Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
04/09/2021 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 | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s) | |
| SB111 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 111 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
April 9, 2021
9:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Roger Holland, Chair
Senator Gary Stevens, Vice Chair
Senator Shelley Hughes
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Tom Begich
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
Board of Regents
Scott Jepsen - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
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
03/29/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/29/21 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
03/31/21 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/31/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/31/21 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
04/07/21 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/07/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/09/21 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
SCOTT JEPSEN, Appointee to the Board of Regents
Anchorage, Alaska
Testified as governor's appointee to the Board of Regents.
POSITION STATEMENT:
ED KING, Staff
Senator Roger Holland
Alaska State Legislature
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed requested changes for the committee
substitute for SB 111.
ACTION NARRATIVE
9:05:44 AM
CHAIR ROGER HOLLAND called the Senate Education Standing
Committee meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Begich, Stevens, and Chair Holland.
^Confirmation Hearing(s)
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
University of Alaska Board of Regents
9:06:22 AM
CHAIR HOLLAND announced the confirmation hearing for Scott
Jepsen to the Board of Regents. He invited Mr. Jepsen to
introduce himself to the committee.
9:06:40 AM
SCOTT JEPSEN, Appointee, University of Alaska Board of Regents,
Anchorage, Alaska, said he has lived in Alaska for more than 30
years. His son attended the University of Alaska Fairbanks and
received a petroleum engineering degree and is currently working
in Anchorage. Mr. Jepsen worked for ARCO in Alaska and left to
work elsewhere but knew he wanted to come back. In 1997, he came
back to manage the Kuparuk development organization. After
working on many projects in the oil industry, he retired in
March and then applied for an open seat on the Board of Regents.
In his time at ARCO and Conoco Phillips, he saw the University
of Alaska graduates evolve to the point that they competed
favorably with graduates from other universities. He had worked
to support programs at the University of Alaska that Conoco
hired for. It is hard to get qualified people to come to Alaska
and stay for a while. However, Alaskans stay and like it here.
MR. JEPSEN said he wants to give Alaskans the opportunity to get
a good education in their own state that will qualify them for
Alaskan jobs. He has served on the University of Alaska
Foundation. During his time as a board member, he saw where the
university is strong and meeting the needs of state. The
university has strong programs in teaching, accounting, nursing,
logistics, engineering, Arctic research, indigenous studies,
etc. Its drone research program is one of the best in the
country. He wants to do all he can to help the university become
stronger and stable and with a strategic vision for the future
that recognizes the fiscal pressures on the state but also
serves the needs of the state for higher education. His
background will be useful in achieving this goal.
CHAIR HOLLAND said he appreciates his view from the private
sector recruiting UA graduates. He thanked him for his comments
about facing the reality of less state funding and his belief
that he can lead the university through the next few years to
minimize its dependence on state funds while providing higher
education opportunities in critical areas.
9:12:33 AM
SENATOR STEVENS said Mr. Jepsen will be a great addition to the
board with his experience with the foundation and his career.
The university lost accreditation with the Anchorage teacher
training program two or three years ago. The problem as Senator
Stevens sees it is that no one knew it was going to happen. The
university president said he was not aware that the university
was in danger of losing its accreditation. That is an issue of
enormous importance to the Board of Regents. Senator Stevens
asked for Mr. Jepsen's thoughts on that.
MR. JEPSEN responded that he was shocked and dismayed when he
heard about that. Speaking from the outside, he doesn't want to
be critical about any part of the university system because he
doesn't know how it works, but this is something that needs to
be managed and needs oversight. There was a breakdown. As a
regent, he will want to make sure systems are in place to make
sure there is an early warning system for any issues with
accreditation. He can't figure out how the loss of accreditation
happened and he was surprised that everyone was surprised that
it happened.
SENATOR STEVENS commented that Mr. Jepsen will be joining fine
group on the Board of Regents.
SENATOR BEGICH shared that he and Mr. Jepsen have had
straightforward conversations in Mr. Jepsen's prior role and he
has always appreciated his candor and his ability to tell it
like it is and push back hard on comments and thoughts that
Senator Begich had put forward. Senator Begich would hope that
Mr. Jepsen would not hesitate to apply that same laser-like
focus to the university because it needs it. He asked Mr. Jepsen
what he thinks the state role is in supporting the university
and asked him to expand on his vision of where he sees the
university at the end of his term in seven years.
MR. JEPSEN asked if Senator Begich was referring to legislative
support for the university system.
SENATOR BEGICH said that Mr. Jepsen has stressed that with his
role at the foundation he tried to move the board to a sustained
endowment. He has worked to reduce the dependency of the
university on state funds. Senator Begich asked where is that
going, what is his vision of the level of state support, and how
that will be offset. Senator Begich is trying to get at what is
his operational approach, his philosophy toward serving on the
Board of Regents. Senator Begich thinks he will agree with Mr.
Jepsen but would like Mr. Jepsen to articulate that.
9:16:26 AM
SENATOR HUGHES arrived.
MR. JEPSEN replied that the board knows there are fewer funds
for all state functions. As part of that, the university must
figure out what things the university is good at, what serves
the needs of the community. The university will have less money.
The university will have to be shaped to deliver those products
within those constraints. The board will have to look at costs,
what things that do not have value that could be eliminated, and
how to gain efficiency to deliver the end goal with the money
available. He is not a regent now and does not have the inside
knowledge that he will hopefully have in a couple of years, so
he cannot exactly lay out the specific steps. As the board moves
down that path, it will share that vision with the legislature,
and it will have a unified perspective about what it wants the
university to be and what it will take to support it. He wants
to talk about that vision and what it will take to achieve it
and hopefully have the support of the legislature, the governor,
the university, and stakeholders in the university system.
CHAIR HOLLAND noted that testimony can be sent to
sedc@akleg.gov.
SENATOR BEGICH said that he outlined the vision Senator Begich
expected to hear and he likes that. It is not just what the
state level of support is, but he commends Mr. Jepsen's efforts
toward moving to a stronger endowment with more private capital
coming to the university. One of Senator Begich's concerns,
which has come up in the committee, is the loss of civics
education, the loss of an understanding of the roles of
citizens. Part of that is a well-rounded experience that comes
out of a university education with arts and humanities, which
have suffered. As Senator Begich heard Mr. Jepsen talking,
Senator Begich just had a cautionary note that it is difficult
to point to the arts and humanities as a place that any
university is strong in, but they are a core component of a
well-rounded university education. They make people better
engineers, scientists, and mathematicians. He asked for his
thoughts on the arts and humanities programs. They are often
seen as the stepchildren of the university system, but Senator
Begich sees them as a core component.
9:20:31 AM
SENATOR MICCICHE arrived.
MR. JEPSON said he fully support the arts and humanities. It is
absolutely critical for an engineer to able to speak, write, and
think well and have good logic. Kids should be prepared for
other things than STEM (science, technology, engineering,
mathematics). They should be prepared to be lawyers, social
workers, etc. Arts and humanities are key components of the
university system, and they will be part of the equation when
looking at the programs that need to be strong.
SENATOR MICCICHE observed that funding issues that have hit the
university in the last several years. He has worked with Mr.
Jepsen a lot in the past and likes his private sector
experience. In the private sector, Mr. Jepsen has been involved
in having to reduce costs and find efficiencies. He asked if
that will be a focus of Mr. Jepsen's. Funding has been
dramatically reduced yet the state wants a high-quality product
for young people to be prepared. He asked if Mr. Jepsen sees
some opportunities for improving the outcome yet making the
system more efficient than it has been in the past.
MR. JEPSEN replied that he does not believe that reduced funding
equates to a lower-quality education or university. The
university is not private enterprise. It is more complicated
than that and has more stakeholders, but over the years he has
seen that business can become more efficient and successful.
That is the philosophy he will bring to this position.
9:24:10 AM
CHAIR HOLLAND opened public testimony and after ascertaining
there was none, closed public testimony. He solicited a motion.
9:24:43 AM
SENATOR STEVENS stated that in accordance with AS 39.05.080, the
Senate Education Standing Committee reviewed the following and
recommends the appointments be forwarded to a joint session for
consideration:
University of Alaska Board of Regents
Scott Jepsen - Anchorage
CHAIR HOLLAND reminded members that signing the reports
regarding appointments to boards and commissions in no way
reflects individual members' approval or disapproval of the
appointees; the nominations are merely forwarded to the full
legislature for confirmation or rejection.
9:25:08 AM
At ease
SB 111-EARLY EDUCATION; READING INTERVENTION
9:26:33 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 said that a request for changes for a committee
substitute has been submitted. The committee will review the
requested changes before tomorrow's meeting for public
testimony. The committee substitute will be posted to the Senate
Education Committee website once it is available. He invited Ed
King to the table to explain the changes.
9:27:29 AM
ED KING, Staff, Senator Roger Holland, Alaska State Legislature,
said this would be a high-level discussion of the expected
changes:
Change #1: Insert "culturally responsive" language into
four additional places and defines the term
Change #2: Add an annual report for the Parents-as-Teachers
program.
Change #3: Remove any confusion in the carry-forward
provisions by:
• Deleting section 23 from version W
• Increasing carryover limit from 10% to 25% immediately
• Allowing for additional carryover (greater than 25%)
with departmental approval
CHAIR HOLLAND clarified that it goes from 10 percent to 25
percent and department approval is needed for an amount above 25
percent.
MR. KING replied that is correct. In the current situation, when
excess funding exists, the department would be able to approve
the use of those funds, those federal dollars. In the future, if
a situation like that were to develop again, this would give
latitude to Department of Education and Early Development (DEED)
to deal with that issue.
CHAIR HOLLAND clarified, and Mr. King affirmed, that the excess
funds are CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
Act) dollars.
SENATOR BEGICH said that the prior version referred to the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores. Chair
Holland had said that would be changed because those scores did
not apply to all districts.
MR. KING said that is correct. The discretion is with the
department.
9:29:27 AM
SENATOR HUGHES clarified that the prior version required that
the additional funding be used for academic instruction as
opposed to administration. She asked if any of that is left in
or is it up to the department.
MR. KING said it is departmental discretion.
SENATOR MICCICHE said that Mr. King had referred to the ability
to spend, but this is about the ability to carry forward. It
doesn't require a spending plan. It allows districts to carry
above 25 percent with department approval. He asked Mr. King to
clarify that.
MR. KING responded that currently if districts have a balance in
excess of 10 percent of their operating expenses, that results
in a reduction in state aid the following year, so there is an
incentive to spend that money. This provision allows districts
to save that money for a specific purpose.
MR. KING continued reviewing the changes. He noted change #4 is
a technical change to align definitions.
Change #4: Create consistency in teacher certificate
requirements by inserting language from section 32 into
section 30.
Change #5: Clarifies the early education regulations to be
written by the state board of education by:
• Defining the "federal standards" added in AS
14.07.165(a)(5)(A)
• Shifting the day-in-session requirements from AS
14.03.040 to the board's discretion
MR. KING said that current day-in-session requirements do not
address early elementary programs. The Board of Education will
determine the correct requirements.
9:31:43 AM
SENATOR HUGHES said that schools this past year did creative
things like four-day weeks. She asked if this change would allow
school districts to do that or should the day-in-session be
changed to the number of hours to give them flexibility.
MR. KING replied that the bill does not change any of the
existing language that gives the commissioner the authority to
reduce or change hours with all of the other grades. This says
that for an early education program that doesn't currently exist
the Board of Education will determine what the hours per day or
per year will be. There is no change to the existing law. It is
a wide discretion for the Board to determine the day-in-session
requirement for early education.
MR. KING presented change #6 and said these are somewhat
technical changes. Because there is a funding limit of $3
million, there was a potential for larger districts to have a
program that would require more than $3 million to be excluded.
This allows for partial approvals, so that those districts would
not be excluded. The current version W references a ranking list
when there is a funding limit but doesn't clarify whether to
work from the bottom or the top of the list, so that is
clarified.
Change #6: Adjust the language regarding ADM inclusion for
early education students and funding to allow the
department to make partial program approvals and clarify
approval should work from the bottom of the ranking list
toward the top
MR. KING said that change #7 is an attempt to clarify and
streamline the language that was in the original bill. There was
a recognition that 26 districts already have some form of early
education programs. The bill was trying to target about 20 or so
districts expected to participate. Chair Holland's office
requested the removal of all that language and simply said there
is $3 million available and districts are able to apply.
However, the department must prioritize districts that are lower
on the list.
Change #7: Adjust the language regarding early education
grant programs by:
• Replacing the limit on the number of districts with a
$3M annual funding limit
• Requiring coordination with Head Start programs before
starting a new program
SENATOR BEGICH said that SB 111 had limited the grants program
to 20 school districts. If one of those 20 districts at the
lower end has an approved program, he asked if that would reduce
the number to 19 or would it include the 21st lowest-performing
district. He has an issue with the middle group not having
access to the grants program, which may be the same group that
doesn't have pre-K programs. He is suggesting that some of the
districts lower down in the rankings may have developed strong
pre-K programs in recent years that will allow those to go into
the ADM (Average Daily Membership). He doesn't know that but
they may. He does not want to reduce the number eligible for
grants, so would the 21st, 22nd, or 23rd from the bottom be
eligible for grants. He does not think it is possible with the
way it is worded. He asked if the chair would consider that. If
so, Senator Begich will propose an amendment and not change the
committee substitute.
MR. KING replied that he thinks what Senator Begich is
describing will be in the committee substitute. There was an
implicit assumption that the 20 districts that would be eligible
for the grants would be at the bottom of the list and as Senator
Begich said, that might not be the case. The chair's office
removed the 20-participant limit. It is just a $3 million grant
fund similar to the current pre-K grant funding where the
department can decide how to deploy those funds, but it should
work from the bottom of the rankings. Every district will be
eligible for a grant should districts apply prior to ADM
inclusion if money is available.
SENATOR BEGICH said that as originally designed, the grants
program would have eventually reached all school districts. Mr.
King is describing a much more limited grants program. There
would be $3 million available in the grants program with the
capacity for another $3 million available or open for those who
might already have a preexisting and approved early education
program.
MR. KING responded that for clarification, the request for the
committee substitute is for a $3 million per year grant program
and a $3 million per year ADM-inclusion program. The high-
quality programs can be included in the ADM immediately. For
those that go through the grant process, once they complete that
they can go into the ADM. There are two programs. The grants
program still exists and is universally available.
CHAIR HOLLAND added that for simplicity, his office removed the
three tiers. It is just a ranking system and the funds will be
allocated until they are used up every year.
SENATOR BEGICH said he understands what the chair is doing.
MR. KING said that the second part of change #7 was a
recommendation from a testifier to have more coordination with
Head Start. When a district that does not have a locally-
supported or state-supported early education program wants to
initiate a program, the change will require the district to
coordinate with the local Head Start program.
9:38:16 AM
CHAIR HOLLAND said that is to protect federal funds that may
already be allocated to a community.
SENATOR BEGICH said that is consistent with the intent in the
other two bills. It sounds like it will be a stronger
coordination component in the committee substitute and no one
will oppose that.
MR. KING said that change #8 is difficult to explain and might
be easier when the language is in front of the committee.
Because four- and five-year-olds are both under school age,
there was some confusion on whether or how they enter early
education vs. their eligibility for kindergarten. The attempt
was to clean up the language and make it clear that four- and
five-year-olds should be in early education programs unless they
are mature enough to enter a kindergarten program.
Change #8: Clarifying that it is up to the parents and
districts to decide the proper placement of four- and five-
year-old students participating in early education or
kindergarten programs
CHAIR HOLLAND said his office has requested changes from
Legislative Legal and does not know what the final language will
look like in the committee substitute. The committee will spend
a few meetings going into detail on some of these finer points
once it has the committee substitute.
MR. KING said that change #9 is just a consistency issue.
Change #9: Create consistency in the use of the phrase
"evidence-based reading instruction"
SENATOR HUGHES said to go back to Head Start, the committee has
talked a lot about equity and opportunity. Head Start is a
federal program with lots of wonderful people with a lot of
families benefitting, but if a community can only support one
pre-K program and Head Start is doing that, she would hope that
Head Start would have as high a quality as outlined in this
bill. Otherwise, those families are not getting the full benefit
and those children will enter kindergarten not as equipped as
the children in another community in a program that is meeting
the standards. She does not know if there is any way to address
that. The state cannot tell a federal program how it should be
run, but as parent she would want her child to be in the best
preschool program possible. Perhaps they could have a
conversation with Head Start. The committee learned that local
boards choose how to run their programs. She would hope that
some would choose to follow the high standards in this bill so
that those kids are not shortchanged.
SENATOR BEGICH said that he concurs with Senator Hughes. It is
likely that the quality of all programs will go up because of
the competition from parents or grandparents who will insist
that programs have the highest quality. If the bill passes, he
expects that Head Start would up its game. This will be the tide
that rises all boats.
CHAIR HOLLAND noted that Head Start has a broader age range that
it works with and perhaps communities can support both programs.
It will be a negotiation that will involve the department.
MR. KING said that change #10 is about consistency and also a
more substantive change. The bill refers to retention and
promotion and the chair's office asked for consistent use of the
word "promotion." The change for AS 14.30.765(d) and (f) is an
attempt to make it clear what the parent's role in progression
would be. Subsection (d) is specific to students in grades K-2
and requires a conference between the teachers and parents if a
reading deficiency is identified. It is up to the parent to
decide whether a child should progress. It is more restrictive
in third grade and requires that if a parent wants a child to
progress, parents must sign a waiver and additional intensive
services are included in children's reading plans. With
subsection (e), the current language is that the assessment be
the litmus test for deficiency. The requested change for (e) is
to provide more flexibility to districts to determine what the
retention policy should be. Sections 34 and 35 of version W seem
to be creating confusing and will be eliminated.
Change #10: Use consistent language regarding progress-
based promotion to the next grade level and clarifying the
promotion process and policies by:
• Replacing the words "retained" and "retention"
throughout the bill
• Adjusting AS 14.30.765(d) and (f) to be clearer about
parental promotion rights
• Changing (e) to provide more flexibility to districts
in developing a fourth-grade promotion policy
• Deleting sections 34 and 35 from version W
9:45:08 AM
SENATOR MICCICHE said there is a substantial amount of policy in
Sections 34 and 35. He asked if some of that has been brought
into other sections. It is the process of promotion.
CHAIR HOLLAND explained that Sections 34 and 35 were only in
there because two words were changed. All of the verbiage exists
in legislation and is still in effect but does not have to be in
the bill because the words are not changed.
SENATOR BEGICH said that to address Senator Micciche's concern,
those sections in total, with the exception of the [two words],
are incorporated in the bill in earlier sections. None of that
policy lost. That is the crux of the reading policy and gets to
the idea of what triggers the reading plan. All of that will be
contained in the bill. That is the confusion that Mr. King
described. It created confusion because it appeared to create a
second component. This allows the earlier sections to stay in
law and doesn't change a word in them.
SENATOR HUGHES explained that the two sections had the words
"should" and "must." Because of the parental waiver with the
added intervention, "must" was not accurate. The idea is still
that districts would have to inform parents that the child is
not ready and parents must decide about promotion with an
agreement that the child have additional intervention services
prior to the next school year.
SENATOR MICCICHE said he is fine with that.
MR. KING said that change #11 was a recommendation from Senator
Begich to account for the fact that parents may not be capable
of reading written notification, so a more expansive definition
of notification was used.
Change #11: Account for the potential illiteracy of parents
or guardians when requiring notification to parents
9:48:03 AM
SENATOR MICCICHE suggested that, without adding to the fiscal
note but with never giving up on folks, adding a section to
direct parents with literacy issues to existing resources. It is
difficult to help a child when parents are having difficulties
reading. He asked if the committee has thought about making the
bill more comprehensive in directing parents to literacy
assistance that might help the entire family.
SENATOR BEGICH said that is a fabulous idea. He would be happy
to work on legislation about adult illiteracy. That could be a
stand-alone bill, but it is a very good point.
SENATOR HUGHES said that she had the very same thought about how
to help the parents. It could be simple for now without adding
to the fiscal note. If districts are aware of it, they could
provide resources to direct parents to where they could get
help. This would not add to the fiscal note. She is not sure
what the resources are, but the committee should find out.
CHAIR HOLLAND shared that he thinks it is a great idea. He has
known people involved with adult illiteracy. There are programs
out there. It can be a long process to teach an adult to read.
MR. KING said that change #12 adds additional language at the
request of Senator Micciche to ensure parents are more actively
involved in their children's reading improvement plans. Page 29
of Section 33 (k) talks about a third grader who did not
progress to fourth grade or who did progress to fourth grade.
There is a call for additional services. Paragraph 4 is about a
plan for reading at home in the agreement with parents or
guardians. It was already pulling parents into that conversation
and progression plan if a child with a reading deficiency is
retained or progressed. The idea is that similar language would
be included about all identified reading deficiencies issues,
not only about whether a child is retained or promoted with the
deficiency. This points parents to resources and allows them to
have coaching opportunities with the district. In final form, it
will be up to districts to decide what that looks look, but the
bill is calling for more participation.
Change #12: Add language that encourages parents to be more
actively involved in their child's reading improvement plan
SENATOR BEGICH said this is where a phrase about guiding parents
to resources could be included. It would simply direct the
school districts, if they identify a parent with a reading
deficiency, to guide the parent to resources.
SENATOR MICCICHE said that page 33 is an additional area about
creating partnerships and there are other locations in the bill
like that. He recounted a story of helping an employee in his
50s with literacy problems. People worked collectively to
improve his literacy and set his world on fire with his kids and
grandkids.
MR. KING said that throughout the bill, there are opportunities
for members of educational team to make decisions when parents
do not participate in the process. Based on the recommendation
made in testimony, the responsibility about promotion has been
shifted to the superintendent or designee of the superintendent.
Change #13: When a parent does not participate, shift
responsibility for promotion decisions to the
superintendent or designee
SENATOR BEGICH asked if the bill is still sticking with the
wider definition of parent, so it could include stepparent or
extended family who may be responsible for the child.
MR. KING said there was no change to the definition of parent or
guardian. Also, in the situation where a parent simply misses a
meeting, there is language that allows the meeting to be
rescheduled. If the decision for retention was made without the
parent's involvement and the parent does want that child to be
promoted, there is an ability for an appeal and reinstitution of
that process.
MR. KING said that change #14 was a request from Senator Hughes
to make it more explicit that the school districts should try to
catch students up to their peer group, but only if that is
requested. There could be situations where parents might be
comfortable with the lack of promotion.
Change #14: Establish a roadmap for mid-year promotion, if
requested
9:57:00 AM
SENATOR HUGHES asked if the bill addresses students who may be
doing well in math staying with their cohort or will that be a
district decision.
MR. KING replied that is not explicitly addressed in the bill,
so it will be a district decision about how to handle delayed
promotion.
SENATOR BEGICH said that a number of districts do have
bifurcated processes or policies. Those policies are deferential
to the students' ability to achieve in whatever class, so that
does exist in a number of districts now.
MR. KING said the last change is a simplification throughout the
bill to make sure all the new programs being implemented by the
bill are being treated equally in terms of the efficacy test
that is made in year 2031, prior to the sunset in 2032. The idea
is that for all of the changes that cost money or put a burden
on school districts, if they are not working, there is an
automatic offramp the legislature can take without taking any
other action, but the bill requires the department to bring
something to the legislature. His impression is that a bill
introduced by the governor would accompany that report that
suggests what those changes would be.
Change #15: Align the sunset dates, incorporate all the
bill's changes in the sunset, and establish a required
report to the legislature prior to sunset date.
SENATOR MICCICHE said he requested an updated chart on the
effective date matrix. He encourages the committee to consider
only sunsetting the funding and not the policy. He hopes to not
see a sunset. He hopes the bill is remarkably effective. The
committee put in an enormous amount of work--Senator Begich,
Senator Hughes, DEED, the governor's office, Senator Holland,
the folks on the committee. This is good policy. He would hope
they consider sunsetting the funding but not the policy. Even if
this sunsets someday, there are districts that will use the
standards to improve what they deliver going forward, even if
the funding sunsets.
SENATOR BEGICH said he commends the chair for addressing an
issue he brought up over and over during the prior sectional
analysis, which is consistency. He hasn't seen the language of
the committee substitute yet, but throughout the description of
the changes he sees an effort to make it a consistent bill,
which strengthens it. Throughout the process, the chair has
identified weaknesses in language from prior bills, whether SB 8
or SB 42 or SB 111. In general, Senator Begich feels confident
about the direction of the bill, although he will be in
opposition to the sunset dates. He and Senator Hughes have asked
for robust reporting, not simple reporting, so they know what is
working and how it is working. He is not sure that is
incorporated in the committee substitute. If it is not, maybe
there is a way to look at that. He would like to have language
from the department that would describe what robust review would
include. One of the earlier versions of the bill talked about
paying for an evaluation on a regular basis, not just the last
year before the sunset. That robust accountability ensures
resources are being invested in an appropriate and proper
manner. With robust language, that reporting might satisfy the
sunset date issue. With robust, consequential evaluation, the
sunset would not be needed. He will not oppose this bill just
because it has sunset dates given that they appear to be
consistently applied. A robust accountability process that
perhaps the commissioner could suggest could meet the
legislators' responsibility to ensure accountability with the
people's dollar and at the same time doing what they can to
improve the legacy of education in the state.
10:03:02 AM
SENATOR MICCICHE said he didn't hear any comment about his
suggestion that the policy survive. He asked if anyone has any
comments on that. He would hate to see the entire effort go
away.
SENATOR BEGICH said that Senator Micciche has the right approach
if there is going to be a sunset clause. Sunset the funds, not
the policy. If the funding sunsets but the policy stays in
place, legislators will hear that it becomes an unfunded mandate
of sorts, but none of these policies are so prescriptive.
SENATOR MICCICHE said that the performance of the Kenai
Peninsula School District because of its reading intervention
program is well above every other larger community and only
topped by Galena and Southeast communities. The standards for
those programs are important. If something does go wrong and the
funding does sunset, it may help drag others into voluntary
reading intervention programs and perhaps early education as
well. It is working in his district. He was surprised himself
when he saw the numbers on the PEAKS test and saw that Kenai was
that high in comparison to other large municipalities.
MR. KING said there are annual reporting requirements for all
components in the bill. The idea is that they would roll up into
a final report to the legislature on how the program should
progress. The sunsetting of the policy is to make that the
default rather than try to create policy that takes away a
program once it is created, which is always challenging. The
default is that the program goes away unless it is continued.
The attorney he spoke to said the repeal of the sunsets if the
programs are working is a straightforward process. Through
uncodified law, those sections are removed before they take
effect.
SENATOR BEGICH said they all get an annual report from the
department. He is talking about a more robust evaluation
component that makes recommendations annually or biennially to
the education committees of the legislature. With Dr. Burk, he
was impressed with the relatively consistent review of what
Mississippi is doing and Mississippi is constantly retooling and
improving. That struck him as something worth considering. He
would defer to the department to see if that is feasible. His
idea is not a simply annual report but the robust discussion
from a group like Northwest Lab of "are we really making a
difference here" and "are we turning the curve." Those are the
things that the committee is fighting for. There is potentially
a way to do that simply with language incorporated in the bill.
It could add a couple hundred thousand to the fiscal note, but
that would be well-invested money to tell the legislators if
they are doing the right thing.
SENATOR MICCICHE shared that he has been talking about this bill
with many educators around the state. Legislators assume that
educators expect them to send the money but perhaps stay out of
expecting better outcomes. The message he is getting that
educators like expectations that might help them with the
product. He was surprised to hear that, but this bill helps with
that. This is sort of a blueprint for some things they can do as
an education committee for further expectations that might
actually help local districts deliver better outcomes for kids.
He was surprised to hear that from educators. He always thought
they wanted the legislature to send the check and keep its hands
off of what educators do, but that is not the message he is
getting.
CHAIR HOLLAND said he agrees with that. The committee cannot fix
education. It must be fixed in districts and schools with
parents, teachers, and students involved. He does believe this
bill will provide the tools that can make some progress.
SENATOR STEVENS said this is a complex but important subject. He
appreciates the effort of so many people. They have gone through
several years of trying to figure this out. There was a large
taskforce established a couple of years ago. This is exactly the
way good legislation is written. He thanked the chair for taking
charge of this and seeing it through to this point.
10:10:38 AM
CHAIR HOLLAND said his office will disseminate the committee
substitute as soon as it is available. He held SB 111 in
committee.
10:11:17 AM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Holland adjourned the Senate Education Standing Committee
at 10:11 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| EDC_Scott Jepsen Board Application_Redacted.pdf |
SEDC 4/9/2021 9:00:00 AM |
|
| EDC_Scott Jepsen Resume _Redacted.pdf |
SEDC 4/9/2021 9:00:00 AM |
|
| SB 111 Summary of Requested Changes.pdf |
SEDC 4/9/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 111 |