Legislature(2021 - 2022)DAVIS 106
05/14/2021 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 | |
| HB164 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 164 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
May 14, 2021
8:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Harriet Drummond, Co-Chair
Representative Andi Story, Co-Chair
Representative Tiffany Zulkosky
Representative Grier Hopkins
Representative Mike Prax
Representative Mike Cronk
Representative Ronald Gillham
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 164
"An Act relating to early education programs provided by school
districts; relating to school age eligibility; relating to early
education programs; establishing a parents as teachers program;
relating to the duties of the Department of Education and Early
Development; relating to certification of teachers; establishing
a reading intervention program for public school students
enrolled in grades kindergarten through three; establishing a
reading program in the Department of Education and Early
Development; relating to a virtual education consortium; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 164
SHORT TITLE: EARLY ED PROGRAMS; READING; VIRTUAL ED
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TUCK
04/07/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/07/21 (H) EDC, FIN
04/21/21 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
04/21/21 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/23/21 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
04/23/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/23/21 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/26/21 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
04/26/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/26/21 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/30/21 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
04/30/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/30/21 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
05/03/21 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
05/03/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/03/21 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
05/05/21 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
05/05/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/05/21 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
05/06/21 (H) EDC AT 6:30 PM DAVIS 106
05/06/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/06/21 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
05/07/21 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
05/07/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/07/21 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
05/08/21 (H) EDC AT 9:00 AM DAVIS 106
05/08/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/08/21 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
05/12/21 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
05/12/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/12/21 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
05/14/21 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
WITNESS REGISTER
KAREN MELIN, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and answered questions
during the hearing on HB 164.
HEIDI TESHNER, Director
Finance and Support Services Division
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and answered questions
during the hearing on HB 164.
LOKI TOBIN, Staff
Senator Tom Begich
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and answered questions
during the hearing on HB 164 on behalf of the Senate Education
Standing Committee, sponsor of companion bill SB 111.
MIKE MASON, Staff
Representative Chris Tuck
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information during the hearing on
HB 164 on behalf of Representative Tuck, prime sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:07:52 AM
CO-CHAIR Harriet Drummond called the House Education Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:07 a.m. Representatives Story,
Gillham, Prax, Hopkins, and Drummond were present at the call to
order. Representatives Cronk and Zulkosky arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 164-EARLY ED PROGRAMS; READING; VIRTUAL ED
8:08:36 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND announced that the only order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 164, "An Act relating to early education
programs provided by school districts; relating to school age
eligibility; relating to early education programs; establishing
a parents as teachers program; relating to the duties of the
Department of Education and Early Development; relating to
certification of teachers; establishing a reading intervention
program for public school students enrolled in grades
kindergarten through three; establishing a reading program in
the Department of Education and Early Development; relating to a
virtual education consortium; and providing for an effective
date."
[Before the committee, adopted as a working document during the
4/23/21 House Education Standing Committee meeting, was the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 164, Version 32-
LS0731\I, Klein, 4/20/21, ("Version I").]
[A motion to adopt Amendment 1 had been left pending at the end
of the 5/12/21 House Education Standing Committee meeting.]
8:09:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS reminded committee members that Amendment
1 would replace the consortium with an online library or
database within DEED, which would be available to educators,
parents, and students, at no charge. He expressed that an open,
online library would be more beneficial to all stakeholders than
an online consortium with a fee.
8:10:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY discussed online resources being shared
between districts for a fee, which she said school districts
might use to pay for services.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS clarified that page 3 of Amendment 1
contained material which would delete all material on page 38,
lines 8-20, or the proposed legislation, which would require
fees for consortium membership.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said her concern stemmed from page 38,
lines 14-16, which read as follows:
(e) A school district that provides a course included
in the database may charge a fee to the school
district in which a student who takes the course is
enrolled. The department shall establish the fee in
regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said she support Amendment 1 but would like
to remove lines 5-6 on page 3 from the amendment.
8:15:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY commented on the importance of smaller
school districts' participation in the online library, and she
expressed that there shouldn't necessarily be a fee involved.
She asked whether the intention of Amendment 1 is to ensure
equitable access to resources in the online library, and whether
Representative Hopkins would consider removing lines 14-16 on
page 38 of the proposed legislation from the section of the
amendment described on page 3, lines 5-6.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked Representative Zulkosky to clarify her
suggestion.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY repeated her suggestion to remove lines
14-16 on page 38 of the proposed legislation from the test that
would be affected by Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said Representative Zulkosky's suggestion
is closer to the original intent of the amendment, and he
stressed that he does not support charging a fee for access to
an online library hosted by DEED.
8:20:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX discussed school districts developing their
own problems and being penalized by not having an associated
fee. He said culturally relevant coursework needs to be
developed within the districts.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS explained that many school districts
share work in curricula and staff development through the Alaska
Staff Development Network and other cooperative programs. He
said individual teachers would be able to submit work to the
online library as well.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked, "So it would be done ... informally,
rather than formally?"
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said he doesn't know how "informal" or
"formal" would be defined in this situation, but the online
library would be where stakeholders could put their work into a
domain for utilization by others.
8:24:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked whether removing subsection (e)
from being affected by Amendment 1 would still accomplish the
intent of the amendment.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND shared her understanding that Representative
Zulkosky agrees with deleting subsection (d), comprising lines
8-13 on page 38 of the proposed legislation, as well as
subsection (f), comprising lines 17-20 on the same page.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said he agrees that such a change would
constitute a friendly amendment.
8:26:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1, which would affect page 3 of Amendment 1, lines 5-
6. She said it would change "Page 38, lines 8-20" to "Page 38,
lines 8-13, 17-20."
8:27:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said he had no objection to Conceptual
Amendment 1. There being no other objection, Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 adopted.
8:27:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY removed her objection to the adoption of
Amendment 1 to HB 164, Version I. There being no further
objection, Amendment 1, as amended, as adopted.
8:27:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to adopt Amendment 2 to HB 164,
Version I, as amended, labeled 32-LS0731\I.31, Klein, 5/10/21,
which read as follows:
Page 2, lines 2 - 3:
Delete "Academic Improvement and Modernization
Act"
Insert "Reads Act"
[There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted to HB 164,
Version I, as amended.]
8:28:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt Amendment 3 to HB 164,
Version I, as amended, labeled 32-LS0731\I.1, Klein, 5/8/21,
which read as follows:
Page 2, line 30:
Delete "Each"
Insert "At the first parent-teacher conference of
the school year, each [EACH]"
Delete "annually"
Insert "[ANNUALLY]"
Page 3, line 9, following "of":
Insert "online and geographically accessible"
8:28:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS explained that Amendment 3 arose from
discussions with Fairbanks-area reading teachers, which work
with remote districts around the state in their reading efforts.
He suggested that moving the discussion about the importance of
early literacy to the first parent-teacher conference, when
discussion of a student's aptitude is already under discussion,
would give parents time to acclimate having a school-aged child.
Regarding lines 7-8 of Amendment 3, he explained that adults in
remote regions don't necessarily need to know what resources for
adult literacy are available in Anchorage, so Amendment 3 would
keep adult literacy information geographically relevant.
8:30:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY suggested a friendly amendment to Amendment
3, which would change At the first..." to By the first..." on
line 3 of Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said he would be amenable to By or at
..." or "By the conclusion of the first ...".
REPRESENTATIVE STORY agreed.
8:32:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether the intent of the amendment is
to establish an annual deadline by which parents will be made
aware of the importance of early literacy.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS stated his agreement.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX said, "It's always good to establish a
deadline." He stated his support for Amendment 3.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND summed up the friendly amendment, which would
change "At" to "By" on line 3 of Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY clarified that the friendly amendment would
insert "By or" before "At the first ...".
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS stated that he does not object to the
friendly amendment to Amendment 3. There being no further
objection, the friendly amendment was adopted to Amendment 3.
8:35:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY withdrew her objection to Amendment 3, as
amended. There being no further objection, Amendment 3, as
amended, was adopted to HB 164, Version I.
8:35:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY moved to adopt Amendment 5 to HB 164,
Version I, as amended, labeled 32-LS0731\I.57, Klein, 5/11/21,
which read as follows:
Page 2, following line 3:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
LEGISLATIVE INTENT. The Alaska State Legislature
recognizes and affirms the right of students to learn
to read in multiple languages and recognizes that
locally designed, culturally responsive reading
curricula nurture a student's unique cultural
strengths to promote academic achievement and a sense
of well-being about the student's place in the world.
Nothing in this Act limits a school district's ability
to offer or focus on literacy education in multiple
languages."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, line 24:
Delete "sec. 3"
Insert "sec. 4"
Page 3, line 11:
Delete "sec. 5"
Insert "sec. 6"
Page 5, line 3:
Delete "sec. 7"
Insert "sec. 8"
Page 7, line 2:
Delete "sec. 10"
Insert "sec. 11"
Page 13, line 16:
Delete "sec. 15"
Insert "sec. 16"
Page 16, line 17:
Delete "sec. 18"
Insert "sec. 19"
Page 18, line 21:
Delete "sec. 21"
Insert "sec. 22"
Page 20, line 12:
Delete "sec. 25"
Insert "sec. 26"
Page 21, line 26:
Delete "sec. 29"
Insert "sec. 30"
Page 22, line 24:
Delete "sec. 31"
Insert "sec. 32"
Page 39, line 10:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 37"
Page 39, line 13:
Delete "Section 34"
Insert "Section 35"
Page 39, line 14:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 35"
Page 39, line 15:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 35"
Page 39, line 18:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 35"
Page 40, line 23:
Delete "Sections 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 16, 19, 22, 26,
30, 32, and 40"
Insert "Sections 5, 7, 9, 12, 13, 17, 20, 23, 27,
31, 33, and 41"
Page 40, line 25:
Delete "sec. 46"
Insert "sec. 47"
8:35:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY discussed the importance of allowing a
school district to focus on literacy in multiple languages,
saying that the importance of culture shouldn't be sacrificed.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked to hear an opinion from DEED.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY pointed out that nothing in Amendment 5
would commit the state to any additional resources with respect
to indigenous language immersion programs, but that it would
protect school districts that already exercise the ability to
offer such programs.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed agreement with the intent of
Amendment 5. He then suggested that a court could have a
different interpretation of the amendment in 10 years.
8:40:54 AM
KAREN MELIN, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education and
Early Development (DEED), said the department's goal is
proficiency in whatever language a student is studying, and that
there be a manner in which proficiency may be assessed.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND expressed that lines 9-10 of Amendment 5,
which state, "Nothing in this Act limits a school district's
ability to offer or focus on literacy education in multiple
languages.", make the intent clear. She asked Representative
Prax to keep his comments relevant to the text of the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX listed several unnamed communities in Alaska
where people, he said, "have emigrated from Ukraine or Russia or
wherever," and he expressed that Amendment 5 would obligate the
state to "address" those languages, or even more "extreme"
languages such as French or German.
8:44:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY reminded committee members that the
language in the amendment is already the status quo in school
districts across Alaska, and she stressed that Amendment 5 would
not obligate the state but would protect ongoing literacy work
within the school districts.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND commented that Legislative Legal Services
could be engaged with regard to Representative Prax's concerns
about amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX maintained his objection.
8:47:06 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Zulkosky, Hopkins,
Drummond, and Story voted in favor of adopting Amendment 5 to HB
164, Version I. Representatives Gillham and Prax voted against
it. Therefore, Amendment 5 to HB 164, Version I, was adopted by
a vote of 4-2.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY stated that she would not be offering
Amendment 6.
8:48:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt Amendment 7 to HB 164,
Version I, as amended, labeled 32-LS0731\I.2, Klein, 5/8/21,
which read as follows:
Page 3, line 10, following "literacy":
Insert ";
(6) the role of social and emotional
learning in a child's development and lifelong
success"
Page 3, line 22, following "literacy":
Insert ";
(6) the role of social and emotional learning in a
child's development and lifelong success"
8:48:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS explained that Amendment 7 would add the
requirement for school districts to provide to parents and
guardians of K-3 students in a public school information on the
role of social and emotional learning in a child's development
and lifelong success. He recalled discussions in which some
committee members voiced the opinion that addressing social and
emotional learning would "usurp parents' rights," so Amendment 7
would allow parents autonomy to address social and emotional
learning as they see fit. He pointed out that social and
emotional learning helps develop skills such as self-motivation,
diligence, teamwork, and emotional moderation.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed agreement with the provisions in
Amendment 7.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND announced there being no further objection,
Amendment 7 was adopted to HB 164, Version I, as amended. She
then pointed out that lines 6-9 of Amendment 7 amended the
repealer section of the proposed legislation, which was removed
upon the adoption of Amendment 4 during the meeting of the House
Education Standing Committee on May 12, 2021.
8:51:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt Amendment 8 to HB 164,
Version I, as amended, labeled 32-LS0713\I.66, Klein, 5/11/21,
which read as follows:
Page 3, line 24, following "shall":
Insert "employ a data analyst and"
8:51:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS noted that DEED would be required to
perform extensive reporting under the proposed legislation, and
he explained that Amendment 8 would add one data analyst to
ensure timely and consistent reporting.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY noted that two data analysts were recently
removed from DEED's budget, and that she supports Amendment 8.
8:53:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked for an opinion from a DEED
representative.
8:53:59 AM
MS. MELIN responded that, with the substantial amount of data
reporting under the proposed legislation, it would be
advantageous to have the extra support in the form of a data
analyst.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether DEED would want the
legislature to specify a position, or whether DEED would prefer
to request a position in the budget.
MS. MELIN replied that the department's commitment is to
implement any passed legislation.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND noted that an additional position would change
the fiscal note.
8:56:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY stated her support for Amendment 8.
8:56:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY withdrew her objection to Amendment 8.
8:57:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK objected, expressing concern about adding
costs to the fiscal notes.
8:57:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS expressed agreement with Representative
Cronk's concern regarding the cost of the proposed legislation,
and he noted that HB 164 is an attempt to accomplish "a lot,"
particularly with the education of children.
8:58:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK maintained his objection.
8:58:54 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Zulkosky, Hopkins,
Story, and Drummond voted in favor of adopting Amendment 8 to HB
164, Version I, as amended. Representatives Prax, Cronk, and
Gillham voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 8 was adopted by
a vote of 4-3.
8:59:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt Amendment 9 to HB 164,
Version I, as amended, labeled 32-LS0731\I.4, Klein, 5/8/21,
which read as follows:
Page 4, lines 13 - 25:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 5, line 21, following "standards;":
Insert "and"
Page 5, line 23:
Delete "; and"
Insert "[;"
Page 5, line 24, through page 6, line 21:
Delete all material and insert:
"(8) THE PROGRESS MADE TO IMPLEMENT THE
READING INTERVENTION PROGRAMS ESTABLISHED UNDER
AS 14.30.760 - 14.30.775, INCLUDING DATA ON HOW SCHOOL
DISTRICTS ARE USING IN-SERVICE DAYS FOR CULTURALLY
RESPONSIVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN READING
INSTRUCTION; AND
(9) THE EFFECTIVENESS AND PARTICIPATION
RATES OF THE PARENTS AS TEACHERS PROGRAM ESTABLISHED
UNDER AS 14.03.420, INCLUDING MEASURES OF EFFICIENCY
AND EFFECTIVENESS THAT DEMONSTRATE THE EFFECTS OF THE
PROGRAM ON SCHOOL READINESS]."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 7, line 2:
Delete "sec. 10"
Insert "sec. 9"
Page 13, line 16:
Delete "sec. 15"
Insert "sec. 14"
Page 16, line 17:
Delete "sec. 18"
Insert "sec. 17"
Page 18, line 21:
Delete "sec. 21"
Insert "sec. 20"
Page 20, line 12:
Delete "sec. 25"
Insert "sec. 24"
Page 21, line 26:
Delete "sec. 29"
Insert "sec. 28"
Page 22, line 24:
Delete "sec. 31"
Insert "sec. 30"
Page 39, line 10:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 35"
Page 39, line 13:
Delete "Section 34"
Insert "Section 33"
Page 39, line 14:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 33"
Page 39, line 15:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 33"
Page 39, line 18:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 33"
Page 40, line 23:
Delete "11, 12, 16, 19, 22, 26, 30, 32, and 40"
Insert "10, 11, 15, 18, 21, 25, 29, 31, and 39"
Page 40, line 25:
Delete "sec. 46"
Insert "sec. 45"
8:59:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS explained that Amendment 9 would delete
the material on page 4, lines 13-25 of the proposed legislation,
expressing that the paragraph and subparagraphs under
consideration are not "in his book" for teaching students to
read, but a requirement for school districts to show that
they're not wasting money. He opined that the requirements for
reporting student assessments and reading statistics are
appropriate to include in the proposed legislation, but the
information proposed in the paragraph and subparagraphs under
consideration is already publicly available, therefore
inappropriate to include.
9:01:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY stated her support for Amendment 9.
9:03:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX said he agrees with the concern regarding
putting administrative burden on schools, and he said, "I was
disappointed that there wasn't enough discussion about clear,
measurable results during ... our budget review." He suggested
departments receive instruction to report results, and he asked
for comments from DEED regarding Amendment 9.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND noted that page 1, line 6, through page 2,
line 1 of Amendment 9, affected passages that had been removed
by Amendment 4 during the House Education Standing Committee
meeting on May 12, 2021. She stressed that only the first four
lines of Amendment 9, along with the necessary renumbering, are
the only lines of the amendment under consideration. She added
that she believes spending 75% of the available funding on
instruction has been removed as a requirement, and she asked Ms.
Teshner to comment.
9:05:18 AM
HEIDI TESHNER, Director, Finance and Support Services Division,
Department of Education and Early Development, explained that it
was previously mandated that 70 percent of a school district's
operating fund be spent on instruction, which was repealed
approximately five years ago. She said DEED reviews district
budgets on an annual basis, and the reviews show that even with
no requirement, school districts still budget approximately 70
percent of the operating fund to instruction.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked whether the provisions on page 4, lines
13-25, have to do with data that school districts already
provide to DEED.
MS. TESHNER replied yes.
9:08:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK asked Ms. Teshner to provide a report about
administrative costs per district.
MS. TESHNER said she would provide the information.
9:08:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY removed her objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 9 was adopted to HB 164, Version I,
as amended.
9:09:12 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
9:09:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said she would not be offering Amendments
10 or 11.
9:10:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to adopt Amendment 12 to HB 164,
Version I, as amended, labeled 32-LS0731\I.34, Klein, 5/10/21,
which read as follows:
Page 4, line 31, through page 5, line 2:
Delete ", including measures of efficiency and
effectiveness that demonstrate the effects of the
program on school readiness"
Page 6, lines 11 - 13:
Delete ", INCLUDING MEASURES OF EFFICIENCY AND
EFFECTIVENESS THAT DEMONSTRATE THE EFFECTS OF THE
PROGRAM ON SCHOOL READINESS"
9:10:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK objected.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY explained that Amendment 12 would remove
redundant language the proposed legislation.
9:11:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK removed his objection.
9:11:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX objected.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY explained the location of the redundant
language.
9:11:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 12 was adopted to HB 164, Version
I, as amended.
9:12:24 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:12 a.m. to 9:23 a.m.
9:23:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to adopt Amendment 13 to HB 164,
Version I, as amended, labeled 32-LS0731\I.65, Klein, 5/11/21,
which read as follows:
Page 4, line 27:
Delete "14.30.775"
Insert "14.30.780"
Page 6, line 5:
Delete "14.30.775"
Insert "14.30.780"
Page 34, line 22:
Delete "14.30.775"
Insert "14.30.780"
Page 36, following line 25:
Insert a new section to read:
"Sec. 14.30.775. Support for reading improvement
plans. The state shall provide to a school district,
for each student in grades kindergarten through three
who is determined to have a reading deficiency based
on the statewide screening or assessment tool, $1,000
to provide the support, intervention, and services the
student needs for the student's reading improvement
plan, including teacher and paraprofessional career
development."
Page 36, line 26:
Delete "14.30.775"
Insert "14.30.780"
Delete "14.30.775"
Insert "14.30.780"
Page 39, line 5, following "14.30.775,":
Insert "14.30.780,"
9:23:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX objected.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY explained that Amendment 13 would add a new
section for support for reading improvement plans; under the new
section, she said, the state would allocate, for each student in
grades K-3 who has been determined to have a reading deficiency,
$1,000 to the school district to provide support, intervention,
and any services the student needs for the reading improvement
plan, including teacher and paraprofessional career development.
She expressed educators need support in the reading improvement
plans, and that without recognizing the extra time and effort
expended by teachers, the proposed legislation would be an
unfunded mandate. She said DEED reports that 63 percent of
students are not reading at grade level, and educators would be
drastically overwhelmed by extra work upon the passage of HB
164. She pointed out that Colorado has a stipend of $800 per
student, for use in a manner similar to that proposed by
Amendment 13, and that DEED will be receiving funds from the
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA), which may be utilized
in a manner as described in Amendment 13.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked for clarification on the statute
number.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND noted that lines 5-7 of Amendment 13 are
already covered by Amendment 4, adopted to HB 164, Version I, as
amended, during the meeting of the House Education Standing
Committee on May 12, 2021.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY deferred to Ms. Tobin.
9:28:24 AM
LOKI TOBIN, Staff, Senator Tom Begich, Alaska State Legislature,
on behalf of the Senate Education Standing Committee, sponsor of
companion bill SB 111, explained that page 1, lines 1-11 and 22-
23, and page 2, lines 1-6, reflect conforming changes that would
renumber the sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed difficulty in understanding the
conforming changes.
9:29:45 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:29 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.
9:30:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY explained to Representative Prax that the
drafters of HB 164 would be redrafting and renaming the
sections.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed concerns about enshrining stipends
in statute instead of including them in the budget.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY explained that providing stipends to the
school districts would allow the money to be spent in a way that
makes the most sense for the district.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX opined that putting a stipend in statute
doesn't seem practical because it's not known how much it would
actually cost to support a student in the manner outlined in
Amendment 13.
9:33:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS offered the perspective that $1,000 per
student is a "decent place to start" at getting funding support
into the schools and districts, and he stated his support for
Amendment 13. He then offered a friendly amendment to Amendment
13, which would change page 1, line 17, by replacing "the
statewide" with "an approved".
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed agreement with Representative
Hopkins' proposed friendly amendment to Amendment 13.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND announced that there being no objection, the
amendment to Amendment 13 was adopted.
9:36:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY expressed the viewpoint that Amendment
13 would provide resources that districts could use in order to
determine what resources would best work in the classroom
environment. She pointed out that Amendment 13 would ensure
that the state doesn't dictate how classroom activities occur,
leaving such decisions to the local school districts.
9:37:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK asked for clarification on Amendment 13.
9:37:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX maintained his objection to Amendment 13, as
amended.
9:37:53 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Hopkins, Story,
Zulkosky, and Drummond voted in favor of adopting Amendment 13,
as amended, to HB 164, Version I. Representatives Prax, Cronk,
and Gillham voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 13, as
amended, was adopted by a vote of 4-3.
9:38:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY moved to adopt Amendment 14 to HB 164,
Version I, as amended, labeled 32-LS0731\I.29, Klein, 5/11/21,
which read as follows:
Page 4, line 27:
Delete "14.30.775"
Insert "14.30.780"
Page 6, line 5:
Delete "14.30.775"
Insert "14.30.780"
Page 34, line 22:
Delete "14.30.775"
Insert "14.30.780"
Page 36, following line 25:
Insert a new section to read:
"Sec. 14.30.775. Nonapplication. The provisions
of AS 14.30.760 - 14.30.780 do not apply to an Alaska
Native language immersion program offered by a
district or school or a student participating in an
Alaska Native language immersion program. In this
section, "Alaska Native language immersion program"
means an educational program that is taught in an
Alaska Native language for at least four hours each
school day."
Page 36, line 26:
Delete "14.30.775"
Insert "14.30.780"
Delete "14.30.775"
Insert "14.30.780"
Page 39, line 5, following "14.30.775,":
Insert "14.30.780,"
9:38:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY said the intention of Amendment 14 is to
address Alaska Native language immersion programs, and she said
she would like for indigenous language teachers to speak to the
committee about indicators of indigenous language proficiency.
9:41:55 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:42 a.m. to 9:43 a.m.
9:43:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 14, which would alter page 1, line 20 of Amendment 14
to add, "however, through regulation and in collaboration with
the appropriate programs, DEED can provide assistance to an
Alaska Native language immersion program to assist in developing
K through third grade reading proficiency."
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND clarified that the conceptual amendment would
amend Representative Zulkosky's own amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY agreed, and she said she would offer
authority to Legislative Legal Services with regards to
technical and conforming changes.
9:44:35 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND stated that, there being no objection, the
conceptual amendment to Amendment 14 was adopted.
9:44:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY restated the intention of Amendment 14,
which is to acknowledge that Alaska Native languages do not
necessarily follow the same benchmarks for proficiency as
English.
9:45:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether his understanding that DEED
would not be evaluating proficiency in indigenous languages was
correct.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY responded that, with respect to the
measures of proficiency as currently stated in the bill,
indigenous language instructors have not been able to provide
relevant metrics for indigenous language proficiency. She said
the intention is to exempt indigenous language programs from the
metrics in the bill until there exists a better understanding of
proficiency in an indigenous language.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX wondered whether the definition of "Alaska
Native language immersion program" is "overly prescriptive."
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY deferred to Ms. Tobin.
9:48:27 AM
MS. TOBIN clarified that page 2 of the proposed legislation
mandates that a day in session in every school shall be at least
four hours long for first, second, and third grades.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY noted that some immersion programs are
full days of speaking only the indigenous language. She said
the intention is to capture both shorter programs as well as
full-day programs.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX said, "So the intention is, however long the
day is, it's to be all day long in the native language."
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY replied, "Correct."
9:49:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS affirmed previous statements on
indigenous language programs, noting that Alaska has many
different immersion programs. He pointed to the number of
academic studies that say learning a second language at an early
age is much easier after achieving proficiency in a first
language. He declared his support for Amendment 14, as amended.
9:51:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY withdrew her objection.
9:51:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX objected, saying he didn't understand
Amendment 14 well enough to be able to support it.
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK said that he also did not understand
Amendment 14.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY noted the different perspectives and
said she would be happy to work collaboratively to ensure
understanding.
9:53:29 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Hopkins, Story,
Drummond, and Zulkosky voted in favor of adopting Amendment 14,
as amended, to HB 164, Version I, as amended. Representatives
Prax, Cronk, and Gillham voted against it. Therefore, Amendment
14, as amended, was adopted by a vote of 4-3.
9:54:10 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:54 a.m. to 9:55 a.m.
9:55:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to adopt Amendment 16 to HB 164,
Version I, as amended, labeled 32-LS0731\I.35, Klein, 5/10/21,
which read as follows:
Page 6, line 20:
Delete "classroom"
9:55:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY explained that Amendment 16 would remove
the word "classroom" from page 6, line 20 of the proposed
legislation, in order to allow for flexibility at the school.
She said some administrative employees in rural school districts
provide classroom instruction.
9:56:26 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:56 a.m. to 9:58 a.m.
9:57:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY withdrew her motion to adopt Amendment 16
to HB 164, Version I.
9:58:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt Amendment 18 to HB 164,
Version I, as amended, labeled 32-LS0731\I.7, Klein, 5/8/21,
which read as follows:
Page 8, line 31, through page 9, line 1:
Delete "Unless the legislature appropriates
another amount, total grant funding awarded to
districts under this subsection may not exceed
$3,000,000 in a fiscal year."
Page 19, line 26:
Delete "and (f)"
Page 20, lines 1 - 11:
Delete all material.
Page 20, line 14:
Delete "AND (f)"
Page 39, line 4:
Delete "AS 14.17.500(e), 14.17.500(f);"
Insert "AS 14.17.500(e);"
Page 40, lines 8 - 15:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 40, line 25:
Delete "sec. 46"
Insert "sec. 45"
9:58:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX objected.
9:58:46 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:58 a.m. to 9:59 a.m.
9:59:45 AM
[The committee recessed at 10:00 a.m. with the motion to adopt
Amendment 18 left pending.]
3:33:55 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting back to order. Representatives Zulkosky, Story,
Gillham, Hopkins, Cronk, Prax, and Drummond were present at the
call to order.
3:34:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS reviewed Amendment 18, which would
eliminate the $3 million cap as specified on page 8, line 31
though page 9, line 1; page 20, lines 1-11; and page 40, lines
8-15 of the proposed legislation.
3:38:45 PM
MS. TOBIN said according to the fiscal notes, there exist
approximately 10,000 eligible pre-elementary students; the
fiscal notes estimate that about 80 percent of the students
would enroll in a pre-elementary program at a cost of
approximately $17.9 million per year in either grant funding or
foundation formula. The grant program is more robust in that
districts may build up a high-quality, locally designed,
culturally relevant program; once the programs are established
and approved by DEED, she said, the programs will be rolled into
foundation formula funding. If every district applied to have a
pre-kindergarten program developed, she said, the maximum amount
of state funding would be a little over $17.9 million.
3:40:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX summed up his understanding that $17.9
million per year would be the cost to the state.
3:41:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK asked, "So you're saying there's ... about
10,000 kindergarten kids?"
MS. TOBIN replied that it's estimated that there are
approximately 10,000 students per grade in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK said, "And about 80 percent would fall into
this category?"
MS. TOBIN explained that the fiscal notes use a basis of 80
percent, but the actual number is difficult to ascertain.
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK said, "So what we're saying is we're going
to add millions of dollars to kindergarten programs that are
already funded."
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS explained to Representative Cronk that
the funding under discussion would be for pre-k programs not
currently funded, not for kindergarten programs. He said that
as the grants cycle out, the costs are rolled into the
foundation formula.
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK expressed the desire to keep costs low.
3:44:30 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked Ms. Tobin what funding sources comprise
$17.9 million.
MS. TOBIN replied that fiscal notes 1 and 4 talk about the
foundation funding component, while fiscal note 2 is relevant to
the grants. She deferred to Ms. Teshner for more information.
3:45:17 PM
MS. TESHNER explained that, under the proposed legislation,
there would be a $3 million cap in state aid for early education
programs above the previous fiscal year; without the cap, she
said, there would be a certain number of programs approved each
year for the three-year grant, and once the three-year grant is
over, the costs would roll into the foundation formula. Over
the life of the program, she said, the cost to the state should
increase by $17.9 million per year.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND discussed the $3 million grant and suggested
that the $3 million grants would be "overlapping," with a new
one starting each year.
MS. TESHNER replied that, under the previous versions of HB 164,
there were limits on the number of school districts that could
be approved each year, and that once the three-year grant
program was over, the school districts would roll into the
foundation program. She said it would be difficult to estimate
the costs of removing the $3 million cap without additional
analysis.
3:48:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether the $17.9 million cost
would incur entirely under the Average Daily Membership (ADM)
formula. He clarified that the cost would be incurred after all
grant programs would have cycled out, every school district in
the state would have an early education program, and 80 percent
of the 10,000 students per grade would be funded through the ADM
formula.
MS. TESHNER replied yes.
3:49:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed appreciation for Amendment 18.
She noted that it says Delete "Unless the legislature
appropriates another amount, and she discussed appropriating
federal funds to scale up the early learning program. She
expressed uncertainty in supporting Amendment 18.
3:51:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM said he was confused, and he asked
whether pre-k is voluntary. He then asked whether a voluntary
program would be funded at a sum of $17 million.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS explained that all public education in
the state is voluntary and is funded through the foundation
formula and operating budget, utilizing different sources of
funding. He clarified that, while there are age ranges in which
children are required to attend some type of education, such as
private school, enrollment or attendance at publicly-funded
schools is not mandatory. The purpose of the bill is to provide
early education programs, he said, not mandate them.
3:53:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX suggested different semantics for thinking
about the proposed legislation. He then suggested that even if
the money was available, school districts would not be able to
spend it due to there not existing a "surplus of teachers." He
asked whether DEED has taken into consideration the logistics of
implementing the program, and how much money could possibly be
spent in any given year.
3:55:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS deferred to Ms. Tobin.
3:55:30 PM
MS. TOBIN explained to Representative Prax that the estimated
maximum amount that could be spent would be a little over $17.9
million. She noted that the proposed legislation does consider
other early education programs that a school district might also
offer, such as Head Start, so the number may not necessarily be
accurate, but it's what the fiscal notes project as a
conservative estimate.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed the concern that there may not be
enough teachers available. He said a school district might
receive $3 million, then take two years to recruit enough
teachers to be able to spend the money, so the school district
would have the funds "sitting in their account."
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS explained to Representative Prax that
school districts would not get a "blank check" to create a
program but must have DEED-approved programs to fund.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked a hypothetical about flexibility.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND affirmed that, in the case of one school not
being able to take advantage of the grant, the grant would go to
another school.
3:58:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY stated her support of Amendment 18,
saying that she struggles with the idea of basing student
achievement on test scores since it's not always the best
practice. She said evidence has shown that meaningful investing
in early education correlates to cost savings in later
education.
4:00:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS noted Representative Story's comments
about federal funding, which would be realized well before
passage of HB 164. He suggested that the actual federal funding
amount might determine the structure of the early education
programs, and he said the maximum amount of flexibility needs to
exist within the proposed legislation, which is why he didn't
want a cap on the grant amount. He expressed that eliminating
the cap would not limit the state's ability to accept federal
funds, and that it would ensure the flexibility needed to
effectively implement early education programs in school
districts across the state.
4:01:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked for clarification regarding page 8,
lines 19-26 of the proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS explained that the goal of Amendment 18
would ensure application availability for all school districts.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked how much funding is currently
available for early education.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS responded that the amount of funding is
based on the number of districts applying.
4:04:42 PM
MIKE MASON, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Tuck, prime sponsor of
HB 164, noted that President Joe Biden's American Families Plan
calls for a $200 billion investment to fund a national
partnership with states to offer free, high-quality, accessible,
inclusive preschool for three- and four-year-olds.
4:05:30 PM
MS. TESHNER agreed with Representative Hopkins's earlier
statement that the exact number of 3-year grants would be
unknown in the first year, because the state doesn't know how
many school districts would apply. She then clarified that
there are two different $3 million caps in Amendment 18. The
first, she said, would be a $3 million per-year cap in the grant
program, and the second would be a $3 million per-year cap for
the foundation program for districts that bypass the grant
program, seek DEED approval, and roll directly into the
foundation formula. Removing the second cap, she said, would
eliminate funding in the foundation program for districts that
bypass the three-year grant program.
4:06:39 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND said the first cap is described in the
proposed legislation on page 8, line 31, and page 9, line 1.
She asked where in the text of the proposed legislation the
second cap is described.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS replied that the second cap is described
on page 20, lines 1-11.
MS. TESHNER confirmed the location of the second $3 million cap
in the text of the proposed legislation, and she added that the
second cap is addressed on pages 39-40.
4:07:29 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:07 p.m. to 4:08 p.m.
4:08:52 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND, at the request of Representative Hopkins,
[tabled] discussion of Amendment 18. [The motion to adopt
Amendment 18 was treated as withdrawn.]
4:09:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to adopt Amendment 19 to HB 164,
Version I, as amended, labeled 32-LS0731\I.44, Klein, 5/10/21,
which read as follows:
Page 8, line 15:
Delete "or"
Insert ","
Page 8, line 16:
Delete "AS 14.30.756(h)"
Insert "AS 14.30.765(h)(1) - (4), or a
superintendent's best interest determination under AS
14.30.765(h)(5)"
Page 30, line 23:
Delete "or"
Page 30, line 25, following "program":
Insert "; or
(5) a student whose best interest, as
determined by the professional judgment of the
superintendent or superintendent's designee, will be
served by progressing to the next grade"
4:09:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY directed committee members' attention to
page 8 of the proposed legislation, and she explained that her
intention with Amendment 19 is to give the superintendent of a
school district the discretion to make a best interest
determination regarding whether a child should advance to the
next grade level. She said the superintendent could look at
"the whole child" and make the appropriate determination.
4:10:52 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked for clarification on how the amendment
would change lines 15-16 on page 8.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY offered the viewpoint that there are
already two waiver options in the text of the proposed
legislation, so lines 1-8 of Amendment 19 would insert a third.
MS. TOBIN confirmed Representative Zulkosky's interpretation of
Amendment 19 but clarified that the lines under discussion
contain the legislative reporting requirement under Section 13,
subsection (h). Section 35, which would amend AS 14.30, would
be amended by Amendment 19 to add the text in Amendment 19,
lines 15-17, regarding allowing the superintendent or designee
to determine student progression.
4:13:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY stated that she does not support the
inclusion of retention language in the proposed education, since
testimony and evidence has shown that retention is not a good
educational strategy. She said specific students in rural
districts with unique needs would not be supported by the
retention language.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed agreement. She requested to roll
Amendment 19 to the bottom of the amendment for further
consideration.
4:16:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt Amendment 20 to HB 164,
Version I, as amended, labeled 32-LS0731\I.9, Klein, 5/8/21,
which read as follows:
Page 10, line 10, following "parents":
Insert "or guardians"
Page 10, line 16, following "parent":
Insert "or guardian"
Page 10, line 23, following "parental":
Insert "or guardian"
4:16:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS explained that Amendment 20 would ensure
that a non-parent guardian of a student would receive the same
support parents receive.
4:17:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY removed her objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 20 was adopted to HB 164, Version
I, as amended.
4:18:15 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:18 p.m. to 4:19 p.m.
4:19:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt Amendment 22 to HB 164,
Version I, as amended, labeled 32-LS0731\I.11, Klein, 5/8/21,
which read as follows:
Page 10, following line 30:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(d) In this section, "parent" includes a
natural, adoptive, and foster parent, stepparent,
legal guardian, relative, and other adult person with
whom a student has resided and who has acted as a
parent in providing for the student or has been
responsible for the student's welfare for a continuous
period."
4:19:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said Amendment 22 would provide the new
definition of parents and guardians.
4:19:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY withdrew her objection.
4:19:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX objected, citing semantics in Amendments 20
and 22.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS expressed that including definitions for
both parents and guardians should be fine.
4:20:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX withdrew his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 22 was adopted to HB 164, Version
I, as amended.
4:20:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY moved to adopt Amendment 22A to HB 164,
Version I, as amended, labeled 32-LS0731\I.71, Klein, 5/11/21,
which read as follows:
Page 16, line 14, following "department":
Insert ", in consultation with tribes and school
districts to ensure textbooks are culturally
relevant,"
Page 16, line 25, following "DEPARTMENT":
Insert ", IN CONSULTATION WITH TRIBES AND SCHOOL
DISTRICTS TO ENSURE TEXTBOOKS ARE CULTURALLY
RELEVANT,"
4:20:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY said that DEED does not always have
perspective of the local level with regards to culture, and she
said Amendment 22A would ensure that those who are closest to
the communities and schools would have the opportunity to
provide feedback to DEED on whether material is culturally
relevant.
4:23:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX said tribes are dependent on membership,
rather than geographical boundaries, whereas school districts
are bound by geography. He then mused about the possibility of
creating a conflict.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY replied that nothing in Amendment 22A
would mandate that a tribe in Anchorage be consulted regarding
supplementary material for a German-language immersion program.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND explained to Representative Prax that there
are a number of school districts that work to provide culturally
relevant materials for their own communities, and that if DEED
is to decide on materials, it should do so in consultation with
the district.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY clarified that the intention of
Amendment 22A is that school districts in Anchorage that may be
providing immersion programs in world languages be consulted on
resource utilization.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX said he doesn't know how tribes are set up.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND said she doesn't think the composition of
tribes are relevant to the discussion at hand.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked, "Do 75 percent of the members of the
tribe that is headquartered in Bethel, live in Bethel, or is
there a significant enough number that the school districts
would have to talk to somebody in Anchorage?"
4:27:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed that Amendment 22A reflects a
"best practice" that DEED is already striving for, and that it's
important to work with the local community.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY offered that tribes are often already
"intimately connected" with school districts in the
implementation of immersion programs. She then stressed that
the intention of the amendment is to include local input on
decision making, and to complement amendment made with respect
to the virtual library, since many school districts have
developed language immersion resources that could benefit other
schools and districts.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed the belief that if such language
wasn't included, Representative Zulkosky's intention with the
amendment would probably happen naturally. He then said, "If
you say something, then you create an expectation. Ten years
down the road, they weren't talking to us, somebody files a
lawsuit, and it's interpreted, perhaps, differently."
4:30:28 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND noted that lines 5-7 of Amendment 22A are
included in existing repeal language on page 16.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY expressed the desire to see a clean
version of HB 164, with its associated amendments embedded, for
consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 22A was adopted to HB 164, Version
I, as amended.
4:31:50 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:31 p.m. to 4:35 p.m.
4:35:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY moved to adopt Amendment 22B to HB 164,
Version I, as amended, labeled 32-LS0731\I.60, Klein, 5/11/21,
which read as follows:
Page 16, line 5, following "educational":
Insert "; "early education program" does not include a
program operated as a head start program under 42
U.S.C. 9831 - 9852c"
4:36:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY said Amendment 22B would exempt existing
Head Start programs from meeting the evidence-based standards as
outlined under the proposed legislation. She said federal Head
Start teachers are not required to have teaching certificates
issued by the state, so she doesn't want to see the unintended
consequence of holding Head Start programs to the other
standards under HB 164. She said the programs are often offered
by tribes in some of the most remote villages and often include
immersion programs, work with children with special needs, and
medical checkups.
4:39:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK asked whether the intent of the amendment
is to keep Head Start separate from the provisions under HB 164.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY affirmed Representative Cronk's
question, and she stressed that Head Start programs are
federally funded and include many areas of service outside the
scope of early education.
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK envisioned a scenario in which a community
with an existing Head Start program would also have an early
education intervention program under HB 164.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY pointed out that Head Start serves
children from birth to age five, while the provisions under the
proposed legislation serve children beginning at age four. Head
start programs may have the opportunity to bridge to early
education programs, she said. She reiterated that her attention
with Amendment 22B is to hold harmless Head Start programs until
such a bridge mechanism exists.
4:42:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether Head Start receives state
funding.
4:42:55 PM
MS. TESHNER explained that approximately $6.8 million is
appropriated to early learning coordination, serving as funding
to the Head Start programs as the federal match requirement.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked whether that figure generates $48
million in federal funds.
4:43:55 PM
MS. MELIN offered to find the information.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed that as long as Head Start
programs met the objective of the program as described in the
proposed legislation, Head Start programs should be supplemented
with "whatever money is needed to meet the state goals."
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY deferred to Ms. Tobin.
MS. TOBIN director attention to pages 8-9, Section 14,
subsections (b) and (c), which discuss ways to supplement
existing programs. She pointed out that Head Start has income
limit guidelines, which exclude some children, and that school
districts may determine the best structure for early education
before they apply for the grant.
4:46:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY noted that Head Start is a federal program,
with states receiving a substantial funding match of $40 million
on a $6 million state investment. She then described ways in
which families may utilize school district as well as Head Start
resources.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY noted that early education and Head
Start programs share several goals but are distinct programs and
are not always congruent as far as developmental
appropriateness. She then reiterated that the intent of
Amendment 22B is to retain flexibility for Head Start programs.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX mentioned resource utilization.
4:50:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK acknowledged the intent of the amendment
and expressed that there still exists an "issue" regarding
various early education programs.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND noted that Head Start serves children birth to
age five, and the early education program proposed in HB 164
would be relevant to four-year-olds.
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK withdrew his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 22B was adopted to HB 164, Version
I, as amended.
4:52:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to adopt Amendment 23 to HB 164,
Version I, as amended, labeled 32-LS0731\I.36, Klein, 5/10/21,
which read as follows:
Page 17, line 18:
Delete "one year"
Insert "two years"
4:52:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said she would like there to be ample
opportunity for a teacher to complete the minimum of six credit
hours in early childhood education.
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK expressed the viewpoint that one year is
ample time to complete the required credit hours, and he
maintained his objection.
4:54:35 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
4:54:53 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Zulkosky, Story,
Drummond, and Hopkins voted in favor of Amendment 23 to HB 164,
Version I, as amended. Representatives Cronk, Gillham, and Prax
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 23 was adopted by a vote
of 4-3.
4:55:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt Amendment 24 to HB 164,
Version I, as amended, labeled 32-LS0731\I.13, Klein, 5/8/21,
which read as follows:
Page 19, line 26:
Delete "and (f)"
Page 19, lines 29 - 31:
Delete all material.
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
Page 20, line 14:
Insert "AND (f)"
Page 39, line 4:
Delete ", 14.17.500(f)"
4:56:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said Amendment 24 would ensure that
students, school districts, and families are not punished for
the timing of entering an early education program. He referred
to Section 25, subsection (e), on page 19 of the proposed
legislation, which read as follows:
(e) A school district may not include in a school's
ADM students who are four and five years of age if the
students are enrolled in an early education program
that receives state or federal funding other than
funding under this chapter.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS clarified that "funding under this
chapter" refers to the early education program, and he expressed
the understanding that the school would not receive early
education funding for a student enrolled in the early education
program as well as a Head Start program. He said the way the
subsection is written would force parents to choose between a
school district's early education program or a Head Start
program.
4:58:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY withdrew her objection.
4:58:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX objected and expressed the opinion that the
proposed legislation would duplicate the service offered by Head
Start.
4:59:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY shared that she was advised by the
sponsor's office of a forthcoming amendment to address the
overlap in ages. She said she appreciated the adoption of the
amendment to hold Head Start programs harmless, and she
discussed the challenge of finding and retaining teachers in
rural communities who could meet the guidelines within the
proposed legislation. She said that it's her goal to not have
overlapping services, and that she does not see Amendment 24 as
containing changes that would create or exacerbate redundancies.
5:01:10 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND referred to a morning preschool program and
afternoon Head Start program, and she said that by utilizing
both programs, children are learning all day. She expressed the
understanding that if both programs operate at the same time of
day, it makes sense for the school district to not receive
funding under the foundation formula if Head Start is also
receiving funds.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS expressed that a school district should
be able to receive funding for a a child attending one program
in the morning and a different program in the afternoon.
5:02:54 PM
MR. MASON expressed that there would be federal and state
support for the Head Start program as well as state support for
the early education program. He then deferred to Ms. Teshner.
5:03:31 PM
MS. TESHNER said that a school district would receive state
funding for a student enrolled part-time in an early education
program. She then clarified that being enrolled part-time in
two different programs would count as "one" with respect to
state funding.
5:04:30 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 5:04 p.m. to 5:06 p.m.
5:06:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referred to page 19, lines 29-31 of the
proposed legislation, and he asked, "The way it is drafted, that
ADM ... is a different count than the ADM that would be applied
to the student in the early education program created under this
bill, correct?"
MS. TESHNER replied, "If a student is already receiving funding
through, say, the pre-k grants that already exist, or any other
... would not be eligible for ADM funding. So if we're funding
them through another program, we can't also count them in the
ADM."
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS pointed out that $6 million in state
funding is matched by $48 million in federal funding. He then
asked, "If a student is in Head Start - that is, from three- to
five-year-olds - and then that student goes to an early
education program that has cycled through its three years and is
now the half-ADM created under the early education program in
this bill, that student would still be able to receive funding
for the Head Start program and for the half-ADM in that ...
early education program, correct?"
MS. TESHNER responded that subsection (e) specifies a school
district, and Head Start is not part of a school district, so
what Representative Hopkins said sounds correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said that, as Head Start and early
education funding could continue for the same student, he
withdraws Amendment 24.
5:10:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said he would not be offering Amendment
25.
5:10:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to adopt Amendment 26 to HB 164,
Version I, as amended, labeled 32-LS0731\I.37, Klein, 5/10/21,
which read as follows:
Page 19, lines 17 - 24:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 20, line 12:
Delete "sec. 25"
Insert "sec. 24"
Page 21, line 26:
Delete "sec. 29"
Insert "sec. 28"
Page 22, line 24:
Delete "sec. 31"
Insert "sec. 30"
Page 39, line 10:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 35"
Page 39, line 13:
Delete "Section 34"
Insert "Section 33"
Page 39, line 14:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 33"
Page 39, line 15:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 33"
Page 39, line 18:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 33"
Page 40, line 23:
Delete "26, 30, 32, and 40"
Insert "25, 29, 31, and 39"
Page 40, line 25:
Delete "sec. 46"
Insert "sec. 45"
5:10:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX objected.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said language authorizing cooperative
agreements, as outlined on page 19, lines 17-24 of the proposed
legislation, is already enshrined in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether the section is already covered
in the "statute book."
REPRESENTATIVE STORY referenced AS 14.14.115(a) and explained to
Representative Prax that the bold, underlines sections are the
areas that would be added by the proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked why "cooperative arrangements between
school districts and between school districts and private
businesses, nonprofit organizations, or government agencies"
shouldn't be encouraged.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY replied that such cooperate arrangements
are already encouraged. She then deferred to Ms. Mason.
5:13:10 PM
MR. MASON said it's his understanding that such cooperative
arrangements are already in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX said, "We don't need to double allow it.
Okay."
MR. MASON clarified that school districts already have the
freedom to make such arrangements with other entities.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND noted the language inside the repealer
language already removed by Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX withdrew his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 26 to HB 164, Version I, as
amended, was adopted.
5:14:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY said that, based on the adoption of
Amendment 26, she would not be offering Amendment 27.
5:15:01 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 5:15 p.m. to 5:17 p.m.
5:17:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY moved to adopt Amendment 27A to HB 164,
Version I, as amended, labeled 32-LS0731\I.70, Klein, 5/11/21,
which read as follows:
Page 22, line 13, through page 23, line 5:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 39, line 10:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 34"
Page 39, line 13:
Delete "Section 34"
Insert "Section 32"
Page 39, line 14:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 32"
Page 39, line 15:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 32"
Page 39, line 18:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 32"
Page 40, line 23:
Delete "32, and 40"
Insert "and 38"
Page 40, line 25:
Delete "sec. 46"
Insert "sec. 44"
5:17:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY said Amendment 27A would remove language
adding additional coursework, training, and testing requirements
for new teachers. She said it's already a challenge to hire
teachers for schools in remote areas, and adding additional
requirements will likely make it even harder to attract
teachers.
5:19:22 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND noted that Amendment 27A would be addressing
only lines 13-23 of page 22 of the proposed legislation, as the
other lines referred to in the amendment have already been
removed by Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY noted that lines 16-17 specify that the
requirements must be demonstrated "before teaching students in
grades kindergarten through three".
5:21:14 PM
MR. MASON pointed out that the language in Section 31 is nearly
identical to the language in Section 34.
5:21:55 PM
MS. MELIN said the intention of the section under discussion is
to ensure quality instruction, and that the school district
evaluates instructors. She said DEED would support school
districts in whatever evaluation process they have in place and
would help with professional development around quality reading
instruction.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether a school district may hire a
teacher who would receive training before instructing students.
MS. MELIN replied that DEED would support the policies passed
under the proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed concern with hiring limitations.
5:25:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY discussed the many new hires in
education that are from out of state and arrive just before the
start of school. She expressed the possibility of a conceptual
amendment to Amendment 27A to include deletion of material on
page 24, lines 3-9, to maintain consistency in addressing hiring
prerequisites.
5:27:06 PM
MR. MASON pointed out that Section 31 refers to teachers from
out of state, while Section 34 applies to teachers already in
Alaska. He offered that the conceptual amendment could be seen
as an equal protection clause.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 27A, which would delete all material from page 24,
lines 2-9.
5:29:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX objected, and he expressed that Conceptual
Amendment 1 would equate to not requiring teachers have the
needed skills.
5:31:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK stated his agreement with Representative
Prax, and he said there needs to be every opportunity to hire
trained teachers.
5:32:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY agreed, and she stated the belief that the
school districts intend to deliver such training. She expressed
the need for language allowing a school district to hire a
teacher, intending to train said teacher in the necessary
prerequisites.
5:34:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked Representative Cronk to offer
language.
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK replied with the suggestion that school
superintendents might have some insight.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS proposed substituting language to read,
"However, before teaching students in grades kindergarten
through three, a teacher certified under this section must
complete reading training."
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND noted the five skills that children need to
read proficiently: phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary,
fluency, and comprehension. She suggested adjourning and taking
the weekend to consider the five skills.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY restated that Conceptual Amendment 1 is
to clean up Amendment 27A and requested acting on the conceptual
amendment.
5:36:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX withdrew his objection to adopting
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 27A.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY emphasized the purpose of Amendment 27A.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND announced there being no further objection,
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 27A was adopted.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND stated that Amendment 27A, as amended, would
be left pending and addressed at a future meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY commented on the possibility of requiring a
teacher to complete the required coursework within their first
year of teaching.
[HB 164 was held over.]
5:40:02 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 164 Am Updated 5.12.21.pdf |
HEDC 5/14/2021 8:00:00 AM |
HB 164 |
| CSSB111(EDC) Fiscal Notes Overview 5.12.2021.pdf |
HEDC 5/14/2021 8:00:00 AM SFIN 1/25/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 111 |
| ADP Overview Description 2021.pdf |
HEDC 5/14/2021 8:00:00 AM |
|
| ADP FAQ 2021.pdf |
HEDC 5/14/2021 8:00:00 AM |
|
| ADP - 2019-2020 - Statewide Results.pdf |
HEDC 5/14/2021 8:00:00 AM |