Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
03/29/2021 09:00 AM Senate EDUCATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB111 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 111 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 29, 2021
9:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Roger Holland, Chair
Senator Shelley Hughes
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Tom Begich
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Gary Stevens, Vice Chair
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 111
"An Act relating to the duties of the Department of Education
and Early Development; relating to public schools; relating to
early education programs; relating to funding for early
education programs; relating to school age eligibility; relating
to reports by the Department of Education and Early Development;
relating to reports by school districts; relating to
certification and competency of teachers; relating to assessing
reading deficiencies and providing reading intervention services
to public school students enrolled in grades kindergarten
through three; relating to textbooks and materials for reading
intervention services; establishing a reading program in the
Department of Education and Early Development; relating to
school operating funds; relating to a virtual education
consortium; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 111
SHORT TITLE: EARLY EDUCATION; READING INTERVENTION
SPONSOR(s): EDUCATION
03/24/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/24/21 (S) EDC, FIN
03/26/21 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/26/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/26/21 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
03/29/21 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
ED KING, Staff
Senator Roger Holland
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis for SB 111.
ACTION NARRATIVE
9:06:22 AM
CHAIR ROGER HOLLAND called the Senate Education Standing
Committee meeting to order at 9:06 a.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Hughes, Micciche, Begich, and Chair Holland.
SB 111-EARLY EDUCATION; READING INTERVENTION
9:06:54 AM
CHAIR HOLLAND announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 111
"An Act relating to the duties of the Department of Education
and Early Development; relating to public schools; relating to
early education programs; relating to funding for early
education programs; relating to school age eligibility; relating
to reports by the Department of Education and Early Development;
relating to reports by school districts; relating to
certification and competency of teachers; relating to assessing
reading deficiencies and providing reading intervention services
to public school students enrolled in grades kindergarten
through three; relating to textbooks and materials for reading
intervention services; establishing a reading program in the
Department of Education and Early Development; relating to
school operating funds; relating to a virtual education
consortium; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR HOLLAND asked Ed King to continue the sectional analysis.
He noted the committee had finished Section 9 at the last
hearing.
9:07:22 AM
ED KING, Staff, Senator Roger Holland, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, said Section 10 is related to the approvals of
early education programs and grant funding for the development
of those programs.
Sec. 10 7/1/21 [Effective date]
Establishes early education programs and grants under AS
14.03, which includes the following subsections:
• AS 14.03.410(a) directs the DEED to provide training
to help districts develop and approve early education
programs.
• AS 14.03.410(b) authorizes DEED to award 3-year early
education grants.
• AS 14.03.410(c) requires DEED to rank the districts
and determine the eligibility for a targeted early
education grant.
• AS 14.03.410(d) limits the number of early education
programs eligible for ADM inclusion (section 21) to
$3M per year.
• AS 14.03.410(e) authorizes up to two additional years
of grant funding, if the program is not able to
qualify for ADM inclusion at the end of the 3-year
grant.
• AS 14.03.410(f) requires DEED approval of quality
standards for ADM inclusion.
• AS 14.03.410(g) makes clear that the grants are
subject to appropriation.
• AS 14.03.410(h) provides definitions.
• AS 14.03.420 codifies the Parents-as-Teachers program.
MR. KING said that paragraph one of subsection (a) triggers a
fiscal impact and the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED) is requesting three positions in order to
implement that paragraph. Paragraph 2 of subsection (a) is the
approval of district programs so they can be included in the
foundation formula. Subsection (b) relates to three-year grants
for pre-K, education, or early education programs that will
qualify for approval under (a)(2).
9:09:30 AM
MR. KING said that subsection (c) limits the number of districts
that can apply for grants. It is not until the beginning of
FY24, July 1, 2023, that all 20 of the lowest-performing
districts can apply. The language is slightly adjusted from
previous iterations of the bill but is still clunky. He
encouraged the members to consider alternative language.
9:10:21 AM
MR. KING said subsection (d) is language related to limitation
of funding for ADM (Average Daily Membership) inclusion. This
allows the department to make sure programs are up to the
quality standards in AS 14.07.165. Those are regulations adopted
by the Board of Education on the quality of early education
programs. Subsection (d) limits the amount of funding for the
inclusion of district students into the ADM to $3 million per
year. This is purely a way to provide a glide path rather than
potentially having $18 million hit the budget in one year. This
spreads the financial impact over several years.
MR. KING said that subsection (e) allows the commissioner to
permit a grant to continue for more than three years so that a
district can develop a program that meets the quality standards
if it has not already done so in three years.
MR. KING said that subsection (f) makes it clear that the ADM
inclusion is only permitted if DEED approves a program.
9:12:18 AM
SENATOR HUGHES commented that with subsection (e), districts can
get grants for five years. She asked if the legislature is
saying that a district can go four years without meeting
department standards. She expressed concern about allowing an
additional two years. She asked how the legislature could ensure
that a district would get its ducks in a row faster and not wait
until year five.
MR. KING replied that once the department approves the program,
the funding becomes stable and secure. As long as it is in the
grant process, it is subject to appropriation and insecure.
These remediation grants are less stable funding than getting
the program up to quality and including it in the ADM. The
incentive to get to that high quality is built into the bill.
SENATOR BEGICH said he has faith in school districts and
believes that part of the reason for the remediation is that the
department can look to see if the district has achieved success.
He doesn't have faith that people will go into the grant program
as the bill is written because the implication is that moving
into the ADM formula is also unstable because of the repeal of
inclusion in the ADM. A district may take the risk of having a
program in the ADM formula and then it could be stuck with a
pre-K program it can no longer afford because of the repeal.
SENATOR BEGICH said that his first question is about line 4 on
page 6, "a district that has not received a grant under this
section." Since most of this language is taken nearly word for
word from SB 8, he asked why that was added.
MR. KING said the language in SB 8 divided districts into six
groups and specified the year in which they could apply. There
was some additional language about districts that were eligible
in a previous year but didn't apply or weren't approved could
continue to apply in a future year. This is just a different way
to get to that same outcome. The pool in this case is 20
districts. Once districts receive grants, they are removed from
eligibility. Once all 20 districts have received grants, the
pool will be empty and the grants will cease.
9:15:57 AM
SENATOR BEGICH said then the pool has been decreased. This
limits it to 20 of the 52 or 53 districts. He asked what the
logic is for choosing 20 districts and excluding the others.
MR. KING answered that in SB 8, the first three cohorts got to
40 percent, which is not a round number when applied to 52 or
53. It left some ambiguity about which districts would be
eligible or not. It made more sense to use a whole number rather
than a percentage and 20 is roughly the number of the first
three cohorts. It is the committee's prerogative to change the
number.
SENATOR BEGICH said that the committee either believes early
education works because of 10 years of evidence that has been
presented to the committee showing the efficacy of high-quality
pre-K vs. other forms or pre-K of it does not. If the committee
does not have faith in it or believe that it has to have a
termination date because it is considered experimental, he asked
why that standard is not applied throughout the bill for
experimental things. It doesn't. It picks specific things. So,
he asked, why those 20 districts, why those 20 lowest performing
districts. He asked what analysis was done to determine that.
9:17:50 AM
CHAIR HOLLAND responded said that in the last committee meeting
he offered to Senator Begich that he would be happy to include
more [efficacy tests]. Chair Holland thinks efficacy tests are
important. He and Senator Begich will agree that pre-K programs
have a vast range of quality. It is all in the execution of the
program. The efficacy test will be important. He would be glad
to include more efficacy tests wherever Senator Begich cares to
but thought Senator Begich was not interested in that.
SENATOR BEGICH said that he is not interested in termination
dates for major policy issues. The legislature does use sunset
and termination clauses for programs like the Suicide Prevention
Council. Every seven years the legislature does an audit of that
program and determines whether a board or commission is meeting
its fiscal conditions. When the legislatures sets policy, such
as whether or not there will be a kindergarten in K-12, the
legislature sets no termination date. The legislature made a
commitment to the policy. The problem with the way the bill is
written is that it rolls into the ADM and the formula a promise
of this and doesn't fulfill the promise in the long run. It
makes little sense to have a sunset clause for this type of
policy. When talking about quality vs low-quality pre-K, the
bill has strong provisions about what is quality pre-K. So, he
is drilling down and asking why the bill limits it to 20 of the
lowest-performing school districts if the committee knows it
works. That is his question.
9:19:56 AM
MR. KING responded that the concept is that a district can
include its pre-K or early education program into the ADM if it
is of high quality. Districts that already have early education
programs may not go through this grant process. Some may not go
through the grant process because they do not have sufficient
need. The idea is that some number less than every district
would need to apply. The number of districts is a policy call.
SENATOR BEGICH said that is a good answer. In section (d) they
cannot all roll into the ADM because he agreed in bill
discussions to limit it to $3 million vs. the $5 million that
was in SB 8. He is agreeing to this section. It is a good
subsection, but it does limit the number that could roll in, so
there are a few bottlenecks. Parents as Teachers is mentioned on
line 19 on page 7 to line 13 on page 8. It is repealed in
Section 38. It is in this section and codified but then repealed
in Section 38. He asked why Parents as Teachers is repealed in
Section 38.
MR. KING replied that Parents as Teachers is codified under
Section 420, which is all new language. The program doesn't
exist under current law. It is funded through a collaboration
with the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) and is
in the current budget. This simply codifies the program within
the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) and
funds it accordingly. The repealer provisions throughout the
bill are purely a way to change the defaults to make sure a
program works for Alaska before the funding continues. There is
not necessarily an intent for the repealers to take effect.
Every section requires an annual report. The intent is that the
legislature reviews the annual reports and the 37th legislature
will decide if the repealer provisions will take effect.
Although there is a repealer provision in the Parents as
Teachers program, it is not necessarily the intent for that to
be repealed. The default should be that funding for those
programs should not continue unless they are proven to work in a
unique state, such as Alaska.
9:22:58 AM
SENATOR HUGHES asked if, when the legislature sunsets boards and
commissions with the idea of a review and audit process to
determine whether to reauthorize them, is it a simple repeal
like in SB 111 or could the bill have something about the
intention for the sunset date is that the legislature do a
thorough analysis. She is wondering if the bill has a typical
sunset process or not.
CHAIR HOLLAND asked if Mr. King wanted to speak to the report
that would be generated.
MR. KING replied that Legislative Legal can draft sunset
provisions in multiple ways. In a portion of law when it is
simple with no connecting and conforming language, a date in the
actual language might be appropriate. The problem is that once
that happens the law has language that has no effect. It is just
dead language in the law. A repealer provision is a cleaner way
to do it. In this bill, so many sections connect that conforming
language is necessary after a repeal happens. It is not a simple
repeal. There have to be reverter provisions in the bill to
bring things back to the way they were if the repeals take
effect. In regard to the report, at the end of the bill there is
transition language that requires that DEED provide to the
legislature a report before the termination of the reading
interventionist specialists. That is intentional language so
that the legislature gets a report from the department on the
efficacy of that program before it is repealed with enough time
to act before the repeal happens. If it is the committee will,
that language could be expanded to include all of the other
programs. Within the bill, there are other reporting
requirements. The bill neglected to include an annual Parents as
Teachers report. That should be included if it is the
committee's intention. The other portions of the bill subject to
repeal, such as the virtual consortium, do require annual
reports to the legislature so that the legislature can review
the progress and efficacy of the programs and decide whether
they should continue.
9:25:41 AM
SENATOR MICCICHE clarified that if a legislature before the 37th
legislature decides the program is functioning and delivering as
intended it can change the termination dates.
MR. KING answered that is absolutely true and the opposite is
true. The legislature could terminate these programs before that
date as well.
MR. KING said the $3 million funding cap in subsection (d) is
incremental funding and the roughly $18 million that the program
might cost is spread over six years. Although the funding is
limited, it is more of a transition period to full funding for
all [districts] rather than including everyone at the same time.
There is a timing issue about whether districts are prepared to
request approval for their programs immediately or whether they
need to do more work to meet the quality standards for
inclusion. A district that has no program at all might need
three-to-five years before the program is included in the ADM
whereas a larger district that already has a pre-K program might
be able to apply immediately. This allows for that timing. The
larger districts would include their programs in the ADM much
sooner than a smaller district that is just getting started.
9:27:36 AM
MR. KING presented the analysis for Section 11:
Sec. 11 7/1/21 [Effective date] Amends AS 14.07.020(a),
relating to duties of the Department of Education and Early
Development, by:
• Adding supervision over early education programs.
• Adding the support and intervention requirements
relating to reading intervention programs (from
section 33).
MR. KING said Section 11 is about the requirements of the
department. It makes a change to paragraph 8, which is general
supervision over preelementary schools that receive direct state
and federal funding. It changes consistently through the bill
the word "preelementary" to "early education." It ensures that
the programs approved under AS 14.03.410(a)(2) are also captured
under this paragraph. A new paragraph on page 10, line 27-29,
paragraph 18, also directs the department to establish the
reading program that is added under a later section of the bill.
9:28:36 AM
MR. KING continued with the sectional analysis:
Sec. 12 6/30/28 [Effective date] A conforming change to
account for the repeal of AS 14.30.770 (reading
specialists) in section 39 (the change occurs on page 13,
line 13).
SENATOR BEGICH asked if AS 14.30.770 is the targeted reading
program.
MR. KING answered that .770 is the reading interventionist
specialists that are added by Section 33 and repealed in Section
39. Section 12 and Section 13 have different repeal dates.
Sec. 13 6/30/32 [Effective date] A conforming change to
account for the repeal of AS 14.03.410 (Early education
funding) in section 38.
SENATOR BEGICH referenced the deleted language on page 14, line
14 and cautioned that if indeed an earlier legislature could
change repeal dates, this must conform. Otherwise, it takes away
the approval process, which is connected to the higher quality
prekindergarten identified later in the bill.
9:31:16 AM
MR. KING said this section it is a reference to [AS
14.03.]410(a)(2), which is approval of programs for the
inclusion in the foundation formula. If the repeal of AS
14.03.410 were to take effect, then that reference to .410(a)(2)
would not reference a statute. Therefore, it is a conforming
amendment if that repeal were to take effect. The supervision of
programs does not go away. That was addressed in Section 2. It
is just the approval of programs for inclusion in the ADM that
go away, not the supervision of the programs that exist under
current law.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if it would be possible to create a chart
of repealer language throughout the bill so that the committee
members would understand what that looks like. If this bill
passes and this program is executed, it would be nice to have a
clear understanding of what legislators should be looking at
going forward.
CHAIR HOLLAND said that is a great idea.
MR. KING responded that he would be happy to provide some sort
of graphic. The repeal date is in each part of the sectional
analysis, but he can try to do something more visual. He
continued the sectional:
Sec. 14 7/1/21 [Effective date] Changes AS 14.07.020(c),
relating to the duties of the department, to update the
term "pre-elementary school" to "early education program."
MR. KING noted that changing "pre-elementary school" to "early
education program" occurs throughout the bill.
SENATOR BEGICH observed that those sort of changes were in all
the bills. It was a way for the department to update its
language.
MR. KING added that early education is defined later in the
bill. He continued the sectional:
Sec. 15 7/1/21 [Effective date] Alters AS 14.07.050,
relating to the selection of textbooks, to incorporate the
new sections AS 14.30.765 and 14.30.770, which are added
under section 33 of this bill.
Sec. 16 6/30/28 [Effective date] Adjusts AS 14.07.050,
relating to the selection of textbooks, to conform to the
repeal of AS 14.30.770 in section 39.
Sec. 17 7/1/21 [Effective date] AS 14.07.165(a), relating
to the regulations adopted by the State Board of Education,
is amended to establish the standards for early education
programs.
MR. KING said this is not a requirement for the department to
provide anything. It is just an authorization to do that.
Section 16 is a reverting paragraph if the repeal takes effect.
Section 17 is one of the most important sections of the bill.
Paragraph (a)(5) is all new language that establishes the
quality standards for early education programs in order to
qualify for approval.
SENATOR BEGICH said that Section 17 has no reference back to the
section that is repealed but this is also repealed. He asked if
it would make more sense for the department to adopt regulations
about what is a quality preschool program and leave it on the
books. He asked why repeal it because the standards do not need
to be tied to a repealer.
MR. KING replied that it is not that the language becomes
irrelevant. Because the department is no longer approving
programs, the quality standards would not reflect any action by
the department. The regulations would be in existence, but they
wouldn't have a statute to reference.
9:36:23 AM
SENATOR BEGICH said that 10 or 15 years later, if the standards
are repealed, it sends a message that these standards no longer
matter. A critical reason why he, the commissioner, and the
governor came together in the first place is that the governor
believed that there were no standards. At the very least, the
department sets those standards. There are various standards
that set a target for school districts so the districts are at
least attempting to achieve the highest standards. At the very
least, this should not be part of a repeal. There is no reason
for it to be repealed if it sets a higher bar for districts. It
is a matter of transparency for the public.
MR. KING commented the standards could be left in and districts
would have to adhere to them as a matter of policy, not for
inclusion in ADM.
CHAIR HOLLAND added and for that matter, the science of reading
interventions and programs could be incorporated by every
district. It would be great if it did not have to be done
through legislation.
SENATOR HUGHES said she would like to consider leaving it in
because programs should have high standards regardless of what
the legislature does.
SENATOR MICCICHE agreed. He said that even in local districts
that have early education now, some people like to believe it is
glorified babysitting. Standards would be important, even if
this were sunsetted.
CHAIR HOLLAND shared that his office has thoughts for a
committee substitute and will consider that.
SENATOR BEGICH said that it is useful for DEED to have standards
for the pre-K programs it supports now. DEED has standards but
they are not as strict as they could be. This would send a
message to the department to standardize their approach. He has
read many studies over the past two weeks about early education.
One consistent theme in the reports is inconsistency in early
education programs is at the root of success or failure of those
programs and their ability to work with strong reading programs.
9:40:59 AM
MR. KING said there is no committee substitute right now.
Several amendments are being considered that could be included
in a committee substitute.
MR. KING said Section 18 relates to reports to the legislature.
Section 18 adds a paragraph for the implementation of the
virtual consortium, which is added at the end of the bill. This
is conforming language to include a report on the efficacy of
that program.
Sec. 18 7/1/21 [Effective date] A new paragraph is added to
AS 14.07.168, relating to the annual report by the state
board of education to the legislature, which requires the
inclusion of a review of the effectiveness of the virtual
consortium added by section 36 of this bill.
MR. KING said Section 19 talks about the board and that its
standards for reviewing, ranking, and approving language arts
curricula and early education programs for students K-3 be based
on the five components of evidence-based reading. He suggested
that the committee consider removing the five components of
evidence-based reading identified by the Nation Reading Panel
and just inserting those five components.
Sec. 19 7/1/21 [Effective date] Amends AS 14.07.180(a),
relating to school districts curricula, by requiring the
board to utilize the five components of evidence-based
reading instruction identified by the Nation Reading Panel
(Phonemic awareness, systematic phonics, fluency,
vocabulary, and comprehension instruction).
9:42:22 AM
MR. KING said Section 20 is language related to carry forward
balances and allows districts to enter into cooperative
agreements not just with other districts but also private
businesses, non-profits, and government agencies in order to
find cost efficiencies.
Sec. 20 7/1/21 [Effective date] AS 14.14.115(a), relating
to cooperative arrangements, expands the ability of a
school district to form agreements with private businesses,
non-profits, and government agencies, but prohibits state
funds from benefiting private educational institutions.
9:43:09 AM
SENATOR BEGICH said he was correcting the record. The
cooperative agreements in Section 20 are not related to the
carry over. It is related to an existing law that is relatively
underfunded that Senator Hughes worked to change almost four
years ago. Some districts have entered into agreements. Former
Commissioner Hanley is now a superintendent of two different
districts, so they are sharing costs. There is an incentivized
process that resources should be attached to -- $100,000, but
there is no money in the bank. Nevertheless, it is a good clause
to have in the bill. The language was in SB 42. He hopes the
legislature considers putting some resources into that fund to
encourage and incentivize districts to share resources. On
Prince of Wales Island, a couple of the school districts shared
a finance officer for a number of years. It reduces overhead
costs and is an efficient way for districts to operate,
especially those districts that are tightly connected to each
other but have very different populations.
9:44:39 AM
MR. KING said that the idea is that when a district enters a
cooperative agreement, it does so to reduce its costs of
operation. Those reductions in operations can lead to a carry
forward balance. If the district is unable to use carry forward
funds, those funds would be deducted from a future year's
appropriation for basic need, for state aid. The provision is
about potentially generating an increased carry forward. It is
tied to carry forward because the provision later ensures that
if districts are able to generate those additional reductions in
cost, they are allowed to continue to use those funds. Those
reductions accrue to the district and not the state.
MR. KING said Section 21 amends AS 14.17.500 to allow districts
to include their student population for early education programs
in the foundation formula. They are counted as one-half of a
full-time equivalent student. DEED approval is required under
Section 10.
Sec. 21 7/1/21 [Effective date] A new subsection is added
to AS 14.17.500, relating to student count estimates, which
allows districts to count early education students from
approved programs at one-half of a full-time student.
Sec. 22 6/30/32 [Effective date] Sunsets the inclusion of
Early education students in a district's ADM, if not
extended before 2032.
9:46:31 AM
SENATOR BEGICH said Section 22 takes effect if the bill is never
adjusted. He asked what the logic is behind the termination of
the program at that point. He wants to make sure every district
understands what this section means.
MR. KING said Section 22 is a sunset provision and it does
sunset the ADM provision in 2032 if this section is not adjusted
before it takes effect. Because this is a new program and a
change in the foundation formula, it is prudent and financially
responsible to ensure the efficacy of the program before the
funding continues. The report to the legislature and
consideration of a future legislature can determine whether this
continues or not. If the legislature does not act, it will be
repealed.
9:47:51 AM
SENATOR BEGICH said he is bringing it up because he has been
given two reasons for why this is included. He has been asked
why he is afraid of repealers. He is not afraid of anything. He
is concerned with why a repealer is applied to a new program
when it is in fact only rolling in high-quality preschool based
on what has existed for 10 years in the state of Alaska and
ample evidence has been presented to the committee. He asked why
it is somehow thought to be experimental when there is evidence
on the record that shows that common cohorts who have gone
through that level of pre-K vs. those who did not in a school
district with the same backgrounds have higher achievement in
third grade and eighth grade. That is why he is bringing it up.
He is still questioning whether this becomes a new program when
in fact it applies a standard the state has been testing for
over a decade. It is difficult for school districts to
understand that. After this, he said he probably will only bring
that up one other time.
CHAIR HOLLAND said the plan is that execution in the field will
determine success of the plan. The sunset date gives the
legislature a check on the execution in the field. That is the
reason for a sunset date. He looks forward to seeing a future
legislature addressing this and making it permanent or making a
small adjustment.
9:50:20 AM
SENATOR HUGHES asked if it would be helpful if something in the
bill would require not just an annual report but at a certain
point near the sunset date that the department prepare an
analysis and recommendation about whether the legislature should
continue the pre-K program. She asked if that will that provide
any assurance or more comfort to Senator Begich.
CHAIR HOLLAND replied that that goes back to the discussion of
the final report.
SENATOR BEGICH said one of the provisions in the bill is that a
body annually reviews all the elements of the bill, so that
would be a natural place to put such a suggestion, but that
exists in the bill. It has a review process. It seems like a
reasonable request for all elements of the bill.
9:52:09 AM
SENATOR MICCICHE said he and Senator Begich have talked about
this and he looks at it differently. It takes 11 Senate votes,
21 House votes, and the governor's signature for something to
become law. A subgroup in the body would be hesitant to support
this bill knowing that it goes forward into perpetuity vs. a
larger subset that would be willing to support it if they knew
it would be up for review and possibly not sunsetted. It is a
positive thing. He said he respects that Senator Begich does not
see it that way. He said he is not challenging Senator Begich's
assumptions but thinking about getting the votes to pass
something; it sets DEED free to prove that in every district
where this occurs, where it is not occurring today, that the
results are significant. Even some who might hesitantly support
this now may become believers. He views it very positively. It
is a way to double down in support of the program as it goes
forward, when the state is not 50th anymore and when the needle
moves. That is how he sees it. It can bring a lot of dedicated
supporters to pre-K education in this state who will hesitantly
support it today and wholeheartedly in the future.
9:54:29 AM
CHAIR HOLLAND said that as a new senator he has heard beware of
the foundation formula because of unintended consequences. If
it's poked here something else happens way down there. Anytime
legislators protect themselves from their own mistakes is a good
thing.
9:54:49 AM
MR. KING said that Section 23 is an amendment to existing
language that allows districts to increase their carry forward
operating balance so that districts could deal with the influx
of federal CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security) Act funds. He understands there may be another vehicle
to address that, and this section may not be necessary.
Sec. 23 7/1/21 [Effective date] Amends AS 14.17.505(a),
related to unreserved year-end fund balances, to increase
the allowable carryforward balance of school districts from
10% to 50% of a district's expenditures until FY27.
Sec. 24 7/1/26 [Effective date] Reduces the carry-forward
allowance in AS 14.17.505(a), related to unreserved year-
end fund balances, to 25% starting fiscal year 2027, unless
the district qualifies for the additional carryforward
provided under section 26.
Sec. 25 7/1/26 [Effective date] This is a conforming change
to AS 14.17.505, to account for the addition of subsection
(c) in section 26 of this bill.
Sec. 26 7/1/26 [Effective date] Adds subsection (c) to AS
14.17.505, related to unreserved year-end fund balances,
which allows a district to carry an additional 25% of
operating costs into a future year if the district
generated the surplus by reducing noninstruction costs and
submits a 3-year plan to use those funds. Districts scoring
below the national average on the NAEP score for reading
must use such funds for reading improvement.
9:55:49 AM
MR. KING said that Section 24 will permanently change the
allowed carry forward balance to 25 percent. Section 25 is
conforming language to Section 26, which is an additional 25
percent carryover on the condition that those carryover funds
were not generated by a reduction to instruction. The condition
is that school districts must get an approved plan for the use
of that additional funding. If the district is meeting some
standard for reading improvement, then the use of the funds is
unconditioned. If the district is underperforming, then those
additional funds would need to be used for reading improvement.
The provision is tied to NAEP (National Assessment of
Educational Progress) scores, which may not be readily available
to districts and a different cut score is going to be needed.
The department is working on language for that.
9:57:16 AM
SENATOR BEGICH said NAEP scores are not at the district level
and the department is working on that. He understands the logic
to try to create an incentive for success. The school district
associations and school districts themselves should be asked
about the practicalities of how that works out. If districts are
already at the bottom of the list, districts may not meet a
standard but improve reading, so the language should reflect
that.
MR. KING said Section 27 is related to calculating school size
factors. This makes it clear where to separate ADMs into
elementary and secondary schools. Early education students would
be part of elementary schools.
Sec. 27 7/1/21 [Effective date] AS 14.17.905, relating to
defining a school for calculating school size factors, is
amended to account for the inclusion of Early education
students when defining an elementary school in a district
with between 101 and 425 students.
Sec. 28 6/30/32 [Effective date] Reverses the change in
section 27 to conform to the sunset provision in section 22
of this bill.
MR. KING said the state or federal funding in Section 29 refers
to Head Start funding and any other state funding that might
exist.
Sec. 29 7/1/21 [Effective date] Amends AS 14.17.905,
relating to defining a school for calculating school size
factors, to ensure that any early education students
receiving alternative state or federal funding are not
included in the foundation formula.
MR. KING said that Sections 30-32 are related to teacher
certification. Section 30 is related to preliminary
certification and requires that a teacher issued a preliminary
teaching certificate for grades K-3 complete the coursework and
testing requirements in evidence-based reading instruction
approved by the Board of Education.
Sec. 30 7/1/21 Amends AS 14.20.015(c), related to
preliminary teacher certificates, by adding a requirement
that teachers with preliminary certificates complete board
required coursework, training, and testing in evidence-
based reading instruction.
Sec. 31 7/1/21 [Effective date] Amends AS 14.20.020(i),
related to teacher certificates, to require the state board
of education to periodically reevaluate the acceptable
level of demonstrated competency required to issue a
teacher certificate.
Sec. 32 7/1/21 [Effective date] Adds a new subsection AS
14.20.020(l), related to teacher certificates, which
requires teachers to complete board required coursework,
training, and testing in evidence-based reading
instruction.
10:00:06 AM
SENATOR BEGICH said this is drawn nearly word for word [from SB
8]. There are some good changes in the language. A section from
SB 8 said evidence-based reading "means reading instruction
informed by research that supports improved educational
outcomes." He asked why that language was not included. It was
omitted in two sections of the bill.
MR. KING said he would need to look, but it sounds like a
definitional issue. Since the definition is provided elsewhere
in the statute, it may not be needed in the subsection, but he
would need to confirm that.
SENATOR HUGHES said that Dr. Burk with ExcelinEd spoke about
Mississippi requiring an assessment. The bill is requiring a
reading instruction course and someone can get a D- and pass a
course. She asked if a certain grade or assessment test should
be required to make sure they are doing their best for students.
Dr. Burk said until an assessment requirement, the Mississippi
universities didn't teach reading the way it needed to be taught
until accountability was in place.
10:02:13 AM
MR. KING replied that one change is that Section 30 has no
reference to three credits. The bill simply requires that the
Board of Education develop standards for the coursework,
training, and testing requirements. This is intentional. It is
not prescriptive language and implements a timeframe that is
reasonable and attainable. More prescriptive language, such as
requiring a course and the course doesn't exist, could create a
conflict in executing the statute. He expects that the process
will be that the board first adopt regulations and the
legislature will review the regulations and determine whether
they meet its standards and if not, the language could be more
prescriptive in the future.
SENATOR HUGHES responded that makes sense.
MR. KING said that Section 31 says the Board of Education must
review and establish its standards for issuing teaching
certificates.
MR. KING said the language in Section 32 is slightly different
from the language in Section 30. The committee might consider
aligning the language in each section.
MR. KING said that Section 33 is a lengthy section that adds the
reading intervention services to the existing statute. It could
be considered the heart of the bill or at least one of the
hearts.
Sec. 33 7/1/21 [Effective date] This section adds several
new sections of law related to reading intervention:
• AS 14.30.760 directs DEED to establish a statewide
reading assessment and screening tool to identify
students with reading deficiencies and establishes a
timeline in which assessments are conducted.
• AS 14.30.765(a) directs each school district to offer
intensive reading intervention services to K-3
students exhibiting a reading deficiency and
communicate with parents and guardians.
• AS 14.30.765(b) directs school districts to provide
individual reading improvement plans for K-3 students
exhibiting a reading deficiency and defines the plan's
components.
• AS 14.30.765(c) requires districts to notify a
student's parents that their child has demonstrated a
reading deficiency along with corresponding
information about remedying the deficiency.
• AS 14.30.765(d) outlines a procedure for communicating
which a child's parents about the potential need to
delay promotion to fourth grade.
• AS 14.30.765(e) sets out the factors which determine
if a child is ready for promotion to the fourth grade.
• AS 14.30.765(f) establishes a parental waiver to allow
a student to advance to fourth grade without reading
at grade level and requires an additional 20 hours of
summer intervention services.
• AS 14.30.765(g) directs the department to develop a
recognition program for improving reading skills.
• AS 14.30.765(h) establishes good cause exemptions for
delaying promotion.
• AS 14.30.765(h) outlines the process for requesting a
good cause exemption (disability, prior intervention,
and ESL).
• AS 14.30.765(i) sets forth the process for requesting
a good cause exemption.
• AS 14.30.765(j) requires that a child's parents
receive written notification that their child did not
demonstrate sufficient reading proficiency for
promotion to fourth grade.
• AS 14.30.765(k) directs the district to provide
additional intervention for students that do not
promote or promote with a good cause or parental
waiver.
• AS 14.30.765(l) establishes a policy for mid-year
promotion.
• AS 14.30.765(m) requires that a student promoting mid-
year continue the individual reading improvement plan.
• AS 14.30.765(n) limits retention to one year.
• AS 14.30.765(o) provide a definition for reading
teacher.
• AS 14.30.770 directs the department to establish a
statewide reading program, including five reading
specialists to assist selected schools.
• AS 14.30.775 provides definitions.
10:04:40 AM
MR. KING said that AS 14.30.765(a) states that screeners for
reading deficiencies be administered three times a year.
SENATOR BEGICH said that prior versions of the bills referred to
culturally-responsive screeners. He encouraged adding that
language back in. He referred to page 24, line 18, and noted
that Senator Hughes prefers the word "promotion" instead of
"retention."
SENATOR BEGICH said that in AS 14.30.765(e) the language is
different from SB 8. He asked why it changed from "proficient"
to "progress to."
MR. KING replied that between SB 8 and SB 42, there was a
difference in the language, whether it was "promotion" or
"retention." Sometimes SB 111 references language from one bill
and not the other. He suggested that the committee consider
aligning the language throughout the bill.
SENATOR BEGICH said the section says "at grade level" vs.
"proficient." Mr. King gave a reason and he is not sure it makes
a material difference one way or the other.
MR. KING said the point of making that change was related to
NAEP scores, which refer to proficiency. That proficiency
standard is relatively high. If someone were to read the bill
and interpret "proficient" as proficient on NAEP, it would
result in a 75 retention rate because only 25 percent of Alaskan
children are reading proficiently according to the NAEP
standard. He wanted to make sure that the bill is not
referencing NAEP but something the department will determine as
the basis for promotion.
10:09:55 AM
SENATOR MICCICHE said this potentially is a very important part
of the bill. It could add 8 percent of the cost of educating a
student for each student retained in the K-12 cycle. He asked
what the bill does about preventing the inability to be promoted
early on. Twenty-five percent are proficient at this point. This
could become an overused tool with significant fiscal impact,
which is not included in the bill. That is something to keep in
mind. He wants a better result. Prevention is more the key than
getting to a point with many kids held back.
SENATOR HUGHES responded that the carrot is always better than
the stick. Florida implemented [retention] right away and saw a
rise in the children who were not ready to be promoted and then
it rebalanced and Florida saw no increase. This bill delays it
so there is a robust, functioning program. A child would have
the opportunity to have interventions and preventions in grades
K-3. The bill also allows parental override with the parent
understanding that it might be tough for the child as the child
moves up, but the child would have more opportunities for
intervention. There would be a meeting in April and children
would be given opportunities to get a certain number of hours of
intervention before entering the next grade if the parent wants
the child to go to the next grade. The goal is that the child
would be caught up with a cohort and allowed to travel with
cohort if reading is not the struggle. The idea is to keep them
on track and back with their cohort. If it is done properly, the
state will not see an uptick in children not being promoted.
10:13:22 AM
MR. KING said that Senator Hughes is referencing a delayed
effect on a provision that happens a few sections later, where
some of the "should" provisions turn into "musts." Regarding
Senator Micciche's point, it is potentially possible that
students need to be retained if they are not ready for
promotion. It is a legislative policy if it is better to spend
the extra money to make sure a child is ready for the next grade
and ready for life after school or to push them through more
quickly, even if they are not ready. There would be an
associated cost. That additional cost would not happen until the
first cohort of third graders who are retained are supposed to
be graduating. There is a nine-year delay before any fiscal
impact, and as Senator Hughes pointed out, there is an
opportunity for students to be promoted if they do catch up,
which hopefully is the outcome of this whole process. The bill
is talking about preparing students from the age of four with
additional reading intervention services and early assessments
for those falling behind. By the time the child reaches third
grade, the reading deficiency should no longer exist because of
all the reading intervention services. The actual retention,
hopefully, if this is effective, would be very small.
SENATOR BEGICH asked, while on the general discussion of a
promotion standard, if anything like this is happening in the
state.
MR. KING replied that he does not know.
10:15:38 AM
CHAIR HOLLAND shared that he has had informal discussions with
teachers about this program. A lot of the more successful grade
school program say they are already doing this, but not all of
them.
SENATOR BEGICH said the state allows retention policies to be
established at the local level, but the state does not have
evidence of this program and this approach, which he and Senator
Hughes are generally in agreement about, and not the approach
that kicks in a later section. If the legislature is going to
apply a standard of repeal for something that has been
categorized as new, this is significantly more new than early
education in the state of Alaska and likewise the "must"
language that they will be talking about is even more
experimental. If the legislators are going to apply a standard
of sunset, these should also be subject to that standard.
Earlier the committee talked about the age of students. That has
never been done before in the state. The examples in committee
for changing the date, the age for when a person comes to
school, are from foreign countries, all of which strong early
education programming. But the committee didn't apply a standard
there. If the committee ends up with a bill with sunset
standards, then they should apply that to each of these
experimental elements within the bill. Virtual education, for
example, is something the state has only done in limited ways,
as limited, some might argue, as the early education experience.
That, too, should be subject to a sunset clause so legislators
can be sure it is actually doing what it intends to do. This,
for him, is the contradiction in the bill that has so frustrated
him. Either it is one thing or another. If it is not consistent
across the board with repealers, the bill sends a message that
these things are more important than these things. If that is
the case, he wants to see the evidence to ensure that those
things worked, in fact, because of the experience on the ground,
right here in Alaska.
CHAIR HOLLAND asked whether there is 10 years of proof that pre-
K is working in Alaska.
SENATOR BEGICH replied that in the districts where it is applied
with the standards laid out in this bill.
CHAIR HOLLAND said he needs Senator Begich to show that to him
because he struggles to understand why Alaska is still 50th of
50 for fourth grade reading. Legislators are looking for
solutions for the future.
10:19:04 AM
SENATOR BEGICH said that to humor the chair, it is because
Alaska does not apply universal, voluntary pre-K in the state of
Alaska. The department has a small number of grants that go out
and where these standards have been consistently applied there
has been success, which is precisely why the concept of the
grants program and opening it up to the base student allocation
was created. The chair has asked exactly the right question.
Where the state has applied it, those districts have had
tremendous growth. Superintendent Burgess talked about Nome in
this committee. The Lower Kuskokwim School District
superintendent did the same. Superintendent Bishop did as well
with her experience both in the Mat-Su and Anchorage. Not every
district does apply it. That is exactly the issue. He is all for
doing this in a way that says this is policy and the legislature
will review it. He wants the committee to do something
meaningful and consistent for the people who are saying why is
the state 50th and why can't the state improve it. That was
analyzed and the answer is that early education, like in
Florida, where it is universal, coupled with a good, strong
reading program, like Mississippi, Florida, and Colorado, can
lead to outcomes that work in Alaska. Where districts are
practicing that it works. That is the intent. If this bill does
that, this bill will be the exact bill that he heard committee
members talking about and he will be behind that bill. He wants
to see consistency in the policy. That is all he is asking for.
CHAIR HOLLAND replied that is where they will have to differ
because he believes that in its current form, with some tweaks
that it will have with a committee substitute and amendments,
this can be. He wouldn't be pursuing it if he didn't. When he
came to the committee, his whole thought was everybody has been
looking at education for years before he got there and he would
just review the information in front of the committee. He was
not interested in reinventing the wheel.
SENATOR MICCICHE said he has a fourth grader who required some
reading intervention and now has accelerated beyond her grade.
That makes him more comfortable. His concern lies with a child
who is not prepared at the end of third grade and the parent
wants the child promoted; 20 hours after three years of
education will not get a child there. Hopefully that is
happening much earlier in the process and the state doesn't end
up with a pile of third graders who aren't going to fourth. That
is his concern. This section seems to point that way, but he
will think of K-2 intervention that will occur to avoid that
bottleneck.
CHAIR HOLLAND said he believed the response was that any
increase in expense would not be seen until students had gone
through the grades.
SENATOR MICCICHE said he had heard that.
MR. KING pointed out that the intervention services in this
section apply to any child with reading deficiencies identified
in K-3. The reading improvement plan and intervention follow the
child until the child is caught up. It does not just apply to
third grade and whether the third grader should be promoted to
fourth grade, although that is the defining moment. The language
in the bill is very specific that that is the point when whether
the child will advance or not will be determined. The process is
defined in subsections (d), (e), and (f). The subsection (d)
requires a parent-teacher conference to determine what that
child needs and whether the child should promote to the next
grade. Subsection (e) sets the standards for determining whether
the child should be promoted, but subsection (f) is where the
rubber hits the road. In that parent-teacher conference, the
parent has the ultimate say about promotion. The district cannot
retain a child without a parent's approval. The parent must sign
a waiver acknowledging that the child is not ready for the next
grade and the parent agrees to add 20 more hours of reading
intervention services during the summer. The promotion to fourth
grade is not conditioned on completing those 20 hours or
completing the reading improvement plan. It is the process by
which it is determined that a child needs additional help. And
if a child is promoted and not ready, those reading intervention
services continue in the fourth grade.
10:25:56 AM
SENATOR HUGHES pointed out that the delay of the strong
promotional policy dovetails with the three-month delay in the
start age, those three extra months of maturity. She is
confident that the state will not see a problem. The evidence
has shown that the states willing [to have a strong promotion
policy]--and they did do it too early, so they saw an initial
uptick until it smoothed out--saw much more rapid rates of
success as far climbing scores overall because there is not a
teacher, a school principal, or superintendent who wants to see
an increased number of students repeat grades. They work very
hard. It is scary and perhaps it is experimental. She would be
fine with a sunset date to see if it is working because she is
confident that it would, based on the evidence coming out of
states with strong promotion policies vs. the states that were
afraid to go there. They did the intervention piece, but they
didn't want to touch the strong promotion policy. They did not
see the improvement that states who were willing to go there
saw. She would be fine sunsetting it because she believes that
teachers, principals, or superintendents will be supermotivated
for success.
SENATOR MICCICHE said that he gets it on the earlier
intervention. At the end of third grade, if there is still a
problem, there is a process with parents. Although it is
anecdotal, if not for his and his wife's commitment, he doesn't
know if the earlier intervention would have been as effective.
He and his wife put a lot of work into it. He asked if there is
something earlier with parent involvement because that is the
key to success. But not every parent can do it. Kids come from
very different family structures. But for the ones who can, he
asked what the bill has earlier on.
10:28:46 AM
MR. KING referred to the enumerated list of reading
interventions on pages 24 and 25. The list describes what
districts need to do to help those students K-3 who have been
identified with a deficiency. It explicitly lays out the
methods. Line 25 on page 25 states that the reading improvement
plan includes the parents.
SENATOR BEGICH said parental engagement is recognized as
essential all the way through. The parent is notified and
provided at least 10 contacts. Page 25 has a number of different
pieces that require active consultation with parents or
guardians. This bill has a broader description of what is meant
by parents and guardians that was in SB 8 that is consistent
with other statutes. That includes extended family. Senator
Micciche has a valid concern about parent engagement. As must as
possible, the bill tries to engage parents.
SENATOR HUGHES asked if there would be benefit to extending the
Parents as Teachers program that is for four- and five-year-olds
through third grade.
SENATOR BEGICH said Parents as Teachers is an evidence-based
model that is an early education model. He would rather look to
other models. The department could be allowed to identify those.
Parents as Teachers has a long history, but it is focused on a
very narrow age group. He would not assume that those methods
work for older children.
10:32:04 AM
CHAIR HOLLAND said the sectional analysis would be suspended
before subsection (g).
SENATOR MICCICHE observed that many processes occur with the
reading intervention programs, but he only sees notification of
parents, not an active parental role, which is a concern.
CHAIR HOLLAND said the reading intervention program occurs every
year and children are tested three times a year. The opportunity
to draw the parents in is increased.
MR. KING referred to page 26, lines 21 and 22, of the bill.
CHAIR HOLLAND said that is another opportunity.
SENATOR HUGHES said that she looks forward to an amendment from
Senator Micciche to strengthen the parental role. Perhaps there
is another program besides Parents as Teachers. It is key and
important.
10:33:36 AM
SENATOR BEGICH said he had clarifying comments for the next
meeting. AS 14.30.765(f) establishes a parental waiver to allow
a student to advance to fourth grade without reading at grade
level, the waiver is only available to third graders and not to
younger ages. He wants to be sure that that was the intent. For
line 19, about the notification of parents, because of literacy
issues with some parents, earlier bills had not said the
notification would be in writing. That request for flexibility
had come from school districts.
10:34:53 AM
CHAIR HOLLAND said the committee will take up the sectional
analysis again at the next hearing. He held SB 111 in committee.
10:35:20 AM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Holland adjourned the Senate Education Standing Committee
at 10:35 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 111 Fiscal Note (early education grants).pdf |
SEDC 3/29/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 111 |
| SB 111 Fiscal Note (early education support).pdf |
SEDC 3/29/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 111 |
| SB 111 Fiscal Note (K-12 Aid).pdf |
SEDC 3/29/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 111 |
| SB 111 Fiscal Note (reading intervention and virtual consortium).pdf |
SEDC 3/29/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 111 |
| SB 111 Fiscal Note (ADM inclusion).pdf |
SEDC 3/29/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 111 |