Legislature(2021 - 2022)DAVIS 106
04/23/2021 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB132 | |
| HB164 | |
| HB114 | |
| HB132 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 114 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 164 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 132 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 164-EARLY ED PROGRAMS; READING; VIRTUAL ED
[Contains discussion of companion bill SB 111.]
8:29:05 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 164, "An Act relating to early education
programs provided by school districts; relating to school age
eligibility; relating to early education programs; establishing
a parents as teachers 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; relating to a
virtual education consortium; and providing for an effective
date."
8:29:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 164, Version 32-LS0731\I, Klein, 4/20/21
("Version I"), as the working document.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND objected for the purpose of discussion.
8:31:03 AM
LOKI TOBIN, Staff, Senator Tom Begich, Alaska State Legislature,
introduced HB 164 on behalf of the Senate Education Standing
Committee, prime sponsor of companion bill SB 111. She
explained that the policy changes for the voluntary early
education program are addressed in Sections 2-4, 7-10, 14-17,
20-22, 25, and 29, with repealer clauses in Sections 39, 40, and
45, and applicability language, transition language, and an
effective date in Sections 44, 46, and 47. She said the
voluntary early education programs direct the Department of
Education & Early Development (DEED) to approve and supervise
existing, high-quality, locally-designed, and culturally
responsive early education programs in local school districts.
She said the sections direct DEED to offer the Parents As
Teachers program and demonstrate its efficacy; the sections also
provide a mechanism for DEED to provide a grant for school
districts to design and develop a district program, and to
collect data on the programs for inclusion in its annual report
to the Alaska State Legislature. She said that a comprehensive
report would be provided to the Thirty-Eighth Alaska State
Legislature, and all of the sections under discussion would be
repealed on June 30, 2034.
MS. TOBIN discussed reading programs, addressed in Sections 5-6,
13, 18-19, 23, 29-32, 34-35, and 37, with repealer clauses in
Section 40, and applicability language in Sections 42-45. She
said the policies would direct DEED to establish a culturally-
responsive reading program, and support school districts in
implementation. She said school districts would be required to
offer interventional reading services for students in
Kindergarten through Grade 3 (K-3) who are identified as
struggling with reading. Students would be assessed at the
beginning of the school year, she said, and students struggling
with reading would receive individualized reading support
services. She stressed that the proposed language would ensure
that parents or guardians are notified of the activity, and that
students are provided additional support both inside and outside
of the classroom. The sections would also establish a statewide
reading program, she said, which would direct DEED to provide
intensive support to the lowest-performing 25 percent of school
districts serving K-3 students. Data would be included in a
comprehensive report, to be presented to the Thirty-Eighth
Alaska State Legislature, and the sections would be repealed on
June 30, 2034.
MS. TOBIN explained the last policy, which would direct DEED, in
collaboration with school districts, to establish a Virtual
Education Consortium, to be repealed on June 30, 2034. She said
this proposed policy is described in Sections 21, 36, and 40-41.
She pointed out that other sections included in the bill don't
pertain to the three primary areas of policy: Section 24 would
amend AS 14.14.115 to encourage school districts to engage in
cooperative agreements for the purpose of reducing
administrative costs. Sections 27-28 would amend AS 14.17.505
to increase the unreserved fund balance a school may carry into
a new fiscal year. Section 33 would amend AS 14.20.020 and
direct the State Board of Education to assess and establish
passing scores on teaching competency tests.
8:36:18 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND withdrew her objection to the motion to adopt
the proposed CS for HB 164, Version 32-LS0731\I, Klein, 4/20/21
as the working document. There being no further objection,
Version I was before the committee.
8:36:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, presented HB 164. He said the goal of the bill is to
empower parents, teachers, and students to increase ready
proficiency early in a child's learning; reading proficiency, he
said, makes it easier to learn many other subjects. He
explained that HB 164 would allow school districts to develop
localized and culturally responsive pre-K programs through a
six-year grant program; would establish a new statewide
evidence-based reading program; and would provide intensive
reading intervention services from kindergarten through grade
three for students experiencing reading deficiencies. The bill
would also require reading intervention specialists, funded by
the DEED, to be available to work with local teachers and
support staff to improve reading scores and assessments through
evidence-based reading instruction. He pointed out the Parents
As Teachers program, which he described as "the most cost-
effective way" of delivering early education to small and remote
communities. Parental involvement is key to a child's academic
success, he said, and the provisions in HB 164 would help catch
developmental delays and no longer allow schools to hold back
students without consultation with parents.
8:41:15 AM
SENATOR TOM BEGICH, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of the
Senate Education Standing Committee, sponsor of companion bill
SB 111, provided the history of HB 164's development. He said
HB 164 and SB 111 represent an effort to effect comprehensive
education reform, a process that began many years ago to address
the systemic inequity in Alaska's educational system which has
reduced opportunities for generations. He explained that
without a solid reading ability, the odds of a child's
involvement in the juvenile justice system, and later the
criminal justice system, are increased; similarly, that
individual is more likely to require state support and to pass
the obstacles to opportunity on to future generations. He
described a three-part strategy, developed in 1994 by the
Coalition for Education Equity.
SENATOR BEGICH explained that the first of the strategy was to
demonstrate the inequity in funding of construction and repair
of rural schools; the bulk of school funding has historically
been allocated to urban or railbelt schools. In 1999, he said,
the Alaska Superior Court characterized the legislature's
funding of Alaska's schools as "racist." In 2000, an extensive,
community-based effort to identify the necessary components of
education began, as well as what parents and educators felt was
missing in school. In villages where the work was done, he
said, several areas were identified, including the need for
greater education opportunities; curriculum more relevant to
culture and experience; greater support from DEED for teachers
and school districts; and consistent approaches to reading to
lock in early educations gains; and more engagement of teachers
in communities. He said the process was then extended to urban
areas, where the same needs were identified, particularly the
needs for DEED support and consistent reading curriculum.
SENATOR BEGICH said a lawsuit, building on prior efforts and
with financial support from the National Education Association,
Alaska Federation of Natives, individual school districts, and
Alaska citizens, sought to establish common components for
ensuring the state was meeting its constitutional obligations
under the education clause. The lawsuit, settled in 2012, with
the court identifying the exact elements of education previously
identified in the research and litigation process as those the
state needed to provide. While funding was increase and some
action was taken, he said, the court and plaintiffs envisioned
action on a much greater scale. Findings in the 2016
legislative performance audit underscored the issues.
8:45:36 AM
SENATOR BEGICH gave a brief history of his legislative efforts
to implement the educational components, explaining that the
ideas generated in the House Education Standing Committee and
Senate Education Standing Committee were all compiled into SB 8
and HB 164. The Senate Education Standing Committee heard SB 8
four times, he said, and there was extensive public support from
around the state for the concepts. The Senate Education
Standing Committee then introduced SB 111 in an effort to
combine the concepts in SB 8 - quality early education,
consistent and community-responsive reading, and greater support
to school districts from DEED - with additional concepts such as
the virtual consortium. He said SB 111 didn't address the
critical issues that had been identified in the preceding 25-
year process, but the Senate Education Standing Committee
removed harmful elements and added back nearly all of the
concepts from SB 8. He said he would make some adjustments,
such as removing the sunset clauses and enhancing the use of
locally-developed Alaska Native curriculum, he supports SB 111
as the next step in building a more robust educational system.
Like SB 111, he said, Representative Tuck's effort with HB 164
is informed by the experience of school districts including
Nome, Lower Kuskokwim, Yukon-Koyukuk, Alaska Gateway, Anchorage,
and many others that have responded to the imperative that an
equitable education should be provided to all Alaskans.
8:49:11 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND commented on Senator Begich's opposition to
the sunset clause, opining that the inclusion of the sunset
clause doesn't seem to make sense in the context of this type of
proposed legislation.
SENATOR BEGICH said the sunset clauses apply to every element of
the bill.
8:50:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated his agreement with Senator Begich
regarding the sunset clauses, and he pointed out that every
aspect of the bill is evidence-based. Stronger families, less
crime, stronger communities, and flourishing economies all stem
from equitable education, he said, and with the struggles Alaska
faces, it would be smart to take advantage of the federal
funding to make the proper investments. He asked, "Why would
you want to cut that short by having these repealers in there?"
SENATOR BEGICH pointed out that funding pre-K has been a
struggle every year. He said the data provided by DEED is
clear, with results showing that children supported with early
education outperform their peers at every level of testing.
8:52:30 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND discussed a previously-heard presentation on
preschool grants, and a longitudinal study in Minnesota which
follows kids from preschool all the way through workforce
development.
8:53:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY requested a more deliberative review of
the sectional analysis.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK asked how HB 164 compares to SB 111.
SENATOR BEGICH replied, "It is identical, down to the last word,
to the bill that is here." He said there has been extensive
discussion regarding ways to work, in a nonpartisan manner, to
improve the proposed legislation.
8:57:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK expressed the need for a thorough bill, and
he opined that there are no college programs that equip teachers
with the tools to teach kids to read.
SENATOR BEGICH discussed the need to better educate teachers,
pointing out that the teaching program at the University of
Alaska Anchorage, has lost its certification.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND expressed agreement with the previous
comments.
8:59:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM asked how to remove the policies in the
proposed legislation should the sunset clause be removed.
SENATOR BEGICH replied that the plan isn't to wait until the
program has run the full 10 years and then evaluate its success.
He explained that annual reviews would be performed, with annual
reports provided to the legislature, and the programs would be
adapted over time. He added that having a sunset clause poses a
risk of losing all progress once the program expires.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK added that education should always evolve.
He said reports have shown a divide between the upper and lower
classes in educational opportunities, especially through the
pandemic, as working parents try to provide education from home
while trying to make a living. He said that type of feedback
will allow incremental changes in education policy over the next
10 years.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND commented that the pandemic has allowed a
unique opportunity to address such issues. She then asked for
more information on the Parents As Teachers program.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained that Parents As Teachers has
historically been federally-funded in Alaska. When the program
first passed out of the House as House Bill 69 during the
Twenty-Sixth Alaska State Legislature, he said, it was supposed
to be funded at $9 million over three years. The funding wasn't
implemented, he said, and with a three-year sunset date, the
program ended. He commented that people often look at early
education as "babysitting," and parents need to be educated on
how to maximize a child's learning potential early in life.
9:06:28 AM
SENATOR BEGICH added that language was added to provide greater
resources, such as accessibility to literacy programs, for
parents.
9:07:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked for further discussion on the
section on reading intervention.
9:09:31 AM
MS. TOBIN presented the sectional analysis for Section 35 of HB
164 [included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Section 35 Adds new section under AS 14.30, Article
15. Reading Intervention and Article 16. Virtual
Education Consortium.
Directs DEED to support school districts in adopting
an evidence-based reading assessment tool to help
kindergarten through third-grade classroom teachers
identify students struggling to learn to read.
Students will be assessed in the fall, and if a
student is determined to be learning to read, the
student will no longer be assessed that year.
If a student is struggling to read, an individual
reading improvement plan must be developed and
implemented to help the student learn to read. Two
more additional assessments will assist in
ascertaining whether reading intervention strategies
are working, provide clear insight into where a
student may be struggling, and permit the department
to provide additional, targeted support.
DEED is directed to provide training to school
district staff in a reading assessment tool and train
school district staff in evidence-based reading
interventions. Districts are asked to identify which
early education program a student attended (if
attended) and report to the department reading
proficiency.
Districts may choose to adopt the reading assessment
tool provided by DEED or use their own reading
assessment tool if it is evidence-based and approved
by DEED. In determining the type of reading
assessment, DEED must consider the time it takes to
administer the assessment, when assessment results may
become available, how the assessment may be integrated
into the classroom, recommendations from taskforces
that studied reading deficiencies, and ensuring the
assessment is culturally responsive.
9:12:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked what components school districts
must consider in reading assessments.
MS. TOBIN referred to the text of HB 164, beginning on page 25,
line 24, Section 35, subsection (b), paragraphs (1) and (2),
which read as follows:
(b) In adopting a statewide screening or assessment
tool under (a)(1) of this section, the department
shall consider the following factors:
(1) the amount of time needed to administer the
screening or assessment, with the intention of
minimizing effects on instructional time;
(2) the time frame for reporting screening or
assessment results to teachers, administrators, and
parents or guardians;
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS stated his understanding that DEED would
be responsible for creating the standardized test, find a way to
incorporate it into the teaching, and ensure the results are
reported in a timely manner. He then asked whether the time
frame for reporting should be better defined.
MS. TOBIN replied that many districts already use assessment
tools, with varying levels of efficacy, and that the question
might be better posed to a representative from DEED.
9:14:04 AM
MS. TOBIN resumed her presentation of the sectional analysis of
Section 35, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Districts are directed to offer help to a K- 3rd grade
student who is struggling to read by offering
individualized reading intervention services.
Interventions must be in addition to core reading
instruction and be provided (when practical) by or
under the supervision of a reading teacher, be rooted
in evidence-based methods that are proven to help a
student learn to read within a single school year,
provide clear instruction and detailed explanation to
the student, be individualized, be offered outside the
regular school day, provide assistance and support to
parents/guardians, and support opportunities to
parents/guardians to learn about resources for adult
literacy.
Individual reading improvement plans must be
implemented at least 30 days after a student is
assessed to be struggling, and a student's classroom
teacher and district support staff must be involved in
the evidence-based interventions.
Progress on individual reading improvement plans must
culturally responsive and be monitored, and
adjustments may be made. Parents/guardians must be
kept updated on the progress of their students, and
additional resources to support individual reading
improvement plans at home must be provided to
parents/guardians.
Once a student is identified as a struggling reader, a
family member must be notified within 15 days.
Notification must include a clear description of what
an individual reading plan entails and how the
district plans to support the student. Explanations of
what evidence-based reading inventions entail and what
may happen if a student continues to struggle to read
must be included in the initial notification.
Parents/guardians must also be told what evidence-
based reading strategies may be implemented at home
and a detailed explanation of which future
retention/progression options, waivers, and good cause
exemptions may apply. Parents/guardians must also
receive information on how mid-year progression works
within the district. At 45 days (or before), if a
student continues to struggle to read, a
parent/guardian must meet with a student's classroom
teacher and district staff to discuss grade
progression.
9:16:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS pointed out that in individual education
plans (IEPs), the parent or guardian is required to be at the
meetings. He asked what would happen if the parent or guardian
is not able to be at meetings to discuss plans for a struggling
reader.
MS. TOBIN explained that the definition for "parent or guardian"
is very inclusive in the proposed legislation, in the hope that
a family member could be present. If a family member is unable
to be present, she said, the discussions would happen with the
classroom teacher and school district staff.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether a parent(s) would be
required to present themselves at some point, or whether the
educators would still work with the struggling student in the
absence of parental involvement.
MS. TOBIN replied that details regarding such a situation are
included in the proposed legislation in Section 35, subsection
(f), on page 29, line 21, through page 30, line 7.
9:17:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY referred to Section 20, subsection (a),
paragraph (5), subparagraph (A), beginning on page 17, line 10,
of the proposed legislation, which read as follows:
(A) standards for a locally designed, evidence-based
program that meets Head Start Program Performance
Standards and other federal standards required for
early education programs to receive federal funding;
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked whether existing Head Start
programs throughout Alaska, either federally or state funded,
would be bound by the new requirements.
MS. TOBIN responded that the legislature can't dictate how a
federal program operates within the state. The language of the
proposed legislation, she said, attempts to continue meeting the
qualifications of programs that could be established by the
current or subsequent federal administrations.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked whether language in the proposed
legislation would require existing Head Start programs to retool
their existing programs.
MS. TOBIN replied that HB 164 would hold Head Start programs at
their established qualifications, and it would encourage school
districts to work with Head Start programs to ensure that all
students have the opportunity for early education.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY, referring to Representative Hopkins'
earlier questions regarding the text of Section 35 regarding
reading screening and assessment tools, asked how DEED would
provide support for teachers conducting the assessments. She
clarified her question by asking what the intention behind the
support would be.
MS. TOBIN replied that the nature of DEED support would be
established in regulations, and she said it would be a good
question to ask the department.
9:21:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY stressed the importance of reading programs
and stated her support for HB 164. She commented on the
importance of having parental support and on identifying gaps in
education.
9:24:26 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND announced that HB 164 was held over.