Legislature(2021 - 2022)DAVIS 106
04/30/2021 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 | |
| HB164 | |
| HB18 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 164 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 18 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 164-EARLY ED PROGRAMS; READING; VIRTUAL ED
8:09:06 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND announced that the first 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."
[Before the committee, adopted as a working document during the
4/23/21 House Education Standing Committee meeting, was the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 164, Version 32-
LS0731\I, Klein, 4/20/21 ("Version I").]
8:09:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, provided information on HB 164. He shared that
President Joe Biden announced the American Families Plan, which
would commit $1.8 billion over the next ten years for the
federal government to partner with states in offering free,
high-quality preschool. He said HB 164 would put Alaska in an
ideal position to take advantage of federal investments in early
education.
8:10:42 AM
LOKI TOBIN, Staff, Senator Tom Begich, Alaska State Legislature,
on behalf of the Senate Education Standing Committee, sponsor of
companion bill SB 111, presented the sectional analysis on the
reading intervention sections of the committee substitute (CS)
for HB 164, Version 32-LS0731\I, Klein, 4/20/21 ("Version I"),
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
(Page 2, line 29) Section 5: Amends AS 14.03.072 to
require all districts to provide information regarding
the importance of early reading and adult literacy to
parents and guardians of students in grades K through
3.
(Page 3, Line 11) Section 6: Repeals references to
reading intervention services made in Section 5 on
June 30, 2034. Reading intervention services,
including culturally responsive individual reading
plans, parent/guardian/family member notification, and
evidence-based reading intervention strategies
established under AS 14.30.765 are also repealed on
June 30, 2034.
(Page 3, line 23) Section 7: Amends AS 14.03.078 by
directing DEED to include in their annual report to
districts and the legislature information on the
implementation process of the statewide reading
intervention program established under AS 14.30.760-
14.30.775. Section 8 repeals this provision on June
30, 2034.
8:13:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referred to the text of the proposed
legislation, Section 5, subsection (a), paragraph (5), which was
on page 3, lines 9-10, and read, "(5) a list of resources and
organizations that specialize in improving adult literacy." He
pointed out that there have been discussions regarding how lists
are put together and how the content of the lists are chosen,
and he asked Ms. Tobin to go into detail about that process.
MS. TOBIN replied that the referenced paragraph was added by
Senator Micciche, and she deferred to the Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED).
8:14:43 AM
KAREN MELIN, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education and
Early Development, replied that DEED uses reliable, nationally-
recognized websites and resources.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether there exists a list of
resources already.
MS. MELIN replied that DEED already has a list, and that the
department is always looking for new or better resources.
8:17:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY thanked the bill sponsor for the
inclusion of 'culturally responsive' language in bill, noting
that culture is not necessarily correlated to geography. She
asked whether there would be accommodations made in the
Anchorage School District, for example, for students of the
Yup'ik culture living in Dena'ina Elnena.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said he would be happy to work with
Representative Zulkosky to address those questions.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND mentioned a map of indigenous languages across
Alaska.
8:20:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether all parents, at all levels
of literacy, would receive information on adult literacy.
MS. MELIN responded that the resources would need to be
developed and refined for adult literacy.
8:21:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX noted the number of cultures represented in
metro areas, and he wondered how the proposed legislation could
work with respect to that representation.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND read from the proposed legislation, with
reference to AS 14.06.010, on page 38, lines 25-27, which read
as follows:
(9) "culturally responsive" means showing respect for
and recognition of the traditions, beliefs, languages,
values, and practices of the local culture that has
historically been present in the geographic area being
served.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND stated that there is at least one school
district that has a program of learning the indigenous language
by immersion, and "that is their right and their privilege in
this state, where we recognize indigenous languages as being of
equal stature ... to English." For a community like Anchorage,
she said, with hundreds of languages represented, there are
options for indigenous languages.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated his intent to work with
Representatives Zulkosky and Prax on incorporating the
indigenous languages into HB 164.
8:24:37 AM
MS. TOBIN resumed her presentation of the sectional analysis of
Version I, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
(Page 7, starting on Line 18) Section 13: Creates a
new section under AS 14.03.120 asking districts to
report aggregate data to DEED on K-3rd grade reading
program metrics, including student-teacher ratios,
reading assessment performance, and retention metrics.
(Page 10, starting on Line 31) The next six pages
pertain to Sections 15 & 16: Amends AS 14.07.020 by
authorizing DEED to provide direct support to school
districts for the successful implementation of a K-3rd
grade evidence-based reading program. Section 16
repeals this provision on June 30, 2034.
8:26:20 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND noted that the analysis for Section 16 not in
sequence.
8:26:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referred to Section 7, subsection (a),
paragraph 10, of the proposed legislation, on page 4, line 30,
through page 5, line 2, which read as follows:
(10) the effectiveness and participation rates of the
parents as teachers program established under AS
14.03.420, including measures of efficiency and
effectiveness that demonstrate the effects of the
program on school readiness.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked how school readiness and
effectiveness of the program would be determined.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK deferred to Ms. Melin.
8:27:54 AM
MS. MELIN said that, as far as ensuring children are meeting the
five components of successful reading, the expectations would
remain the same.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether assessments for
participants in the Parents as Teachers program would be
compared to non-participants.
MS.MELIN replied that the two groups wouldn't necessarily be
compared, but that the students would be compared to the
expectations set by the assessments. The Parents as Teachers
program would help students be ready for the assessments, she
said.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said he doesn't understand how the
effectiveness of the Parents as Teachers program would be
measured or demonstrated.
MS. MELIN responded that the effectiveness would be demonstrated
through the assessment process; data would be collected from
incoming students and would demonstrate the effectiveness of
Parents as Teachers, preschool, and Head Start programs.
8:31:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY referred to Section 7, subsection (a),
paragraph 8, subparagraph A, of the proposed legislation, on
page 4, lines 15-18, which read as follows:
(A) the number of certificated administrative
employees in each category employed by each school
district compared to the number of students enrolled
in the school district on October 1 of the previous
year;
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said, "I almost think it should say '...
administrative employees and their role in each category
employed by ...' the school district." The expressed that she
doesn't know whether instructional coaches, principals, or
superintendents would be included as certificated administrative
employees.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK directed the committee's attention to
Section 9, subsection (d), of the proposed legislation, on page
6, lines 19-21, which read as follows:
(d) In this section, "administrative employee" means
an employee who does not provide direct classroom
instruction for students as a regular part of the
employee's job.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK noted the high rate of teacher turnover, and
expressed the need to ensure that someone who is trained in the
reading program will stay with the school district. He said the
concern is that whoever has that certification actually performs
the role in reading progression.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said she would appreciate identifying the
positions.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND said the topic could be an amendment.
8:34:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked whether there exists a section in
the proposed legislation addressing teacher or reading
specialist turnover.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK deferred to Ms. Melin.
MS. MELIN agreed that turnover is a challenge for school
districts. She discussed the possibility of DEED helping set up
and facilitate training programs.
8:36:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked about the logistics of keeping
certificated staff in smaller school districts.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK deferred to Ms. Melin.
MS. MELIN said providing successful training is critical in
supporting incoming teachers, regardless of location, which
underscores the importance of providing training. She said DEED
is committed to partnering with school districts to attract
qualified educators.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether there currently exists such a
program within DEED.
MS. MELIN replied that no program currently exists, but that
such a program would be critical to the success of HB 164.
8:38:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY discussed the need to have local teachers
and paraprofessionals trained as reading specialists.
8:39:56 AM
MS. TOBIN resumed the sectional analysis, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
(Page 16, line 6) Section 18: Amends AS 14.07.050 to
allow DEED the ability to purchase supplemental
textbooks in support of evidence-based reading
intervention strategies. For clarity, a district may
request DEED purchase supplemental textbooks, and
these textbooks are in addition to any materials a
district already employs. Section 19 repeals this
provision on June 30, 2034.
(Page 19, starting on line 7) Section 23: Amends AS
14.07.180 by directing the state board of education to
establish, in regulation, standards for evidence-based
language art curricula for grades K-3.
Please note that Commissioner Johnson has affirmed, on
the record, his and the department's practice and
continued commitment to engaging stakeholders when
designing regulations.
There are many sections that direct DEED and the state
board to establish new regulations. This allows for
stakeholder engagement, ensures a public comment
period on any new regulations, and allows for
nimbleness to respond to changing needs and dynamics.
8:42:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked why sponsor did not include writing
skills standards in the proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK offered to work on including assessments for
writing skills.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS expressed agreement.
MS. TOBIN pointed out the five evidence-based reading
components, established in 1960.
8:43:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked for clarification on the reading
standards.
MS. MELIN answered that DEED adopted language arts standards in
2012, which include a section of foundational skills in which
the five components of reading are specifically addressed.
8:44:57 AM
MS. TOBIN resumed the section analysis, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
(Page 22, line 13) Section 31 & (and on page 24, line
2) Section 34: Amends AS 14.20.015 to require out-of-
state teachers moving to Alaska to have meet
requirements established in regulation by DEED and the
state board that shows the educators have a working
understanding of evidence-based reading. Section 32
and 40 repeal these requirements for out-of-state
teachers on June 30, 2034.
(Page 24, Line 10) Section 35. Adds new section under
AS 14.30, Article 15. Reading Intervention.
(Page 24, line 15) Directs DEED to support school
districts in adopting an evidence-based reading
assessment tool to help kindergarten through 3rd-grade
classroom teachers identify students struggling to
learn to read.
(Page 24, Line 26) 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.
8:47:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether a school district would
continue to use the assessment tool currently in use.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK deferred to Ms. Melin.
MS. MELIN responded that the challenge is in the data gathering,
because each tool delivers reports in a different manner. The
power of collecting information would be in one universal tool
that would allow direct comparisons. While different tools
assess the same topics, she said, it would be difficult or
impossible to gather meaningful data.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY opined that it would be difficult and
expensive for school districts to switch to a new assessment
tool.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said the issue was recently addressed in a
meeting with the Alaska Superintendents Association. He
directed the committee's attention to Section 35, subsection
(a), paragraph (5), on page 25, lines 15-21, of the proposed
legislation, which read as follows:
(5) establish a process that allows the commissioner
to waive, upon request, use of the statewide screening
or assessment tool required under this subsection by a
school district if the school district has adopted an
evidence-based reading screening or assessment tool
and the screening or assessment tool is approved by
the department;
8:51:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY commented that the pedagogy of
indigenous language learning does not align perfectly with
English language learning. She asked how the assessment tools
could work in indigenous language immersion environments.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND commented that language learning is easier
when children are younger.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK responded that Representative Zulkosky's
comment underscores the importance of data being reported by all
school districts, so methods can be adapted.
MS. MELIN explained that there are always benchmarks in the
acquisition of language; helping children achieve English
proficiency would help with other languages.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked whether Ms. Melin was saying that
grasping English phonics was the best way for a child to learn
an indigenous language.
MS. MELIN clarified that children acquire language more
successfully when they are younger, compared to later in life.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY repeated her concern about English
language pedagogy with respect to indigenous language learning.
She asked whether assessment requirements or tools would
accommodate indigenous languages.
MS. MELIN replied that any language acquisition process
undertaken by a school district would be considered in any
regulatory process.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY stated that she would be interested in
working with the sponsor to ensure statutory protections.
8:57:31 AM
MS. TOBIN resumed the presentation of the sectional analysis,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
(Page 25) 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.
(Page 25) 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.
[HB 164 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB_18_Testimony_4_30_2021.pdf |
HEDC 4/30/2021 8:00:00 AM |
HB 18 |
| HB 18 Sponsor Statement 2.25.2021.pdf |
HEDC 4/30/2021 8:00:00 AM |
HB 18 |
| HB 18 Committee Packet 4.30.2021.pdf |
HEDC 4/30/2021 8:00:00 AM |
HB 18 |