02/19/2021 09:00 AM Senate EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: "national Landscape and Policy Trends in Early Literacy" by Education Commission of the States | |
| SB8 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 42 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 19, 2021
9:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Roger Holland, Chair
Senator Gary Stevens, Vice Chair
Senator Shelley Hughes
Senator Tom Begich
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Peter Micciche
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: "NATIONAL LANDSCAPE AND POLICY TRENDS IN EARLY
LITERACY" BY TOM KEILY~ SENIOR POLICY ANALYST WITH EDUCATION
COMMISSION OF THE STATES AND BEN ERWIN~ POLICY RESEARCHER
- HEARD
SENATE BILL NO. 8
"An Act relating to early education programs provided by school
districts; relating to school age eligibility; relating to
funding for early education programs; establishing early
education programs and a voluntary parent program; relating to
the duties of the Department of Education and Early Development;
relating to certification of teachers; establishing a reading
intervention program for public school students enrolled in
grades kindergarten through three; establishing a reading
program in the Department of Education and Early Development;
establishing a teacher retention working group; and providing
for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 42
"An Act relating to early education programs provided by school
districts; relating to course credit for students; relating to
annual reports regarding school district performance and school
district employees; relating to school age eligibility; relating
to funding for early education programs; establishing early
education programs and a voluntary parent program; relating to
the duties and powers of the Department of Education and Early
Development; relating to school operating fund reserves;
relating to certification of teachers; relating to the
Professional Teaching Practices Commission; relating to a
virtual education consortium; establishing a reading
intervention program for public school students enrolled in
grades kindergarten through three; establishing a reading
program in the Department of Education and Early Development;
establishing a teacher retention working group; and providing
for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 8
SHORT TITLE: PRE-K/ELEM ED PROGRAMS/FUNDING; READING
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) BEGICH
01/22/21 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/21
01/22/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/22/21 (S) EDC, FIN
02/15/21 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/15/21 (S) Heard & Held
02/15/21 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
02/19/21 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
JOEL MOORE, State Relations Strategist
Education Commission of the States
Denver, Colorado
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented on policy trends in early
literacy.
TOM KEILY, Senior Policy Analyst
Education Commission of the States
Denver, Colorado
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented on policy trends in early
literacy.
BEN ERWIN, Policy Researcher
Education Commission of the States
Denver, Colorado
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented on policy trends in early
literacy.
MICHAEL JOHNSON, Ph.D., Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments about state efforts with
virtual education.
KATIE FRANQUIST, Western Regional Advocacy Director
Excellence in Education in Action (ExcelinEd)
Tallahassee, Florida
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated support for SB 8 and offered to speak
on early literacy.
MICHAEL JOHNSON, Ph.D., Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of SB 8.
ACTION NARRATIVE
9:01:45 AM
CHAIR ROGER HOLLAND called the Senate Education Standing
Committee meeting to order at 9:01 a.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Stevens, Begich, Hughes, and Chair Holland.
^PRESENTATION: "NATIONAL LANDSCAPE AND POLICY TRENDS IN EARLY
LITERACY" BY EDUCATION COMMISSION OF THE STATES
PRESENTATION: "NATIONAL LANDSCAPE AND POLICY TRENDS IN EARLY
LITERACY" BY EDUCATION COMMISSION OF THE STATES
9:02:27 AM
CHAIR HOLLAND announced the presentation "National Landscape and
Policy Trends in Early Literacy" by Education Commission of the
States.
9:03:15 AM
JOEL MOORE, State Relations Strategist, Education Commission of
the States, Denver, Colorado, said that he is the Alaska Liaison
for Education Commission of the States (ECS). ECS helps
education leaders with issues facing American education. It is a
nonpartisan organization that can tell Alaska what the other 49
states are doing. The ECS policy team reviews and compiles
summaries of education policies. ECS has a legislation tracking
database and tracks and reviews every piece of education
legislation introduced around the country. ECS writes policy
briefs that are available for free on the ECS website. ECS does
not advocate for any specific policy. It helps with background
and context.
9:06:44 AM
TOM KEILY, Senior Policy Analyst, Education Commission of the
States, Denver Colorado, said that he and Ben Erwin will present
some pre-K considerations based on policy that they have
analyzed. They will also look at policy regarding literacy and
virtual learning.
9:08:29 AM
At ease
9:10:12 AM
MR. KEILY said that when he talks about pre-K, he is referencing
programs that serve three- and four-year-old children,
specifically state-funded pre-K programs. Forty-four states and
the District of Columbia have state-funded pre-K that served 1.6
million students in 2019. About 1,304 students were served in
2019. That is about 10 percent of the four-year-old population.
The map on slide 11 shows the percentage by state of four-year-
olds served. There is quite a variation across states of
students served in state-funded pre-K.
MR. KEILY showed a graph on slide 12, Effects of Pre-K on Future
Learning and Outcomes to illustrate his findings on the
effectiveness of pre-K. In 2020 he and a colleagues looked at 15
research studies, which they selected for rigor, on pre-K
outcomes across a range of measures. The majority of the studies
found for positive effectives for students who participated in
pre-K programs. There were some negative or null effects, but
the overwhelming majority were positive effects. Within the
positive effects, there were short-term and long-term effects.
Short-term means through the end of pre-K and longer term goes
into early elementary school and sometimes through high school
graduation.
MR. KEILY showed three general considerations for considering
pre-K policy on slide 13: quality pre-K., both process and
structural factors contribute to pre-k outcomes; alignment
between pre-K and early elementary, aligning curricula to build
on the content covered in pre-K has a significant positive
effect on achievement in kindergarten; and quality elementary
environment, factors such as teacher quality and elementary
instruction impact student learning and outcomes beyond pre-k.
9:15:11 AM
SENATOR HUGHES asked for an explanation of the term converging
effects on slide 12.
MR. KEILY explained that means the effect is either no impact or
null impact on pre-K students, relative to each area studied.
The effect is neither positive nor negative.
SENATOR HUGHES referenced the graph on slide 12 and asked if
these outcomes measure the end of pre-K as students enter
kindergarten.
MR. KEILY replied that the full brief on the research is in the
list of resources provided to the committee and has more
context. The boxes on the right side of the graph are studies
that they examined. It is not necessarily a specific statement
saying that students could add or subtract better, for example.
It is just saying that there is generally a positive effect on
student math performance in the future. That could be at the end
of pre-K or student performance on math assessments in early
elementary. He offered to submit the type of outcomes measured
in writing to the committee.
9:18:24 AM
SENATOR BEGICH clarified that Mr. Keily is saying that each of
those blocks on the graph represents a study which he has
reviewed that is looking at various factors.
MR. KEILY added that an orange box represents a convergent
effect, which means zero, or a null effect.
SENATOR HUGHES clarified that each box represents a study. The
various impacts such as on GPA or graduation may be great, but
the box represents one study. She suggested a key for the graph
to show that.
MR. KEILY transitioned to early literacy policy across the
states and noted that he would put forth some considerations to
keep in mind when discussing different components of early
literacy policy within states. Early literacy is a continuum, a
process of learning, growth, instruction, and supports from pre-
K to third grade and beyond.
MR. KEILY explained three general groupings of policy for early
literacy: prevention, intervention, and assessment. Policy
should engage pre-service and in-service educators to make sure
supports are available to them to provide quality instruction
and supports to students. The last consideration is equity
issues. Not all students are performing at the same level and
need different supports to learn early literacy skills.
MR. KEILY explained that assessment is a tool to inform
prevention and intervention. Some states have considered
retention as a piece of this. Intervention identifies individual
needs and provides targeted support to individuals with reading
difficulties. States require different types of assessments
besides the summative third grade reading assessment. States
have different requirements about screeners, diagnostic
assessments, formative assessments, and summative assessments.
9:25:21 AM
MR. KEILY said he would highlight three states, not necessarily
because they are exemplars but because they illustrate different
policy levers. He displayed three general components of Colorado
legislation:
Evidence Based K-3 In-Service Teacher Training: each school
year K-3 teachers must complete evidence-based training in
the teaching of reading.
Individualized Reading Plans: students who demonstrate
significant reading deficiencies are required to have an
idealized plan that details interventions the student will
receive.
Per-pupil Intervention Fund: the state department
distributes per pupil funds to districts for allowable
intervention services. Services range from purchase or
provide approved targeted, evidence based or scientifically
based intervention services to summer school literacy
program.
MR. KEILY described three aspects of the Mississippi literacy-
based promotion act:
Assessments: literacy screening assessments selected by
state education agency for districts to implement; all K-3
students must be screened within 30 days of start of school
year.
Individualized Learning Plan: intensive reading instruction
and intervention must be documented for each student in an
individual reading plan.
Pre-service teacher preparation: for initial elementary
education licensure, a teacher candidate must earn a
passing score on a rigorous test of scientifically-based
reading instruction, intervention and data-based decision-
making principles.
MR. KEILY said that Michigan enacted legislation in 2019 around
K-3 literacy and described three aspects of the bill:
Pre-Service Literacy Requirements: candidates must complete
a course of study in reading instruction, including
diagnosis and remediation of reading disabilities.
In-Service: districts can apply for funds to support a
literacy coach to assist in designing instruction and
interventions; funds can also be used to support PD and
training in administering diagnostic screening and
interpreting assessment data
Assessment: state education agency-approved assessments
must include screening, monitoring and diagnostic
assessments. Additionally, districts must assess reading
progress at least 3 times per year in K-3; individualized
reading plans developed if deficiencies are identified.
9:30:12 AM
SENATOR BEGICH said he heard Mr. Keily emphasize the
relationship to quality pre-K and making sure there was a strong
reading program for those kids to move into. Three states have a
strong emphasis on giving teachers the support they need so they
can do those types of programs. He asked if he was talking about
quality pre-K and ensuring that reading proficiency by third
grade involves a lot of prep with in-service work with teachers
and a lot of support to ensure teachers are teaching at the
highest level.
MR. KEILY replied generally speaking, yes. State policy
emphasizes that teachers have the supports for continued
instruction that can be tailored to individual needs. A lot of
pre-service and in-service professional develop gives teachers
support to provide quality instruction and intervention for
students to support student growth and learning.
SENATOR BEGICH asked what happens if the in-service instruction
and teacher supports are not provided and what the outcomes are
if there is not a strong reading program with a strong pre-K
program.
MR. KEILY responded that in the research he reviewed, the
aspects noted by Senator Begich have been present in the
programs with positive impacts.
SENATOR HUGHES asked if ECS is tracking how state policies
impact long-term outcomes. In Mississippi, teachers have to pass
a rigorous test. She asked if that tougher policy is leading to
increased achievement and better outcomes compared to other
states that don't require that test.
MR. KEILY said ECS researchers have looked at performance
generally with National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) scores. ECS and the field struggle to attribute student
growth to one policy. ECS hasn't looked at that specifically. He
can see if there are any measures based on that policy change
for Mississippi.
9:34:57 AM
At ease
9:35:45 AM
BEN ERWIN, Policy Researcher, Education Commission of the
States, Denver, Colorado, said that he would give an overview of
state virtual learning policies and efforts to address broadband
access, which remains a consistent barrier to virtual learning
opportunities. He will focus on state course access programs,
like the consortium proposed in SB 42. Virtual schools take a
variety of forms and operate in a unique policy context in each
state. There are four main types of virtual schools: state-
sponsored programs, virtual charter schools, multidistrict
virtual schools, and single district virtual schools.
MR. ERWIN said that virtual learning was growing in popularity
before the pandemic. In the 2017-2018 school year, full-time
virtual students exceeded 300,000 nationally. That same year
there were over one million courses enrollments in statewide
virtual schools with potentially millions more with other
providers. There is an expectation that virtual learning will
continue to play a major role in the education landscape post-
pandemic. A recent Rand Corporation survey found that a majority
of districts will continue to use virtual learning as part of
their portfolio of course options for students. With such
diverse providers, virtual learning can look drastically
different for each student. Increased popularity in this complex
landscape of virtual school governance had driven policy makers
to work to ensure virtual learning opportunities are effective.
Research into virtual school performance is limited and is
largely focused on virtual charter schools. Multiple studies of
virtual charter schools have found limited student engagement,
high student-to-teacher ratios, and low levels of academic
achievement. There is some literature on virtual and blended
learning and programs that identify some best practices to
address the negative findings of virtual charter schools.
MR. ERWIN said that these best practices include access to
technology to ensure students are online and have access to the
devices they need. Differentiated approaches that combine
synchronous and asynchronous instruction as well as
opportunities for interactive activities drive improved student
achievement and engagement with virtual instruction.
Opportunities for teachers to provide direct feedback or
interventions for individual students help to ensure students
are making adequate progress through a virtual course. Studies
have found that professional development opportunities and
planning time to build teacher capacity and support and
differentiated curriculum allow for more effective instruction.
Studies have indicated that student social and emotional
supports as well as peer engagement opportunities are vital to
drive student engagement. They provide the opportunities that
students may have more readily available in a brick-and mortar-
setting.
MR. ERWIN said that to increase access to virtual learning
opportunities and improve program quality, there are three key
policy components, governance, finance, and student engagement.
MR. ERWIN said he chose three states as examples because they
have statewide course access programs, similar to the proposed
consortium. He presented some information about Iowa:
The state board must review and approve online course
providers annually. State board criteria must ensure that
courses are aligned with state standards. The department of
education is required to maintain a public list of approved
providers.
School districts that offer virtual courses are required to
monitor student progress towards course completion and
graduation requirements, conduct parent-teacher
conferences, and administer state assessments.
MR. ERWIN presented information on Missouri:
Students enrolled in two or more virtual courses must have
an individual learning plan developed by a certified
teacher.
The department of elementary and secondary education is
charged with monitoring student progress and reporting
full-time virtual school student performance to the local
school district. A school district may decide to alter the
course load or terminate a student's enrollment in a
virtual school.
School districts pay virtual course providers on a monthly
basis, based on student progress and assignment completion.
9:43:39 AM
SENATOR HUGHES observed that the final paragraph on Missouri is
fascinating because payment is based on student performance and
assignment completion. She asked if Missouri has that provision
for brick-and-mortar schools or only for virtual coursework.
MR. ERWIN said he doesn't think it is for brick-and-mortar
schools. Through his tracking of virtual school policy, it is
becoming increasingly popular to pay virtual course providers
based on performance. He will show that for Utah. The Florida
virtual school receives funding based on course completions.
This policy tries to hold virtual course providers accountable
for student performance. It definitely is a trend that he has
noticed.
SENATOR HUGHES asked if the course instructors in Missouri are
certified teachers also teaching in brick-and-mortar schools or
are they contracted instructors.
MR. ERWIN answered that through the course approval process,
strictly virtual providers can offer courses if they receive
approval. The same is true for school districts. He can't say
for certain, but it may be a mix. For certification, some states
require virtual school teachers to be certified, but in other
states it is less clear.
SENATOR HUGHES stated that she would like to know about any
research in any type of school on achievement rates and scores
when instructors are paid based on student performance.
MR. ERWIN said he is not sure of any research off the top of his
head. The research base is limited and new for virtual schools,
but he will look into it.
SENATOR HUGHES clarified that she meant for any school, not just
virtual schools.
MR. ERWIN replied that he will look into that.
9:47:18 AM
CHAIR HOLLAND referred to the three states that were highlighted
in the presentation, Colorado, Michigan, and [Mississippi]. He
asked if these states were spotlighted because they are
considered to have an ideal system. He asked if there is any
research to show that these programs are working.
MR. ERWIN replied that Mr. Keily could speak to the previous
examples for literacy and pre-K. For the virtual school states,
the research base is so limited. His tracking shows states
trying to deal with what may be perceived as holes in the system
or issues with the system. There isn't a research base to show
these efforts are effective. States are trying to pass different
funding models and student engagement requirements to address
issues in their states. He is not highlighting them because they
are model systems but as innovative state approaches to try to
prioritize virtual school quality.
MR. ERWIN said the Utah information focuses specifically on
funding:
Utah funds virtual schools using a course fee schedule
depending on subject matter.
Online learning providers receive payment based on course
progress and completion. For a full credit online course,
the provider receives 25% of the online course fee after
the withdrawal period, 25% of the course fee upon
completion of the first half of the course and the
remaining 50% of the online course fee if the full course
is completed within 12 months.
If a student does not complete a course within 12 months
online learning providers will still receive 30% of the
course fee if the student completes the course before
graduation.
MR. ERWIN said that states were forced to build and expand their
virtual learning infrastructure overnight in response to the
COVID-19 pandemic. This rapid development was driven by state
and federal investment, mostly with the Coronavirus Aid, Relief,
and Economic Security (CARES) Act funding.
MR. ERWIN presented two examples of how states utilized and
leveraged their CARES Act funding to improve virtual learning
and access. He presented information on Arizona:
Arizona utilized its GEER [Governor's Emergency Education
Relief] fund allocation to support a partnership between
the department of education, Arizona State University and
the Helios Education Foundation to establish the Arizona
Virtual Teacher Institute. The institute provides free
professional development for all Arizona educators teaching
in hybrid or virtual settings.
9:51:42 AM
MR. ERWIN said that Arkansas represents a common trend in how
GEER funding was used:
Arkansas committed a portion of its $30 million GEER fund
allocation to the development of an online learning
platform to support the delivery of quality virtual
instruction.
MR. ERWIN said that Arkansas was building an online platform
from the ground up. A lot of states are in different stages of
this process. Virginia and Rhode Island utilized funds to expand
existing course access programs. Rhode Island had a focus on
advanced coursework, and Virginia expanded to include middle
school courses.
MR. ERWIN said that despite this increased investment during the
pandemic, the digital divide still remains a major barrier to
student access. This divide largely impacts low-income students,
rural students, and students of color who may also experience
less access to advanced coursework and other academic
opportunities. It highlights the importance of addressing the
digital divide when pursuing virtual course access programs.
Three different divides make up the digital divide with quite a
lot of overlap between them. These are availability,
affordability, and access to devices. These are broken out to
highlight the problems students are facing in order to
adequately address the divide. Many state policies address all
three. Policy options have focused on leveraging existing
resources, developing public-private partnerships with broadband
providers, and providing direct funding in various forms.
9:54:42 AM
SENATOR HUGHES asked if any state is looking at what Alaska is
doing. She and Senator Begich have been working on this for five
years as have members of the House. Alaska is a unique state. It
is very large with many small, rural schools that have a tough
time recruiting and retaining teachers. Legislators are trying
to build a platform so that districts could have students enroll
in a virtual course with a teacher who specializes in something
not available in every district. They want every district to
have the opportunity to network in this platform with shared
teachers. It would be a statewide platform with districts
choosing to be part of the network. Five years ago, New York did
a bit between districts, but she was not aware of any statewide
system that all districts could participate in. She asked if any
state is doing something similar to that proposed model.
MR. ERWIN replied that Tennessee has recently implemented a
course access program with a similar model, especially thinking
about rural or underserved districts that could not offer
certain coursework. He mentioned Rhode Island's focus on
advanced coursework to make sure all students have access to
that. Virtual Virginia's online learning platform does not allow
full-time students. It is only for supplemental coursework with
a mix of districts and approved virtual providers. Florida is a
statewide virtual school that allows full-time and part-time
students as well as course access. That is not offered by
districts. The school built its own infrastructure and hires its
own educators. He will provide more examples.
SENATOR HUGHES said that she would appreciate that. She is
curious about the funding models, such as how to work out the
fees between districts.
CHAIR HOLLAND asked if Commissioner Johnson had any comments.
9:58:38 AM
MICHAEL JOHNSON, Ph.D., Commissioner, Department of Education
and Early Development (DEED), Juneau, Alaska, said the
department is working hard on this type of project. The
department just announced to superintendents this week that it
extended its partnership with Canvas, the learning management
system, through the 22-23 school year. The department is working
with teachers to create the Alaska Commons, a place for course
development and course review to make sure the courses meet
rigor and have an endorsement from the department. That will be
available to all school districts. Currently 70,000 students and
teachers have a Canvas account. The department continues to
develop and build it. He can provide more information to the
committee.
CHAIR HOLLAND called on Katie Franquist.
10:00:14 AM
KATIE FRANQUIST, Western Regional Advocacy Director, Excellence
in Education in Action (ExcelinEd), Tallahassee, Florida, said
she was online to support SB 8, but would be happy to give an
overview of national early literacy policies.
SENATOR HUGHES asked if she was aware of SB 42, which is also
early literacy legislation.
MS. FRANQUIST replied the ExcelinEd policy team is reviewing
that bill. She added that ExcelinEd is happy to speak about
early literary policy and answer any questions about
implementation.
SENATOR HUGHES shared that she had the great privilege of
attending an ExcelinEd conference, which she found to be one of
the best conferences she had ever attended. Everything she heard
was relevant. She hoped that Senator Holland as a new chair
could participate in one of their conferences. She got concrete,
practical takeaways from the conference. That is one of the
reasons that the committee is working on this legislation.
SB 8-PRE-K/ELEM ED PROGRAMS/FUNDING; READING
10:02:26 AM
CHAIR HOLLAND announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 8
"An Act relating to early education programs provided by school
districts; relating to school age eligibility; relating to
funding for early education programs; establishing early
education programs and a voluntary parent program; relating to
the duties of the Department of Education and Early Development;
relating to certification of teachers; establishing a reading
intervention program for public school students enrolled in
grades kindergarten through three; establishing a reading
program in the Department of Education and Early Development;
establishing a teacher retention working group; and providing
for an effective date."
He called Senator Begich to the table.
10:02:56 AM
At ease
10:03:11 AM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting.
10:03:17 AM
SENATOR TOM BEGICH, speaking as sponsor of SB 8, said he would
highlight the complex components of the bill, the need for which
was reinforced by the earlier presentation. He said today he
would talk about how the continuum works and why it makes sense.
In 2019 he started working with Governor Dunleavy and Education
Commissioner Johnson to draft legislation that would build on
his earlier pre-K bill and also tie that into reading. He was
convinced that the connection between pre-K and reading is
critical and that support from the department is also critical.
He wanted a bill to turn the curve on reading in Alaska and
ensure that every child can read at grade level by third grade,
a goal shared by all on the committee. The bill is rooted in
evidence and research and based on the successes seen in states
like Oklahoma, Mississippi, Florida, Tennessee, and Colorado.
SENATOR BEGICH said that to turn the curve, investments in
education are necessary today. The results of the investments
won't be seen overnight, but they will be seen over time. It all
starts with prekindergarten. Universal, voluntary pre-K has the
ability to change lives. Research shows that the greatest
improvements for pre-K students are amongst those who are
economically disadvantaged and dual language learners. Over 100
languages are spoken in his Anchorage district alone. Throughout
rural Alaska and in the state, many students are dual language
learners. This disproportionately impacts the poorest
populations in both rural and urban areas.
10:06:17 AM
SENATOR BEGICH said that establishing universal, voluntary pre-K
across Alaska will have significant and lasting impact for
children. The research is clear. Pre-K without continued
investments in evidence-based reading instruction does not work,
and the state will not see gains from high-quality pre-K without
substantial reading instruction. Both are required and must work
side-by-side.
SENATOR BEGICH noted that he provided the research the committee
has asked for. This includes the Alaska pre-elementary research
compilation and the multigenerational Perry Preschool study.
This shows four key outcomes: fewer teen pregnancies, higher
likelihood of high school graduation, higher likelihood of
holding a job with higher earnings, and less likelihood of
needing state support programs. He highlighted a document that
includes the Perry Preschool and also the Carolina Abecedarian
Project. The committee packet contains many other reports on the
effect of universal pre-K. He noted that some of these studies
were referenced in the earlier presentation.
10:08:42 AM
SENATOR BEGICH said that from his perspective the pre-K element
was key, but the learning process in working with the governor,
commissioner, and superintendents has helped him understand the
full relationship between the reading component, the pre-K
component, and the support for teachers, which was emphasized in
the prior presentation, to ensure that they can do the job they
are being asked to do. Practically, this means the fiscal notes
will look different. The pre-K early education program is a
high-quality program to prepare students for reading readiness,
allowing students to enter kindergarten armed with the knowledge
and tools for future academic success.
SENATOR BEGICH said studies the state has done show that when
this pre-K was provided, whether in Nome or Mat-Su, it has
always led to greater achievement by third grade and those
achievements hold by eighth grade. That pre-K experience is
limited in Alaska. Thirty-five school districts offer some level
of pre-K through state and federal grants. SB 8 takes away that
uncertainty and gives every school district opportunity to join
or not join a pre-K program. It is voluntary and only for four-
and five-year-olds. It does not compete with the 17 Head Start
programs in Alaska. It holds them harmless and ensures local
control of pre-K programs. It sets universal standards but
control remains at the local level.
SENATOR BEGICH said a crucial element of the bill is the
investment to prepare teachers. The Perry Preschool study says
that high-quality preschool can save up to $7 [for every dollar
spent] in long-term government expense by reducing the need of
remedial education, involvement in the criminal justice system,
and public assistance programs. He asked, "If we don't offer
opportunity to our kids, what are we doing with our educational
system?"
10:11:35 AM
SENATOR BEGICH said SB 8 offers school districts the ability to
develop high quality, early education programs that are
culturally appropriate and tailored to the students through a
three-year grants process based on Alaska's current, successful
pre-K efforts. In year one the lowest 10 percent of school
districts, the first cohort, would be eligible to apply for the
three-year grants. The second cohort would begin in year two,
and the third cohort in year three, etc. The program is spread
over six years to reduce the impact and focus on where the need
is greatest. It is an eased-in process that is also a terminal
process. After every district has been offered the opportunity
[to develop a pre-K], the grant program terminates.
SENATOR BEGICH said that during the three years of the grant
program, the districts will work on developing programs with
high quality elements. Those are detailed in the bill. Early
education capacity will systemically be built in those lowest
performing school districts with limited or no pre-K. Pre-K
potentially could reach virtually every student in the state. He
stressed that pre-K will be voluntary and high quality. No one
is forced in this bill to put a child in pre-K.
SENATOR BEGICH said that the fiscal note is higher because it
reflects every district taking advantage of this program,
although not every district will take part in the program. The
districts that have a pre-K program that the department will
sign off on will count pre-K students as one half of an ADM,
Average Daily Membership. They will count as half of a student.
DEED must certify that the pre-K program meets the highest
standards.
10:14:26 AM
SENATOR BEGICH said the second part of the bill is about
parental and local control in the process of helping children
learn to read. He and Senator Hughes both share this desire to
make reading work for kids. They have been working on this issue
and came to the same conclusion from different angles. They want
to improve the lives of children. The two components of the
reading program are the intervention services and the reading
program. The earlier presentation showed that assessments early-
on make a difference in reading. Those assessments must come
with an individual reading program for each student to respond
to reading deficiencies. Parents and classroom teachers are
engaged in that process. The state lays out the best practices
based on science. The teachers and parents figure out how to use
those so a child can read by third grade. These two components
are key to successful outcomes by eighth grade and by
graduation. It will take years to see the outcomes, but some
will be seen fairly soon. Pre-K data from the state shows that.
10:16:23 AM
SENATOR BEGICH said teachers must be prepared to do their jobs.
This is the component that the governor and commissioner
stressed with him. It is a piece that he had missed. The state
should provide support for reading programs for districts, which
it is required to do by the constitution and law. Up to 10
struggling schools in this bill can apply for an on-the-ground
reading interventionist who will come from the state. That
specialist will be present in the school district for a year to
train up the workforce. The research-based reading instruction
is focused on the five components of reading: phonemic
awareness, phonics, vocabulary, comprehension, and reading
fluency. Reading specialists train teachers, model evidence-
based reading instruction, convene community gatherings, and
provide reading interventions for struggling students. DEED
reading intervention specialists funded with a five-year federal
grant will also support existing school staff, engage and build
community understanding of the evidence-based reading programs,
and work with local teachers and support staff to improve
reading scores.
10:17:50 AM
SENATOR BEGICH said it is a continuum. No one component can do
it alone. Both pre-K and a good reading program are necessary.
The evidence in North Carolina and Tennessee underscores that.
Those studies are in the documentation he provided. Pre-K alone
would fail just as reading without supports to train teachers
how to teach reading or without ensuring that kids come prepared
to understand the reading instruction would also fail.
SENATOR BEGICH said that is why he, the governor, and the
commissioner wrote their principles on a board almost a year and
a half ago to combine these things. It costs money to do this.
That resource is something the legislature has been talking
about this year, but this senate will support a lot of different
ideas but very few will potentially transform the entire
population of the state. Legislators have talked about education
being transformative. The leadership on this committee
represents a vision of education in this body. That vision
should be comprehensive. SB 8 and SB 42 underscore that. These
are comprehensive approaches that are designed to transform
education.
CHAIR HOLLAND suggested presenting the sectional at a different
time to allow for testimony.
SENATOR BEGICH expressed his preference to hear from the invited
guests.
CHAIR HOLLAND called on Commissioner Johnson to comment on SB 8.
10:20:51 AM
MICHAEL JOHNSON, Ph.D., Commissioner, Department of Education
and Early Development, Juneau, Alaska, thanked the committee for
working together on reading legislation. They have been working
on this for a number of years. They do not need a bill that
makes a statement. They need a bill that makes a change. If they
believe reading is that important, then there is no state in
this country that needs to be more aggressive in facing their
problems because the outcomes are so low. Every moment the
committee spends on this issue is important. Several years ago
the State Board of Education endorsed that kind of aggressive
approach by making it the number one priority in the Alaska
Education Challenge. SB 8 and SB 42 both have three parts. Some
students don't arrive at kindergarten ready to learn how to read
and need prekindergarten supports. Some need in-school pre-K,
some need supports such as from Parents as Teachers. Some may
not need any of those and have access to literacy opportunities
at home. That is why it is voluntary. If the state invests a lot
in pre-K, the state has to invest in programs of quality and
must follow it up with evidence-based practice and
accountability. Some schools need intensive supports in order to
provide quality learning programs. Yesterday the country landed
another rover on Mars. As he watched the team celebrate on TV,
he thought that all of the many team members had learned to
read, and probably by third grade. He hopes that all of them
could work together on a bill that makes change so that every
student in the state can know what it is like to celebrate that
kind of achievement. It begins with learning to read.
10:25:12 AM
SENATOR STEVENS commented that the commissioner is right; change
is required because the state has such problems. He asked where
the state is succeeding in pre-K.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON responded that some great things are
happening across the state. Many districts have implemented
quality pre-K programs. The state board adopted new Alaska Early
Learning Guidelines to support quality pre-K. The department is
trying to move forward as the legislature works on a bill. Some
districts have district-supported programs. There are Head Start
programs and some private early learning programs. There are
programs such as Best Beginnings. Through some of the settlement
agreements, studies have been done on impacts of pre-K on some
of the rural districts, namely Lower Kuskokwim. That can be
provided to the committee. Targeted pre-K programs do help
students arrive at kindergarten ready to learn to be on the
trajectory of reading proficiency by the end of third grade.
Even in the last few months, elevating this conversation has
resulted in some districts focusing resources and attention on
developing strong K-3 reading programs.
CHAIR HOLLAND reported that 35 of 54 districts offer some pre-K.
He asked the commissioner how many schools offer pre-K.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON replied he would follow up with the
information.
SENATOR BEGICH estimated that about 10 percent of kids who would
be eligible are currently in some form of a pre-K program.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON responded that it depends on what type of
pre-K is included in that statistic.
SENATOR BEGICH said he stresses the quality of pre-K because
there can be haphazard pre-K programs. The governor asked him
from day one what he meant by pre-K and he replied quality pre-K
with evidence that it is doing what it says. That is why he and
the governor were able to come to common ground.
10:29:15 AM
At ease
10:29:58 AM
CHAIR HOLLAND asked the remaining invited testifiers to speak at
another meeting. He held SB 8 in committee.
10:30:35 AM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Holland adjourned the Senate Education Standing Committee
at 10:30 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| ECS - Alaska Senate Ed Policy Resources.pdf |
SEDC 2/19/2021 9:00:00 AM |
|
| K-3 Literacy_AK_Senate_Feb_2021_Final.pdf |
SEDC 2/19/2021 9:00:00 AM |