Legislature(2019 - 2020)DAVIS 106
03/27/2020 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 | |
| HB153 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 153 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 27, 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 Mike Prax
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative DeLena Johnson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
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
03/26/20 (H) -- Continued from 3/25/20 --
03/27/20 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
WITNESS REGISTER
LOKI TOBIN, Staff
Senator Tom Begich
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 153, gave a
continuation of the sectional analysis begun on 3/26/20.
MICHAEL JOHNSON, Ph.D., Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information and answered questions
during the hearing on HB 153.
KAREN MELIN, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information during the hearing on
HB 153.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:07:07 AM
CO-CHAIR HARRIET DRUMMOND called the House Education Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:07 a.m. Representatives Story,
Hopkins, Zulkosky (via teleconference), Tuck, Prax, and Drummond
were present at the call to order.
HB 153-PRE-ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS/FUNDING
8:08:17 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND announced that the only 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 noted that at its last meeting, the committee
had left off part way through a sectional analysis of Version U.
She told the committee that Legislative Legal Services was
unable to take on amendments for anything other than "end of
session bills," so she said she would like to discuss potential
amendments that might go into a committee substitute when the
committee moves forward with HB 153.
8:09:43 AM
LOKI TOBIN, Staff, Senator Tom Begich, Alaska State Legislature,
recollected that committee members had indicated they had
questions regarding Section 12 in the sectional analysis, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 12. Amends AS 14.07.165(a), relating to the
duties of the state Board of Education and Early
Development (board) and directs 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 CS HB 153 v. U | 3.4.2020 | 3
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 two 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.
8:10:52 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:10 a.m. to 8:11 a.m.
8:11:39 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND noted that Section 12 was on pages 10-11 of
Version U.
8:11:49 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY directed attention to language in paragraph (5),
on page 11 of Version U, beginning on line 5, which read:
(5) regulations establishing standards for an
early education program provided by a school district
for children who are four and five years of age
CO-CHAIR STORY posited that the language would be strengthened
by adding "locally designed, evidence-based" before "early
education program". She said as the analysis continued, she
would be pointing out areas where the policy being put forth was
perhaps too specific, when policy is usually broader than
regulation. She then brought attention to page 11, line 11,
which specified a full-day program as consisting of six hours,
and she offered her understanding that a lot of the programs
were four hours.
8:13:27 AM
MS. TOBIN recommended inserting the Alaska statute that defines
school hour days instead of delineating standards for a half-day
program, and full-day program, and a locally designed program.
CO-CHAIR STORY directed attention to language on page 11,
beginning on line 14, which read as follows:
(B) a requirement that a teacher in
charge of a program hold a valid teacher certificate
issued under AS 14.20
CO-CHAIR STORY said she would like clarification as to whether
that refers to a school-level or school district-level program.
She said there are instances where certified teachers would
oversee many schools; there would be different levels of
teachers working there, and there may be paraprofessionals.
MS. TOBIN indicated that Anji Gallanos and the National
Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) worked together
to draft the standards, which delineate the qualifications for a
pre-K program. One of those qualifications is having a
certified teacher in charge of the classroom. She offered her
understanding that the language of sub-paragraph (B) refers to
the lead teacher in a classroom, who would be assisted by
paraprofessionals or educational aides.
CO-CHAIR STORY expressed her interest in hearing more on the
topic from [feet]-on-the-ground leaders.
8:16:05 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND noted that Anji Gallanos was the early
learning director for the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED) before moving to Colorado to run its early
learning program. She said these standards were written by Ms.
Gallanos before she left Alaska.
MS. TOBIN confirmed that Ms. Gallanos wrote the standards in
collaboration with NIEER. Further, she noted the standards were
drafted in consultation with "the Oklahoma model," which she
said is one of the longest-running early education pre-K
programs in the nation. She indicated that the standards were
from SB 6, which was introduced at the beginning of the current
legislative session. She said the precursor to that was Senate
Bill 99. In response to Co-Chair Drummond, she confirmed that
SB 6 addressed preschool.
8:17:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX commented that in the industrial world,
standards take away local decision making. He asked for more
information regarding the following terms, in relation to the
field of education: national standards, teacher certification,
and local control.
8:18:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK noted that the section being discussed
addresses that which is the responsibility of the board, and the
board has regulatory authority. Under Version U, the new
language in paragraph (5) would be adopted [language previously
provided], and he said he thinks that would leave local control.
He expressed concern that getting too prescriptive in this
section would result in micromanaging local districts. He said,
"If people have a problem with half-day, full-day, then we just
go right back to the statutes if that makes things simpler."
[Regarding the suggested language from Co-Chair Story], he said
he thinks "this whole thing" is about evidence-based programs.
He added, "If we need to put it in other statutes and other
areas of the bill, I guess I'm okay with that, but I think this
whole thing is designed around evidence-based programs."
8:19:48 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND pointed out that "locally designed, evidence-
based" is already on page 11, line 12; therefore, she questioned
whether it needs to be repeated. Regarding what the regulations
must include [under Version U], she then paraphrased
[subparagraph (A)], which read as follows:
(A) standards for a
(i) half-day program consisting of
not less than two and one-half hours;
(ii) full-day program consisting
of six hours; and
(iii) locally designed, evidence-
based program that is less than half a day that meets
early education program standards;
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND observed that it looks like "locally designed,
evidence-based" applies just to and half-day program.
8:20:30 AM
MS. TOBIN echoed Co-Chair Story's recommendation by suggesting
that "locally designed, evidence-based" could be added on page
11, line 5. She then suggested that "(A) standards for a" [on
line 8] be deleted and replaced with language referring to the
statute pertaining to the definition of a school day. She said
[sub-subparagraphs] (i) and (ii) could be removed. She deferred
to Commissioner Johnson for more input.
8:21:47 AM
MICHAEL JOHNSON, Ph.D., Commissioner, Department of Education
and Early Development, related that there are no mandated
national standards in education. He explained that national
groups come together to create standards from which states can
draw to create their own unique standards. Further, he stated
that Alaska has state-adopted standards, but they are not
mandated. He listed two of the five questions pertaining to
students. The first is: What do we want them to know and do?
That is answered with effective standards. The second question
is: How will we teach them those standards? The answer is
effective curriculum and instruction. In response to Co-Chair
Drummond, he named the remaining five essential questions to be
answered daily on behalf of every student. Question three is:
How will we know if they've learned it? That question is
answered through effective assessments. Question four is: What
will we do if they don't learn it? The answer is through
effective intervention. Question five is: What will we do if
they already know it? The answer to that is through effective
enrichment. He said answering those questions for every
student, every day, will lead to an excellent education.
8:24:57 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND recapped that the committee would make sure
that the term "locally designed, evidence-based" would be
applied to all [paragraph (5)] on page 11.
8:25:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS recollected that Commissioner Johnson had
mentioned at a previous meeting "having a lot of these
regulations in front of the state school board" by March or
April. He asked whether that timeline was still in effect.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON said he does not have a timeline; he has
had to readjust the schedule. He said the department would like
the regulation writing process to be an inclusive one. He
expressed excitement over passage of HB 153 and bringing
stakeholders together and gathering input from parents and
others around the state to put together regulations to implement
the bill as effectively as possible.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS expressed his hope that the committee
would find ways to add language to include educators' voices
from all levels of the field.
8:27:02 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND expressed confidence that HB 153 would be
passed by the legislature.
8:27:38 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY asked how Head Start fits into the picture. She
returned to her previous question about programs and whether
that applies to Head Start and other partners with which [DEED]
works closely.
8:29:15 AM
MS. TOBIN responded that HB 153 does address regulation, reform,
or change that would apply to Head Start and change the way DEED
interacts with Head Start. She deferred to Commissioner Johnson
for further comment.
8:29:55 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON proffered that HB 153 would provide the
opportunity to grow the early childhood community. He said the
Alaska Early Childhood Coordinating Council (AECCC) is a group
that advocates for early childhood, and passage of HB 153 would
add another element in that group's conversation about
supporting Head Start and other early childhood programs and
ensuring work is done with the shared vision of getting students
reading by the end of third grade. In response to Co-Chair
Drummond's question of who comprised the AECCC, when the group
met, and how they were supported, he replied the AECCC was
comprised of over 20 experienced representatives from various
early childhood advocacy and support programs in Alaska, met
quarterly, and was co-chaired by the commissioner of the
Department of Education and the commissioner of the Department
of Health and Social Services. The AECCC was begun under
Governor Sean Parnell, he imparted.
8:32:59 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY returned to the language [in subparagraph (B)],
on page 11, lines 14-15, [text previously provided]. She asked
Commissioner Johnson her question about whether the program was
at the school district level or school level.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON responded that program participation varies
by school; therefore, he suggested that "program" could refer to
the school level. He deferred to Ms. Tobin for further
response.
8:35:47 AM
MS. TOBIN said the standards were drafted based on NIEER, which
states that highly qualified, well-compensated teachers are
critical for the success of a high-quality, early education
program. She said in a small school there may be a certified
teacher overseeing several classrooms, with the help of
paraprofessionals and instructional aides; in other schools
there may be one teacher in the classroom. She said the program
has not yet been implemented, so that information is yet
unknown. She stated that because of the stair-stepping grant
program delineated in Section 8, there will be opportunities for
districts to receive additional resources to build their
capacity and offer training. Those receiving grants will have
the opportunity to earn the certifications necessary to ensure
high quality early education programs are produced in
communities.
8:37:13 AM
MS. TOBIN, in response to Co-Chair Drummond, said currently 26
districts offer some kind of pre-K program.
8:37:54 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, to the question of whether each of those
26 districts have at least one teacher with a valid teacher's
certificate in early childhood education, said he would research
for an answer. He said the programs vary a great deal; some are
in partnership with municipalities, while others are partnership
with Head Start or other programs.
8:38:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether, under statute, there was
currently a certificate for early education teachers.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON answered that he knows there is an
endorsement for early childhood on a teaching certificate, but
he said he would need to research to confirm whether there was a
standalone early childhood certificate.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether that would be like having a
secondary teacher's certificate and then having an endorsement
to teach art or biology, for example.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON answered that he thinks what Representative
Hopkins was saying was correct. He related that he had just
been made aware that there is a "type E" certificate for early
childhood.
8:40:50 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND said she had received a note from Posie Boggs,
of the Alaska Reading Coalition, who has been helpful concerning
HB 153. She said Ms. Boggs has asked the committee to think
about the locally designed, evidence-based program term. Co-
Chair Drummond said she does not know where that definition
would be derived.
8:41:22 AM
MS. TOBIN said the definition is provided in Version U of HB
153, [in Section 18, subsection (l), paragraph (1)], on page 19,
beginning on line 28, which read as follows:
(1) "evidence-based reading intervention"
means an intervention based on reliable, trustworthy,
and valid evidence that has a demonstrated record of
success in adequately increasing a student's reading
competency in the areas of phonemic awareness,
phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency, oral
language skills, and reading comprehension;
MS. TOBIN explained that "intervention" was included as part of
drafting from Legislative Legal and Research Services and may be
considered for deletion. As for "locally designed," she said
she thinks there are Alaska standards, and she deferred to
Commissioner Johnson for comment.
8:42:15 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND remarked that on page 11 the subject is the
early education program, and "hopefully we're not yet at the
reading intervention stage with those kids." She said she would
like to see a definition added.
8:42:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS, returning to the subject of a type E
certificate, indicated that a staff person from Representative
Story's office had handed him some information that the type E
childhood certificate is earned with an associate degree and 20
hours of supervised practice. He asked whether this certificate
is what will be used going forward to determine who is qualified
as a certificated early education teacher.
8:43:30 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON confirmed that that is the current
requirement to earn a type E certificate, and he said he has not
contemplated a change to that requirement; however, he said as
the bill is interpreted and regulations are created, that is
something that could be revisited. He surmised that requirement
is based on the practice of other states, but information could
be gathered as to what other states are doing.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS concluded that those regulations had not
yet been decided.
8:44:26 AM
MS. TOBIN moved on to Sections 13-16 of the sectional analysis,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 13.
Amends AS 14.17.500 by adding new subsection (d) that
establishes 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.
Section 14.
Amends AS 14.17.905(a) to include students in early
education programs approved by the department in the
definition of an elementary school.
Section 15.
Amends AS 14.17.905 by adding new subsection (d) to
avoid letting school districts count pre-K students
twice in Foundation Formula ADM calculations.
Section 16.
Amends AS 14.20.015(c) to ensure teaching certificate
reciprocity for teachers moving to Alaska from out-of-
state and adds that such teachers must complete at
least three credits or equivalency in evidence-based
reading instruction in order to be eligible for an
Alaska teaching endorsement in elementary education.
8:46:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether the federal funding referred
to in Section 15 pertains to the Head Start program.
MS. TOBIN answered that Section 15 essentially says that an
early education student cannot be counted twice, for example if
a student is in a Head Start program and a pre-K program. She
clarified, "You can't receive state funds and federal funds for
the same student."
8:47:09 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND shared that what makes this confusing is that
the federal money for Head Start, which she said she thinks is
about $48 million to Alaska, must be triggered by about $6
million seed money from the state. She said the language should
read "state and federal funding".
8:47:38 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY said she can see it could be valuable for a child
to attend Head Start in the morning and another program in the
afternoon, and she would not want funding compromised in this
scenario.
MS. TOBIN said as the regulations are not yet written, she would
defer to Commissioner Johnson.
8:48:44 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON said he thinks that would need to be worked
out in regulation. Head Start, being a federal program, has its
own rules and regulations, so DEED would want "to be careful
that we don't inadvertently bump into those in a way that is not
helpful." He said it would be necessary to consider all the
programs out there to ensure whatever regulations are worked out
do not interfere with the federal rules surrounding Head Start.
8:49:55 AM
KAREN MELIN, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education and
Early Development, stated that because Head Start is both
federally and state-funded, DEED would work to write regulations
in a way that maximizes opportunity for students first and then
ensures that partnerships between districts and Head Start
programs work to the best advantage of students.
8:53:04 AM
MS. MELIN, in response to a request for information from
Representative Prax, explained that Head Start is national
program, which has ways to support children in poverty. It has
half-day and full-day programs; it has center-based and home-
based programs. Further, there is early Head Start, which tends
to the needs of those from birth to age three. She said across
Alaska, there are programs in each of those categories: home-
based, part-time, and full-time. She said there is partnership
with school districts where the district sends instruction and
support for students. She said, "All of them have an agreement,
or [memorandum of agreement] (MOA) with Child Find, which helps
them locate those students that are in the greatest need of this
kind of support." She described Head Start as an "all-
encompassing ... opportunity for the children in poverty." She
said she could provide more information to Representative Prax.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX mentioned competition in the realm of
business but proffered that the state does not want to be
competing with Head Start; therefore, "we'd need to know what
they do so we're doing something different."
MS. MELIN confirmed that DEED wants to make sure Alaska is
complementing Head Start programs with its district programs, to
"work in concert instead of in conflict."
8:56:46 AM
MS. TOBIN moved on to Section 17 in the sectional analysis,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 17.
Amends AS 14.20.020 by adding new subsection (l) that
requires all teachers to complete at least three
credits or equivalency in evidence-based reading
instruction in order to be eligible for an endorsement
in elementary education.
8:57:25 AM
MS. TOBIN, in response to a question from Co-Chair Story about
the requirement to complete instruction, pointed out the
language about equivalency on page 13, line 8.
8:58:06 AM
MS. TOBIN returned attention to the sectional analysis. She
began reading Section 18, which starts out as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Section 18.
Establishes Article 15, Reading Intervention Programs.
Establishes AS 14.30.760, 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.
8:59:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS noted that at a previous meeting, the
commissioner had said students would be assessed on the
effectiveness of their reading through the development of a
number of different assessments and opportunities to determine
the proficiency of each reader. Representative Hopkins observed
that what Ms. Tobin had just read seems to indicate that it
would be one type of assessment given several times a year. He
said he assumes that assessment has not yet been developed. He
asked Commissioner Johnson to discuss who he sees being involved
in the development and whether "active educators" would "be at
that table."
9:00:09 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON responded that what is being discussed is a
screener, which he compared to triage. The purpose of the
screener is to identify when a student may be struggling on the
pathway to reading proficiency. The screeners are based on five
components of reading; they are also used to identify when
dyslexia may be an issue. He said most districts are already
providing these screening tools. He said there certainly would
be public input in the selection process and board process of
choosing a statewide screener. He said DEED would allow those
districts that already have an evidence-based screener to
continue using it, as long as it meets "those requirements" so
that no previous progress is lost.
9:01:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS remarked that he would work with the bill
sponsor and the committee to ensure an active educator voice is
involved in the project. Regarding the mention of dyslexia in
the bill language, he said there are many types of reading
deficiencies, and he recommended the language indicate a broader
picture for the sake of inclusivity.
9:02:41 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND suggested the language, instead of just
"including students with characteristics of dyslexia", could say
"including but not limited to". She offered her understanding
that this is the first time "dyslexia" would appear in statute,
which she opined would be "a huge step forward for ...
education."
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS emphasized his goal of not limiting the
scope of "what those deficiencies look like."
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND reminded Representative Hopkins that the
entire Alaska Reads Program is based on reading proficiency and
the dyslexic task force she chaired a couple years ago that drew
attention to the issue of dyslexia, and she said she would like
committee members to receive the reported results of that task
force. In response to Representative Hopkins, she said she
thinks more than just dyslexia was the focus of the taskforce,
but dyslexia is the most common form of reading deficiency.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS opined that while it is good to get
scientific words in statute, he does not think "that's the right
limiting factor we should look at."
9:05:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX recommended omitting "dyslexia", because
"reading deficiencies" is a broad term.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND explained that would not happen because it is
critical to include "dyslexia" as the principle reading
deficiency of students, and it has taken years for it to be
recognized; teachers have been told not to talk about it in the
past. She said dyslexia needs to be addressed early on, so that
students with it can be given an opportunity to read
proficiently.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX explained that he was focusing on the
writing style, and he suggested that instead of "including", the
committee could choose "especially" or "such as". He opined
that when a broad term is used, followed by an example, "it
tends to exclude everything else."
9:06:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS indicated he saw both Representative
Prax' and Co-Chair Drummond's points. He said, "If we included
the words 'reading disabilities such as dyslexia', that might
allow us to also start including other physical disabilities
...."
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND said she thinks "such as" is a good idea. She
offered her belief that one of the principal recommendations of
the task force was to make sure dyslexia was named and defined
in statute. She said she would not be surprised to find a
definition of dyslexia "further back in this bill."
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said he hoped dyslexia "has a common
definition, as well."
9:08:20 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY directed attention to page 13, line 14, which
introduces reading intervention programs. She said she thinks
this is part of a core reading program and what many schools are
incorporating in a basic Tier I reading program. She said she
would like to know where, in standards, is written what the
state's core reading program should comprise. She noted line 29
[on page 14] shows "district reading intervention services", but
she opined that Article 15 should say "evidence-based reading
programs", because intervention should be part of the core
program.
9:09:52 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON responded, "Those would be in our Alaska
state standards for English language arts, and they would be
embedded there in our standards." He said Co-Chair Story is
correct that intervention should not be outside of the core
program. He said any amendment that emphasizes that every
classroom should be using evidence-based reading strategies is
good, because teaching reading based on the five components of
reading has been scientifically proven to work.
9:12:05 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY opined that it would strengthen the Alaska Reads
Act to change "Reading Intervention Programs" to "Evidence-based
Reading Programs". She indicated that [on page 13, at line 27,]
a [subparagraph] (D) would need to be added to state, "reading
for comprehension".
9:12:32 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND said she thinks the committee should also look
at existing statute AS 14.3 to ensure it does not already
include a section on reading programs.
9:13:01 AM
MS. TOBIN shared that the statute to look at would be AS
14.07.180. She offered her understanding that Commissioner
Johnson may have some recommended language.
9:13:31 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON recalled that a few years ago, then Senator
McKinnon had proposed language to review curriculum around the
state to report what each school was using as curriculum. He
said DEED has that language and could share it with the
committee for consideration.
CO-CHAIR STORY reiterated her view that starting with the
evidence-based reading program and following that with a
description of what the interventions are will strengthen the
Alaska Reads Act.
9:14:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to page 13, lines 17-20, regarding
the mention of dyslexia, and he asked if the concern was that
"we're not going far enough with dyslexia" or that "dyslexia
isn't the only thing." He said he reads the current language as
identifying students with reading deficiencies, with an emphasis
on dyslexia.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND said the sense she got from the committee is
that they do not want to limit reading deficiencies to just
dyslexia.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said he does not see where the limitation
is.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND said she does not either. She asked how it
could read "including but not limited to" dyslexia.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK suggested: "identify students with any
reading deficiencies, including dyslexia".
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND concurred.
9:16:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS suggested that since dyslexia is "a
physical issue in the brain wiring," the committee may want to
consider utilizing the word "disability".
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND responded, "You begin to get into the special
education area; that's what we're trying to avoid." She offered
her understanding that a lot of teachers have identified
students for special education, when what the students really
needed was early intensive reading interventions. She said she
does not believe dyslexia is considered a disability. She said
she thinks Representative Tuck had it right and that it is "our
obligation to identify students with any reading deficiency."
In response to Representative Hopkins, she clarified
Representative Tuck's recommendation was to add "any".
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS opined that "included but not limited to"
would be critical but allowed that "any" does help.
9:18:54 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY said she thought it would help if the
commissioner were to explain how many children in Alaska do not
have sufficient reading standards.
9:19:35 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON replied that he did not have the exact
number from the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP). He said there is no statewide data on kindergarten
through third grade, and he indicated that the Performance
Evaluation for Alaska's Schools (PEAKS) assessment shows that
approximately 60 percent of students in the third- and fourth-
grade range were not proficient in reading - far too many - and
HB 153 seeks to provide the support and focus to ensure more
students are reading. He said one of the more prominent issues
in reading difficulties is dyslexia. He said the word
"including" is not limiting but is an inclusive word. He said
if the screener flags a student as having difficulty in one of
the five components of reading, then there may be further
diagnostic testing to determine whether that student qualifies
for special education or just needs "extra support in the
regular classroom to overcome that challenge, which is the case
many, many times."
9:21:41 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND emphasized that the goal is not to refer
students to special education unless necessary, "and keeping
them with their peers in the regular reading program, with
appropriate intervention and support, is the way to do it."
9:22:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY said she has been talking with Alaska
Native educators across the state, and she spoke of the
acknowledgment of "the significant and deep and painful,
historic and generational trauma that exists in Alaska." She
said there is a bias, as well as cultural irrelevance, in many
assessment and learning tools used or available for purchase in
Alaska. She asked Commissioner Johnson whether DEED has the
resources for developing culturally relevant tools. She said
she heard appointees to the state board charged with developing
regulations for the department, and many of them do not have
experience related to indigenous English language learners. She
said she would like to hear how the department plans to ensure
rural Alaska Native students "are protected and not ...
disproportionately impacted by the tools that are being put in
place ...."
9:24:15 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON replied that DEED has a tribal liaison,
Joel Isaak, who has done a lot of work on language
revitalization and culturally relevant, sensitive instruction,
and Mr. Isaak would be part of the review process. He added,
"But we wouldn't be dependent just on resources within the
department. Joel has a network of Native educators and others
throughout the state that we do and will draw upon for those
kinds of reviews and analyses." He related that the nature of
the screeners in the early grades are different from some of the
other assessments where students are presented with "passages."
He said there are passages associated with these types of
screeners, but they can be culturally relevant and sensitive.
He indicated these screeners measure things like rate of reading
and whether the student recognizes the alphabet. He stated that
with guidance from Native educators, those screeners are adapted
and made relevant and "in keeping with traditional ways of
knowing in rural Alaska."
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY expressed her desire for an amendment in
the proposed legislation that would ensure culturally relevant
assessment tools, including screeners and reading curriculum,
can be regionally and culturally relevant, and explicitly that
schools would be allowed to select their own tools "without
bearing the expense of creating those locally developed tools."
She said she has great respect for Mr. Isaak, a large part of
the decision-making body would be comprised of individuals who
do not have "a solid background" in rural and Alaska Native
conditions.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON thanked Representative Zulkosky for that
suggestion. He said DEED wants to do everything it can to work
with people all over Alaska to ensure they have "confidence and
the tools and resources that this bill calls for."
9:27:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS pointed to language on page 13, line 17,
which would require adoption of "a statewide screening or
assessment tool to administer to students in grades kindergarten
through three". He said that indicates that "we are doing a
one-size-fits-all assessment." He asked Ms. Tobin for comment.
9:28:24 AM
MS. TOBIN responded that all instances of "the statewide
screener and assessment tool" were replaced with "a statewide
screener and assessment tool" to allow for more flexibility and
multiple screeners to be adopted. As an example of added
flexibility, she directed attention to language on page 14,
beginning on line 11, which read as follows:
(4) establish a process that allows the
commissioner to waive, upon request, use of the
statewide screening or assessment tool required under
this subsection by a school district if the school
district has adopted an evidence-based reading
screening or assessment tool and the screening or
assessment tool is approved by the department;
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY acknowledged that was a worthy inclusion
but said she would like additional language regarding the
state's financial and resource partnership with school districts
such that a locally and culturally based tool "not be borne at
the expense of those small districts and that it be in
partnership with the state's resources."
9:29:33 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND concurred. She said she believes the intent
of the bill was that DEED would be hiring and providing the
teachers, support, and resources to districts and not placing
the burden on districts to pay out of their own budgets.
9:30:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY said she would like those protections
explicitly stated rather than assumed.
9:30:34 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY returned attention to language on page 13, line
14, regarding the removal of "intervention", and she suggested
"local" or "cultural" could preceded "evidence-based" to honor
"the cultural, local ... work that we're striving to provide to
all of our districts."
9:31:24 AM
MS. TOBIN suggested page 14, line 18, may be a good place to
insert an amendment regarding culturally and locally based
screening and assessment tools. In response to Representative
Prax, she read the language, which read as follows:
(b) In adopting a statewide screening or
assessment tool under (a)(1) of this section, the
department shall consider the following factors:
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND clarified that "locally" and "culturally
relevant" should be one of the factors.
CO-CHAIR STORY said the hope is that that is what all districts
are doing.
9:33:22 AM
MS. TOBIN returned to where she had left off in Section 18 of
the sectional analysis, which continued as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
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 CS HB
153 v. U | 3.4.2020 | 4 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 be directed by the students
individual reading plan.
9:35:07 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND remarked that currently an individual reading
plan is not required. She noted that in the area of special
education, it is called an individual education plan (IEP) and
is mandated by federal Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) requirements. She indicated that intervention
services are for those students not making adequate progress, as
determined by screenings.
MS. TOBIN suggested Commissioner Johnson speak about the reading
intervention plan.
9:36:00 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON clarified that these individualized reading
plans would not be like an Individualized Education Program
(IEP), which he distinguished as a multi-page document
addressing different areas required by federal law and regarding
IDEA. In comparison, the individual reading plans, as mentioned
in the proposed legislation, would be based on the five
components of reading, and he expressed his hope to limit them
to one page in order to keep the focus on the components and the
needs of students. He said the plan for a student should
address that student's reading deficiency. He said this is
another place to address the concerns Representative Zulkosky
had discussed regarding culturally based plans.
9:38:00 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY directed attention to language on page 15, line
21, which states that ["intensive reading intervention services
must"] "be implemented outside of the regular school hours".
She said teachers do not work outside regular school hours
unless they have a contract to do so, which costs money, and she
indicated that otherwise this is an unfunded mandate. She noted
that similarly, the language [of paragraph (4)], on page 16,
line [8] states that ["an individual reading improvement plan
developed under this section must"]:
(4) provide reading intervention services
outside of regular school hours for a student who
scores at the lowest achievement level on the
statewide screening or assessment tool consistent with
(a)(8) of this section; and
CO-CHAIR STORY questioned why "evidence-based" is repeated in
[paragraph] (3), on page 15, lines 10-11, because "that's just a
given to me." She pointed out the requirement for "daily
targeted small group reading instruction" in [paragraph] (5), on
page 15, lines 14-15, and she said it may not be possible to
make that happen every day. She then directed attention to
[lines 4-7], which would require "intensive reading intervention
services" be provided by "a district reading teacher to all
students in grades kindergarten through three", and she
suggested that "or a paraprofessional" be added.
9:42:11 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON stated that based on some of what Co-Chair
Story said, language could be tweaked. He said perhaps instead
of "services must" the language could read "must include some of
the following". In terms of after school hours, he remarked
that many schools have after school reading support programs,
such as reading camps, and "those would qualify as places where
they could address some of these." He reiterated the idea to
state "must include some of the following".
CO-CHAIR STORY responded that amendments of that nature would be
realistic. She asked Commissioner Johnson for feedback about
her idea to add "or a paraprofessional".
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON said he would be fine with that. He said
especially in smaller districts where there is high turnover,
some of the most trained and qualified interventionists are
instructional aides in whom districts have invested a lot of
money. He said educational support professionals could
certainly be part of the solution when working under the
supervision of a certified teacher.
9:44:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK requested that the committee hear the rest
of the sectional analysis in the time remaining and hold off
discussion of amendments. He indicated he would not have any
ideas for amending the bill language without having heard the
entire analysis.
9:44:48 AM
MS. TOBIN recapped the paragraph of the sectional analysis she
had read before, pausing for questions. In response to Co-Chair
Drummond, she confirmed that "term" meant the school year. She
continued with the sectional analysis, within Section 18, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Districts or schools must notify parents 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. 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, 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.
Establishes that a student in grade three should
demonstrate proficient 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. Good cause exemptions are
included, such as having a disability, or the student
is learning English as a second language. 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.
9:48:07 AM
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 a person 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 CS HB 153 v. U | 3.4.2020 |
5 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.
Establishes AS 14.30.770, schools selected to
participate in an intensive school reading 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.
AS 14.30.775 aligns use of the word "district" in this
Act with the definitions given elsewhere in statute
when referring to a school district.
9:51:06 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked about the language pertaining to the
school holding public meetings.
MS. TOBIN said that language is on page 22 of Version U,
beginning on line 24. She said it falls under AS 14.30.770,
Department Reading Program.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND remarked that that is "a pretty substantial
requirement placed on the schools." She questioned whether the
public meeting would address all students in the reading program
or just individual students.
MS. TOBIN deferred to Commissioner Johnson.
9:52:27 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON said DEED knows that increasing the reading
proficiency levels of students in Alaska "must include parents
[and] communities and be informed by those communities."
Parents and communities need strategies for supporting their
students to become readers. He said districts are already
required through federal programs to hold public meetings about
the varied aspects of their programs, so this is not a new idea.
He said this is in the section of school improvement; the
employee DEED hires to go out to the communities would be
responsible for "organizing, collaborating, and holding these
meetings to provide that information."
9:53:26 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND recapped that Commissioner Johnson had stated
that the public meetings are not a new requirement.
9:53:38 AM
MS. TOBIN covered the remaining Sections 19-24 of the sectional
analysis, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 19.
Directs early education program staff to be included
in those organizations required to report evidence of
child abuse.
Section 20.
Repeals AS 14.03.410, the early education grant
program, in 11 years once all school districts have
had the opportunity to participate.
Section 21.
Establishes a Teacher Retention Working Group as a new
uncodified law of the State of Alaska.
Section 22.
Is applicability language, relating to endorsements in
elementary education issued on or after the effective
date of this act.
Section 23.
Is transition language, directing the department to
use 2018-19 school accountability rankings for CS HB
153 v. U | 3.4.2020 | 6 purposes of determining the
first cohort of lowest performing schools, to identify
their pre-K grant eligibility for FY 21.
Section 24.
Establishes an effective date of July 1, 2020.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND expressed doubt that that target date would be
reached. She offered her understanding that there were "some
proposed changes ... depending on when the legislation actually
passes."
9:55:01 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY directed attention to [paragraph (2)], on page
22, [beginning on] line 9, of Version U, which states that a
"school selected to participate in the reading program" shall:
(2) coordinate with the reading specialist
or specialists to redesign the school's daily schedule
to dedicate time to reading program activities,
including intensive reading intervention services
identified in a written agreement between the school
and the department;
CO-CHAIR STORY recommended "principal" be inserted with
"specialist" because she knows that the most critical thing a
principal does is set the schedule.
9:56:58 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON responded that this section is completely
voluntary; this is a collaborative relationship between the
district and the department.
CO-CHAIR STORY, to another issue, said she knows the goal is to
ensure all students are reading by the third grade. She
expressed concern with the "good cause exemption language." She
observed that the language does not seem to say that the parent
or guardian has the last decision in the matter.
MS. TOBIN proffered that Co-Chair Story was referring to
language on page 17, line 10.
9:58:29 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY directed attention to a sentence on page 17,
[beginning on line 15 through line 18], which read as follows:
School staff shall work with the parents or guardians
to schedule a date, time, and place for the meeting
and, if no parent or guardian attends the meeting, the
teacher and school staff shall determine grade level
progression.
CO-CHAIR STORY indicated she was uncomfortable requiring those
involved to pinpoint a certain date and time and encouraged,
instead, simply to state that the parents will work with the
school to make the determination. In response to Co-Chair
Drummond, she clarified that she would like to amend the
sentence so that it would read as follows:
School staff shall work with the parents or guardians
to determine whether retention or progression is in a
student's best interest.
10:00:11 AM
MS. TOBIN said she thinks the proposed change would be in line
with the bill sponsor's intent.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked Commissioner Johnson to clarify for the
committee "who is or is not requiring retention to happen."
10:00:44 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON responded that the proposed legislation is
not a retention bill; it does not include "a hard retention
clause." He said he thinks the bill is inclusive. He said the
language referenced by Co-Chair Story references a meeting but
would not be limited to one meeting. He pointed out that if a
student has a reading plan, then there has been communication
going on for some time. Even if the language were changed, the
determination must be made at a meeting on some date, at some
time. Regarding retention and progression, he stated, "What the
bill acknowledges is that when you get to the end of third
grade, whether you've progressed without the skills necessary to
read well or you're retained, that is a consequential decision
either way; one doesn't diminish the impact of the other." He
said retention is just one of many interventions from which a
classroom teacher and family can choose in order to support a
student. It is rarely used but can be beneficial for a student
depending on his/her start date and age. He said the exemptions
are in place to ensure that [retention] is not applied
inappropriately, and safeguards are in place to give every
chance for success to the student. He said how a student does
in reading by the end of the third grade will predict how that
student does in his/her assessments in tenth grade. For
students who exit third grade with lower reading proficiency,
the gap grows bigger as they progress to the upper grades. He
said he thinks the bill gives the opportunity for parents,
teachers, and principals to be at the table, and for the
legislature to know how policy is being made and applied through
reporting, and that decisions that affect students are not made
based on one test score but via "multiple ways to show evidence
that they are proficient as they move on."
10:03:59 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, in response to questions from Co-Chair
Drummond, said almost every district has a promotion/retention
policy in its board policy handbook. He said he is not aware of
data collected by the department reflecting how many students
are retained statewide. He suggested that information may be
available in "the Oasis Report."
10:04:53 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY directed attention to language on page 19, lines
1-5, which read as follows:
(4) if the student's parents or guardians
requested a good cause exemption under (g) of this
section and the school board rejected the request,
include a statement that the request for a good use
exemption was rejected and a copy of the written
notification the school board provided the parents or
guardians under (h) of this section.
CO-CHAIR STORY noted that the language that lists the
limitations of a good cause exemption is found on [page 17, line
31, through page 18, line 13, under subsection (g), paragraphs
(1)-(4)]. She concluded that the school board can reject the
parents' request. She said she does not feel that under law the
school district can tell the parent their child has to be
retained, and she asked Commissioner Johnson whether the parents
could prevail if they took the matter to court.
10:06:32 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON answered that since he is not an attorney,
he would have to confer with one who could pull up particular
cases. He said he thinks everyone involved with this
legislation would advocate for parents having the authority to
make those final decisions. He said attendance rates are an
issue in some districts, and this affects performance. If a
student, who misses 80 days of school can move to the next grade
level, that is "consequential for everyone involved." He said
it is a monumental decision for all involved.
10:07:59 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY encouraged the committee find out the answer to
the question. Regarding lost days, she noted that the Juneau
School District (JSD) had truancy officers and at one time
established fines for truancy, but for many children the reason
they were not coming to school was economic, so the parents
could not pay the fines. She said she brought that up to
illustrate that it would be unwise to say that the district's
word overrides that of the parents.
10:09:01 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND said she was having difficulty understanding
how, if a child who misses 80 days of third grade can move on to
fourth grade because of his/her parents' insistence, the school
could possibly provide the support that child would need in
fourth grade.
10:09:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK offered his understanding that that does
happen; in Fort Yukon "kids are missing over 50 days of school."
The question is whether to allow the child to advance when
professionals are saying it is not a good idea. He said some of
that needs to be left to local control, and he does not have the
answer but appreciates the conversation.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND said hopefully children will receive the help
they need in Kindergarten so that the situation never gets to
that point.
CO-CHAIR STORY reiterated her stance on finding out about the
legal aspect.
10:1:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX said he thinks it is essential "to figure
that question out." He asked, "If they're not participating, do
you have to continue to provide the service that ultimately is
going to fail?" He said it is an absurd situation that must be
addressed.
10:11:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said this is a reading bill. He offered
his understanding that "the discussion that Representative Story
brought up" revolves around reading ability and literacy
proficiency - not truancy, which he said would be "an entirely
different discussion." He said allowing the school board to
override the parents' decision is concerning. He mentioned the
National Association for Primary Education (NAPE) score and
noted that the big five school districts in Alaska "are within
decimals of national averages on our reading scores," and thus
the issue of retention and the school board policies overruling
the decision of parents will disproportionately impact rural
Alaska. He said parents will have to argue for exemptions. He
continued:
We have the expectation that parents and guardians are
going to understand the discussions that are happening
throughout this process with the teachers and with the
principals, and we're assuming that those parents are
going to have the literacy levels themselves to be
able to understand what the full concept is behind
this bill."
10:14:33 AM
MS. TOBIN brought attention to language on page 16, beginning on
line 18, which gives the parameters of the conversation that
would be held with parents if their third-grade child were being
considered for retention. She informed committee members that
legislation was introduced during the Twenty-Eighth Alaska State
Legislature by then Senator Berta Gardner and Senator Gary
Stevens, which spoke to the issue of parental choice and
retention. She offered to introduce that language for their
consideration as a possible amendment.
10:15:28 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND turned attention to Section 6, on page 3,
which she said would change the starting age of a child
[entering kindergarten] to age five on or before June 1
preceding the beginning of the school year. She indicated the
current cutoff is September 1. She said that change would
significantly change the population entering kindergarten. She
said she had discussed with Senator Shelly Hughes, who serves on
the Senate Education Standing Committee, about the importance of
Section 6, and Senator Hughes said that change needs to be
postponed to allow parents time to plan, because this change
could result in economic impact for those parents with children
who would have to wait a year to start kindergarten because of
the change in the cutoff date.
10:16:43 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY encouraged more discussion on the date, based on
the testimony of Abbe Hensley, [Executive Director, Best
Beginnings], who discussed why she thought it was important to
keep the September date. She requested that the language in the
bill by Senators Gardner and Stevens be read to the committee.
She said she thinks there were many parents, with children not
at reading proficiency by the end of the third grade, who did
not want their children retained. In response to Representative
Tuck, she clarified her concern as follows:
My concern is just that the parent does not have the
last word, should have the last word, and that would
not be upheld in the court of law because parental
authority seems to be sacred.
10:18:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked who has the last word in this bill.
CO-CHAIR STORY answered that it seems like the local school
board does.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said, "Not the Department of Education but
the local school board."
[AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER] said, "Um-hmm."
10:18:45 AM
MS. TOBIN proffered that an amendment was available pertaining
to the conversation that takes place between the parents and
teacher regarding retention in third grade, but she said it is
"very ambiguous." She said through good cause exemption, the
last word is through the school board. She indicated that "in
that previous section," when the parent is not applying for a
good cause exemption "but would like to have the conversation,
there is no final decision-making power outlined in this bill.
10:19:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK concluded that if there were a lawsuit, it
would be against the school district. He added, "Right now,
this still doesn't address it; it just gives it to local
control."
10:19:28 AM
MS. TOBIN, at the invitation of Co-Chair Drummond, read the
language from Senators Gardner and Stevens, as follows:
At the meeting described in this section, ... the
parent or guardians, the teacher, and the
participating staff members shall decide whether the
student will ... advance the next grade level in the
next school year. If the parent or guardian, the
teacher, and the participating staff members are not
in agreement, the parent or guardian shall decide
whether the student will advance to the next grade
level, unless circumstances exist as specified in the
policy adopted by the district that would prevent
advancement.
10:20:06 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND ascertained from Ms. Tobin that the proposed
legislation had not passed.
[HB 153 was held over.]
10:20:55 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:21 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CS for HB 153 ver. U.pdf |
HEDC 3/27/2020 8:00:00 AM |
HB 153 |
| CS HB 153 v. U Sectional Analysis 3.12.2020.pdf |
HEDC 3/27/2020 8:00:00 AM |
HB 153 |