Legislature(2021 - 2022)DAVIS 106
05/03/2021 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 | |
| HB53 | |
| HB164 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 53 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 164 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 164-EARLY ED PROGRAMS; READING; VIRTUAL ED
[Contains discussion of HB 69.]
8:10:48 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY announced that the final 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").]
8:12:05 AM
LOKI TOBIN, Staff, Senator Tom Begich, Alaska State Legislature,
on behalf of the Senate Education Standing Committee, sponsor of
companion legislation SB 111, presented the sectional analysis
for HB 164, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
(Page 26, starting on Line 5) Section 35 establishes
AS 14.30.765 Reading intervention services and
strategies.
For any K- 3rd-grade student who is struggling to
read, districts must offer individualized reading
intervention services to the maximum extent possible.
This ensures local control and flexibility.
Interventions are in addition to core reading
instruction. They should 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 a detailed
explanation to the student, be individualized, be
offered during or outside the regular school day,
provide assistance and support to parents/guardians at
home, and support opportunities for parents/guardians
to learn about resources for adult literacy.
(Page 27, Line 10) Individual reading improvement
plans must be implemented at least 30 days after a
student is assessed to be struggling. Individual
reading improvement plans must be culturally
responsive and be monitored regularly to allow for
adjustments. Parents/guardians/family members must be
kept updated on their student's progress, and
additional resources to support individual reading
improvement plans at home must be provided to the
family.
8:14:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked whether the reading plan
implementation would occur at home or within the school
environment.
MS. TOBIN replied that the plan is intended to be implemented in
school or at home.
8:15:42 AM
MS. TOBIN resumed her presentation of the sectional analysis,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
(Page 28, Line 2) Once a student is identified as a
struggling reader, a family member must be notified
within 15 days.
This notification, which can be verbal or written,
must include a clear description of how the student
was identified as a struggling reader and details of
individual reading plans. Districts are asked to
provide information on what future
retention/progression options, waivers, and good cause
exemptions may apply if the student continues to
struggle to read. 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, districts are asked to have a
parent/guardian/family member conference to discuss
grade retention/progression and its potential impacts
on the student both academically and socio-
emotionally.
Teachers and district staff will explain the student's
situation and how retention may impact the student's
future academic and social performance. At the end of
the conversation, if all the parties are not in
agreement as to what is the best course of action, the
parent makes the final decision.
Parents/guardians/family members may request a good
cause exemption for students with an individualized
education plan, a student who has received at least
two years of intensive reading intervention services,
a student who has previously been retained, and a
student who is an English Language Learner.
For students who are retained, school districts must
provide individual reading improvement plans,
evidence-based intensive reading intervention
strategies, supplemental tutoring, increased time
focused on reading, and a plan for homebased reading
interventions.
As Commissioner Johnson has noted on the record: There
is a lot of evidence that promoting a student who
cannot read has consequences. At the same time, there
is mixed/indecisive evidence that retaining a child
has sustained positive consequences. What is known
with certainty is that every student identified as a
struggling reader should receive effective reading
interventions. This legislation is not a retention
bill; it is a reading bill, which means, as described
above, this legislation focuses on effective
interventions and accountability.
Effective means meeting commonly accepted standards of
evidence-based practices.
Intervene means accurately and routinely identifying
students who are struggling.
Accountable means establishing in statute the
expectations of the legislature in reporting.
8:18:45 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY opined that only one meeting seems
"prescriptive."
8:20:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK pointed out that there would not be only one
meeting, but that if there is a meeting that a parent or
guardian cannot attend, the superintendent's designee would
proxy.
CO-CHAIR STORY expressed confusion about the number of meetings.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK pointed out that the proposed legislation,
on page 27, lines 26-27, would mandate providing at least 10
reading progress updates each year to the student's parent or
guardian.
8:23:19 AM
KAREN MELIN, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education &
Early Development (DEED), explained that there would be regular
communication with parents as soon as a student is identified as
a struggling reader. A truly effective intervention process
would be done with the parents' full cooperation, she said, and
the entire "ecosystem" of the child would be addressed.
8:25:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY referred to page 29, line 8, of the
proposed legislation, which she characterized as the school
district "stepping in and making the decision on behalf of the
parent or guardian." She said, "It gives me some pause, and
some concern, that in state statute, we would be divesting
parent and family and guardian decision-making to the
superintendent."
8:27:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK responded that the limit of 10 meetings per
year was recommended by the National Education Association -
Alaska, to not overly burden the classroom teacher while still
providing continuous updates. The decision on whether a student
advances to the next grade would have to be made at some point,
he said, and he pointed to page 31, lines 4-10, of the proposed
legislation, which read as follows:
(j) If no parent or guardian attends the meeting, and
a superintendent or superintendent's designee decides
that a student in grades kindergarten through three
will not progress to the next grade under (d) or (f)
of this section, the district or school in which the
student is enrolled shall provide immediate oral and
written notification to the student's parent or
guardian. The written notification must explain that
the parent or guardian may reschedule the meeting
provided under (d) or (f) of this section and that
during a meeting
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK pointed out that a student can't be held
back without a waiver, which must be signed by the parent or
guardian.
8:29:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX opined that attempts to work with unengaged
students and parents are futile. He shared an anecdote of
attempting to help students with unengaged parents.
8:32:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK discussed that it typically takes five
adults to raise a child, such as two parents, two grandparents,
and a teacher. He said there was a study that followed children
who were denied entry to charter school and found that their
education results were the same as the children who were
admitted entry to charter schools. The finding, he said, was in
parental involvement; parents who are engaged enough to attempt
to have their children educated in charter schools will remain
engaged. He stated, "We are trying, with this bill, to
encourage as much parental involvement as possible." He
expressed that, while the proposed legislation may not see 100
percent success, it would have more success than is currently
being experienced in the state. He then shared an anecdote of
meeting an intelligent student who he described as "probably
falling behind" because he was easily distracted, and he pointed
out that when a teacher has up to 40 kids in a classroom, and
there is little parental involvement, the teacher faces an extra
challenge.
8:36:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX shared observations of student engagement in
a youth detention center.
8:37:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND pointed out that in Representative
Tuck's earlier reference to page 31, lines 4-10, the "final
meeting" actually contains a lot of information, so it's not
actually a final meeting. She noted the amount of vague
language in the proposed legislation, and she suggested that a
flowchart would help committee members visualize the assessment
process. She stressed that there are dozens of opportunities
between kindergarten and third grade for parents to respond to
requests for meetings, and that if parents aren't responding by
the time the child is in the third grade, there could be a
serious issue. She shared that many foster care children, who
often have many placements with different guardians, need guides
to make sure they stay on track; if a parent or guardian isn't
engaged, the child still needs to be helped. She pointed out
Representative Tuck's reference to charter schools, which can
require engaged and involved parents.
8:42:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY commented that a visual depiction of
interventions, classroom engagement, and family engagement would
be beneficial. She said that she appreciates that HB 164 is not
intended to be a "retention bill."
8:44:42 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY agreed that the goal of the proposed legislation
is progression instead of retention.
8:45:15 AM
MS. TOBIN noted that it would be helpful to know how many
students could potentially be under discussion with respect to
retention, but there are no statewide statistics; reporting
metrics are included in the proposed legislation, so future
decisions could be more informed. She resumed her presentation
of the sectional analysis and said:
I'm on page 31, starting on line 16. For a student
who is retained, this section denotes what the
district is responsible to offer, to ensure student is
able to progress and/or address their reading
deficiencies.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked whether this portion of the
proposed legislation would be mandatory for school districts.
MS. TOBIN replied that this is one of the mandated sections, as
it would require intervention for a student who is retained.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked how DEED would support teachers in
potentially under-resourced school districts.
MS. TOBIN pointed out that components of individual reading
plans are discussed in the section. She then deferred to Ms.
Melin.
8:48:20 AM
MS. MELIN said DEED could offer information and resources, as
well as professional development opportunities.
8:49:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked Ms. Melin to discuss reading
intervention positions.
MS. MELIN responded that reading interventionalists would be
embedded in the district to support teachers and deliver
intervention opportunities to students, establish an
intervention process, and provide professional development for
teachers who are learning reading intervention. She said the
state could support 11 schools; if there were 40 reading
interventionalists, the state could support 40 schools.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether interventionists would be
for schools or school districts.
MS. MELIN replied that they would be assigned to individual
schools; however, teachers from other schools could attend
training days.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked Ms. Melin to clarify whether the
interventionalists would support the school as opposed to
individual teachers.
MS. MELIN replied, "Yes. They would be a resource to the entire
school to support all teachers, or any teacher, that would need
support."
8:52:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY mentioned a concern about teacher tenure
in rural Alaska schools. She asked what DEED has considered
with respect to individual teacher capacity beyond professional
development.
MS. MELIN replied that DEED has no authority within school
districts. She said support, hiring, training, and mentoring
lies with the district. Support for districts from DEED can
include information, resources, and leadership.
8:55:26 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY asked whether consideration has been given to the
possibility of placing reading specialists within a community
for a year.
MS. MELIN responded that the models with the most success
involve the specialist being deeply embedded in the community
and into the school culture.
MS. TOBIN interjected that the subject would be covered in the
next section.
8:57:44 AM
MS. TOBIN resumed the sectional analysis for HB 164, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
(Page 32, Line 29) Section 35 establishes AS
14.30.770, department reading program.
DEED will develop and offer a direct support reading-
intensive intervention program. The lowest-performing
25% of schools that serve K-3rd grade students are
eligible, and DEED may select up to 5 schools.
MS. TOBIN noted that in previous legislation, DEED could select
up to 10 schools.
[This part of the sectional analysis would conclude later in the
meeting.]
8:58:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND pointed out that the sectional analysis
specified "the lowest-performing 25% of schools," not school
districts. She noted that Alaska has over 500 individual
schools, and she asked how support for the lowest-performing 25
percent of schools could be achieved by focusing on only five
schools per year.
MS. TOBIN replied that the schools considered would be those
serving only students in kindergarten through third grade. She
said the previous legislation limited the number of schools for
consideration to 10 percent, instead of 25 percent, with 10
participating schools in the trial program, of which its
efficacy is still being explored.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND expressed concern about reaching every
child when focus is only on a small fraction of communities that
need help. She then asked Ms. Melin for a list of schools, with
grade levels, in each school district.
9:01:00 AM
MS. MELIN agreed to provide the information.
CO-CHAIR STORY commented that the intention is that support and
progress would be demonstrated in each school district. She
said MAPS assessment data shows that 60 percent of Alaska
students are not reading at grade level.
MS. TOBIN commented that Representative Tuck, as prime sponsor
of HB 164, would likely be amenable to an amendment on the
section under discussion.
9:02:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX said, "I don't think it is necessarily a bad
idea to ... implement it, see how it works, in a limited,
focused number of districts." He opined that there's no point
to launching a program broadly without testing it in a smaller
"market."
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY expressed approval of pilot programs,
and she opined that the reading proficiency element is one of
the most important in the proposed legislation.
9:05:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND commented that there are 10,000 students
per year in each grade level, and she stated need to reach as
many communities as possible. She added that this would be an
evidence-based program that has been proven to work, so there is
no need for pilot programs; she expressed the need for broad
deployment.
9:06:50 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY commented that many of the programs proposed in
HB 164 are currently in place, but that there often isn't enough
staff to carry out the programs, and that it's unrealistic to
add the requirements when there's not enough staff to do the
work.
9:07:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked Ms. Melin to discuss the
application and approval process for the reading interventionist
program.
MS. MELIN replied that the state's accountability system would
identify schools approved for the reading interventionist, which
considers several different indicators to identify the lowest-
performing schools. Depending on where a school falls in
proficiencies, that school will either be approved or rejected
for the program.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY referred to the test of HB 164, page 33,
lines 10-11, which read, "(2) establish an application process
for school districts to apply to participate in the program;".
She said, "If the schools are identified through the
accountability system ... how does the department intend to
utilize the application process outlined on line 10?"
MS. MELIN responded that the identification process would
identify more schools than staff available. She said some
schools may choose to use their own processes rather than apply
for the program.
9:11:07 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY commented on the number of components to HB 164.
She said the first component is the requirement that school
districts have an evidence-based reading program, which many
already do. She asked, "To what extent does the bill provide
funding for K-3 teacher training and reading assessments and
interventions, and the instructional strategies?" She expressed
that it's important to build the expertise of the teachers. She
expressed that missing out on funding for teacher training would
result in more children requiring reading specialists, and she
shared the belief that the intended goal of the proposed
legislation is fewer children who require intensive instruction.
MS. MELIN replied that she would check.
MS. TOBIN pointed out that page 25, lines 5-9, of the proposed
legislation, may address Co-Chair Story's question. The text in
question, Section 35, subsection (a), paragraph (3), read as
follows:
(3) provide training to school district staff related
to using the results of the statewide screening or
assessment tool and understanding evidence-based
reading interventions, including explicit and
systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics,
vocabulary development, reading fluency, oral language
skills, and reading comprehension;
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked whether DEED would provide the
resources for school districts to develop culturally appropriate
assessment tools.
MS. TOBIN replied that a suggested amendment from Nome School
District would create that component within the virtual
education consortium. She said there's no national or
international vendor that produces culturally-responsive reading
criteria, particularly, criteria rooted in the indigenous
knowledge structures of Alaska, so school districts have created
the resources on their own. She said the potential amendment
would allow for DEED to support a platform containing such
information.
9:15:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY referred to page 34, lines 9-11, which
read as follows:
(B) provide explicit and systematic skill development
in the areas of phonemic awareness, phonics,
vocabulary development, reading fluency, oral language
skills, and reading comprehension;
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked whether the potential amendment
would provide DEED with the resources to ensure any material
touches all of the components of skill development.
MS. TOBIN replied that it's possible.
9:16:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether DEED has an estimate of
available resources, as well as how many schools and students,
could be involved in the reading intervention program over the
next five years.
MS. MELIN responded that processes and resources would need to
be evaluated in the context of the legislation that ends up
being passed.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX surmised that, after the legislation passes,
it would take two or three years to implement the program.
MS. MELIN replied that there are many moving parts in
implementation of a bill of this size, and DEED would implement
any statutes as efficiently and quickly as possible.
9:19:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK commented that HB 164 reminds him of
"Obamacare," and he said, "Let's pass it until we figure out
what's inside of it." He expressed that many educators are not
in support of the proposed legislation because it's not simple.
He said if the state is investing money in education, the state
must invest money in development, so education has a purpose.
He expressed the need to keep the proposed legislation simple.
9:22:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND discussed the committee substitute for
HB 69, and she reference a paragraph that she said would "lay
the groundwork for what we're looking to accomplish here." She
commented that HB 164 is not operating in a vacuum; schools are
already teaching kids to read, and at least 40 percent of
children are reading at grade level. She read from the text of
CSHB 69(FIN), Version 32-GH1509\D, page 10, lines 23-30, which
read as follows:
It is the intent of the legislature that a baseline
assessment of current practice in Alaska's 53 School
Districts, including but not limited to adopted K-3
reading curriculum and assessment tools; Dyslexia
screening tools; intervention strategies and timeline;
frequency of parent teacher conferences for those
students experiencing reading deficits; teacher and
staff training offered to support K-3 reading
instruction; and number of certificated K-3 teachers
with reading endorsement. The Department is to provide
a report of findings to the Finance co-chairs and the
Legislative Finance Division on or before December 1,
2021, and notify the Legislature that the report is
available.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND stated that she doesn't believe HB 164
would be moved out of the House Education Standing Committee
before the legislature adjourns for the year, so there's time to
gather data and understand where school districts stand.
9:25:43 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY expressed agreement with Representative
Drummond's comments, and discussed opportunities for public
testimony.
9:26:45 AM
MS. TOBIN resumed presenting the sectional analysis for CSHB 164
Version I, noting that she would conclude the portion of the
sectional analysis that she began earlier in the meeting, which
discussed Section 35 establishing AS 14.30.770, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
DEED must provide direct support to school districts
to implement a district reading program that includes
a DEED-supported reading specialist to assist teachers
and staff in learning evidence-based reading
strategies.
(Page 33, starting on Line 17) there is a detailed
description of the job responsibilities of the
assigned reading specialist. These responsibilities
include coaching, mentoring, training, facilitating,
and leading district teachers and staff in evidence-
based reading instruction methodologies and data
analytics.
DEED is also required to work with assigned reading
specialists in developing progress reporting and
measurable success metrics. DEED must purchase
additional reading support materials, pay for any
associated costs like travel, and assist in building
professional development plans for district staff in
evidence-based reading instruction.
Reading specialists will work with district staff and
community members to improve school reading skills.
Reading specialists must provide annual reports to the
community on the effectiveness of the district reading
program.
(Page 34, lines 18-22) DEED will convene an annual
panel of educators, parents, and classroom teachers to
provide feedback to DEED on the implementation of
Section 35. The intent is for DEED to use this
feedback in adjusting or augmenting the implementation
of this section.
(Page 34, line 25) AS 14.30.770 provides additional
guidance for districts and DEED on implementing the
department reading program to ensure a collaborative
approach.
(Page 35, line 28) Section 35 includes a detailed job
description for a reading specialist that requires the
educator to have experiential and academic experience
in evidence-based reading instruction.
(Pages 36-37) Section 35 includes definitions for the
district, evidence-based reading instruction, and an
inclusive definition of parent and guardian.
(Page 38, lines 24-27) Section 37 includes a
definition for culturally responsive.
(Page 39, starting on line 11) Section 42 adds
applicability language for teachers who begin teaching
on or after the effective date of this act -
pertaining to previous sections on educator coursework
in evidence-based reading.
9:30:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked how DEED envisions implementation of
"culturally responsive" techniques.
MS. MELIN responded that the vision for the proposed legislation
lies with the bill sponsor, so DEED would work to implement that
vision.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX said, "If someone grew up in the Greek
culture, and English was their second language, there would be
some difficulty in fitting what's going on in the development of
this program into the Greek culture."
MS. TOBIN pointed out that the original language acknowledged
that Alaska already has standards for culturally responsive
schools, which were adopted in 1992. She commented that the
definition could receive some suggested amendments, and she said
she looks forward to seeing how the amendments could ensure that
HB 164 remains rooted in the state's cultural traditions while
acknowledging the many individuals from other cultures.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked, "And that is in statute, or in
regulation?"
MS. TOBIN offered to provide the committee with a copy of
Alaska's standards for culturally responsive schools.
9:34:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked how DEED intends to navigate
potential conflicts between any evidence-based reading
components that may not align with cultural methods of learning.
MS. MELIN replied that DEED would work with experts and
stakeholders to ensure the components of HB 164 are implemented
in the ways intended by the sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked what actions DEED would take if a
situation arose in which a school district's immersion program
puts forward recommendations that don't align perfectly with the
evidence-based reading components as outlined in HB 164.
MS. MELIN responded that DEED would need to work with each
specific situation. She said HB 164 specifies components for
reading in English, so DEED would need to work with experts and
stakeholders to understand how components would work in another
language.
9:37:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX shared his understanding that there are
Russian and Filipino communities in Alaska, and he asked whether
DEED intends to address "cultural variability to that level."
MS. MELIN answered that DEED's intention would be to work with
all stakeholders to implement HB 164. She pointed out that
there are many distinct cultural communities and languages, and
she said that DEED has always worked to ensure that any
regulations are implemented appropriately.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked, "Do you feel that the department has
the ... capacity to do that, or would that take more people than
expected?"
MS. MELIN replied that it's difficult to identify whether DEED
has adequate resources until expectations are known. She said,
"Once we have a clear law in place, then we can evaluate
capacity of department and our ability to implement it."
9:40:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked for discussion about required
training for reading interventionalists.
MS. TOBIN said page 36 of the proposed legislation contains a
detailed job description for a reading specialist, which clearly
outlines the experiential and academic experience a reading
specialist would need to have in order to practice in Alaska.
She noted that subparagraph (F) on page 36 discusses ensuring
expertise in teaching students whose primary language is not
English. She stressed that the bill's sponsor views HB 164 as
focusing on evidence-based reading strategies based on the
National Reading Panel's review of over 100,000 recommendations
of learning to read in any language, rather than it being an
"English reading bill."
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether there are currently
individuals in Alaska who have the credentials required under HB
164.
MS. TOBIN clarified that development of the job description was
done to ensure that there would be Alaskans who qualify.
9:44:48 AM
MS. MELIN said DEED could provide details on how many educators
currently hold a reading endorsement.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether training would be developed
by DEED.
MS. MELIN stated that DEED is ready to prepare such training.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS commented that it appears a certain level
of proficiency would be required.
9:46:39 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY said she would like to know how many teachers are
trained in working with students with dyslexia.
MS. MELIN said she would inquire whether such data is collected.
CO-CHAIR STORY asked for discussion on whether a level of
proficiency would need to be demonstrated for teachers and/or
reading specialists.
MS. TOBIN interjected that Co-Chair Story may be referring to
Section 33 of the proposed legislation. She said there has been
discussion regarding how educators are prepared, and she asked
Ms. Melin for comments.
9:48:26 AM
MS. MELIN explained that elementary educators must achieve a
minimum score on the Praxis test, which is a national test given
to educators across the country. As far as university
preparation, she said, programs and schools across the country
vary widely, so she wouldn't be able to say how educators are
prepared. She expressed that it would be important that
educators who become part of the program as outlined in HB 164
have consistent training addressing the science of reading.
MS. TOBIN interjected that Section 33 was added based on the
reading plan established in Mississippi, which emphasized
individual reading plans, early education, and support for
school districts.
9:51:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK opined that for HB 164 to be effective,
reading specialists would have to train teachers.
9:52:18 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY referred to page 26 of the proposed legislation,
lines 23-24 and lines 27-29, and commented that these proposals
would require extra resources. She asked how the resources
would be implemented and funded.
MS. TOBIN referred to page 26, line 11, which says, "The
intensive reading intervention services must, to the extent
practicable," and she explained that if those provisions were
not practical or possible for a school district to implement,
they would not be required. She pointed out that many school
districts have after school programs or summer school, and that
it would be a school district's decision regarding possible
interventions.
9:53:50 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY announced that HB 164 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CS for HB 164 Memo Reading Intervention Sectional Analysis Notes 5.2.2021.pdf |
HEDC 5/3/2021 8:00:00 AM |
HB 164 |
| HB 164 Alaska Standards for Culturally Responsive Schools 5.3.2021.pdf |
HEDC 5/3/2021 8:00:00 AM |
HB 164 |
| HB 69 Operating Budget, Intent Language K-3 Reading.pdf |
HEDC 5/3/2021 8:00:00 AM |
HB 69 |