references. The second difference is that in SB 6 the
early education grants fiscal cycle in years four, five, and six
are slightly more aggressive by 5 percent. That is equivalent to
including a school district or two earlier in the grants
program. The department is comfortable using the percentages in
the sponsor substitute. The third difference is that SB 151
includes intent language. SB 6 establishes a deadline of August
1, 2020, for when DEED must conduct performance rankings of all
districts with respect to the early education program grants,
which will be discussed later in the sectional presentation.
Those are the only four notable differences between the two
bills.
MS. TOBIN said Section 1 of SB 6, which correlates to a portion
of Section 13 of SB 151, establishes the Alaska Reads Act.
MS. HARDIN said Section 2 of SB 6 is Section 1 of SB 151. This
amends the language defining a public elementary school by
including a reference to an early education program.
Establishes that elementary schools also include an
early education program, whether operated within a
public school or by an outside organization. Programs
must be approved or supervised by the Alaska
Department of Education and Early Development (the
department).
MS. TOBIN said Section 3 of SB 6, which is included in Section 7
of SB 151, establishes a new section.
Inserts AS 14.30.765, reading intervention services in
addition to intervention strategies for early
literacy.
MS. HARDIN said Section 4 of SB 6 appears as Section 3 in SB
151.
Establishes that a four or five-year-old, who has not
attended kindergarten, is eligible to attend a public
school early education program.
MS. TOBIN said Section 5 of SB 6 pertains to the last portion of
SB 151, Section 13.
Establishes annual reporting requirements for school
districts regarding student performance metrics in
grades K-3.
SENATOR BEGICH explained that this section addresses the
accountability question.
4:10:30 PM
MS. TOBIN said Section 6 of SB 6 aligns with Section 4 of SB
151. This is the original language of SB 6, version M. This
creates the stair step, three-year grant program to assist
districts in establishing their early education programs. As
noted earlier, some minor differences are in the grant schedule
between SB 6 and SB 151. That is the 5 percent over years four,
five, and six. These equate to when one or two schools will be
able to apply for early education grants. As mentioned earlier,
Commissioner Johnson and Senator Begich are in concurrence with
the sponsor bill schedule. In both bills, in year one, the
lowest performing 10 percent of school districts will be
eligible for a grant to establish an early education program. In
year two, 15 percent of the next lowest school districts will be
eligible. In year three, the third lowest 15 percent of
districts will be eligible. Then the bills diverge. In SB 6, in
year four, the third highest 20 percent of school districts and
SB 151 focuses on the third highest 15 percent. In year five, SB
6 and SB 151 are looking at the 20 percent second highest
performing school districts. In the final year, SB 6 has the
highest performing 20 percent and SB 151 has the remaining 25
percent of school districts.
SENATOR BEGICH added that there may not be a need to have a
sixth year of the grants.
MS. TOBIN said that by the sixth year in both bills, all schools
will have had the opportunity to participate in the grants
program. At the end of the three-year grant cycle, the
Department of Education and Early Development will be
responsible for determining if the district's early education
program complies with state standards, as established by the
State Board of Education (board) in section 9.
MS. TOBIN said that in Section 7 of SB 6 and Section 5 of SB 151
the department is directed to supervise all early education
programs, approve those early education programs created by the
early education grant program, and establish a new literacy
program, AS 14.07.065, and reading intervention programs of
participating schools, AS 14.30.770.
MS. HARDIN said Section 8 of SB 6 and Section 6 of SB 151 define
an "early education program" as a pre-K program for students
three to five years old if its primary function is educational.
The 3-year-old students are included in the definition but are
not included in the program the bill proposes but are included
to ensure those students remain eligible for existing State and
Federal programs.
SENATOR BEGICH explained that this has come up a number of times
with old versions of preschool bills. This was a recommendation
from a number of early learning programs so that three-year-olds
would not be inadvertently excluded, but this bill's grant
program is exclusive to four- and five-year-olds. It took two
years to address this with the early learning community.
4:15:46 PM
MS. HARDIN said Section 9 of SSSB 6 and Section 7 of SB 151
allow the department to select and purchase supplemental reading
materials and provide support to reading intervention services.
MS. TOBIN said Section 10 of SB 6 and Section 9 of SB 151 direct
the board to adopt regulations establishing standards for an
early education program that is (1) half-day, (2) full-day, and
(3) less than half day and is locally-designed and evidence-
based. The lead teacher of a program must hold a valid teacher
certificate and have satisfactorily completed a minimum of six
credit hours in early childhood education or completed the six
credits within one year of the teacher's employment, or have
five or more years of experience teaching kindergarten or other
early education programs. Regulations must also establish the
development of appropriate objectives and accommodations for all
children, which allow districts to adapt content to be
culturally appropriate to local communities.
MS. TOBIN said Section 11 of SB 6, which aligns with Section 10
of SB 151, states that for funding purposes, an early education
student shall be counted in the school district's average daily
membership (ADM) as a half-day student once the early education
program has been approved by the department.
4:18:43 PM
MS. TOBIN said Section 12 of SB 6 and Section 11 of SB 151
include students in early education programs approved by the
department in the definition of an elementary school.
MS. TOBIN said Section 13 of SB 6 and Section 12 have a complete
alignment of language to ensure that early education students
who currently receive state or federal funding for early
education are not included in the ADM for purposes of funding.
SENATOR BEGICH clarified that a lot of questions have come up
about this before. This avoids double dipping so that a kid
cannot be counted twice. If a district is already receiving
funding for a kid, the district cannot use the grant program to
get twice the amount for one kid. It is a way of avoiding
federal restrictions on supplanting funding.
4:19:37 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked if it would be allocated on what a student
normally would get.
SENATOR BEGICH answered yes.
SENATOR HUGHES asked about the counting of an early education
student as one half of ADM in Section 11, when the prior section
referred to developing standards for different lengths of day.
SENATOR BEGICH replied that it is to provide consistency if a
district should choose to provide a full-day program, but
students will be funded for half a day.
4:21:05 PM
CHAIR STEVENS acknowledged the presence of Representatives
Hopkins and Story.
MS. HARDIN said Section 14 of SB 6 correlates to Section 8 and
13 in SB 151 and noted that this part of the bill transitions to
reading intervention.
Establishes a comprehensive reading intervention
program, designed to increase literacy for children in
kindergarten through grade three. The department will
be required to establish a system of support for
teachers of kindergarten through grade three students,
adopt a statewide screening or assessment tool to
identify students with reading deficiencies, and
provide support to teachers of kindergarten through
grade three students through training on the use of
the statewide screening or assessment tool and on the
science of reading. The department will be required to
administer the statewide screening or assessment tool
three times each school year, once in the fall, once
in the winter, and once in the spring, beginning in
2020. The statewide screening or assessment tool must
determine specified skills at each grade level:
kindergarten, first grade, and second/third grades.
School districts will be required to offer reading
intervention services in addition to core reading
instruction to all students in kindergarten through
grade three who exhibit a reading deficiency as
determined by the statewide screening or assessment.
The reading intervention services must be provided by
a district reading teacher, include explicit and
systematic instruction with proven results based on
scientific research, incorporate daily targeted small
group reading instruction, and be based on students'
needs as determined by regular monitoring of student
progress. The reading intervention services must be
reviewed based on department-approved response to
intervention or multi-tiered system support models.
For each student participating in the reading
intervention services, the district must establish an
individual reading plan. For all students with an
individual reading plan and who also score in the
lowest achievement level on the district screening or
statewide reading assessment, the district must
provide the reading intervention services both during
and outside the school term. Outside the school term,
the reading intervention services must be staffed with
reading teachers and include a minimum of 70 hours of
instructional time.
4:23:49 PM
Districts or schools must notify parents in writing if
a student exhibits a reading deficiency at any time
during the school year. Notification must occur within
15 days of the deficiency being identified. Updates to
parents are required every other week after initial
notification. The initial notification must state the
district or school identified the student as having a
reading deficiency and that an improvement plan will
be developed, describe the current services the
student receives and the proposed additional services
the student will need to remedy the deficiency,
explain the progress reports that will follow every
two weeks, and identify strategies the parent or
guardian could use at home to help the student succeed
in reading. If the student is in grade three, the
notification must include a request for a meeting with
the parent, the student's teacher, and other district
staff to discuss appropriate grade level progression.
The meeting must take place at least 45 days prior to
the end of the school year. If the student's parent
does not attend, the student's teacher and school
personnel will determine grade level progression for
the student.
Establishes that a student in grade three should
demonstrate sufficient reading skills to progress to
grade four. Multiple pathways are provided for
students to demonstrate sufficient reading skills for
progression to grade four, including performance on
the statewide reading screening or assessment or an
alternative reading assessment as determined by the
State Board of Education, or, as evidenced through a
student reading portfolio.
MS. HARDIN said she wanted to emphasize that there are multiple
pathways provided for students to demonstrate proficiency.
CHAIR STEVENS asked for help understanding the portfolio.
SENATOR BEGICH deferred to the commissioner.
4:26:14 PM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON explained that a reading portfolio would
have parameters established by the state board. The student and
teacher would put it together to demonstrate reading proficiency
in ways other than a standardized assessment. It could be a
teacher's record of reading with a student or student writing
about something he or she has read. There are a number of
elements that could be included in a portfolio for a student who
may not be able to perform well on a standardized assessment but
who is proficient in reading.
SENATOR BEGICH asked if it would accommodate different learning
disabilities the task force addressed.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON answered yes and that others will testify
about that.
SENATOR HUGHES reflected that some students freeze up when they
take a test. She asked if a portfolio might include a videotape
of a student reading to show proof of proficiency.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON replied absolutely. Other places in the
country use this model for a student to show proficiency. A
portfolio is a collection of evidence that shows a student is
proficient in reading.
SENATOR HUGHES noted that the term "proficiency" was being used
a lot. She asked if that is defined.
4:31:05 PM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON answered that state standards define that,
and state assessments assess those standards.
SENATOR HUGHES asked if the commissioner could briefly describe
proficiency.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON replied that the science of reading talks
about five things that need to happen for students to be
proficient. First, students need phonemic awareness, hearing
distinct sounds in words and understand that the print
represents the sounds they hear. Third, students need to be able
to do that fluently. Fourth, students need to have a growing
vocabulary, and finally, students need comprehension, to
understand what they have read. All of these things together
create the context needed to be a proficient reader.
4:32:56 PM
CHAIR STEVENS noted the presence of Representative LeDoux.
MS. HARDIN continued presenting Section 14. The bill language
includes good cause exemptions, such as having a disability, or
the student is learning English as a second language. The bill
provides a process for parents or guardians to request an
exemption for their student.
Districts must provide intensive reading intervention
services to all students who do not progress or
receive a good cause exemption. For students who do
not progress to grade four who previously experienced
delayed grade level progression, an intensive
acceleration class must also be provided by the
district.
MS. HARDEN said Section 14 establishes annual reporting
requirements for schools regarding student reading performance
in kindergarten through grade three.
MS. HARDIN said the literacy program of Section 14 of SB 6 is in
Section 8 of SB 151.
Establishes a literacy program to provide direct
support and intervention services to up to ten low-
performing Alaska schools each year that apply for the
services. The department will be responsible for
providing each selected school up to two reading
specialists. A reading specialist is defined as a
certified teacher under AS 14.20 who is employed and
funded by the department and who meets requirements
established by the board. One specialist would be
focused on the implementation of reading intervention
services consistently across classrooms, modeling
effective instructional strategies, coaching and
mentoring teachers and paraprofessionals, training
teachers in data literacy, leading and supporting
reading leadership teams, and reporting on school and
student performance to the department. The supporting
reading specialist would assist with all the
activities described above or serve as the reading
specialist for the school's early education program,
depending on the makeup of the specific school.
The department will be required to establish a process
for the reading specialists to report on program
implementation, work with the reading specialists to
establish improvement goals, including measures of
interim progress, to select and purchase additional
reading materials to supplement the reading
intervention services, and pay travel costs for a
reading specialist to attend relevant trainings
identified or hosted by the department. The department
will also be responsible for periodically reviewing
staff development programs and recommending to the
board programs that meet high quality standards as
defined under AS 14.07.065 (10).
4:36:24 PM
SENATOR BEGICH emphasized that one reason for this section is
the bill is not putting that burden directly on districts. The
state, in a way, is fulfilling its obligation under Moore [v.
State of Alaska lawsuit] to support school districts. He
expressed his appreciation to the governor and the department
for that.
SENATOR HUGHES said earlier the sectional talked about district
reading teachers. Now the sectional is talking about reading
specialists provided by the department and the board setting
standards. The state wants to make sure teachers are well
trained and well prepared. She wondered if there is a great
program that has worked so that the state will be ready to train
these teachers. She recounted a story of meeting a Mississippi
teacher at an education conference this summer who told how she
graduated from a program but was not equipped for the situation
she was placed in. Later the teacher was so thankful when her
state adopted a reading plan and she had the training and
resources. Senator Hughes was curious about how the department
is going to make the sure the district reading teachers and
department specialists are prepared.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON answered that professional development is a
large piece of this act. Part of the department's responsibility
is to provide good quality professional development. Instead of
having separate bills to establish different expectations,
putting them all in the Alaska Reads Act establishes an
expectation of quality from pre-K through third grade. The
department will work to make sure those expectations are
demonstrated in a consistent way across the board. The committee
heard about standards for pre-K. When the department provides
support services to districts, the department wants to make sure
districts adhere to the same quality standards. He would not say
at the meeting whether the department would pick one reading
program or draw from multiple programs.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON added that from Best Beginnings to the
Alaska Reading Coalition and others, there is great capacity to
provide the professional development the state will need to
train teachers and the state will draw on the experiences of
other states. Staff development is a big piece of the Alaska
Reads Act being successful and the department already, in hopes
of a bill that passes, has been having meetings about how to
provide those opportunities. This weekend a thousand educators
will be at the Response to Intervention (RTI) conference, which
happens every year. It is the largest conference in the state
for educators. With a bill that passes, the department can work
even more closely with organizations to make sure staff
development is aligned to what the legislature and the governor
have indicated in this bill.
4:41:12 PM
CHAIR STEVENS recognized the presence of Montana Senator Mike
Huff, the president of PNWER, the Pacific Northwest Economic
Region.
MS. HARDIN continued the sectional:
Schools selected to participate in the literacy
program will be required to ensure that the reading
specialist(s) were not required to perform functions
that divert from the duties assigned by the
department, coordinate with the reading specialists to
redesign the school's daily schedule to provide time
dedicated to literacy program activities, hold public
meetings to present information on the literacy and
reading intervention program services to parents and
guardians, present an annual update to the public on
these program services at a noticed public meeting,
and create partnerships between the school, families,
and community that focus on promoting literacy and
increasing time spent reading.
Under this new section, the department will be
required to publish on its website and make available
to the public a completed application from each school
selected to participate in the literacy program, the
literacy plan implemented at each selected school, and
a data analysis of the success of the literacy program
and intervention services conducted by an independent
contractor.
MS. HARDIN pointed out that the independent contractor adds
another accountability piece.
MS. TOBIN said Section 15 of SB 6, which is in Section 14 of SB
151, directs early education program staff to be included in
those organizations required to report evidence of child abuse.
MS. TOBIN said Section 16 repeals the early education grant
program in 11 years once all school districts have had the
opportunity to participate.
MS. HARDIN said the last three sections focus on the
implementation timeline. Section 17 of SB 6 is in a portion of
Section 4 of SB 151 and directs the department to conduct
performance rankings of all districts. Section 18 of SB 6, which
appears as Section 15 of SB 151, directs the commissioner of the
department to provide an implementation progress report to the
board no later than 30 days after the effective date. Section 19
establishes an effective date of July 1, 2020.
4:44:45 PM
CHAIR STEVENS asked Senator Begich to give a wrap-up of the
sectional analysis.
SENATOR BEGICH said some might question why the grant program
terminates and disappears. That is because every district will
have had the opportunity to participate at that point. The
intent was not for it to be an ongoing grants program.
SENATOR HUGHES noted the effective date of July 1, 2020. She
asked when the program would be up and running in schools across
the state.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON replied that he would plead for passage of
the bill sooner rather than later. If the bill does not pass
until late in the session, it will be very hard to fully
implement the bill next school year. The department is already
working on what will be needed to implement bill. The department
had a meeting today about the standards for early learning. The
state got a large federal grant for reading that it is using to
develop professional development opportunities. But to fully
implement the bill, the sooner the better, after due
consideration and public input.
SENATOR HUGHES clarified that if the bill passed in a timely
fashion, by next school year, in August and September, the
department could have things up and running.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON answered that the department is committed
to implementing the act as much as possible whenever it passes
because it does not want kids to wait another year for some of
these things to be implemented. It is a tight timeline, even if
the bill passed today. He pointed out that the recruitment for
early education staff included people who might not have a
certificate but who have experience in teaching pre-K. It will
take a while to develop capacity and to recruit the right kind
of people to do professional developmental. But the department
is so excited about the opportunity that it is committed to do
the hard work necessary. Department energy is focused on
implementing this reading bill because it is so fundamental to
all the other success the department wants kids to have in
school.
CHAIR STEVENS responded that he could guarantee the commissioner
that he will not hold the bill for any unusual reason. The
committee will thoroughly study it and make sure it is the right
bill. His intention is to move it out as soon as the committee
is prepared to.
4:49:00 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked about how the bill would interact with
students who have [IEPs--Individualized Education Plans].
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON replied that the bill will not impact the
IEP required by federal law. Those are a right for students
identified as having a disability under special education law.
Students in special education probably already have an IEP with
a reading plan.
SENATOR COGHILL responded that he did not need an answer today,
but he does wonder how the reading bill would work in concert
with IEPs. He added that another question that he would like
considered for a later time is the issue of those who may learn
late who are proficient but not highly proficient.
CHAIR STEVENS asked if the committee could have the answers at
another time.
SENATOR COGHILL replied that would be fine because the questions
are about implementation.
CHAIR STEVENS said that because of time constraints, the
committee would not cover the fiscal notes or be able to hear
all the invited testimony for the meeting. He then asked
representatives for the Education Commission of the States for
their presentation.
4:53:06 PM
TOM KEILY, Policy Analyst, Education Commission of the States
(ECS), Denver, Colorado, thanked the committee for the
opportunity to present on the national overview and policy
trends, state examples, and lessons learned about implementation
of early literacy.
4:55:08 PM
JOEL MOORE, State Relations Strategist, Education Commission of
the States (ECS), Denver, Colorado, said he is the state liaison
to Alaska. ECS is a national, nonpartisan education policy
center that was founded by an interstate compact and authorized
by statute in all 50 states. ECS has policy analysts who review
all education bills in all states and DC. ECS examines trends
and issues reports. ECS finds out what is happening around the
country but does not state what is best for Alaska. ECS provides
the national context and information about what is working in
other states.
MR. KEILY reviewed the components of early literacy policy--
prevention, intervention, and retention.
MR. KEILY noted that the slide titled State Examples: National
Context gave information about five states just to provide a
look at what some states are doing regarding early literacy
policy. Twenty-six states have some form of early literacy
policy. Twelve of those include elements of prevention,
intervention, and retention.
MR. KEILY presented a slide showing which states have retention
policies, either requiring or allowing retention.
MR. KEILY showed the last slide on Lessons Learned and
Implementation from over the last 20 years across the states. He
noted that, obviously, passing a law is only the beginning. One
thing ECS keeps hearing from the states is what steps and
engagement are needed once the law goes into effect to get the
policy to the student level. Michigan and Alabama are in the
process of rolling out their policies. ECS can provide more
information about that and other topics to the committee.
CHAIR STEVENS called Posie Boggs to the table.
5:05:09 PM
POSIE BOGGS, Member, Alaska Reading Coalition, Anchorage,
Alaska, thanked the governor, the commissioner, and Senator
Begich for taking the risk to be bipartisan. They crafted a bill
that has a lot of excellent things in it. On behalf of the
Reading Coalition, she thanked the sponsors of bill. She noted
the work of Senator Hughes and Representative LeDoux on reading.
She noted the coalition first met with Representative LeDoux on
HB 197, which was quite a long time ago. She thanked
Representative Drummond and her staff, George Ascott, for
getting the taskforce accomplished. She noted that she first
testified in front of Senator Stevens in 2013 on SB 106 and he
told her to keep working on the issues.
MS. BOGGS recounted an encounter with a former superintendent of
the Alaska Gateway School District who told her that knowledge
of evidence-based reading instruction was missing from the Moore
[v. State of Alaska lawsuit] case.
MS. BOGGS spoke about phonemic and phonological awareness, which
has been missing from teacher education and professional
development. This idea gets pushback from preschool and early
educators for various reasons. "They don't know what they don't
know," she said.
MS. BOGGS expressed gratitude for the bipartisan nature of the
Alaska Reads Act but observed that was not unusual in reading
bills across the country. A survey she conducted shows that in
15 states passage of reading and dyslexia bills were almost all
unanimous. Ensuring kids learn how to read is a moral
imperative. They cannot be citizens if they cannot read. Adults
in the state can continue doing what is comfortable for adults,
in doing what they have always done. They can hire the same
interventionists that have brought the state to where it is
today. That will cause a delay in the implementation of this
bill and a delay in students learning to read. The state needs a
highly defined, comprehensive reading plan with no wriggle room
and no wishy-washy language. The state needs to teach
superintendents and principals how to recognize when they are
being exquisite consumers of reading instruction. They can be
easily bamboozled by reading instruction that is not going to
work and is not evidence based. In Arkansas, vendors just put a
sticker on same old reading instruction and districts who bought
that curriculum are stuck with it for seven years.
5:15:59 PM
MS. BOGGS said the Alaska Reading Coalition has a document with
alternative statute language and rationales and publications to
back up those rationales. She is most excited about universal
preschool because that is an opportunity to screen kids for
potential characteristics of dyslexia and adequate development
of oral language for English learners. That screening should
drive universal intervention that everyone gets. In preschool,
it sets kids up to be successful in kindergarten and first and
second grade.
MS. BOGGS said cutting edge work is being done in Boston
Children's Hospital and the University of Connecticut to
identify four-year-olds with the characteristics of dyslexia.
The researchers are giving the app away. The state of Alaska
should sign up to be part of the national standardization of
that app.
MS. BOGGS noted that the bill has conflicting terminology that
she hoped to take out. The bill needs to emphasize that it is a
reading act, not a literacy act. The problem with the word
literacy is that it gives wriggle room to not pay attention to
reading. She cannot define literacy. She can measure reading,
which is why scientists love reading. It can be easily measured
with tight metrics, but who knows what literacy is. Reading is
scientifically defined in the federal register. The Reading
Dyslexia Task Force delineated what reading is. If the weak
language is cleaned up, implementation of a comprehensive
reading plan will not be delayed. The most controversial issue
is retention. The coalition is not in favor of hard retention
where parents, teachers, superintendents, and school boards have
no choice. The coalition will not fight a soft retention.
However, the coalition does not understand the logic of its use.
She uses the word logic specifically because states with
retention policies, Florida, Texas, Mississippi, were well into
implementation of their comprehensive reading plan, some more
than a decade, before they pushed the retention button. Alaska
has never had a comprehensive reading plan, so what is the basis
for having retention. Teachers and school districts have never
been supported well enough with a comprehensive reading plan.
MS. BOGGS shared that Mississippi discovered in the thirteenth
year of its implementation timeline that school districts were
not following the comprehensive reading plan nor were colleges
of education following the reading syllabuses for science-based
reading instruction. That is a huge delay. Mississippi gathered
most of their reading professors and spent two or three years
retraining them in evidence-based reading practices. The first
part was fighting their indoctrination in what they had always
done. Then Mississippi gave the reading professors good
instruction.
MS. BOGGS revealed that she had been in a month-long email
exchange with Bob Griffin of the Alaska Policy Forum and Mike
Bronson of the NAACP [National Association for the Advancement
of Colored People] in Anchorage and in the end, they reached no
real conclusion about retention.
MS. BOGGS asked how the committee knows if a reading plan or
legislation is really addressing the adults in the room or is it
addressing the kids. She advised them to look for key words,
such as making decisions about how someone feels or someone's
philosophy. Science is producing evidence-based reading
instruction. If someone talks about the wonders of whole
language, of reading recovery, of Marie Clay of New Zealand,
then that person does not know what they do not know. If that
person is indoctrinated into that and so committed to it, then
that person needs their knowledge recalibrated. She noted that
New Zealand banned that reading methodology.
5:26:37 PM
MS. BOGGS stated that if someone says the bill pushes drill and
kill phonics, that person is out of date in knowledge about
reading. How a program was implemented in a district perhaps 10
or 20 years ago is completely different from what is going on
now because of changes in how to implement reading plans.
MS. BOGGS urged the committee members to read the testimony of
superintendents in the Moore case. Without the support provided
by the Alaska Reads Act, no wonder that superintendents are
saying this is another unfunded mandate. If the act is done
correctly, the state can support those superintendents and the
state will get those concrete gains faster. She encouraged them
to banish soft words about reading instruction.
MS. BOGGS said she was very excited about the correspondence
school for all Alaskans in the bill. She also gave same cautions
about how to look at data.
MS. BOGGS said the inability of the University of Alaska
Anchorage to do what it was requested to do is a big barrier to
kids and teachers receiving the proper education. She also noted
that big publishers make billions from the failure of reading
instruction. If the publishers had a product that taught
reading, would they need to do so many trainings, she asked, and
would a new curriculum be needed over and over. She suggested
committee members listen to the story Emily Hanford of American
Public Media did on Ken Goodman [At a Loss for Words].
5:36:41 PM
MS. BOGGS revealed that in some ways she has a heavy heart that
language from the reading task force was not infused enough in
this bill. The week after the task force report was submitted,
it submitted a very drafty omnibus reading bill and the task
force heard nothing back. SB 6 could have been spectacular if
the coalition had been consulted. The coalition absolutely
commits to working with the legislature and the Department of
Education to working on this process. The Alaska Reading
Coalition has a huge range of people. The state can make this
act spectacular. It has to.
MS. BOGGS said the Department of Education may not have the
reading expertise to send reading coaches into districts, but
there are options to get that quickly. If Alaska thinks out of
the box, Alaska can do something unique.
CHAIR STEVENS said he knows that she will follow this bill as it
moves through the legislature. He guaranteed that when the bill
leaves the committee it will have a realistic fiscal note and
will not be an unfunded mandate. He believes that the
legislature is in a right position to make sure it is properly
funded with the interest of the governor.
5:42:34 PM
CHAIR STEVENS held SB 6 and SB 151 in committee.