Legislature(2021 - 2022)DAVIS 106
05/12/2021 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 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 164 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 164-EARLY ED PROGRAMS; READING; VIRTUAL ED
[Contains discussion of companion bill SB 111.]
8:15:55 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND announced that the only 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").]
8:16:43 AM
HEIDI TESHNER, Director, Finance and Support Services Division,
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED), reminded
the committee that she previously detailed the fiscal note (FN)
for early learning coordination.
8:18:11 AM
MS. TESHNER reviewed Office of Management & Budget (OMB)
component 3028, FN 2, for pre-kindergarten grants. Page 3 of
the fiscal note provides a funding breakdown by fiscal year for
the three-year grant program, she said, with a four-year cohort
of 10,000 students per grade; DEED looks at the number of
preschool grant participants within Alaska and tries to
determine how many additional students could be served by
striving for an 88 percent participation rate. The process
determined that 3,675 students could be served by the proposed
legislation.
8:21:02 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND observed that it's important to note the 1,580
current Head Start students, 3,590 current preschool students,
and 3,675 other students that would be served by the proposed
legislation.
MS. TESHNER clarified that 3,675 was the number of students
under the previous version of HB 164, and that the updated
number is 5,616. The maximum number of eligible students, based
on the annual grant amount of $3 million, totals 624.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND surmised that 624 students, along with $3
million, would be added each year, on top of the $3 million that
was added the previous year.
MS. TESHNER said that according to the text of the proposed
legislation, a maximum of $3 million per year may be spent on
the grant, and there can be only 624 participating students per
year.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND said, "That doesn't work for me." She
expressed understanding that only 624 4-year-olds can be served
each year, and when those children enter kindergarten the
following year, another 624 4-year-olds can be served. She
said, "You never get beyond that, and there are thousands of
them to be served. I'm having a hard time understanding why
this cannot expand."
MS. TESHNER responded that it's the way the proposed legislation
is written.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND expressed the desire to work on expansion.
8:24:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether the expectation is that the
school districts would continue the program under another
funding source.
MS. TESHNER replied that the first cohort, in FY 2023, would
receive a three-year grant, applicable to FYs 2023, 2024, and
2025. After FY 2025, if the program has been determined to have
met the high quality standards of an early learning program at
the district level, the students may be accounted for under the
foundation formula and would begin receiving foundation funding
instead of a grant.
8:26:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether school districts already
deemed to be offering high-quality early learning programs would
fall under the foundation formula, and where the accounting for
those students is.
MS. TESHNER replied that such existing programs may seek DEED
approval to be eligible for foundation funding, which would be
addressed on the public education fund and foundation program
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether the 624 students would be in
the grant program for the lowest-performing schools.
MS. TESHNER responded yes.
8:27:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether a school may increase the base
student allocation if it has met the criteria in the proposed
legislation.
MS. TESHNER clarified that the base student allocation is set in
statute, so it cannot be increased, but a school may increase
its student count, which would provide additional foundation
funding for pre-k students.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX stated his assumption that schools currently
providing "the program" are providing it at no extra cost to the
state.
MS. TESHNER replied that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether a school district not in the
lowest-performing group would be able to fund a program on its
own, and the student count would increase for state accounting
purposes if the program is deemed "high-quality."
MS. TESHNER responded that there is nothing that would prohibit
a school district from starting its own program.
8:29:41 AM
MS. TESHNER explained that Table 3 of the fiscal note shows the
number of students that may be served each year with the maximum
of $3 million per year, with FY 2033 being the last year of the
three-year grant program, for a total cost of approximately
$32.9 million. She said Table 4 shows number of students that
would transition to the foundation program after completion of
the three-year grant program; a student starting the program in
FY 2023 would transition to the foundation program in FY 2026.
She clarified that the figures reflect the maximum number of
students who could participate in the voluntary three-year grant
program, and that DEED would make an annual adjustment to the
figures upon implementation.
8:32:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS, referring to Table 3, asked whether
District Cohort 1 would be composed of the lowest-performing
districts.
MS. TESHNER replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS surmised that only 624 students across
the lowest-performing districts would be eligible for the
program.
MS. TESHNER responded that DEED would attempt to address the
lowest of the lowest-performing school districts, and that if
the grant didn't go through the first cohort because it didn't
have enough funding for the maximum number of students that
could be served, the students would be moved to the second
cohort, to benefit from funding in the second year.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether lifting the $3 million cap
would mean the entirety of the funding for the first cohort
would be funded in the first year.
MS. TESHNER replied that, without a cap on the funding level,
the maximum number of students could be served within the
specified range of lowest-performing school districts.
Hypothetically, she said, if the five lowest-performing
districts had 1,000 students, all of the students could be
served.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND noted approximately 3,600 students across 26
districts, with 1,580 Head Start students, leaving 3,675 to be
served by the proposed legislation. She said the possible
voluntary pre-k funding from the federal government has not yet
been considered.
8:34:48 AM
MS. TESHNER directed committee members' attention to Office of
Management & Budget component number 2804, FN 1 [included in the
committee packet for proposed companion legislation SB 111].
She explained the final FY 2021 entitlement of approximately
$1.2 billion, divided by the total FY 2021 average daily
membership of 127,015.3, calculated to an average cost per
student of $9,605; the bill would fund students at 50 percent of
the average cost, or $4,803 per student, as addressed in the
fiscal note previously discussed.
8:37:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether the table on the fiscal note
shows that the cost to the state would increase by approximately
$3 million per year, assuming that only the lowest-performing
districts enter the program each year, but not considering the
possibility that the existing programs would then qualify for
additional funding.
MS. TESHNER replied no, because the $3 million is the funding
that would be available to any district with a high-quality
program that already meets the standards that would be
developed, so it could roll directly into the foundation funding
upon approval.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether the grant funding would
increase by $3 million per year.
MS. TESHNER responded that under the early education grant,
there would be a $3 million annual cap; for programs that roll
over to foundation funding, there would be a $3 million cap in
the first year, and subsequent years' funding can't exceed more
than $3 million over the prior year. She pointed out that the
table on page 1 of the fiscal note shows $3 million in the first
year, $6 million in the second, and $9 million in the third.
8:40:06 AM
MS. TESHNER explained that there would be nine cohorts of
students going through the early educations grant program. The
first cohort would transition to the foundation program in FY
2026, and the fiscal note assumes that all programs developed in
the first cohort would be approved to transition to the
foundation program at the end of the three-year grant. For cost
projection purposes, she said, the same assumption is applied to
each of the other cohorts. She stressed that if a school
district already has an early education program and obtains DEED
approval for the program, the district would bypass the three-
year grant and roll directly into the foundation program. For
this reason, she said, the number of districts seeking approval
each year is unknown; in order to manage increases in the
foundation program, the proposed legislation included language
that the amount calculated for approved programs cannot exceed
$3 million over the previous fiscal year, starting in FY 2023.
The cost in FY 2024 would be $6 million, she said, and $9
million in FY 2025; when the first cohort transitions into the
foundation program in FY 2026, the total cost would be $11.9
million, and $14.9 in FY 2027. The foundation formula costs
would continue to increase through FY 2034, when all nine
cohorts will have fully transitioned from the grant program to
the foundation program, and the average daily membership funding
is repealed; once all students have transitioned and are
included in the average daily membership count, total state aid
would increase by $26.9 million over the life of the program.
8:42:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS, referencing page 2 of the fiscal note,
asked whether all of the funding numbers are cumulative.
MS. TESHNER replied that is correct.
8:44:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY offered her understanding that currently
there are districts that would qualify and asked how the
districts that come online are being calculated. She asked
whether there is an estimate of how many school districts would
qualify.
MS. TESHNER responded there is no estimate of how many districts
would want to seek approval right away, and that the assumption
is districts would qualify for the entire $3 million in
additional foundation funding. She said DEED would only be able
to approve programs in the first year up to the $3 million cap.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked for the location of the calculation
in the fiscal notes.
MS. TESHNER clarified that the first fiscal note for SB 111,
companion bill to HB 164, shows a $3 million cost for FY 2023
for the districts that receive DEED approval.
8:45:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked whether her understanding is
correct that there is one $3 million cap for districts to
develop evidence-based early learning programs, and another $3
million for the programs that have already been established and
are now receiving foundational funding.
MS. TESHNER confirmed Representative Zulkosky's understanding.
8:46:49 AM
MS. TESHNER directed committee members' attention to Office of
Management & Budget component number 141, fiscal note number 4
[included in the committee packet for proposed companion
legislation SB 111], which addresses the foundation program.
She said this is a zero fiscal note, as the funding mechanism is
a general fund transfer to the public education fund instead of
to the foundation program funding component.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked whether the page 2 of fiscal note 4 is
the same as page 2 of fiscal note 1.
MS. TESHNER replied yes.
8:48:03 AM
MS. TESHNER directed committee members' attention to Office of
Management & Budget component number 2796, fiscal note number 5
[included in the committee packet for proposed companion
legislation SB 111], which addresses student and school
achievement. She said this fiscal note reflects the costs
associated with the comprehensive reading intervention program,
the school improvement reading program, and the virtual
education consortium. She said read from the analysis of the
fiscal note, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Comprehensive Reading Intervention Program
The comprehensive reading intervention program is
created under AS 14.30.765. To manage and operate this
program, provide coursework, training, and testing
opportunities related to evidence-based reading
instruction, annually solicit and convene stakeholders
to receive feedback on program implementation,
establish a recognition program, and provide direct
support and training for all K-3 teachers on the use of
the statewide screening or assessment tool results and
on evidence-based reading, DEED would need 1 Education
Administrator II Range 22, Step C/D at $125.8, and 2
Education Specialist II positions at a Range 21, Step
C/D, at $118.8 each ($363.4 total). In addition,
department chargebacks of $10.8 per position would be
needed ($32.4 total), plus a one-time increment of $5.0
per position for supplies and equipment ($15.0 total).
The program is repealed on June 30, 2034 (FY2034).
The Education Administrator II will be required to
participate and present at statewide professional
development conferences. DEED expects virtual
participation at conferences and has therefore
budgeted for in-person travel to only one conference
per year. At $1.0 per trip X 1 trips X 1 position,
total travel each year is $1.0.
In addition, the comprehensive reading intervention
program requires the adoption and administration of a
statewide screening or assessment tool to identify
students in K-3 with reading deficiencies, and
establishment of a waiver process for districts. DEED
expects virtual participation by districts to attend
the statewide screening or assessment tool training.
There are approximately 40,000 students in K-3 in
Alaska schools. A statewide screener would cost
approximately eight dollars per student. This would
result in an annual cost of $320.0 beginning in
FY2023.
8:51:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether the assessment tool would be
a statewide screener or a screener of the school district's
choice.
MS. TESHNER replied that both screeners would be allowed, but
the cost reflected in the fiscal note is for a statewide
screener.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY stated her understanding that a local
screener could be substituted for the statewide screener.
MS. TESHNER responded that DEED would pay for the statewide
screener at the cost of $320,000 per year, and a school district
may choose to use a different screener, but DEED would not pay
for it.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked Ms. Melin for confirmation.
8:53:04 AM
KAREN MELIN, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education and
Early Development, confirmed that, while a school district may
use a screener of its choice, the state would be paying only for
the statewide screener.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY opined that the state should pay for any
evidence-based screener.
8:54:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked whether the comprehensive reading
intervention program is part of the section of HB 164 that would
require in-classroom assessments of student reading proficiency.
MS. TESHNER responded that the section would be under the school
improvement reading program.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked for a review of the comprehensive
reading intervention program in HB 164.
8:55:51 AM
L?KI TOBIN, Staff, Senator Tom Begich, on behalf of the Senate
Education Standing Committee, sponsor of companion bill SB 111,
explained that the comprehensive reading intervention program is
outlined in Section 35.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY expressed concern about the in-classroom
requirements for teachers and districts, and she expressed that
having only three additional positions at DEED seems
"imbalanced" when considering the volume of assessments.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND stated her agreement.
MS. TOBIN referred to page 25, lines 3-9, of the proposed
legislation, which read as follows:
(D) providing additional assistance as determined by
the department; (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;
MS. TOBIN expressed that this subparagraph is in alignment with
how DEED currently supports educators and school districts. She
pointed out that, based on testimony from educators and
superintendents, many provisions outlined in HB 164 are already
occurring in school districts; teachers regularly assess their
students' proficiencies to ensure that tools and curricula are
working. She clarified that many stakeholders have stated on
the record that HB 164 would codify what is already common
practice.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY recalled testimony that expressed
concern about classroom time and management. She said the
Alaska affiliate of the National education Association, NEA-
Alaska, has indicated that classroom aides and reading tutors
are helpful, and she said she doesn't see those resources
reflected in the language of the proposed legislation.
9:01:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked Ms. Teshner to describe how the
reading intervention services in fiscal note 5 fit in with the
DEED reading program found on page 32, beginning on line 29 of
the proposed legislation.
MS. TOBIN deferred to Ms. Melin.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS clarified that he was looking for the
department impact in the fiscal note.
MS. MELIN said the section of fiscal note 5 covered by Ms.
Teshner is for department staff, not school or district staff.
She explained that DEED staff outlined in the fiscal note would
be doing the work as outlined in Sec. 14.30.770(a).
9:03:32 AM
MS. TESHNER resumed her analysis of OMB component number 2796,
FN 5 [included in the committee packet for proposed companion
legislation SB 111], which addresses student and school
achievement. She said the last cost associated with the
comprehensive reading education program is a one-time increment
of $18,000 in FY2022 for legal services costs associated with
producing new regulations to implement the program, which would
be repealed June 30, 2034. She then read the analysis of the
school improvement reading program, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
School Improvement Reading Program
The school improvement reading program, created under
AS 14.30.770, is established in the Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED) to provide
direct support and intervention in district and school
reading programs serving students in grades K-3 and to
provide reading support to districts throughout
Alaska. The program is repealed on June 30, 2034
(FY2034).
Each year, not more than 5 schools identified from the
lowest performing 25 percent of schools, would each be
served directly by Reading Specialists employed by
DEED. One Reading Specialist would be assigned to each
school. DEED anticipates employing from 1 to 5 Reading
Specialists in year one and 5 Reading Specialists in
the subsequent years. For purposes of estimating
fiscal impact, the maximum number of positions has
been reflected in the first year. These estimates will
be updated in out years as the program is implemented.
Reading Specialists are budgeted as Education
Specialist II positions at a Range 21, Step C/D,
$118.8 each ($594.0 total). In addition, department
chargebacks of $10.8 per position would be needed
annually ($54.0 total). A one-time increment of $5.0
per position for supplies and equipment would be
needed in the first year the position is budgeted.
Reading Specialists would be located in communities
across the state and would need to be provided a
geographic cost differential, which is not included in
this estimate. Each Reading Specialist would be
required to participate and present at statewide
professional development conferences. DEED expects
virtual participation at conferences and has therefore
budgeted for in-person travel to only one conference
per year. At $1.0 per trip X 1 trips X 5 positions,
total travel for year one is $5.0.
Under the school improvement reading program, DEED
would purchase supplemental reading textbooks and
materials for school districts in connection with
reading intervention services. The cost per student
when adopting a new reading curriculum is two hundred
and fifty dollars ($.25). With approximately 10,000
students per grade level in Alaska schools, there are
a total of 40,000 student in kindergarten to third
grade (K-3). During the 2019-2020 school year, 391
schools served K-3 students. 40,000 students / 391
schools = 102 K- 3 students per school on average.
Beginning in FY2023, for each year of the reading
program, 5 schools X 102 K- 3 students/school X
$.25/student = $127.5.
An annual contract fee of $50.0 is included beginning
in FY2022 for an independent contractor to establish
and collect the baseline data needed in order to
conduct the data analysis of the program's
effectiveness for the final report due by the 30th day
of the First Regular Session of the 38th Legislature
to the legislative committees having jurisdiction over
education.
In FY2022, a one-time increment of $12.0 is included
for legal services costs associated with producing new
regulations.
9:08:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said that it does not seem that DEED is
considering that some school districts already have evidence-
based reading curriculum and textbooks already in use.
MS. TESHNER responded that this fiscal note is for materials
that are not already in use.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked about the annual contract of $50,000.
She referred to the 30th day of the First Regular Session of the
[Thirty-Eight Alaska State] Legislature, and she asked what year
that would be in.
MS. TESHNER replied that it would be in 2033.
9:09:36 AM
MS. TOBIN said the report's presentation is at the beginning of
the session, so there would be time for discussion regarding
continuing the program in perpetuity. She said the report would
be due in 2033, in the first session of the Thirty-Eight Alaska
State Legislature.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND summarized her understanding of the annual
contract of the dates. She then asked whether the data could be
collected by DEED instead of by a contractor.
MS. TESHNER replied that it would be good to have outside
expertise as well as internal work over the life of the program.
9:11:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked for any data available on areas or
regions that utilized the virtual education resources made
available by DEED during the COVID-19 pandemic, saying she is
curious to see the volume of statewide reach and how it could
reflect community capacity for technology and expense.
MS. TESHNER agreed to provide whatever data is available.
9:13:07 AM
MS. TESHNER resumed her presentation of FN 5, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Virtual Education Consortium
The virtual education consortium, created under AS
14.30.800, is established in DEED in cooperation with
school districts, for the purpose of making virtual
education and professional development resources
available to students and teachers in the state. To
manage and operate this statewide virtual education
learning management system (LMS), review all courses
and professional development, and provide virtual
instruction training, DEED would need 2 Education
Specialist II positions at a Range 21, Step B/C, at
$115.6 each ($231.2 total). In addition, department
chargebacks of $10.8 per position would be needed
($21.6 total). The program is repealed on June 30,
2034 (FY2034).
A Reading Specialist position is established to
provide intensive reading intervention services to
districts participating in the virtual education
consortium. This position is budgeted as an Education
Specialist II position at a Range 21, Step C/D,
$118.8. In addition, department chargebacks of $10.8
for the position would be needed.
DEED established a statewide virtual education LMS
license for districts, teachers, and students in
FY2021 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and plans
to continue the license through FY2023 using federal
COVID-19 relief funds at a cost of $1,060.6 annually.
The 2 PFT positions needed to manage the LMS, review
coursework and professional development, and provide
virtual instruction training as outlined in this bill,
and the 1 FTE Reading Specialist position, could also
be funded through FY2023 with federal COVID-19 relief
funding. Starting in FY2024,state funds are needed to
support the LMS license ($1,060.6) and associated
positions ($350.0).
9:15:33 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND noted that the fiscal note approximately
doubles in 2024 because COVID-19 relief funding may no longer be
available.
MS. TESHNER replied that is correct. She resumed her
presentation of the analysis of FN 5, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
In FY2022, a one-time increment of $12.0 is included
for legal services costs associated with producing new
regulations.
An additional $200.0 would be needed in FY2032 for an
independent contractor to assist DEED program staff in
compiling and evaluating the required multi-year data
analysis, including assessment, survey, and interview
data, of the effectiveness of the early education
program, Parents as Teachers program, comprehensive
reading intervention program, and virtual education
consortium. The multi-year analysis will be used by
DEED to complete the final program recommendations
report due not later than the thirtieth day of the
First Regular Session of the 38th Legislature
(February 2033).
The effective date of this bill is July 1, 2022
(FY2023).
MS. TESHNER, referring to page 4 of FN5, concluded that an
estimated cost of $1,181,800 in FY2022 would be required to
begin the process of implementation of all three programs;
$1,547,300 in FY2023 and $2,990,300 would be the estimated cost
beginning in FY2024 and each fiscal year thereafter through the
life of the program.
9:18:10 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked whether Canvas is the learning
management system (LMS) referred to in the section titled
"Virtual Education Consortium."
MS. TESHNER replied that it is.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked whether Canvas is currently in statewide
use through COVID-19 funding.
MS. TESHNER replied yes.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND commented that the additional $200,000 for the
independent contractor to assist DEED in compiling and
evaluating the multi-year data analysis would be required in
2032, and that it would be in addition to the annual %50,000
contract referred to earlier.
MS. TESHNER replied that is correct.
9:19:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether adding up all five fiscal
notes would give the total cost of the program under the
proposed legislation.
MS. TESHNER responded that she could provide a one-page summary
showing the cost of each individual program.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX explained the value of having a short
presentation.
9:21:26 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:21 a.m. to 9:26 a.m.
9:26:58 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND announced that 63 amendments had been
submitted. She said the amendments are numbered in order;
however, some amendments may be "rolled to the bottom for
consideration toward the end of our deliberation." She noted
those available for questions. She said she wanted to take up
Amendment 4 first.
9:28:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to adopt Amendment 4 to HB 164,
Version I, labeled 32-LS0731\I.56, Klein, 5/11/21, which read as
follows:
Page 2, lines 24 - 28:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 3, lines 11 - 22:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 5, line 3, through page 6, line 13:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 6, lines 23 - 24:
Delete "who is at least four years of age at the
beginning of the school year may be admitted to a
public school"
Insert "may be admitted to a public school and a
child who is at least four years of age at the
beginning of the school year may be admitted to an
early education program"
Page 7, lines 2 - 17:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 13, line 16, through page 16, line 1:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 16, lines 17 - 28:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 18, line 21, through page 19, line 6:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 20, lines 12 - 17:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 21, line 26, through page 22, line 12:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 22, line 24, through page 23, line 5:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 39, lines 3 - 5:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 39, line 10:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 25"
Page 39, line 13:
Delete "Section 34"
Insert "Section 23"
Page 39, line 14:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 23"
Page 39, line 15:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 23"
Page 39, line 18:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 23"
Page 40, lines 23 - 24:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 40, line 25:
Delete "Except as provided in sec. 46 of this
Act, this"
Insert "This"
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK objected.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND said she would refer to Amendment 4 as the
"repealer amendment." She pointed out that HB 164 is full of
repealers that refer to the Alaska State Legislature that will
meet in 2033, which will assess the success of the program. She
expressed that the Alaska State Legislature in 2023 should be
able to assess the program at the end of its effective date, so
Amendment 4 is a "move to repeal the repealers."
9:30:03 AM
MS. TOBIN said Amendment 4 outlines repealing the sections of
the proposed legislation which are incorporated in Section 46 on
page 40 of the text, which outlines all of the Sections that
would take effect in 2034 if the repealers remain in the bill.
She said two actions relating to repealers were brought forth
during hearings in the Senate Education Standing Committee on
companion bill SB 111. The first was a comprehensive report to
the legislature to discuss program efficacy, implementation,
possible adjustments, or amendments needed to the overall
legislation; this provision is included in the text of the
proposed legislation as Section 43 on page 39, beginning on line
19. Other sections of HB 164/SB 111 would provide for annual
reports to the Alaska State Legislature, which are outlined in
Sections 7 and 23. The legislature would have ample
opportunity, both before and during the first session of the
Thirty-Eighth Alaska State Legislature, to discuss the program;
if the program is deemed ineffective, she said, there would be
an automatic repeal date. She said Senator Begich would like to
remove the repealers, preferring instead to institute education
policy and continuously evaluate it for effectiveness. She
stressed that the proposed legislation needs to ensure that
children who are not yet seven years old are able to attend
public schools, so Amendment 4, on page 1, beginning on line 16,
would provide that a child who is at least four years old at the
beginning of the school year may be admitted to either
kindergarten or preschool. She said this would allow the school
district the flexibility to determine which program the child is
ready for.
9:32:58 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND expressed confusion about the significance of
age 7.
MS. TOBIN clarified that school attendance is mandated from ages
7-16; anything outside of those ages is voluntary.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND noted that deleting the repealers would not
change the fiscal notes, as most of them don't go beyond 2027.
9:35:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY discussed the importance of educating
children, and said she was comfortable removing the repealers.
9:36:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed that in 10 years, enough schools
should have the early education programs in place and would
therefore be funded through the base student allocation, that
the program would be repealed naturally.
MS. TOBIN agreed that the grant program itself would be repealed
as part of the proposed legislation, as it's meant to ensure
that every school has the opportunity to develop a high-quality,
locally-designed, culturally-relevant early education program.
Rolling into the foundation funding would allow those programs
to continue in perpetuity; however, she said, the repealers in
the proposed legislation can remove the foundation funding
support, so the districts would no longer receive state funding
to ensure the existence of a publicly available early education
program. She stressed that some of the repealers do prohibit a
school district from continuing a high-quality early education
program after the year 2034 without finding additional funding
sources, which is the current, unstable situation.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX said he believes he supports Amendment 4
because the legislature can "repeal it whenever they want."
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND affirmed Representative Prax's statement and
pointed out the existence of an annual report in addition to the
repealer in the year 2033. She discussed the improvement in the
Kodiak Island Borough School District as a result of the
preschool grants currently in place, and she expressed belief in
the program outlined in the proposed legislation.
9:40:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK noted the size of the amendment packet and
expressed the inability to work through the amendments before
session adjournment.
9:41:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY expressed appreciation of the discussion
about the details of achieving improved education outcomes, and
she mentioned continuing work on HB 164 during interim. She
expressed that legislation passed by this legislature shouldn't
"bind the hands" of future legislatures.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND pointed out that amendments cannot be adopted
during interim.
9:45:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK removed his objection to the motion to
adopt Amendment 4 to HB 164, Version I. There being no further
objection, Amendment 4 was adopted.
9:45:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 164,
Version I, as amended, labeled 32-LS0731\I.21, Klein, 5/10/21,
which read as follows:
Page 1, line 10:
Delete "consortium"
Insert "library"
Page 18, line 18:
Delete "consortium"
Insert "library"
Page 18, line 19:
Delete "consortium"
Insert "library"
Page 19, line 4:
Delete "CONSORTIUM"
Insert "LIBRARY"
Page 19, line 5:
Delete "CONSORTIUM"
Insert "LIBRARY"
Page 37, line 8:
Delete "consortium"
Insert "library"
Page 37, line 9:
Delete "consortium"
Insert "library"
Page 37, line 12:
Delete the first occurrence of "consortium"
Insert "library"
Delete "consortium shall create and maintain a
database of"
Insert "department shall establish and maintain a
library created by teachers, educators, education
professionals, and school districts in the state, the
University of Alaska, and other education resources,
including"
Page 37, line 16:
Delete "that participate in the consortium"
Insert ", teachers, and recognized correspondence
programs in the state"
Page 37, lines 17 - 26:
Delete all material and insert:
"(b) For teachers delivering or facilitating
virtual coursework to students through the library
database, the department shall provide training and
professional development on virtual instruction
methods and the differences between virtual
instruction and instruction offered in a classroom."
Page 37, line 27:
Delete "consortium shall employ a reading
specialist"
Insert "department shall provide reading
specialists"
Page 37, line 28:
Delete "the"
Insert "a"
Page 38, line 6, following "teams":
Insert "consisting of school staff who volunteer
to participate"
Page 38, lines 8 - 20:
Delete all material.
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
Page 39, line 24:
Delete "consortium"
Insert "library"
REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS explained that Amendment 1 would affect
Section 36, beginning on page 37, line 6 of the proposed
legislation. He said the intent of the amendment is to have
DEED create an online library or database of virtual education
programs, curriculum, lessons, lesson plans, and various other
resources that have been developed over the past 12 months.
Because the consortium would no longer exist, he said, its
ability to determine whether an educator is qualified to teach
online would no longer be relevant. He pointed out that
teachers have been teaching virtually for some time now, with no
arbitrating from a consortium. He said DEED would still provide
professional training for educators in virtual instruction, to
foster continuous improvement, and rather than one reading
specialist employed by the consortium, there would be multiple
reading specialists, based on need, employed by DEED. He said
Amendment 1 would delete lines 8-20 on page 38 of the proposed
legislation, which is where DEED would be charging school
districts to access the consortium, as well as allowing school
districts to charge others a fee for using it. He stated that,
instead of a consortium with mandatory paid membership, there
should be a free database with open access for stakeholders.
9:50:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX stated his agreement with replacing
"consortium" with "library," and he said he likes the idea of
charging a fee, so the cost is more "readily apparent" to school
districts.
9:51:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY said she appreciates the intent of
Amendment 1, and she discussed possible administrative costs and
challenges.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS responded that he doesn't believe access
to a library of resources should be charged for.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND noted that FN 5 would establish the costs for
the consortium.
9:54:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK asked how Amendment 1 would change FN 5.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS replied that he has no idea. He said it
would be an online database which would have to be maintained by
DEED within its existing website, and that there may need to be
a nominal fee to maintain it.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND referred to a paragraph in the virtual
education consortium section of FN 5, on page 3, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
DEED established a statewide virtual education LMS
license for districts, teachers, and students in
FY2021 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and plans
to continue the license through FY2023 using federal
COVID-19 relief funds at a cost of $1,060.6 annually.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND said the changes reflected in Amendment 1 are
already established in FN5.
9:56:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX discussed possible definitions of the word
"nominal."
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS agreed that the costs would be low.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND commented on the low cost.
9:57:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether the terms "establish" and
"create" reflect the same ideas as they relate to the consortium
or library.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed that Amendment 1 would remove
"virtual education courses," and she asked whether there is a
reason why those "descriptors" would be removed.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS clarified that the text in question would
remain.
10:00:39 AM
MICHAEL MASON, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, on behalf of
Representative Tuck, prime sponsor of HB 164, stated his belief
that Representative Tuck would view Amendment 1 as a friendly
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked for input from DEED on Amendment 1.
10:01:07 AM
MS. MELIN said she has nothing to add until she has time to
discuss Amendment 1 with the commissioner.
10:01:56 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND announced that HB 164, Version I, as amended,
was held over with the motion to adopt Amendment 1 left pending.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HEDC HB 164 Testimony 5.11.21.pdf |
HEDC 5/12/2021 8:00:00 AM |
HB 164 |
| CS for SB 111 Fiscal Note 1.PDF |
HEDC 5/12/2021 8:00:00 AM |
SB 111 |
| CS for SB 111 Fiscal Note 2.PDF |
HEDC 5/12/2021 8:00:00 AM |
SB 111 |
| CS for SB 111 Fiscal Note 3.PDF |
HEDC 5/12/2021 8:00:00 AM |
SB 111 |
| CS for SB 111 Fiscal Note 4.PDF |
HEDC 5/12/2021 8:00:00 AM |
SB 111 |
| CS for SB 111 Fiscal Note 5.PDF |
HEDC 5/12/2021 8:00:00 AM |
SB 111 |
| HB 164 Research Boston Pre K One Pager 5.10.2021.pdf |
HEDC 5/12/2021 8:00:00 AM |
HB 164 |
| HB 164 Research Long Term Effects of Universal Preschool in Boston 5.10.2021.pdf |
HEDC 5/12/2021 8:00:00 AM |
HB 164 |
| Alaska Imagination Library evaluation summary.pdf |
HEDC 5/12/2021 8:00:00 AM |
Imagination Library |
| HB 164 Amendment Packet 5.22.21 scanned.pdf |
HEDC 5/12/2021 8:00:00 AM |
HB 164 |
| HB 164 Additional Amendments 5.11.21.pdf |
HEDC 5/12/2021 8:00:00 AM |
HB 164 |