Legislature(2019 - 2020)DAVIS 106
03/26/2020 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s):|| Board of Education & Early Development|| Professional Teaching Practices Commission|| University of Alaska Board of Regents | |
| HB153 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 153 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 26, 2020
8:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Harriet Drummond, Co-Chair
Representative Andi Story, Co-Chair
Representative Grier Hopkins
Representative Chris Tuck
Representative Tiffany Zulkosky (via teleconference)
Representative DeLena Johnson (via teleconference)
Representative Mike Prax
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Tom Begich
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Board of Education & Early Development
Keith Hamilton Soldotna
Lorri van Diest Palmer
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
Professional Teaching Practices Commission
Lem Wheeles Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
University of Alaska Board of Regents
Cachet Garrett Fairbanks
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 153
"An Act relating to early education programs provided by school
districts; relating to funding for early education programs; and
relating to the duties of the state Board of Education and Early
Development."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 153
SHORT TITLE: PRE-ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS/FUNDING
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) DRUMMOND
05/07/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/07/19 (H) EDC, FIN
03/09/20 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
03/09/20 (H) Heard & Held
03/09/20 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/11/20 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
03/11/20 (H) Heard & Held
03/11/20 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/14/20 (H) EDC AT 1:00 PM DAVIS 106
03/14/20 (H) Heard & Held
03/14/20 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/25/20 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
03/25/20 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/26/20 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
WITNESS REGISTER
CACHET GARRETT, Student Regent Appointee
University of Alaska Board of Regents
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as student regent appointee to
the University of Alaska Board of Regents.
HEIDI TESHNER, Director
Finance and Support Services Division
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 153, reviewed the
five fiscal notes accompanying the bill.
LOKI TOBIN, Staff
Senator Tom Begich
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 153, answered
questions and provided a revised sectional analysis for Version
U, the proposed committee substitute.
MICHAEL JOHNSON, Ph.D., Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 153, answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:07:07 AM
CO-CHAIR HARRIET DRUMMOND reconvened the House Education
Standing Committee meeting at 8:07 a.m. [The meeting was
recessed on 3/25/20.] Present at the call back to order were
Representatives Johnson (via teleconference), Hopkins, Zulkosky
(via teleconference), Tuck, Story, and Drummond. Representative
Prax arrived as the meeting was in progress.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
^Board of Education & Early Development
^Professional Teaching Practices Commission
^University of Alaska Board of Regents
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Board of Education & Early Development
Professional Teaching Practices Commission
University of Alaska Board of Regents
8:07:55 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND [announced that the first order of business
would be continuation of the confirmation hearings for the
governor's appointees to the state Board of Education & Early
Development, the Professional Teaching Practices Commission, and
the University of Alaska Board of Regents.]
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND specified that the confirmation hearing for
Keith Hammond and Lorri van Diest, appointees to the state Board
of Education & Early Development, had been finished.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND said the confirmation hearing for Lem Wheeles,
appointee to the Professional Teaching Practices Commission, had
mostly been finished. She asked whether members had any further
questions of Mr. Wheeles. She noted there were no questions.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND stated that the committee would continue
hearing from Cachet Garrett, student regent appointee to the
University of Alaska Board of Regents. She offered her belief
that Ms. Garrett had completed her testimony.
8:08:47 AM
CACHET GARRETT, Student Regent Appointee, University of Alaska
Board of Regents, confirmed she had completed her testimony, but
said she would like to add a thought to her testimony. She
explained that in a normal budget year she would prioritize
supporting the strong programs at the University of Alaska and
the student services that the university offers in order to meet
the needs of the state. In this current fiscal atmosphere those
priorities do not change, she noted, but working through the
multitude of crises the university faces at this time is exactly
what the board is doing.
8:11:18 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY said the committee has reviewed the
qualifications of the governor's appointees to the Board of
Education & Early Development and recommends that [the
nominations of] Keith Hamilton and Lorri van Diest should be
forwarded to a joint session of the legislature [for
confirmation or rejection]. She stated that the committee has
reviewed the qualifications of the governor's appointee to the
Professional Teaching Practices Commission and recommends that
[the nomination of] Lem Wheeles should be forwarded to a joint
session of the legislature [for confirmation or rejection]. She
further stated that the committee has reviewed the
qualifications of the governor's appointee to the University of
Alaska Board of Regents and recommends that [the nomination of]
Cachet Garret should be forwarded to a joint session of the
legislature [for confirmation or rejection]. She explained that
this does not reflect intent by any of the members to vote for
or against these individuals during any further sessions for the
purposes of confirmation.
8:12:11 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:12 a.m. to 8:15 a.m.
HB 153-PRE-ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS/FUNDING
8:15:51 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 153, "An Act relating to early education
programs provided by school districts; relating to funding for
early education programs; and relating to the duties of the
state Board of Education and Early Development." [Before the
committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 153,
Version 31-LS0928\U, Caouette, 3/4/20, adopted as a working
document during the House Education Standing Committee meeting
on 3/9/20.]
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND stated that HB 153, Version U, The Alaska
Reads Act, is a large, complex bill. She reminded members that
the five fiscal notes reviewed at the bill's last hearing were
draft notes at that point. She requested Ms. Heidi Teshner to
re-address the fiscal notes starting from the beginning.
8:17:43 AM
HEIDI TESHNER, Director, Finance and Support Services Division,
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED), began her
review of the five fiscal notes for HB 153. She first addressed
the fiscal note for the Foundation Program, Office of Management
& Budget (OMB) Component Number 141. She pointed out that the
Foundation Program fiscal note and the Public Education Fund
fiscal note go hand in hand. She explained that no costs are
seen in the Foundation Program fiscal note because the funding
mechanism for the Foundation Program is a general fund transfer
from the Public Education Fund.
8:18:33 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY offered her understanding that OMB Component 141
starts in fiscal year 2021 (FY 21).
MS. TESHNER confirmed the Foundation Program fiscal note starts
in FY 21 but explained that the initial cost underneath the
Foundation Program and the Public Education Fund doesn't come in
until FY 24. She pointed out that these fiscal notes do not
reflect any immediate costs for those districts that could
qualify that have an existing pre-kindergarten (pre-K) program
that could go straight to the state Board of Education & Early
Development for approval once the standards are adopted.
8:19:47 AM
MS. TESHNER resumed her review of the fiscal notes. She drew
attention to the fiscal note for the Public Education Fund, OMB
Component Number 2804, and said it relates to the Early
Education Grant. She stated that after [districts] go through a
three-year grant process they would, with approval, then flow
into the foundation formula. She explained that the average
cost per average daily membership (ADM) was calculated by
dividing the total amount of projected state aid by the total
number of the ADM. Students would be funded at half time
through under the Foundation Program, with an estimated cost per
student of $4,685. [The department] assumed that those
[districts] starting the three-year grant process in 2021 would
get their program approved and would flow into the foundation
formula in 2024. The initial cost for the initial group is a
little over $1.7 million in FY 24.
8:21:28 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked whether she is correct in understanding
that [the fiscal note] is moving to the out years, the section
on reading proficiency.
MS. TESHNER replied that these grants are the early education
grants, so these are for four- and five-year-olds. "The Pre-K
component fiscal note addresses those three-year grants," she
said, "so these are those after that three-year grant process
and they've moved into the formula, so just the early education
grant portion of ... the bill."
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND stated that the grants would be talked about
in another fiscal note. She inquired whether she is correct in
understanding that FY 24 is when those first grant groups are
incorporated into the foundation formula and it will be at half
an average cost per student.
MS. TESHNER responded correct.
8:22:45 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND requested clarification on why half cost is
$4,685 since the base student allocation (BSA) is about $6,000.
MS. TESHNER answered that what was looked at was not the BSA.
Drawing attention to the third paragraph of the analysis
section, she explained that the calculation was done by dividing
the projected FY 21 State Aid Entitlement of just over $1.2
billion by the projected FY 21 ADM of 128,923.91 to arrive at an
average cost per student overall of $9,370, which was then
divided in half to arrive at $4,685.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND offered her understanding that that average
cost is based on the adjusted ADM according to the foundation
formula, not on the actual ADM or number of bodies.
MS. TESHNER replied it is not on the adjusted, it is on the
total projected average daily membership; so, it is being looked
at before going through all the adjustments.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND said she is somewhat confused because it
sounds like the BSA has grown significantly if this number is
$9,370.
MS. TESHNER responded that $9,370 is just an average cost per
student across the state. Responding further she confirmed it
is the average cost for the pre-K. The average cost per student
is [$9,370], she continued, so half of that student is $4,685
and that is for the increase that is going to be seen in the
foundation formula for those pre-K programs that get approved.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked why it is half.
MS. TESHNER answered that the bill states they are to be run
through as a half time.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND offered her understanding that the average
cost for pre-K is under the grant program.
MS. TESHNER replied that DEED is using the average cost when
determining the grant program cost, which will be reflected in
another fiscal note that will be discussed. But, for this case,
this is just what DEED is estimating for those students once
they've gone through that grant program.
8:26:03 AM
MS. TESHNER returned to her review of the fiscal notes. She
directed attention to the fiscal note for Student and School
Achievement, OMB Component Number 2796, which reflects the cost
associated with the school improvement reading program and the
comprehensive reading intervention program. She said DEED would
provide direct support and intervention to districts and school
reading programs. During year one, she explained, up to 10 low
performing districts would each be served directly by reading
specialists employed by the department, and up to 20 districts
would be served in year two and beyond. In the initial year, FY
21, there would be 24 total position control numbers (PCNs),
with 20 reading specialists included in that total. Depending
on the school size and the need, there would be either one or
two reading specialists assigned per school. Ms. Teshner added
that this fiscal note also reflects the department chargeback
cost of $9,600 per person, one-time cost of $5,000 for supplies
and equipment per person, and an additional one-time cost of
$6,000 for legal services associated with developing the
regulations around the school improvement reading program.
MS. TESHNER stated the final cost associated with this reading
program is the purchase of supplemental reading textbooks and
materials for school districts, which DEED won't purchase if
they aren't needed. To correct what she stated in a previous
meeting, she said that the cost per student when adopting a new
reading curriculum is $250. At approximately 10,000 students
per grade level in Alaska schools, there would be a total of
40,000 students in kindergarten through third grade (K-3). In
the 2019-2020 school year, 391 schools served K-3. Dividing
40,000 students by 391 schools equals 102 K-3 students per
school on average. Ten schools times 102 K-3 students per
school times $250/student comes to a cost of $255,000 for the
supplemental reading textbooks and materials.
8:29:11 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND recalled there was confusion here during the
last meeting as to whether it was thousands or hundreds of
dollars. She drew attention to the last page of the fiscal note
and the line for commodities, and said she assumes that
commodities are the supplies and materials to the schools, which
ordinarily is done by the schools or the school district. She
asked whether she is correct in understanding that in this case
it is being done by the department.
MS. TESHNER replied yes, it's to provide additional supplemental
materials to help.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND offered her understanding that the reading
specialists are hired and directed by the department and at the
start they will be sent to the 10 lowest performing schools and
the travel costs will be covered by the department.
MS. TESHNER responded correct.
8:30:29 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY offered her understanding that ideally the
reading specialists would be hired from and living in the school
community.
MS. TESHNER answered yes; it would be ideal if somebody could be
found in a community where one of the starting schools was
identified.
8:31:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX brought attention to page 3 of fiscal note
2796 and asked whether specialists would be hired per school or
per school district.
MS. TESHNER replied that ideally the department would like to
have one or two reading specialists that are in that school in
that district providing the services directly to the student
alongside all the teachers in that school and district.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX stated the numbers don't appear to increase
proportionately. He said it seems the numbers would have to
increase roughly the same amount every year given the number of
schools is increasing over the years.
MS. TESHNER responded that the fiscal note reflects hiring up to
20 reading specialists in FY 21 and then adding 5 additional
reading specialists each year through 2025 to get to a maximum
of 40 reading specialists that would be serving the students and
districts each year. The department only intends to hire up to
40 reading specialists to help implement this program and serve
the students.
8:34:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS observed under personnel services that 20
reading specialists would be hired the first year at a cost of
$2,680,000. He offered his hope that they would be people in
the community who are familiar with the school and trusted
advisors there. He inquired whether the 20 initial reading
specialists on up to 40 reading specialists in the end would be
school district employees or department employees.
MS. TESHNER answered that they would be department employees.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether the reading specialists
would be dedicated to that specific school for the life of that
reading program or whether they would also go to other schools.
MS. TESHNER replied that they would be dedicated to that school
and helping that school get through this process.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS inquired whether the reading specialists
would hop around within a district or would stay at a school.
MS. TESHNER deferred to Loki Tobin to answer the question.
8:36:32 AM
LOKI TOBIN, Staff, Senator Tom Begich, Alaska State Legislature,
responded that this school improvement program is dependent on
the district to apply for that support, however that individual
will be dedicated to the school that is most in need. The
district can choose to utilize that person's services however
the district requests, but particularly that person is assigned
to the lowest performing school within that district. The
[reading specialist] will be a DEED employee and the district
has the purview to utilize the specialist in whatever fashion it
chooses, but [the specialist's] focus will be on that school.
Responding further to Representative Hopkins, she confirmed it
would be one person per district. She pointed out that there is
additional language in the bill that allows for an additional
support person in case that individual needs additional support.
8:37:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS offered his understanding that the
$355,000 for commodities is for the supplemental material that
would be purchased for the school district.
MS. TOBIN answered that language in the bill allows for
supplemental materials if the school district so chooses to
utilize them.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether districts get other funds
to help purchase new reading material before the supplemental
material comes for them. For example, he continued, whether
there is still local opportunity to utilize funds to purchase
material the district feels most effective, such as a rural
school district to develop culturally relevant curriculum versus
the supplemental material that will go to Fairbanks, Anchorage,
and Juneau as well.
MS. TOBIN replied she doesn't know the dollar amount for any
sort of additional supplemental materials that are specific to
creating curriculum. She deferred to Ms. Teshner to provide an
answer.
8:38:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked Ms. Teshner whether there is
funding for original reading material for the lowest 10 percent
performing school districts to purchase and develop their own
culturally relevant curriculum or whether there is only funding
for reading improvement curriculum supplemental material that is
identical statewide.
MS. TESHNER responded that the only funds included [in the
fiscal notes] are for supplemental materials. She said the
department would hope that the districts already have the
reading curriculum on site.
8:39:10 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND drew attention to the fiscal note for Pre-
Kindergarten Grants, OMB Component Number 3028, and noted that
this first year is targeted at approximately 368 students. She
said the point is to be focused and intense.
8:39:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX posited that rural districts only have a few
schools per district, while the Anchorage district might have
100 schools and Fairbanks several dozen. He said the way this
is structured is confusing but what matters is that the
department has it figured out and has addressed the problem of
it not working out the same per district, it's going to work out
more per school. For example, he continued, there might be a
couple hundred students in grades one through three in a
Fairbanks school district as opposed to only four or five in a
rural school district, so a rural school should be figured on
the per student. He allowed he is stumbling here.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND agreed that this is "hard to get your arms
around." While she would like for every one of the K-3 students
to be addressed all at once, she said there isn't the capacity
to do that. The department is going to have trouble hiring that
many reading specialists and specialists will be hard to find in
small rural communities. The goal is to work with each district
and ensure that they have the appropriate assistance. She
requested Ms. Tobin to address this.
MS. TOBIN clarified that the early education grant program and
the school improvement program are two separate programs. The
early education grant program will be serving 100 percent of
districts, she explained, which is represented in fiscal notes
OMB 141, 3028, and 2804. The school improvement program will
not be serving 100 percent of districts; it is focused on the
lowest performing 10 percent of districts. The program that
talks about the reading specialists is focused on those lowest
performing school districts and those do not necessarily include
"the big five" Anchorage, Juneau, and the Matanuska-Susitna
(Mat-Su) Valley. She pointed out that rural school districts
are very large in their service areas - the Bering Strait School
District has something like 60 schools within its purview.
8:43:10 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND noted that in five or six years it will expand
to include "the big five."
MS. TOBIN replied correct.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND said it is starting with the lowest performing
10 schools in the state and there are just over 500 schools in
the state. It starts too slowly, she opined, but the state
cannot afford to do them all at once. The early education piece
will be giving all those four-year-olds a leg up and help them
get started early, which is good.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX stated that he will let this go for now, but
that he will perhaps talk to the department more about the cash
demands and being more flexible than what he sees right now.
8:44:21 AM
MS. TESHNER continued her review of the fiscal note for Student
and School Achievement, OMB Component Number 2796. She moved to
the portion of the fiscal note related to the comprehensive
reading intervention program. She explained that DEED would
manage and operate this program and provide direct support and
training for all K-3 teachers on the use of the statewide
screening and assessment tool. Staff needed to accomplish and
provide support for this program would include one education
administrator, two education specialists, and one education
associate. The salary and benefits costs for those four
positions are in the fiscal note, she said, and staff will also
be required to participate and present at statewide professional
development conferences and provide direct support to district
staff concerning the statewide screening or assessment tool.
Within this there is a travel budget of $3,000 annually, so
$1,000 per trip for three of the positions. In addition are
department chargeback costs of $9,600 per person and a one-time
cost of $5,000 per person for supplies and equipment.
MS. TESHNER related that the comprehensive reading intervention
program would also require the adoption and administration of a
statewide screening or assessment tool to help identify students
in K-3 with reading deficiencies. With about 4,000 students in
K-3, the statewide screener would cost approximately $8 per
student, resulting in an annual cost of $320,000. Lastly, she
said, the program includes grants for one staff member from each
of the 53 districts to attend the statewide screening and
assessment tool training, so at $1,000 per person the total
estimated cost is $53,000.
MS. TESHNER stated that, overall, the estimated cost in FY 21 is
$4,221,700 to begin implementation of both the school
improvement reading program and the comprehensive reading
intervention program.
8:47:22 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND surmised the statewide screening or assessment
tool training could be done remotely given [the current COVID-19
pandemic].
MS. TESHNER replied correct. She added that DEED would do
everything it could to provide remote training as often as
possible to support districts.
8:48:15 AM
MS. TESHNER drew attention to the fiscal note for Early Learning
Coordination, OMB Component Number 2912. She explained that
this fiscal note goes back to the early education grant program.
It shows the costs associated with operating that early
education grant program as well as providing the training and
support to grantees. It is estimated that this will require two
education specialists and one education associate to operate the
program and provide the training and support. In addition to
the salary and benefits for these three positions, there is a
department chargeback cost of $9,600 per position and one-time
cost of $5,000 per position for [supplies] and equipment. She
further noted that since the state Board of Education & Early
Development will need to adopt the standards through regulation
there is an additional one-time cost of $6,000 reflected for the
legal services associated with developing the regulations.
8:49:33 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked if she is correct in understanding that
these early education staffers will be department staffers and
they will be working with early childhood educators in districts
around the state.
MS. TESHNER confirmed these will be DEED staff and they will run
that grant program and provide the support to districts.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND inquired whether the early education programs
are currently funded by the districts themselves or through the
grant program.
MS. TESHNER answered that it is a mixture. Currently, a handful
of districts get a pre-kindergarten grant from the department,
and a number of [districts] use their own funds or federal funds
that they received to run their pre-kindergarten programs.
8:50:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS inquired about the number of positions
that would be hired as DEED employees.
MS. TESHNER replied there would be three staff members to help
run these programs.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether these three staff members
would be for the initial ten districts.
MS. TESHNER responded no, this is not related to the lowest
performing, which is the school improvement program. Rather,
this is to spear up the early education grant program, a
comprehensive program across the state. It is voluntary and
districts don't have to do it, but if they want to get a program
that is approved by the department, then they can go through
this early education grant program.
8:51:49 AM
MS. TESHNER resumed her review of the fiscal notes for HB 153.
The fiscal note for Pre-Kindergarten Grants, OMB Component
Number 3028, she explained, shows the costs associated with just
the early education grant program. Page 3 provides a funding
breakdown by fiscal year for this three-year grant.
8:52:23 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND observed that the cost of this pre-elementary
program in the first year is approximately $1.7 million and the
operating budget is $4.3 million. She asked whether she is
correct in thinking that the cost is $6 million for the pre-K
programs statewide because the $1.7 million and $4.3 million
total $6 million.
MS. TESHNER answered that there is money in the budget for the
pre-K programs and that is expected to continue. This is an
addition to that. The $1.7 million in FY 21 is just for the
lowest 10 percent of districts that could go through this grant
program.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND offered her understanding that the lowest ten
percent of districts correlates to approximately five or six
districts, not the lowest ten schools.
MS. TESHNER replied correct.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked whether she is correct in understanding
that this is new money for new pre-school programs where they
don't already exist to cover, on a voluntary basis, every four-
year-old.
MS. TESHNER responded that there could be a potential that they
have a grant program, but their grant program might not meet the
standards that are going to be adopted by the state Board of
Education & Early Development. So, she explained, this will
allow the districts to build up those grant programs to meet
those standards so that they could have that program moving
forward and then those students could flow through the
foundation formula.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND inquired about the point at which those funds
are incorporated into the foundation.
MS. TESHNER answered that she will discuss page 3 of the fiscal
note to outline how it lays out and explain how the funds flow
into foundation.
8:54:44 AM
MS. TESHNER continued her review of the fiscal note for Pre-
Kindergarten Grants, OMB Component Number 3028. She explained
that Table 1 on page 3 calculates an estimate of the number of
students that could be served by this legislation. There are
approximately 10,000 four-year-old cohorts, she said. Removing
the students who are already served by pre-K programs or Head
Start results in 3,675 students that could be served by HB 153,
a participation rate of 88.45.
MS. TESHNER turned to Table 2 on page 3 that shows how each of
the six district cohorts would be added each fiscal year. Based
on the bill, she explained, in FY 21 the first cohort to go
through would be the lowest 10 percent. The lowest 10 percent
of districts could apply during that first year and then they
would go through their three-year grant cycle. By FY 24,
assuming their grant program is approved, they would flow into
the foundation formula. In FY 22 the second district cohort,
the second lowest 15 percent, would be addressed; next would be
the third lowest 15 percent [in FY 23]; next would be the third
highest 20 percent [in FY 24]; then the second highest 20
percent [in FY 25]; and last [in FY 26] is the highest 20
percent of all six district cohorts that can apply for grants
through the three-year early education grant.
MS. TESHNER said Table 3 on page 3 shows, by year, which cohorts
would be flowing through the grant cycle. At any given time,
there would be up to three cohorts going through each year until
all have phased out by FY 28.
MS. TESHNER related that Table 4 on page 3 shows those students
after they've gone through the three-year grant program, the
number of students that would flow into the foundation formula.
MS. TESHNER addressed the chart at the bottom of page 3. She
said the top part is the three-year grant and the colors show
each of the cohorts and how they would flow through and then go
into the foundation formula. It's estimated that by FY 29, the
foundation program would increase by about $17.2 million and the
total grant program would be about $51.6 million.
8:57:28 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND inquired whether the foundation formula and
the grant program would be operating simultaneously.
MS. TESHNER replied yes.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked when the grants are incorporated into
the foundation formula, the $51.6 million.
MS. TESHNER responded that the $51.6 million is just the three-
year grant program itself, which is reflected in fiscal note
3028. Once they've gone through the three years, or if they
need an additional year because they're not ready, and once
they've been approved by the state Board of Education & Early
Development, they can flow into the foundation formula.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked whether she is correct in understanding
that the $51.6 million grant will eventually go away as the
early childhood programs are incorporated into the foundation
formula.
MS. TESHNER answered that's correct, the program sunsets in
2031.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND stated she thinks it would be good to run it
out to 2031 so it can be seen when the grant program disappears
and when it becomes fully funded through the foundation. She
asked whether she is correct in understanding that it is cheaper
to fund it through the foundation.
MS. TESHNER replied correct.
8:59:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS observed on Table 1 that the estimated
number of students who are going to be moved into the early
education grant program, which would be the current number of
pre-K students in current programs, is 3,590. He asked whether
he is correct in understanding that the estimated cost for those
current students being incorporated into the foundation formula
at half cost would be calculated by multiplying 3,590 times
$4,685.
MS. TESHNER responded that that is a good estimate. She stated
that by taking the current number being served, and assuming
those programs meet the standards, then that could be an
immediate cost to the program.
9:01:06 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND observed on Table 1 that eventually [88.45]
percent of four-year-olds will be served. She inquired whether
the department surveys private preschool programs in order to
get a handle on how many students are out there, given that
ultimately most of those students will enter the public school
system. She stated that in terms of the quality of the
programs, she wants to ensure that all kids have similar
opportunities by the time they are ready to enter kindergarten.
MS. TESHNER answered that the department looks at all cohorts
across the K-12 system and they are approximately 10,000
students. "So," she continued, "knowing that what we currently
serve as pre-K or kindergarten students in the reports that are
listed on the department's website, they may not currently
reflect ... the private school pre-K, but then if they flow into
the public system they would be reflected in out years, so we're
still kind of including them through that approximate 10,000
students per cohort."
9:02:38 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY asked how this envisions working with the Head
Start programs in Alaska's communities.
MS. TESHNER replied that the bill only addresses the district
operated early education grant programs. She related that
Senator Begich's office has had numerous conversations with Head
Start programs specifically, but this one is only addressing the
programs the districts are operating.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND observed on Table 1 that there are about 1,600
Head Start students.
MS. TESHNER answered that's correct.
MS. TOBIN stated that Senator Begich's office has had numerous
conversations with Head Start programs and the bill has been
crafted with their insight. She said the senator's office also
has two memorandums regarding how this bill holds Head Start
harmless. The goal was to ensure that those programs continue
to offer their high-quality programming for students three and
four years of age, and this really focuses on high quality pre-K
service, which is age four.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND confirmed that that's Head Start and early
Head Start is the three-year-olds.
9:04:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX stated that existing private preschool
programs is an interesting point. He recalled a hearing where a
couple of preschool operators were concerned about this
program's impact on their service. He asked whether anyone has
consulted with private preschools to get an idea of how they are
going about it, how this impacts them, and whether they could
participate in this somehow.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND responded that most of those testifying were
daycare programs and they talked about the impact. She said
those are much younger kids. Only three-year-olds, Head Start,
and early Head Start are being talked about and there aren't too
many. She asked whether it is correct that the figure of 1,580
students on Table 1 depicts four-year-olds.
MS. TOBIN nodded.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND continued and stated it could be assumed that
the number of three-year-olds is equivalent. She noted that
districts also operate special education programs that start at
the age of three for students who are identified. She said this
is not going to impact infant care or toddler care; these are
kids that are potty trained, and their parents are thinking
about preparing them for school. There is an extreme shortage
of childcare slots, she added, but that is a different
discussion than this bill. She related her previous experience
when the Anchorage School District annually surveyed all the
private K-12 schools in the Anchorage area and queried them
about their populations so it would be known how many kids in
Anchorage were going to public schools and how many were going
to private schools. That was a long time ago, she continued,
and now there's a lot more home schooling going on through
families and through charter schools operating from many
locations in the state, and that's harder to look at. Early
care is a different conversation than what is being had for this
bill, she advised.
MS. TOBIN pointed out that HB 153 is about universal voluntary
preschool. If an individual wants to put their child into a
private preschool program the bill still allows for that
opportunity. This bill simply focuses on offering pre-K to
everyone regardless of socio-economic status and focuses on
school readiness. It's trying to address those four-year-olds
who don't know how to sit and stand in line, or who need
assistance in learning their colors or numbers, or who need
preparation to read.
9:07:52 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY stated she isn't quite sure how the programs work
together with Head Start. She noted that facilities are shared
in many of the districts and that there are nice linkages
between Head Start and those kids flowing naturally into their
school districts. There are memorandums of agreement on how
things are used jointly, and the committee and Senator Begich's
office have heard from Head Start providers. She asked whether
Senator Begich's office has talked about how to have a good
partnership working together and has thought about a memorandum
of agreement.
MS. TOBIN answered that the conversations between the senator's
office and Head Start programs were related to a particular
provision on page 11 of the bill that talks about accommodating
and working with existing programs regardless of socio-economic
status. There has been some insight that that might not be as
clear as intended in bill language, she related. The focus is
about working with existing programs that service three- to
five-year-olds in their communities, so a look is being taken at
tightening that up to ensure that that is the intent in that
line at the very bottom of page 11.
MS. TOBIN said the senator has heard from several districts that
offer Head Start and pre-K programs to their students at
different points during the day and potentially different
facilities within their district. Nothing in this bill
precludes someone or a district from offering that, she stated.
It would be allowed within the bill to have Head Start students
in the morning in one space and then have those same students
roll into a pre-K program that is offered in the afternoon.
However, the bill prohibits double dipping students cannot be
enrolled in a pre-K program and enrolled in a Head Start program
at the same time; federal funds and state funds cannot be
received for the same student at the same point in time.
CO-CHAIR STORY asked which line on page 11 the provision is
located.
MS. TOBIN replied that it is line 29, [subparagraph] (D). She
reiterated that the intent is for that to be working with
existing programs. Because it may not be the cleanest language,
a look is being taken at amending it and suggestions for how to
amend that language would be entertained.
CO-CHAIR STORY said she would look at that.
9:10:47 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked whether Head Start programs are full day
or half day.
MS. TOBIN responded that she doesn't know and will get back to
the committee with an answer.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND pointed out that this is looking at half-day
programs and said it is going to continue to create issues with
childcare. She added that it is looking ahead and after the
COVID-19 virus pandemic.
MS. TOBIN pointed out that the bill does allow for a full-day
pre-K program, but it doesn't fund a full-day pre-K program.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND surmised the districts could do that within
their own abilities.
MS. TOBIN answered that's correct.
9:11:47 AM
MS. TESHNER, in response to Co-Chair Drummond, confirmed that
she had completed her review of all five fiscal notes.
9:12:07 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:12 a.m. to 9:16 a.m.
9:16:05 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND brought attention to the amended sectional
analysis within the committee packet titled, "CS HB 153: Alaska
Reads Act, Sectional Analysis, CS for House Bill 153(EDU),
Version: 31-LS0928\U." She turned to Ms. Tobin to provide a
review of the amended analysis.
MS. TOBIN explained that the amended sectional analysis expands
specific sections to give more clarity and in-depth information.
She said Section 1 establishes the Act as the Alaska Reads Act.
She noted that Section 2 amends AS 14.03.060(e) to include a
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) approved
early education program, including Head Start, as part of an
elementary school.
CO-CHAIR STORY recalled Ms. Tobin's comment about Head Start.
She suggested that [Section 2] might also be a place if she were
going to make an amendment to include a memorandum of agreement
with the Head Start agency or some language, as it would seem to
make sense to have it here.
9:17:44 AM
MS. TOBIN resumed her review of the amended sectional analysis.
She said Section 3 amends AS 14.03.072(a) to include reading
intervention services in addition to intervention strategies for
early literacy.
9:18:03 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY stated she is asking questions as the committee
goes along because it will help members to understand the Alaska
Reads Act and what it hopes to accomplish. Of great importance,
she said, is that Alaska's core reading program instruction be a
scientific evidence-based program. That's the tier one program,
then it moves into tier two for the interventions. It is known
that most of Alaska's students are not reading or proficient at
the end of third grade, she opined. Alaska cannot have 50-60
percent of its students in intervention programs, so it is
critical to support the core programs.
CO-CHAIR STORY suggested that here or somewhere in the Alaska
Reads Act must include talk about the importance of core reading
programs. She urged the committee to think about this and to
hear from the commissioner and Senator Begich about where to
state in the bill that each district will provide to DEED the
scientific evidence-based core reading instruction program they
are using and their reading instruction practices in formal
assessments and curriculum so that there is a baseline of what
is being done in early reading programs across the state. As a
policy maker, she said she wants to know that every one of the
state's districts is using a scientific evidence-based reading
program. Once it is known what that is, the department would
work in partnership with a district to analyze its core reading
program and then that analysis would be shared with the local
school board members and the community, so they know they have a
good solid core reading program. As part of that, DEED would
provide access to supportive intensive teacher training in
scientific evidence-based reading. She said she wants to be
assured that in doing a state reading act that "we know we have
got these programs and how do we know."
9:21:08 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY drew attention to Section 3, subsection (a),
which states that each school district shall annually provide to
parents and guardians of students enrolled in kindergarten
through grade three in a public school in the state current
information on the importance of reading. She suggested that
paragraph (4) be moved up to be paragraph (1) because strategies
and resources to help children learn to read should be the first
things given to parents. She suggested paragraph (2) stay as
(2), and paragraph (1) be moved to become paragraph (3). She
urged that the language in lines 19-20 be changed to read:
grade proficiency standards and policies for the elementary
school attended, including retention. This way parents would
know what they are aiming for, for their students. This is the
Alaska Reads Act, she opined, and "we want to know our programs
are delivering core great reading instruction, scientific based,
and that we want our parents to know ... those strategies and
resources that we have, we want them to know the grade
proficiency standards, so they know what they're aiming for."
9:22:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether Co-Chair Story is suggesting
that Section 3 or Section 4 be amended.
CO-CHAIR STORY replied Section 3. She said the provision in
subsection (a) would stay the same regarding that each school
district shall annually provide information to parents. She
suggested adding [subsection] (b), which would stipulate that
each district shall annually provide to the department the
scientific evidenced-based core reading intervention instruction
program they are using, their reading instructional practices,
formal assessment practices, and curriculum materials, including
each district's culturally relevant place-based materials. She
stated that while there is this formal reading program, it's
also important that the local programs have culturally relevant
materials, and that DEED knows what those are. Co-Chair Story
further suggested adding [subsection] (c), which would provide
that the department in partnership with [each] district shall
analyze their core reading programs and the analysis should be
shared with their school board and their community. She lastly
suggested adding [subsection] (d), which would be to provide
intensive teacher training and support for the scientific
evidence-based program. She offered her belief that many
districts are doing this, but she would like the comfort of
knowing that. What follows is going into the intervention
programs, but it's important to know what the core reading
programs are and that they are scientific based.
9:24:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK noted that Section 3 provides for annual
reports to parents and guardians of students and Section 4
provides for [annual] reports to the legislature. He said
therefore he is asking which of these two sections Co-Chair
Story wants to put her suggestions. He said he thinks it is
more important for the legislature to know this information than
to provide it to parents. Parents should understand the
strategies and resources to help children learn to read. It is
also important for parents to know when they may want to retain
a child since it is a parental choice. He said he is fine with
Co-Chair Story's suggestions, but it may be more important to
have them in Section 4.
CO-CHAIR STORY responded she would be fine with that.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND surmised Co-Chair Story is going to propose an
amendment at some point.
CO-CHAIR STORY answered affirmatively.
9:25:47 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND agreed the legislature needs to know what the
state's school districts are currently doing and she is going to
assume that the department is going to assess what the districts
are doing. She said some districts have embarked on improved
reading programs in the last several years and are already
showing results. This program may not need to be provided to
every single district since they are coming along, but the
legislature does need to know what they are doing.
CO-CHAIR STORY related she had a brief conversation with the
commissioner about her concern, and he said he would give some
thought for where that information should be. She said it seems
natural to have it at the beginning of the Act.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND invited the commissioner to testify.
9:27:01 AM
MICHAEL JOHNSON, Ph.D., Commissioner, Department of Education
and Early Development, offered his appreciation for the idea
that Co-Chair Story and Representative Tuck proposed. He said
he thinks information is transparency and transparency is good
for kids. He stated that collecting and reporting and
supporting districts with the materials, curriculum, and
teaching strategies they are using and further harmonizing that
with what is in the bill in terms of evidence-based reading is a
great idea. He said he is happy to work with the committee and
Senator Begich on that idea.
9:27:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether the term is "scientific-based"
or "evidence-based."
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON replied it is evidence-based. He explained
that most people are referring to the same thing and that is the
five components of reading that were talked about before in the
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether he is correct in understanding
that that is spelled out later in the bill.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON responded correct.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK suggested the committee go through the bill
to see where everything is placed and then discuss whether to
rearrange the locations of the provisions.
9:28:41 AM
MS. TOBIN resumed her review of the revised sectional analysis.
She said Section 4 amends AS 14.03.078(a) which directs DEED to
include information collected under AS 14.03.120, Parents as
Teachers, and AS 14.30-760 14.30.775, the Alaska Reads Act, in
their annual report to the legislature.
MS. TOBIN stated Section 5 amends Alaska statute by changing the
date a student is eligible to enter kindergarten and establishes
a waiver process for eligibility.
9:29:38 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY inquired whether she is correct in understanding
that the date has gone back to September 1.
MS. TOBIN replied she is unsure what the rules are around
speaking to a potential committee substitute in another
committee.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND related she has heard a conversation on
whether to keep the September 1 kindergarten entry age or change
it to June 1. She said it makes a big difference for some kids.
She instructed that it be noted for the committee to discuss
this.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK pointed out there is already opportunity for
parents to opt out their children from this. He asked about the
number of children and what the difference is between June 1 and
September 1.
MS. TOBIN responded that the exact number of students that would
be impacted is not known, but it is known that as of October 1,
2019, eight students out of the approximately 10,000 students in
kindergarten were below the age of five.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND surmised that those kids would have gotten an
exemption to enter that early.
MS. TOBIN answered that's correct.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND stated that a June 1 entry date allows for
children to be more mature by the time they enter kindergarten.
But, she noted, there is variation of opinion on this. In
working on the early childhood part and making sure kids are
ready when they walk into kindergarten, this may eventually be a
moot point. She suggested this be a future topic of discussion.
9:31:54 AM
MS. TOBIN continued her review of the revised sectional
analysis. She said Section 6 amends AS 14.03.080 by adding new
subsection (g) which changes the date a child is eligible to
enter a public early education program.
9:32:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX stated it would be helpful to say on both
these sections from which date to which date.
MS. TOBIN replied that Section 5 changes the date from September
1 to June 1 preceding the beginning of the school year. She
said the new addition to Alaska statute in Section 6 allows for
a child who is at least four, but no more than five, before June
1 preceding the beginning of school year to attend or may enter
a public-school early education program.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND noted that those are all permissive in that
they all state "may." She pointed out that Alaska doesn't
require kids to go to kindergarten. She inquired about the
entry age.
MS. TOBIN responded that Alaska has compulsory attendance from
ages seven to sixteen.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND related that there are people who would like
to move that. She said the committee might want to discuss this
if it is seen that not enough kids are in kindergarten or
properly prepared to be reading proficiently by the end of grade
three.
9:33:53 AM
MS. TOBIN returned to her review of the revised sectional
analysis. She said Section 7 amends AS 14.03.120 by adding a
new subsection (h), which establishes annual reporting
requirements for school districts regarding student performance
metrics in grades K-3. These new performance metrics include
information related to class size, the number and percentage of
students in K-3 who are proficient at grade-level skill reading,
and the number and percentage of students who are retained from
advancing in grades K-3. Currently districts report none of
this information, so this will help inform future legislation or
future policy.
9:34:37 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY drew attention to page 4 and said it seems that
DEED would also want to get the percentage of students who are
receiving free and reduced lunch in each classroom. She noted
that part of the sponsor statement talks about the importance of
giving more support to children and families with limited
incomes. Oftentimes it's been shown in the data that they come
in with not as much literacy experience even though they have
very rich experiences. This would also give more information to
the district, she added, and she may make an amendment because
it would be helpful.
CO-CHAIR STORY addressed lines [6-7] on page 4, which state,
"(A) in grades kindergarten through three who demonstrated
improvement." She recommended using the word "growth" rather
than "improvement" because that is the standard language used in
assessments.
MS. TOBIN offered to make that recommendation to Legislative
Legal Services. She related that she inserted the word "growth"
and Legislative Legal Services changed it to "improvement," so
she will inquire about the reason for this choice.
9:36:50 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY spoke to line 13 on page 4 that states "in grade
three who demonstrated sufficient" and recommended substituting
"proficient" for "sufficient" because proficient is the language
that is used.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether a student would be proficient
at grade three or whether it is wanted to ensure that a student
is at a certain level at grade three. This is where the
difference is between the words proficient and sufficient, he
posited, and a definition of proficient for a third grader might
need to be added. He said he thinks sufficient reading skills
are what are wanted for the grade progression.
9:38:04 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY suggested hearing from the commissioner about why
the word sufficient was chosen since it isn't used on
assessments. "When we're keeping data at the district level,"
she stated, "we want to know kids who are proficient, below
proficient, above proficient and we usually target the kids who
are below proficient."
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON responded that the language "sufficient
reading skills" is in keeping with the idea that promotion or
retention is not based on one single data point. Because those
decisions are so consequential, he continued, [the department]
doesn't want that to be determined on one test. It is wanted
students to have the benefit of being able to demonstrate their
proficiency or sufficiency in several different ways.
Assessments are one of those, but the bill makes sure to allow
for other ways to demonstrate that and the word sufficient
allows that broader opportunity to demonstrate the skills
necessary to move on.
9:40:25 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY stated that when districts are giving this
information to the department, they are not simply looking at
one score for whether the student is proficient, even though it
is always scores that are being talked about. She asked whether
the districts would be giving the department that one data point
as well as other assessments. She further asked how the
department is going to put it all in categories if there is not
something to find.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON answered that it may be assessments, but
the bill also allows for portfolios for students that may
struggle with assessments. Teachers would have the opportunity
to provide other evidence that a student has the skills
necessary to move on, he explained. Additionally, the bill does
call for a statewide screener, but it allows districts that
already have implemented an evidence-based screener to have a
waiver from using the statewide screener. So, districts can
continue to use the screener that they've already implemented
because most districts are already doing that. Those screeners
use a variety of terms - some use proficient, some use other
terms to indicate that, and that's another reason why the word
sufficient is used.
9:41:53 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY observed that the language "for grade progression
based" is used in [subparagraphs (D)], (E), and (F). She asked
whether there is a reason the department felt it had to be in
there, that retention is not mandatory.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON replied that the point of the bill is to
make sure that students are proficient or are ready to move on
past third grade with adequate skills for reading. That
decision to move a student along through those levels is very
important and that's why the language is necessary in the bill
to say as a student progresses from grade to grade.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said he thinks one of the goals of the bill
for when there are early language learners is to be able to move
them along. He recalled that earlier the committee was told
that children who speak two languages really excel by the tenth
grade even though they may not be as proficient as English
primary-speaking children, but it might be sufficient for them
to move on. He said he is glad for this discussion and would
like to stick with the word sufficient.
9:43:39 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND stated that all teachers teaching kindergarten
through third grade are continuously assessing their students
themselves. [The bill] is just talking about a couple of tools
that the department will provide. She drew attention to
paragraph (1) on lines 3-4 of page 4, which states that "the
number of students and teaching staff assigned to each classroom
in grades kindergarten through three", and she stressed that
class size is a critical issue across the state. As budgets
have tightened through the years, class sizes have gotten too
large for teachers to pay sufficient attention to these
youngsters.
CO-CHAIR STORY said that is one of the reasons why she suggested
giving the percentages of students in free and reduced lunch.
She further suggested including special education because there
are four levels of special education. A lot of kids in the
class are at level 1 and level 2. If there are 25 kids and one
teacher has six, it really makes a difference on how things
might go along in the classroom.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK requested clarification on whether it is
early learning or grades one through three that Co-Chair Story
is talking about.
CO-CHAIR STORY responded that paragraph (1) [on lines 3-4 of
page 4] states grades kindergarten through three, so her
suggestion would need to be added under paragraph (2). She said
teachers tell her that each year is different; depending upon
the needs they have in their classroom, it affects outcomes. It
might be that the school decides to have a paraprofessional help
in that classroom for more intervention.
9:46:13 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND related that she and Co-Chair Story previously
talked about the number of kids who get assigned to special
education classes when they don't necessarily need special
education services; they just need more intensive reading
services. [The state] would save a ton of money if this could
be caught early, she said, and that is the whole point smaller
class sizes and intensive supports to ensure kids are ready.
CO-CHAIR STORY stated that's why it's important that the core
one programs of all teachers are evidence-based. Alaska's
children are going to do better if evidence-based reading
programs are used and teachers are trained in it.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND inquired whether Co-Chair Story meant "core"
one or "tier" one.
CO-CHAIR STORY explained she used core because the core reading
program is usually in the tier one instruction. She said there
are three instructional levels - tier one, tier two, and tier
three. Tier one is the basic instruction, and all kids get
reading in their program, so it's their core reading program.
9:47:26 AM
MS. TOBIN continued her review of the revised sectional
analysis. She said Section 8 creates a stair-step, three-year
grant program to provide training and assistance to school
districts in developing an early education program, defined as
pre-K. She explained in further detail: In year one the lowest
performing 10 percent of school districts will be eligible for a
grant to establish a district-wide, high quality early education
program. In year two the next lowest performing 15 percent of
school districts will be eligible for that three-year grant
program. In year three the grants will be available to the
third lowest performing 15 percent of districts. Then the third
highest 20 percent of school districts in year four, then the
second highest performing 20 percent of school districts in year
five, and finally the highest performing 20 percent of school
districts in year six. Over six years all school districts will
have been offered the opportunity to participate. She added
that at the end of the three-year grant cycle, DEED would be
responsible for determining if the district's early education
program is in alignment with state standards and as established
by the state Board of Education & Early Development.
9:48:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY recalled the discussion about local
evidence-based screeners and state-provided screeners. She
noted that the state's education environment has drastically
transformed for the foreseeable future due to COVID-19. She
inquired about the type of flexibilities and considerations that
might need to be made to uphold the goals of the bill, given
they were likely within the framework of a traditional learning
environment rather than students learning from home.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON replied that the current situation requires
thinking ahead. He explained that in places where there is
connectivity the screeners can be conducted face-to-face using
Zoom, which is possible even in many rural communities. When
that isn't possible, some of these screeners can be done
verbally over the phone - for instance, in very early grades a
teacher could say a word and then ask the student how many
sounds were in that word. That's building phonemic awareness.
Also, a teacher could ask a student to read and measure the
student's fluency in reading as he or she progresses through the
different grade levels. So, there are ways to accommodate and
make it workable even in the current situation.
9:51:53 AM
MS. TOBIN resumed her review of the revised sectional analysis.
She continued with Section 8, noting that this section also
codifies the Parents as Teachers (PAT) program, a state program
within DEED, and specifies criteria for PAT to demonstrate its
efficacy in supporting school districts with pre-K education.
MS. TOBIN stated Section 9 amends AS 14.07.020(a) and directs
DEED to supervise all early education programs, approve those
early education programs established under AS 14.03.410. She
said Section 9 also establishes the new reading program, which
will be detailed in a later section, and the reading
intervention programs of participating schools, which will also
be detailed in a later section.
MS. TOBIN said Section 10 amends the definition of an "early
education program" as a pre-K program for students three to five
years old if the primary function is educational. She noted
that the three-year-old students are not included in the program
of this bill but are included in this definition to ensure they
are not excluded from existing state and federal programs.
MS. TOBIN explained Section 11 allows DEED to supply
supplemental reading textbooks and materials related to
intervention services.
MS. TOBIN said Section 12 amends AS 14.07.165(a), relating to
the duties of the state Board of Education & Early Development
and directs the board to adopt regulations establishing
standards for an early education program that is half-day or
full-day or less than half-day and is locally designed and
evidence-based. The lead teacher of the program must hold a
valid teaching certificate and have satisfactorily completed a
minimum of six credit hours in early childhood education or
complete the six credits within one year of their teacher's
employment or have two or more years of experience teaching
kindergarten or another early education program. She said
regulations must also be established to develop appropriate
objectives and accommodations for all children and allow
districts to adapt content to be culturally appropriate and to
local communities.
9:54:15 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY drew attention to page 11, subparagraph (B) on
line 14, which states "a requirement that a teacher in charge of
a program". She asked whether it should say "school program"
because there can be many schools in a district, and she is
wondering what the intent is. She noted that paraprofessionals
would be working in some of these classrooms under the direction
of a teacher in charge, so she is wondering if that needs to be
clarified as to the district or school level. She further
inquired about what the qualifications are for a Head Start
teacher and whether this should be included as one of the sub-
subparagraphs under subparagraph (B).
MS. TOBIN answered that Section 12 only relates to pre-K
programs, it does not define or amend any statute that relates
to who leads or does not lead a Head Start program. She
recommended not inserting that into this section.
9:56:26 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND announced that HB 153 was held over.
9:57:02 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:57 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|