Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 106
04/08/2009 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB59 | |
| SB57 | |
| HB215 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 215 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 59 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 59-PRE-ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROGRAMS/PLANS 8:01:31 AM CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 59 "An Act providing for the establishment of a statewide early childhood education plan and guidelines." 8:02:51 AM CHAIR SEATON reminded the committee that public testimony had been closed at the prior hearing. 8:03:03 AM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved that the committee adopt Amendment 1, labeled 26-LS0329\E.2, Mischel, 4/6/09, which read: Page 4, line 24, following "a": Insert "progress" 8:03:28 AM REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT KAWASAKI, Alaska State Legislature, explained that Amendment 1 is in recognition that the department may not be able to complete the report on a specific deadline, and therefore Amendment 1 provides a progress report in terms of what this committee desires with Pre-Kindergarten (Pre-K) programs. 8:04:02 AM CHAIR SEATON objected to Amendment 1 for purposes of discussion. 8:04:55 AM CHAIR SEATON removed his objection. There being no further objections, Amendment 1 was adopted. 8:05:08 AM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved that the committee adopt Amendment 2, labeled 26-LS0329\E.1, Mischel, 4/6/09, which read: Page 3, line 27: Delete "three and four years of age" CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion purposes. 8:05:28 AM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI explained that Amendment 2 removes the age stipulation so that all students can be involved and the department can decide how best to stipulate the age for Pre-K. He noted his understanding that the department's intent is to proceed with three to four years of age. Representative Kawasaki pointed out that there's a forthcoming amendment that dovetails with Amendment 2. 8:06:21 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER requested that Amendment 1 be withdrawn and the forthcoming amendment, which is broader in scope, be considered. CHAIR SEATON withdrew his objection to Amendment 2. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON withdrew her motion to adopt Amendment 2. 8:07:18 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved that the committee adopt Conceptual Amendment 3, as follows: Page 3, lines 26-27, following "plan for" Delete "students three and four years of age" Insert "families with preschool children" CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion purposes. 8:08:00 AM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked if there is a specific reason to use the term "families." REPRESENTATIVE KELLER clarified that the intent is to change the focus from students to families because parents have jurisdiction over their children from birth to school. He opined that parents are uniquely designed to know the individuality of each child more than anyone else. Therefore, it makes more sense to work with the parents in the education program. He said he's more comfortable with giving parents the resources to work with their children, which has been successful in Hoonah. 8:10:18 AM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON inquired as to how the three- and four- year-olds who do not live in a traditional family structure but rather have a guardian ad litem or foster parents would fit into Amendment 3. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER specified that the term "family" is not defined and doesn't presume a traditional family structure. He said that he hadn't felt being explicit with the definition of "family" was necessary. 8:11:17 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that this is a significant shift in the thinking about preschool education. She opined that working with families is an appropriate approach because not every child needs to attend preschool. 8:11:58 AM CHAIR SEATON expressed concern that HB 59, which is about education, is now asking the department to write a plan for families. Is that the intent, he asked. 8:12:47 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER pointed out that Amendment 3 maintains the language "devise a statewide early childhood education plan". Furthermore, the legislation specifies that the early childhood education plan is optional. He said he envisions a resource center from which families can obtain resources to prepare their children for education. 8:13:25 AM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON indicated that she liked Amendment 3 as it addresses the entire family. 8:14:22 AM CHAIR SEATON offered a friendly amendment to include the language "students and family" to allow the early education plan to focus on an individual child while involving the entire family. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER opposed the aforementioned suggestion because when a child is taken out of the home, the state struggles with the parental role. The Office of Children's Services (OCS) holds the responsibility for the child and in a sense becomes the family for a child taken from his/her home. Representative Keller opined that using the language "student" may imply that the Department of Education and Early Development (EED) takes the jurisdiction and responsibility for the child, which he wasn't sure is the desire. 8:16:21 AM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ stated support for the amendment [to Amendment 3], but pointed out that there seems to be a semantics issue with the language as it seems to indicate a student could have a child in preschool. 8:17:15 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked if Chair Seaton's concern would be addressed by inserting the language "who will become students" following "children". 8:17:31 AM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI said that he wasn't sure how the policy would be impacted in those instances in which a student doesn't have a family. Furthermore, he questioned having EED write policy to families. Representative Kawasaki opined that students have to be referenced in the language. He related that he would be more comfortable with the mention of students and families. 8:18:31 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that the language refers to early childhood education and that those children who aren't yet school age and don't have a family and not in a foster home are generally in a residential setting, which has intensive wrap- around services. Therefore, she said she didn't believe the language is excluding anyone. CHAIR SEATON clarified that he wasn't speaking about children who have been taken from their home, but rather his concern is for the diversity of families that exist across the state. He reiterated his concern that EED is being asked to write a plan for families. 8:20:18 AM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ disagreed, and opined that the language "devise a statewide early childhood education plan for families with preschool children" is clear and very inclusive. Furthermore, Representative Munoz opined that it doesn't diminish the intent, but rather strengthens it. 8:21:01 AM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON expressed concern that the amendment proposes eliminating the term "students" that is defined in statute to the term "families" that is not defined. 8:21:35 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER clarified that the law, with or without the amendments, says nothing about a family plan and doesn't imply it. In response to Representative Edgmon, Representative Keller offered his belief that there isn't a legal definition of "student." With regard to including a definition of "family," he opined that it would prove to be a slippery slope. 8:22:40 AM CHAIR SEATON asked if the language "preschool students and their families" would result in an inclusive situation. Would such be a friendly amendment, he asked. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER replied no. He explained, "It's a plan for families and it's for the children who will become students, but the focus can be either or the way you described it. And mine's narrower ... it applies only to the families and I'd like to stick with that." 8:23:44 AM CHAIR SEATON inquired as to how the department would handle Conceptual Amendment 3. 8:25:07 AM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked if there is a statutory definition of "student" or "families." 8:25:22 AM EDDIE JEANS, Director, School Finance and Facilities Section, Department of Education and Early Development (EED), responded that he couldn't answer right away, but would have to look up the answer. However, he highlighted that there is clearly a definition for "school age children" that's used for funding purposes. CHAIR SEATON asked if the term "student" is applicable in this case when the language refers to preschool age children. 8:26:17 AM MR. JEANS related his understanding that this legislation directs EED to develop a preschool funding model that is voluntary. He said that he would interpret the language "families with preschool children" as the same as [using the terms "student"] He further said that there would be a family component in the plan [regardless of the language used]. Therefore, Mr. Jeans said he didn't see a problem with the proposed language. 8:26:50 AM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON interjected the need to be sure that the grandparents aren't excluded because they aren't considered part of the family. MR. JEANS assured the committee that the extended family won't be excluded. He informed the committee that statute refers to "custodian of the children," which would include various family structures. 8:27:38 AM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH related his understanding [per the language in the legislation and per the language in Conceptual Amendment 3] that the department is being asked to formulate a plan for preschool children. The language appears to provide fairly broad language to develop the plan, he remarked. 8:29:00 AM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON recalled that Mr. Jeans testified that regardless of the language the families would be included [in the plan]. MR. JEANS said he didn't know how a Pre-K program could be developed without including the families. Even with statewide correspondence, there has been focus on individualized learning plans. The aforementioned will be part of the Pre-K program. He noted that the constitution of the program will vary between communities. The department is focusing on developing a program that allows flexibility to meet individual student and community needs, which includes the parents. 8:30:21 AM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON maintained his concern regarding how "family" would be defined. He noted that some family structures in rural villages are non-traditional. 8:31:06 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER commented that this is a valid concern, and suggested that the use of the term "custodian of the children" might resolve the issue. He stated his intent is not to limit the number of children that would be involved. 8:31:37 AM MR. JEANS responded that he would prefer to not include that language. He said he believes the definition of "family" is contained in regulation, and that definition could be referenced when addressing this issue. 8:32:05 AM CHAIR SEATON said he would be comfortable with Conceptual Amendment 3 if Mr. Jeans would confirm for the record that the intent of the department is to involve families and not to write a family plan that must be followed. MR. JEANS responded that that is his understanding of the department's intentions. 8:33:35 AM CHAIR SEATON removed his objection to Conceptual Amendment 3. There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted. 8:33:49 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved that the committee adopt Conceptual Amendment 4, as follows: Page 3, line 31: Delete "or expansion of" CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion. 8:34:32 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER indicated that Conceptual Amendment 4 would offer the department the freedom to expand and encourage valid programs. 8:35:12 AM CHAIR SEATON asked Mr. Jeans to confirm that the proposed amendment would not constrain the department. MR. JEANS answered that it would not. 8:35:42 AM CHAIR SEATON removed his objection to Conceptual Amendment 4. There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 4 was adopted. 8:35:49 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved that the committee adopt [Conceptual] Amendment 5, as follows: Page 4, lines 18-19, following "cost-efficient": Insert "family based" 8:35:57 AM CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion purposes. 8:36:25 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER, in response to Representative Wilson, confirmed that all the amendments being offered to HB 59 are conceptual. 8:36:57 AM CHAIR SEATON asked if there are any efficient and optional pre- elementary programs that are not family based. MR. JEANS offered his belief that the department has already developed the early learning guidelines that would be included under this new statute. He stated, "As long as we understand that ... adding 'family based' doesn't limit us to family-based programs, then I'm fine with the language." 8:37:50 AM CHAIR SEATON asked the bill sponsor if he thinks Conceptual Amendment 5 would restrict the department's guidelines. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER answered no. 8:38:13 AM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH interjected that he cannot see how it would not. He expressed concern that Conceptual Amendment 5 is exclusive and would limit the department's ability to determine the effectiveness of guidelines. He clarified that he does not have a problem with the concept of involving families when it is appropriate to do so; however, he said there may be circumstances within the development of the program when "it is outside of that purview." He added, "So, my concern would be that we don't make it exclusionary in the development of this particular process." REPRESENTATIVE KELLER indicated that without examples in which a family would not be engaged, he supports being restrictive. He explained that he wants whoever is the custodian of the child to have some engagement. 8:40:11 AM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH deferred to the department. 8:40:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER questioned whether this language would prevent a child from attending if his/her parents did not want to be involved in the program. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER answered no. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked Chair Seaton if it would be sufficient to note for the record that the proposed amendment is conceptual and is not intended to exclude children whose parents want their children to participate but do not, themselves, want to participate in the program. [AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER] said, "Absolutely." MR. JEANS, referring to page 4, lines 18-20, opined that it's a fairly broad definition. He further opined that it doesn't restrict it only to family-based programs. 8:41:52 AM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON, referring to page 4, lines 18-20, highlighted the language, in the context of the legislation, specifying that the board shall adopt: (6) early learning guidelines that support an effective, cost-efficient, and optional pre-elementary program provided under a statewide early childhood education plan approved by the department. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON questioned whether the aforementioned would require the department to change some of its guidelines or regulations. 8:42:59 AM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH removed his objection to Amendment 4. 8:43:15 AM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if the "family-based" programs imply a certain type of program. MR. JEANS answered that the term "family based" does imply programs such as Parents as Teachers. However, there isn't a specific listing of those programs that fall under the family- based program designation. Mr. Jeans related his belief that the early learning guidelines that have already been adopted by the State Board of Education address all the components currently required in this section. 8:44:13 AM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI said he didn't have a problem with Conceptual Amendment 5 and would work with Representatives Keller and Edgmon to ensure that the definition "is rigid and somewhere in code." 8:44:44 AM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON, referring to page 4, lines 5-6, asked if there is alignment between the references to "local needs" and "family based". MR. JEANS reiterated that the department finds the language to be in line with where EED is already heading, programs that target individual students based on community need. The department wants to maintain broad language in order that it has the flexibility to develop different programs based on community and parental needs. In further response to Representative Edgmon, Mr. Jeans said that the term "family based" won't restrict or encourage the department to go in any other direction than it is already heading. 8:47:26 AM CHAIR SEATON removed his objection to Conceptual Amendment 5. There being no further objections, Conceptual Amendment 5 was adopted. 8:48:51 AM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ moved to report CSHB 59, Version LS0329\E, Mischel, 3/9/09, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 59(EDC) was reported from the House Education Standing Committee. 8:49:37 AM The committee took a brief at ease from 8:49 a.m. to 8:52 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 59 background I.pdf |
HEDC 4/6/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 59 |
| HB 215 material.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/10/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 215 |
| HB 59 workdraft version E and original version R.pdf |
HEDC 4/6/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 59 |
| HB 59 background II.pdf |
HEDC 4/6/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 59 |
| HB59-ESS-EED-4-2-09.pdf |
HEDC 4/6/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 59 |
| SB 57 material I.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2009 8:00:00 AM |
SB 57 |
| SB 57 material II.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2009 8:00:00 AM |
SB 57 |