Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
01/26/2022 01:00 PM Senate FINANCE
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 |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
January 26, 2022
1:06 p.m.
1:06:50 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Bishop called the Senate Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Natasha von Imhof
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Roger Holland, Sponsor; Senator Tom Begich,
Sponsor; Ed King, Staff, Senator Roger Holland; Loki Tobin,
Staff, Senator Begich.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Kymyona Burk, Policy Director, Foundation for Excellence in
Education; Paul Barker, Principal, King Cove School, King
Cove; Trevor Storrs, President and CEO, Alaska Children's
Trust, Anchorage; Bob Griffin, Self, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
SB 111 EARLY EDUCATION; READING INTERVENTION
SB 111 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Bishop relayed that it was the committee's second
hearing of SB 111. The intention of the committee was to
hear invited testimony, hear public testimony, and then set
the bill aside.
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."
1:08:12 PM
KYMYONA BURK, POLICY DIRECTOR, FOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE IN
EDUCATION (via teleconference) shared efforts in
Mississippi, like SB 111, which had yielded positive
results in that state. She noted that the appropriation to
support the program in Mississippi was $15 million
annually. She discussed the various allocations of the
appropriation. She said that the return on the investment
had been significant; students had improved 10 skill set
points since the passage of the legislation in 2013.
Ms. Burk discussed other returns on investment such as
increased teacher knowledge and student engagement. She
summarized that there had been an unprecedented amount of
funding sent to states through the American Rescue Plan Act
(ARPA). She used the example of Tennessee, which had
leveraged the funds to support early literacy and summer
learning opportunities. She emphasized that the investment
in literacy outcomes paid off large dividends in the
future.
1:13:10 PM
Co-Chair Bishop recognized Senator Holland and Senator
Begich in the gallery.
1:13:34 PM
Senator Wielechowski congratulated Dr. Burk on the
achievement in Mississippi. He was curious about
similarities between what was proposed in Alaska versus the
bill in Mississippi.
Dr. Burk was familiar with the Alaskan legislation. She
felt it was like what was passed in Mississippi. She
believed that the bill provided a comprehensive and
supportive approach to making significant change.
1:14:56 PM
Co-Chair Bishop asked whether Dr. Burk had any anecdotal
stories from families that had students that had struggled
with reading.
Dr. Burk shared that Mississippi law required for parents
to be informed early on that their child was struggling
with reading, which empowered parents to enter a
partnership with educators. She discussed children's sense
of accomplishments. She expounded on the various ways the
law had served to make education more equitable. She said
that parents were thankful that their children had access
to high quality instructional materials, which were now
required by law.
1:17:39 PM
Co-Chair Bishop OPENED public testimony.
1:17:48 PM
PAUL BARKER, PRINCIPAL, KING COVE SCHOOL, KING COVE (via
teleconference), relayed that he was online as a
representative and had no testimony.
1:18:15 PM
Co-Chair Stedman thought it seemed as though reading and
mathematics scores in Alaska were decreasing over the last
several years, pre-Covid-19.
Mr. Barker agreed with Co-Chair Stedman's observation. He
stressed support for the bill and the importance of early
intervention.
Co-Chair Stedman queried what the intervention should
include.
Mr. Barker listed increased parent involvement, community
involvement, and early identification of interventions.
1:20:40 PM
Senator von Imhof asked Mr. Barker to comment whether
HeadStart preschool was available in his area. She asked
about state programs and whether they were producing
results.
Mr. Barker commented that the Aleutians East Borough School
(AEBSD) District had a flourishing HeadStart and pre-school
program.
Senator von Imhof asked whether there were enough resources
to utilize additional funds for preschool if the bill were
to be passed. She wondered how passage of the bill would
affect HeadStart programs and whether there would be
competition for resources.
Mr. Barker asked Senator von Imhof to repeat her question.
Senator von Imhof asked whether King Cove and other areas
had room to accommodate additional preschool programs.
Mr. Barker could not comment on the question.
1:22:43 PM
Co-Chair Stedman was curious about what percentage of
students attended preschool in AEBSD. He asked whether
those that went to preschool scored better in reading and
th
math in 4 grade than those who did not attend preschool.
Mr. Barker affirmed that he had seen an increase in
students who attended preschool. Currently greater than 75
percent of the children in the community attended
preschool.
1:23:39 PM
TREVOR STORRS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ALASKA CHILDREN'S TRUST,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in support of the
th
bill. He noted that Alaska was ranked 49 out of 50 in
education nationwide. He offered statistics to accompany
the low ranking. He recognized that parents were the most
important teacher for children and noted that often parents
needed more tools to be successful. He listed the benefits
of early childhood education. He expressed concern with the
sunset date currently in the bill. He thought that
requiring reports to audit programs would be more
beneficial than a sunset date.
1:26:19 PM
BOB GRIFFIN, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the bill. He shared that he was the chair of the
State Board of Education Reading Committee. He mentioned
that similar legislation had been introduced in 2014. He
commented that Alaska was one of the only states without a
comprehensive reading policy. He asserted that most of the
components in SB 111 were modelled after programs in
Mississippi, which had been modeled after successful
programs in Florida. He cited positive statistics involving
NAPE scores in Mississippi.
Mr. Griffith continued his remarks. He discussed statistics
in Miami Dade County in Florida, where a comprehensive
reading policy was proving successful across racial and
socioeconomic lines.
1:29:16 PM
Co-Chair Stedman asked whether Mr. Griffin could give a
rough idea of how many kids in the state went to preschool
and if there were observable geographical differences in
attendance numbers and reading scores.
Mr. Griffin thought the question might be better addressed
by the Department of Education and Early Development
commissioner. He noted that preschool was an important
component but was not the most important aspect of the
reading policy.
Co-Chair Stedman reiterated his curiosity surrounding the
difference between the future performance of children who
had access to preschool versus those who did not.
Co-Chair Bishop thought some questions would be answered in
the Sectional Analysis.
1:31:32 PM
Senator Wielechowski asked if Mr. Griffin thought the
legislature should consider putting Pre-K education in the
Base Student Allocation (BSA).
Mr. Griffin thought the matter could be taken into
consideration.
Co-Chair Bishop commented that the question could be
considered by the bill sponsor.
1:32:27 PM
Senator von Imhof asked whether Mr. Griffin had noticed
th
that Alaska's 4 grade math and reading NAPE scores for
2015 to 2019 showed a decline. She asserted that the spread
between Alaska's scores and the national mean had widened.
She asked about the reasoning. She was curious whether
there had been a statewide analysis of the four-year trend
in reading.
Mr. Griffin had noticed the same trends. He thought the
lack of a state reading policy had hurt the students'
scores in all categories. He stated that other states had
had programs in place for decades. He asserted that
children needed to learn to read so that they could read to
th
learn. He lamented that if children did not catch up by 4
grade the statistics showed that they generally were behind
th
in 8 grade.
1:35:38 PM
Senator von Imhof thought the bill had two parts: a
comprehensive reading program and expansion of preschool.
She pondered whether a reading program would be enough to
boost test scores. She noted that preschool programs were
already available in the state.
Mr. Griffin cited that all the states with the highest
scores had universal voluntary pre-K. He suggested that
HeadStart was not necessarily a substitution for a high-
quality pre-school. He noted a study by DEED that showed
that HeadStart programs did not prepare children for
success in school.
1:37:55 PM
Co-Chair Bishop CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Bishop noted that the committee would stop after
each section for discussion.
1:39:19 PM
SENATOR ROGER HOLLAND, SPONSOR, introduced himself.
SENATOR TOM BEGICH, SPONSOR, stated that 11 percent of
Alaskan children were currently receiving high quality pre-
K. He said that $3.2 million was distributed annually to
those programs in the form of grants. The grants were part
of a pilot project started 12 years ago. He said that all
the evidence, locally and nationally, showed that high
quality pre-K and comprehensive reading programs were
necessary in tandem for overall success. He said the
combination was evidence based in studies of measures taken
across the stat during the pilot project. He relayed that
the children who had exposure to quality early childhood
education, coupled with comprehensive reading plans, showed
greater success than children without exposure to early
education.
Senator Begich related that funding would be separated out
between HeadStart and programs contained in the legislation
so there would be no double dipping of resources. He
stated that the state had no capacity to assure that
HeadStart provided the quality and standards of the
programs offered in the bill. He continued to discuss the
differences between the bill and HeadStart.
1:44:10 PM
Senator Begich continued his remarks. He discussed the
impetus for the bill. He asserted that $1.2 million was
spent yearly on education with no accountability. He
emphasized that the bill provided accountability. He stated
that the bill was the product of the Senate Education
Committee rather than being his personal bill. He admitted
that he would have crafted a bill differently but asserted
that the current legislation was critical for investing in
Alaskas future. He reiterated the importance of combining
early education with strong reading, local control, and the
evidence of what works in Alaska.
1:46:45 PM
Senator Wilson asked whether the Childcare Assistance
Program would currently pay for Pre-K education.
Senator Begich responded that he did not know.
1:47:22 PM
Senator von Imhof agreed that high-quality pre-school in
conjunction with a high-quality reading program was the
closest the state could get to "a magic bullet." She
expressed curiosity that the $1.3 million already
appropriated for education had yielded little result. She
recalled a comment from the previous day that the requested
funding of $12 million to $20 million in the bill would
make the $1.3 million "work better. She thought it was
hard to fathom that the $1.3 billion spent on education was
yielding falling scores. She questioned accountability for
the money that was already being spent. She wondered how
assurances could be given that the funding request in the
bill would yield the promised results.
1:49:49 PM
Senator Begich reiterated that when Senator Holland and the
Senate Education Committee had insisted upon greater
accountability in the bill the department had embraced
those measures. He said that evidence form pilot projects
in rural areas of the state had show high performance and
returns with strong support and commitment from the
department. He spoke of neighboring districts that had
different result due to the applied processes. He said that
comprehensive things needed to be done to fix education in
the state. He asserted that the legislation was the spark
that could lead to an overall improvement in education in
the state. He contended that there was data that showed the
connection between quality early childhood programs and
future academic success.
1:53:11 PM
Senator von Imhof mentioned Co-Chair Stedman's comment the
previous day that the governor's ten-year plan showed
deficit spending. She asked whether there was room in the
governors proposed budget to absorb the cost of the
legislation.
Senator Begich noted that the committee set finance and
budget priorities and reminded that the priorities showed
values. He suggested that oil and gas credit payments could
be reduced, or perhaps the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilitates. He pointed out that three years ago the
legislature decided to change the percent of market value
(POMV) draw for the Education Trust, which increased the
annual amount by $10 million. He mentioned the education
raffle, which had brought in $500,000 annually for
education. He felt that there was a moral obligation to use
those additional funds for education. He added that in the
process of budgeting, the legislature needed recognize that
the number of students in the state had continued to fall,
which meant that the foundation formula would decrease.
Senator Begich mentioned additional federal funds through
ARPA and other sources that could help offset the cost to
the state. He thought that the return on investment was
obvious and urged the committee prioritize education by
supporting the bill.
1:57:15 PM
Senator Holland mentioned Senator von Imhof's comments
about declines in reading scores of 8th grade level. He
th
asserted that declining performance in 4 grade was a
th
precursor to low scores in 8 grade. He lamented that the
legislature had little control over the funding
appropriated for education on the Operating budget. He said
that the bill attach accountability to those funds.
Co-Chair Bishop recognized Senator Shelley Hughes in the
gallery.
1:58:23 PM
th
Senator von Imhof pointed out that in 2013, 8 grade math
scores in the state were at the national average. She noted
that the gaps in performance had widened in both reading
and math since 2013. She hoped a group could come together
to look at education overall to identify trends and find
holistic solutions for the entire system.
Senator Begich agreed. He said that the bill would codify
reports that districts made that reflected gains. He stated
that there were mechanisms in the bill that defined a group
of people reporting back to the legislature and the
department of the progress of the program.
2:01:09 PM
Co-Chair Stedman noted a $57 million reduction in education
since 2015, $10.8 under the current administration. He
asserted that there was no room in the revenue stream for
any of the legislation put forth by the administration; the
governor did not leave any fiscal room available for even
his own policy changes. He thought that the department
could respond to Senator von Imhofs question about what
caused scores to begin falling in 2013. He wanted the
response in aggregate and by school district.
Senator Begich relayed that the department had the
information and would provide it to the committee.
Co-Chair Bishop informed that the department would be
before the committee to discuss the failure rate.
2:04:17 PM
Co-Chair Stedman handed the gavel to Co-Chair Stedman.
2:05:10 PM
ED KING, STAFF, SENATOR ROGER HOLLAND, addressed a
Sectional Analysis (copy on file):
Sec. 1 Establishes this Act as the Alaska Academic
Improvement and Modernization (AIM) Act.
Sec. 2 AS 14.03.040, relating to day-in-session
requirements, is amended to address a gap in the
current law. The change makes clear that kindergarten
and early education programs are not subject to the
requirements. Section 20 clarifies that the state
board of education should adopt regulations for those
programs.
Sec. 3 AS 14.03.060(e), relating to the definition of
an elementary school, is amended by:
? Changing the term "pre-elementary" to "early
education" (defined in sections 14 and 17).
? Adding the term "approved by" to conform to the
addition of AS 14.03.410(a)(2) (added by section 14).
? Making clearer the relationship between Head Start
agencies and DEED.
? Removing the language regarding ADM count, as it is
moved to AS 14.03.410(f)
(within section 14) and AS 14.17.500 (section 25).
Sec. 4 AS 14.03.060(e), relating to the definition of
an elementary school, is amended in 2034 to reverse
the addition of "approved by" in section 2. This
change is required to conform with the repeal of AS
14.03.410 (related to early education funding).
Sec. 5 Amends AS 14.03.072, related to providing
information to K-3 parents, by changing the word
"literacy" to "reading," inserting a requirement that
the intervention strategies be culturally responsive,
incorporating the reading intervention services added
by section 35, and replacing "retention" with
"progression."
Sec. 6 Removes the reference to reading intervention
services after the repeal of AS 14.30.765 in 2034.
Co-Chair Stedman handed the gavel back to Co-Chair Bishop.
2:07:54 PM
LOKI TOBIN, STAFF, SENATOR BEGICH, read from the Sectional
Analysis:
Sec. 7 Amends AS 14.03.078(a), related to DEED
reporting requirements, by:
? adding school districts as a recipient of the DEED's
annual report.
? expanding the reporting requirement to incorporate
all reports in AS 14.03.120, including those listed
below.
? adding ratios of administrative employees to
students, administrative employees to teachers, and
teacher to student ratios to the annual report.
? adding a progress report of the reading intervention
programs established by section 35.
Adding a report on the effectiveness and
participation of the parents-as-teachers program
established by section 14.
Sec. 8 Repeals the reports on reading intervention and
parents-as-teachers when the programs sunset in 2034.
Sec. 9 Adds two subsections to AS 14.03.078, relating
to department reporting requirements, which requires
reports to be posted online and defines an
administrative employee (as referenced in section 7).
Sec. 10 Amends AS 14.03.080(c), related to under
school age children entering public school, by
limiting participation to four- and five-year-old
children and clarifying that a child in an early
education program does not need to move to
kindergarten at age five.
Sec. 11 Reverses the changes in section 10 in 2034.
Sec. 12 Reinstitutes the language from the current AS
14.03.080(d), returning to the current language after
the sunset of the early education program takes
effect.
Sec. 13 Adds a subsection to AS 14.03.120, relating to
district reporting requirements, which establishes an
annual report regarding student performance metrics in
kindergarten through third grade.
2:11:00 PM
Senator von Imhof thought asked about annual standardized
testing. She thought that it would be helpful if DEED were
required to provide and Excel list, each year, of all the
test data.
Ms. Tobin continued to address the Sectional Analysis:
Sec. 14 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 up to
$3M per year.
? AS 14.03.410(c) requires DEED to rank the districts
and prioritize lower ranked districts. This subsection
also limits eligibility if there is insufficient need
in the district due to Head Start or other programs.
? AS 14.03.410(d) 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(e) requires DEED approval of quality
standards for ADM inclusion.
? AS 14.03.410(f) makes clear that the grants are
subject to appropriation.
? AS 14.03.410(g) provides definitions.
? AS 14.03.420 codifies the Parents-as-Teachers
program.
2:14:21 PM
Mr. King thought there had been an earlier question
regarding additional pre-K programs displacing HeadStart
programs. He relayed that the department could not approve
a grant for creating a new pre-K program unless there was
sufficient need within the community.
2:15:12 PM
Ms. Tobin interjected that the language in the bill
pertaining to the matter could be found on Page 9, lines 6-
10.
2:15:21 PM
Mr. King read from the Sectional Analysis:
Sec. 15 Amends AS 14.07.020(a), relating to duties of
the Department of Education and Early
Development, by:
? Adding supervision over, and approval of, early
education programs.
? Adding the support and intervention requirements
relating to reading intervention programs (from
section 35).
Sec. 16 Reverses the changes in section 15 in 2034.
Sec. 17 Changes AS 14.07.020(c), relating to the
duties of the department, to update the term "pre-
elementary school" to "early education program."
Sec. 18 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
35 of this bill.
Sec. 19 Reverses the changes in section 18 in 2034.
Co-Chair Bishop asked whether there was continuity across
communities for textbooks.
Mr. King stated that the language being address was
specific to the textbooks being provided by the reading
intervention program. He affirmed that the textbooks would
be uniform across all eligible and awarded programs.
2:17:09 PM
Senator von Imhof asked whether the single textbook
provided for the program could be at odds with local
control and cultural sensitivity.
Mr. King replied that the books were specific for the
reading intervention specialist assigned to the school.
Ms. Tobin noted that the language on Line 14, page 16
stated that the books were at request of the district and
were additional support for the reading intervention
services; the districts would need to request the
textbooks.
Senator von Imhof queried what districts that did not want
the books would do with the funding.
Ms. Tobin stated that the districts would not directly
receive the funds. The program would be DEED supported.
2:19:06 PM
Senator Begich addressed Senator von Imhof's question.
2:20:00 PM
Mr. King elaborated that there were multiple components to
the bill, and the reading intervention specialists would be
department employees that would go to low performing
districts and would bring their textbooks with them.
Ms. Tobin continued to address the Sectional Analysis:
Sec. 20 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.
Sec. 21 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.
Sec. 22 Reverses the changes in section 21 in 2034.
Sec. 23 Amends AS 14.07.180(a), relating to school
districts curricula, by requiring the board to utilize
the components of evidence-based reading instruction
(Phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development,
reading fluency, oral language skills, and reading
comprehension).
Mr. King continued to read from the Sectional Analysis:
Sec. 24 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.
Sec. 25 Add new subsections 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
equivalent student.
? prohibits including early education students that
participate in another state or federally funded
program.
? provides a process for limiting the budget increase
related to including early education students in the
ADM count to $3M per year.
Co-Chair Bishop asked whether Section 29 prevented "double
dipping."
Mr. King answered in the affirmative.
2:24:22 PM
Mr. King continued to read from the Sectional Analysis:
Sec. 26 Sunsets the inclusion of early education
students in a district's ADM in 2034.
Sec. 27 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
25% of a district's expenditures and allows for an
approval of additional carryovers.
Mr. King continued to address the Sectional Analysis:
Sec. 28 Adds subsection (c) to AS 14.17.505, related
to unreserved year-end fund balances, which provides
guidance to the department on what a plan for a
carryover of greater than 25% should include.
Sec. 29 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. 30 Reverses the change in section 29 to conform
to the sunset in 2034.
Ms. Tobin read from the Sectional Analysis:
Sec. 31 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. 32 Reverses the change in section 32 in 2034.
Sec. 33 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.
2:28:01 PM
Ms. Tobin continued to speak to the Sectional Analysis:
Sec. 34 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.
Mr. King spoke to Section 35 of the analysis. He explained
that the section created AS 14.30.760, which directed the
department to create the screening tool used by district,
established the screener parameters, and provided support
for districts using the screening tool.
Co-Chair Bishop asked how the screening tool would
function.
Mr. King relayed that the district and department would
develop the tool.
Co-Chair Bishop asked whether the screening tool would be
consistent amongst districts.
Mr. King said that a statewide tool would be available for
all districts to use; however, districts could use a
different tool if it met the standards of the department.
2:30:02 PM
Senator von Imhof asked about the section Mr. King was
speaking to.
Mr. King clarified that he was speaking to a new section of
law, AS 14.30.760, and not a section in the bill.
Mr. King addressed a previous question about performance of
HeadStart programs and asserted that there was insufficient
data to know how effective HeadStart programs were. He
stressed that data collection was an important part of the
bill so the state could measure success or failure.
2:31:39 PM
Mr. King continued to read from the Sectional Analysis:
Sec. 35 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.
Mr. King said that some rural communities may not have the
capacity to provide some of the services. He said that the
language was specifically inserted into the bill to address
certain communities' inability to provide services.
? 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) requires a parent-teacher conference
for K-2 students with a reading deficiency to discuss
delayed progression as an intervention.
? AS 14.30.765(e) established a statewide policy to
determine if a student is ready for promotion to the
fourth grade.
? AS 14.30.765(f) requires a parent-teacher conference
for third grade students with a reading deficiency to
discuss delayed progression as an intervention and
establishes a parental waiver to allow a student to
advance to fourth grade without being prepared, which
requires an additional 20 hours of summer intervention
services.
2:34:56 PM
Co-Chair Bishop asked whether a parent who chose to advance
th
their child to 4 grade unprepared, was there a mechanism
th
that would discount that student from the overall 4 grade
NAPE scores.
Mr. King replied in the negative.
Ms. Tobin referenced a report to the legislature from DEED
rd
on metrics and outcomes from K-3 grade. The information
would come directly to the body to give a thorough picture
of student progression.
Co-Chair Bishop thought the information was important.
2:36:12 PM
Senator von Imhof hoped that over time more students would
enter fourth grade prepared.
2:36:54 PM
Mr. King continued speak to the Sectional Analysis:
? AS 14.30.765(g) directs the department to develop a
recognition program for improving reading skills.
? AS 14.30.765(h) establishes a good cause exemption
from a district's third grade retention policy.
? AS 14.30.765(i) sets forth the process for a parent
to request a good cause exemption.
? AS 14.30.765(j) provides an opportunity for a parent
that misses the required conference to discussion
delaying progress to reschedule that conference.
? AS 14.30.765(k) directs the district to provide
additional intervention for students that do not
promote or promote with a waiver.
? AS 14.30.765(l) establishes a policy for mid-year
promotion of a K-2 student that does not progress to
the next grade.
? AS 14.30.765(m) establishes a policy for mid-year
promotion of a third-grade student that does not
progress to the next grade.
? AS 14.30.765(n) requires that a student promoting
mid-year continue the individual reading improvement
plan.
? AS 14.30.765(o) limits retention by a superintendent
to one year.
? AS 14.30.765(p) provide a definition for reading
teacher.
2:41:26 PM
Ms. Tobin continued to address the Sectional Analysis:
? AS 14.30.770 directs the department to establish a
statewide reading program, including five department-
funded reading specialists, to assist schools in
setting up their intervention services and coach
teachers on how to conduct evidence-based reading
instruction.
? AS 14.30.775 provides definitions.
Mr. King read from the Sectional Analysis:
Sec. 36 Adds a new section of law, AS 14.30.800, which
establishes a virtual education consortium. This
consortium allows districts to offer virtual access to
student courses and professional development courses
through a statewide system hosted by the department of
education. This section also creates a reading
specialist position to remotely assist districts to
improve reading instruction.
Ms. Tobin Read from the Sectional Analysis:
Sec. 37 Provides a definition for "culturally
responsive."
Sec. 38 Adds "early education program" to the
definition of "organization" in AS 47.17.290, which
pertains to the Department of Health and Social
Services.
Sec. 39 Repeals AS 14.03.080(d), related to five-year-
old students starting kindergarten, to conform to the
changes in section 11.
2:43:25 PM
Mr. King read from the Sectional Analysis:
Sec. 40 Repeals the following:
? AS 14.03.120(h) (report of reading improvement
statistics added in section 13)
? AS 14.03.410 (early education funding added in
section 14).
? AS 14.03.420 (Parents-as-Teachers program added in
section 14).
? AS 14.17.500(e) and (f) (limiting funding of early
education programs add in 25)
? AS 14.20.020(l) (increased requirements for teaching
certificates added in
section 35)
? AS 14.30.760 (K-3 reading assessments added in
section 35)
? AS 14.30.765 (district reading intervention services
add in section 35)
? AS 14.30.770 (department reading specialists)
? AS 14.30.775 (definitions related to reading
interventions)
? AS 14.30.800 (virtual education consortium)
Sec. 41 Sets a deadline for the department of
education to complete the set-up of the virtual
education consortium by July 1, 2024.
Sec. 42 Applicability language related to the reading
instruction requirement added by section 34 of this
bill, which allows teachers with preexisting teaching
certificates until July 1, 2024 to meet the new
requirements.
Sec. 43 Requires a report from DEED to the legislature
on the effectiveness of programs created by this bill
to the thirty-eighth legislature, which allows the
legislature to consider extending the programs before
they are sunset.
Co-Chair Bishop made note of Senator von Imhof's suggestion
that the information be easily read on an Excel
spreadsheet.
Senator von Imhof thought it was important that the
sponsor's had discussed accountability but had not seen any
accountability of consequence beyond required reports. She
questioned whether there would be consequences for a lack
of results.
Mr. King agreed that there were provisions within the bill
that required accountability. He asserted that the
statewide policy on what districts did with the money
provided by the state for intervention services was an
accountability measure. He furthered that the annual and
ten-year reports were accountability measures. He stated
that the sunset dates were an accountability measure. He
contended that districts had to prove that the program
worked for it to be extended.
Senator von Imhof understood the logic behind what Mr. King
stated. She reiterated that easily accessed and simply
presented data, available to the public, should be a
significant piece of the accountability measures.
2:48:16 PM
Mr. King continued to read from the Sectional Analysis:
Sec. 44 Transition language, which directs DEED on how
the inclusion of early education students should
occur.
Sec. 47 Provides an effective date of July 1, 2022 for
all other sections.
Mr. King noted that the $3 million proposed in the bill for
Pre-K program grants was different than the funding in the
current budget proposal. He continued to read from the
Sectional Analysis:
Sec. 45 Transition language, which allows DEED to
begin writing regulations before the sections of this
bill take effect.
Sec. 46 Provides an effective date of June 30, 2034
for sections 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 16, 19, 22, 26, 30, 32,
and 40.
Mr. King pointed out that changing the effective should be
considered.
Co-Chair Bishop thanked the presenters.
Ms. Tobin spoke to Section 5, which provided information on
parent teacher conferences and discussions with parents on
resources and accountability measures. She directed
attention to Section 7, which established the annual report
to the legislature and school districts. She highlighted
Section 9, which directed the district to make that
information easily accessible to the public.
Mr. King affirmed that existing statute required districts
to report their performance and summarize the information.
2:52:38 PM
AT EASE
2:52:55 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Bishop discussed housekeeping.
SB 111 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
2:53:31 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:53 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|