Legislature(2021 - 2022)DAVIS 106
05/17/2021 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
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 164 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 164-EARLY ED PROGRAMS; READING; VIRTUAL ED
8:09:13 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").]
[A motion to adopt Amendment 27A, as amended, had been left
pending at the end of the 5/14/21 House Education Standing
Committee meeting.]
8:10:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY discussed Amendment 27A, which read as
follows:
Page 22, line 13, through page 23, line 5:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 39, line 10:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 34"
Page 39, line 13:
Delete "Section 34"
Insert "Section 32"
Page 39, line 14:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 32"
Page 39, line 15:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 32"
Page 39, line 18:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 32"
Page 40, line 23:
Delete "32, and 40"
Insert "and 38"
Page 40, line 25:
Delete "sec. 46"
Insert "sec. 44"
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY reminded committee members that
Conceptual Amendment 1 had been adopted to Amendment 27A during
the May 14, 2021, meeting of the House Education Standing
Committee, to address standards for teachers entering Alaska
from out of state versus local teachers. Amendment 27A, as
amended, would delete additional requirements placed on teachers
above and beyond current standards; the intention, she said, is
to address the challenges small and rural schools have in
finding qualified teachers. She then requested more time for
consideration of Amendment 27A, as amended.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND stated Amendment 27A, as amended, would be
left pending.
8:13:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to adopt Amendment 28, labeled 32-
LS0731\I.38, Klein, 5/10/21, to HB 164, Version I, as amended,
which read as follows:
Page 23, line 6, through page 24, line 1:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 39, line 10:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 35"
Page 39, line 13:
Delete "Section 34"
Insert "Section 33"
Page 39, line 14:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 33"
Page 39, line 15:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 33"
Page 39, line 18:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 33"
Page 40, line 23:
Delete "and 40"
Insert "and 39"
Page 40, line 25:
Delete "sec. 46"
Insert "sec. 45"
8:13:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said Amendment 28 would delete the
requirements for including a passing score to the criteria for
evaluating teacher competency.
8:14:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY removed her objection.
8:14:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX objected. He expressed the opinion that
Amendment 28 is similar to Amendment 27A, as amended, and
suggested considering the two amendments together later in the
meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said while everyone wants highly trained
teachers, she doesn't see passing an assessment test as a
"silver bullet" for reading intervention.
8:16:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY stated her support for Amendment 28.
8:17:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 28 was adopted to HB 164, Version
I, as amended.
8:17:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS withdrew Amendment 29.
8:18:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY moved Amendment 30, labeled 32-
LS0731\I.28, Klein, 5/11/21, to HB 164, Version I, as amended,
which read as follows:
Page 24, following line 9:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 35. AS 14.30 is amended by adding a new
section to article 10 to read:
Sec. 14.30.430. Alaska Native language immersion
programs. The department may collaborate with a school
district to develop an Alaska Native language
immersion program for students in grade kindergarten
through grade three. The department may provide
financial and technical support for a program. The
department and district operating a program shall
evaluate the program's success in increasing student
literacy in both the Alaska Native language and
English."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 39, line 10:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 37"
Page 40, line 23:
Delete "40"
Insert "41"
Page 40, line 25:
Delete "46"
Insert "47"
8:18:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY said the purpose of Amendment 30 is to
allow DEED to support local school districts in efforts to
develop Alaska Native language immersion programs for students
in grades kindergarten through three. She expressed that there
is nothing more culturally relevant for many Alaskan students
than being able to learn in their first language.
8:20:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX said he's not "familiar enough" with Alaska
Native languages, and he expressed the understanding that there
are some languages with very few remaining speakers. He
wondered whether it's worthwhile to establish education in a
language spoken by few people.
8:21:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS noted that Alaska Native language
programs that have been developed have had many speakers, and he
noted that Amendment 30 would allow, not mandate, school
district collaboration with DEED on Alaska Native language
immersion programs. With respect to Representative Prax's
comments about languages with only a few remaining speakers, he
expressed that such a program may be the most important type of
program to put forward under the amendment. He stated that he
strongly supports Amendment 30 to promote and protect Alaska
Native languages.
8:23:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed agreement with Representative
Hopkins' sentiment on Amendment 30, and she noted that local
school boards would be in charge of any programs.
8:24:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY reminded the committee that Amendment 30
would not require school districts to establish language
immersion programs but would allow them to work with DEED to
establish such programs. She stressed that Amendment 30 would
require DEED to evaluate any language immersion program's
success in increasing student literacy.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND reiterated that the amendment contains
permissive language which doesn't require any school district,
or DEED, to establish language immersion programs. She
expressed welcoming the opportunity to learn of the successes of
such programs.
8:26:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX said he understands the permissive language,
and again invoked the possibility of creating a language
immersion program for a "relative few" number of students, which
could have a fiscal impact. He said "somebody" should be able
to guess how much that would cost.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND referred the comments to Ms. Teshner.
8:28:19 AM
HEIDI TESHNER, Director, Finance and Support Services Division,
Department of Education and Early Development, said she does not
have information available on possible program costs.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND said the Lower Kuskokwim School District has
had an immersion program in places for decades, and the
Anchorage School District has an Alaska Native charter school.
She said there is not an "unlimited" number of languages to be
addressed.
8:29:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY added that she is concerned about
promoting the perspective of supporting English language
learning at the expense of indigenous language learning, or vice
versa. She said the intent of Amendment 30 is to "expand the
lens" under which literacy and language proficiency can be
acquired.
8:30:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 30 was adopted to HB 164, Version
I, as amended.
8:31:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY moved Amendment 31, labeled 32-
LS0731\I.59, Klein, 5/11/21, to HB 164, Version I, as amended,
which read as follows:
Page 24, line 2:
Delete "a new subsection"
Insert "new subsections"
Page 24, following line 9:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(m) Before teaching students in the state, a
teacher certificated under this section shall complete
training in racial equity, conscious and unconscious
bias, teaching through an Alaska Native lens and using
Alaska Native cultural standards, and trauma-informed
and culturally relevant education."
8:31:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY said Amendment 31 would require teachers
to complete training in areas related to culturally relevant
education. She said school districts with primarily Alaska
Native students often have educators from out of state.
Understanding the history and culture of the Alaska Native
community fosters a better relationship with students, and
children do better when education reflects, and positively
reinforces, their communities and values.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY agreed with the intent of Amendment 31, and
she said it's critical and helpful to understand conscious and
unconscious biases. She mentioned the equal protection clause
with regards to training required of nurses transferring to
Alaska versus local nurses.
8:35:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY said she would be happy to consider a
conceptual or friendly amendment to remove the requirement that
teachers receive the training before teaching. She pointed out
that the proposed legislation currently contains no mention
regarding how teachers should know what is culturally responsive
or appropriate; absent Amendment 31, she said, there exists the
intent to include culturally relevant education, but the
question remains who makes that assessment.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY invited Mr. Mason to comment on Amendment
31.
8:37:32 AM
MIKE MASON, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State
Legislature, noted that Amendment 31 would apply to Section 34
on page 24, which applies to teachers with Alaska teaching
certificates. Referring to Section 31 on page 22, he discussed
preliminary teaching certificates, which apply to teachers
certified outside of Alaska. Therefore, he said, the language
of Amendment 31 focuses on one demographic of teacher but not
another, which is the impetus for the equal protection concern.
He then said he doesn't know whether there would be a cost for
such teacher training.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY noted that the many adopted amendments
will change the fiscal impact of the proposed legislation, and
she maintained that the state should strive to accomplish
ensuring that educators in the classroom can identify and
connect with students.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND agreed, but she noted that Amendment 31 would
not apply evenly to the different types of teaching certificates
in Alaska. All teachers in Alaska need exposure to such
training, she said.
8:40:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS added that there is no way of predicting
who would be conducting the training, and he suggested that any
associated costs should not be borne by DEED. Regarding the
concern for equal protection, he said, every type of teaching
certificate in the state would be required to undergo the
training as described in Amendment 31.
8:43:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 31, which would remove the language in line 7 of the
amendment that currently reads, "before teaching students in the
state" and insert "that amended language on page 22 following
line 23."
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked Representative Zulkosky to clarify
the conceptual amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY clarified that the conceptual amendment
would insert lines 7-10 of Amendment 31 to page 22, following
line 23. This would address the equal protection concern, she
said.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY explained that the intent behind the
conceptual amendment to Amendment 31 is to address the
structural issues of the underlying amendment.
8:45:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether the conceptual amendment would
make Amendment 31 apply to all school districts and all teachers
in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY deferred to Mr. Mason.
8:46:15 AM
MR. MASON said, "I believe so." He expressed that equal
protection issues could be fixed if the language in Amendment 31
was added to both sections.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS pointed out that AS 14.20.015 applies
only to recognition of certificates of teachers from outside
Alaska, so without the conceptual amendment, only such teachers
would be required to complete the training as proposed in
Amendment 31. He noted requirements in statute for continuing
education, which he expressed may be an appropriate location for
Amendment 31.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND pointed out that the conceptual amendment
would insert the language of Amendment 31 after line 23 on page
22, as well as after line 9 on page 24, which would add a new
subsection.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked for clarification on the conceptual
amendment.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND explained:
The conceptual amendment is to delete, on Amendment
31, line 7, the words "before teaching students in the
state," ... so that Amendment 31 says, "a teacher
certificated under this section shall complete
training racial equity," ... and that amended
paragraph, lines 7-10, will also be inserted on page
22, following line 23.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS stated his agreement with the conceptual
amendment.
8:49:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed her support for the conceptual
amendment to Amendment 31.
8:50:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX said it seems the conceptual amendment would
create a requirement for any certified teacher, not necessarily
those teachers for grades 1-3.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY commented that the conceptual amendment
would be good policy for Alaska, as many classrooms already
incorporate culturally relevant delivery of programs.
8:52:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY expressed that proficiency gaps in
Alaska Native students learning English should be addressed.
She agreed that training similar to that described in Amendment
31 is already provided in many school districts in Alaska.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND commented that immersion in the Anchorage
School District begins very early, and students are usually not
admitted to such programs after first grade. She said Alaska
Native children have been speaking an indigenous language since
they learned to talk.
8:54:57 AM
MR. MASON noted that the sections under discussion only apply to
teachers of kindergarten through grade three (K-3), and the new
standards would, as such, apply only to those teachers.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND suggested adopting the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY reminded committee members that under
discussion is the conceptual amendment to Amendment 31.
8:55:51 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND removed her objection to the conceptual
amendment.
8:56:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM asked whether an adopted amendment can
later be removed.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND replied that it's possible to rescind an
action, and that her preference is to adopt as many amendments
as possible, create the committee substitute to streamline the
bill, and continue the discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM said he has issues with Amendment 31, but
that he does not object.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND, seeing no further objection, stated that
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 31 was adopted.
8:57:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY said she wants there to be a discussion
with experts, and she noted that she is not an expert in K-3
early reading education, but she does know the challenges faced
by school districts in her area of representation. She then
told Representative Gillham that there is plenty of opportunity
to alter the language of the bill.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND noted that there is still work to be done on
HB 164.
8:59:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed understanding that the adopted
amendment will be incorporated into a committee substitute.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND agreed. She explained that no amendments can
be made during the interim, because the legislature is not
officially in session; however, work can be done on the proposed
legislation in the form of work sessions, discussions, and
public or expert input.
9:00:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY reminded committee members that the DEED
position for reading and district assessments in evidence based
reading strategies was not removed from the budget.
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM objected to adopting Amendment 31, as
amended, and he asked whether it could be held over until later
in the day.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY expressed reluctance at holding
Amendment 31 until later.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND explained to Representative Gillham that
adopted amendments can be addressed in the interim, and she
expressed that it seems inefficient to have spent so much time
discussing the amendment and its conceptual amendments without
adopting it for future consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY interjected that she is willing to
address any concerns Representative Gillham has.
9:03:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY removed her objection.
9:03:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM objected to adopting Amendment 31, as
amended.
9:04:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK opined that Amendment 31, as amended, does
not belong in a reading bill. He suggested that training in
racial equity, conscious and unconscious bias, and culturally
relevant education is divisive, and he said he believes teachers
should be embraced by the community and "taught" how to behave.
He then discussed at length his views regarding how he grew up
and how he believes teachers should be treated.
9:08:26 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND reminded Representative Cronk that the
conceptual amendment to Amendment 31 removed the requirement
that such training take place before teaching students. She
asked Representative Zulkosky to discuss arriving teachers who
know very little about the communities in which they will teach.
She commented that future discussions should reveal what
communities are already doing to acclimate teachers to the local
culture.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY said the intention of Amendment 31, as
amended, is to accomplish exactly what Representative Cronk
described as far as embracing a teacher within a community.
9:11:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM maintained objection.
9:11:45 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Zulkosky, Drummond,
Story, and Hopkins voted in favor of Amendment 31, as amended.
Representatives Cronk, Gillham, and Prax voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 31, as amended, was adopted by a vote of 4-
3.
9:12:40 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:12 a.m. to 9:16 a.m.
9:16:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt Amendment 32, labeled 32-
LS0731\I.22, Klein, 5/10/21, to HB 164, Version I, as amended,
which read as follows:
Page 26, line 6:
Delete "shall"
Insert "may"
Page 26, line 9:
Delete "shall"
Insert "may"
Page 26, line 11:
Delete "The intensive reading intervention"
Insert "If the district elects to provide
intensive reading intervention services, the"
9:16:21 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS explained that Amendment 32 would change
the text of clauses regarding the offering of reading
intervention programs from "shall" to "may." He said one of the
concerns of school districts is that the mandatory offering of
reading intervention programs may not be what works best for the
students of that district. He pointed out Amendment 32 is
"fairly simple," and he said school districts that decide to
implement a reading intervention program would still be able to
do so.
9:21:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said she would like to see the word "shall"
remain in place, since early reading education is of vital
importance and is the most important predictor of a student's
success in school. She expressed disapproval of "blanket"
retention and said that it should be up to the parent to decide
whether a student is retained.
9:24:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked whether the intention behind
Amendment 32 is related to the retention aspects of the proposed
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY proposed holding Amendment 32 until
later in the meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS expressed his agreement.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND said Amendment 32 would be held until
Amendment 62 is under discussion.
9:25:18 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY moved to adopt Amendment 33, labeled 32-
LS0731\I.39, Klein, 5/10/21, to HB 164, Version I, as amended,
which read as follows:
Page 26, line 4, following "responsive":
Insert "and meets local needs"
9:25:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said Amendment 33 would add verbiage
relating to local control to the culturally responsive aspect of
Section 35.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY removed her objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 33 was adopted to HB 164, Version
I, as amended.
9:26:40 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:26 a.m. to 9:29 a.m.
9:29:48 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND noted the impact of Amendment 62 on Amendments
34, 35, 36, 37, 38, and 40, and she said those amendments would
be handled together after consideration of Amendment 62.
9:30:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt Amendment 39, labeled 32-
LS0731\I.16, Klein, 5/10/21, to HB 164, Version I, as amended,
which read as follows:
Page 8, line 7:
Delete "AS 14.30.765(h)"
Insert "AS 14.30.765(g)"
Page 8, line 16:
Delete "AS 14.30.765(h)"
Insert "AS 14.30.765(g)"
Page 28, line 25:
Delete "(h)"
Insert "(g)"
Page 28, line 28:
Delete "(h)"
Insert "(g)"
Page 29, line 9:
Delete "(h)"
Insert "(g)"
Page 29, line 30:
Delete "(h)"
Insert "(g)"
Page 30, line 5:
Delete "(h)"
Insert "(g)"
Page 30, lines 8 - 10:
Delete all material.
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
Page 30, line 27
Delete "(h)"
Insert "(g)"
Page 30, line 30:
Delete "(h)"
Insert "(g)"
Page 31, line 14:
Delete "(h)"
Insert "(g)"
Page 31, line 18:
Delete "(h)"
Insert "(g)"
Page 32, line 17:
Delete "(l) or (m)"
Insert "(k) or (l)"
9:30:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said Amendment 39 contains conforming
language.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked for clarification.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND explained that the second page of Amendment 39
proposes to delete lines 8-10 of page 30 of the proposed
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said page 30, lines 8-10 of HB 164,
Version I, would address the fact that many teachers do not
appreciate being recognized for achievements that may have been
a bigger challenge for other districts.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said she doesn't disagree with the intent
of Amendment 39 as described by Representative Hopkins, but that
she doesn't understand the way the amendment is written.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS directed Representative Story to page 26
of the proposed legislation, which is referred to on page 8. He
said the amendment would renumber AS 14.30.765.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY removed her objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 39 was adopted to HB 164, Version
I, as amended.
9:36:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY withdrew Amendment 41.
9:37:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to adopt Amendment 42, labeled 32-
LS0731\I.64, Klein, 5/11/21, to HB 164, Version I, as amended,
which read as follows:
Page 32, line 31:
Delete "annually"
Page 33, line 2:
Delete "five"
Insert "10"
Delete "each year"
Page 33, lines 2 - 5:
Delete "A school participating in the reading
program that remains in the lowest-performing 25
percent of schools as determined under AS 14.03.123
may apply to participate in the reading program again
in the following school year."
9:37:35 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said Amendment 42 is intended to expand
support to more school districts.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked Representative Story to clarify the
intent.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY deferred to Ms. Hakala.
9:39:12 AM
MARY HAKALA, Staff, Representative Andi Story, Alaska State
Legislature, said the intent of Amendment 42 is to increase the
number of schools able to participate in the reading program.
9:40:06 AM
LOKI TOBIN, Staff, Senator Tom Begich, Alaska State Legislature,
shared that Amendment 42 would revert the language contained in
Version I back to the original language of HB 164, which would
specify that up to 10 schools could participate in the DEED
reading program. She said the program is intended to help
schools that have students struggling with reading scores, so
the amendment would remove the additional language on page 33,
beginning on line 2, which indicates that a school district must
reapply annually in order to participate in the program. She
said the amendment would allow schools to work with DEED for a
period determined by the school district instead of being time-
limited by statute.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked whether DEED would simply select not
more than 10 participating schools, and when the selection would
happen.
MS. TOBIN noted that the school selection process is described
on page 34. She said once a school is selected, DEED would work
with the school for a time determined by a cooperative
agreement. She said DEED would have ability to select up to 10
additional school districts each year, instead of 10 schools for
the entirety of the program.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND pointed out that Amendment 42 would remove the
words pertaining to selecting additional schools "each year."
9:42:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS expressed that Amendment 42 is "more or
less" identical to Amendment 43, which is expand the number of
schools from five to 10, as well as eliminate the application
process. He shared his support for Amendment 42.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND removed her objection. Seeing no further
objection, Amendment 42 was adopted to HB 164, Version I, as
amended.
9:43:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt Amendment 43, labeled 32-
LS0731\I.17, Klein, 5/10/21, to HB 164, Version I, as amended,
which read as follows:
Page 32, line 29, through page 33, line 7:
Delete all material and insert:
"Sec. 14.30.770. Department reading program. (a)
The department shall establish a reading program to
provide direct support for and intervention in
intensive reading intervention services annually in
the lowest-performing schools serving students in
grades kindergarten through three as determined under
AS 14.03.123, selecting not more than 10 participating
schools each year. A school may opt out of the reading
program. If a school opts out of the reading program,
the next lowest-performing school may participate in
the program. A school participating in the reading
program may, unless the school opts out, participate
in the reading program again in the following school
year. State funding provided to participating schools
for implementation of the reading program is in
addition to the amount of funding provided under
AS 14.17. In conducting the program, the department
shall"
Page 33, lines 10 - 13:
Delete all material and insert:
"(2) provide the program to the 10 lowest-
performing schools that have not opted out;"
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 33, line 14:
Delete "school selected"
Insert "participating school"
Page 33, line 30:
Delete "school selected"
Insert "participating school"
Page 33, line 31, through page 34, line 1:
Delete "school selected"
Insert "participating school"
Page 34, line 23:
Delete "selected to participate"
Insert "participating"
Page 35, lines 24 - 26:
Delete "(1) a completed application from each school
selected to participate in the reading program; and
(2)"
Page 35, line 27:
Delete "school selected to participate"
Insert "participating school"
Page 40, line 4:
Delete "14.30.770(a)(10)"
Insert "14.30.770(a)(9)"
9:43:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS noted that Amendment 42 increased the
number of schools in the reading program from five to 10.
Amendment 43, he said, would eliminate the application program,
with the 10 lowest-performing schools invited to join the
reading program. Amendment 43 would also allow a school to
decide whether to opt out of the reading program; if a school
were to opt out, the invitation would go to the next lowest-
performing school.
9:46:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed that she was of the understanding
that in Version I of the proposed legislation, school district
application for the reading intervention program is optional.
9:46:51 AM
KAREN MELIN, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education and
Early Development, shared that, from the perspective of DEED,
school participation in the reading intervention program would
be voluntary.
9:47:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked whether Amendment 43 would
maintain the voluntary nature of participation in the reading
intervention program.
MS. MELIN answered yes
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY expressed support for Amendment 43.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND noted that Amendment 42 removed the word
"annually" from page 32, line 31. Amendment 43, she pointed
out, leaves the word in.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment
43, which would remove the word "annually" from page 1, line 5
of Amendment 43. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment
1 was adopted to Amendment 43.
9:50:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether this would affect page 2 of
Amendment 43, which discusses application to the reading
intervention program. She asked about the intent of DEED with
regards to the application process.
MS. MELIN said the author of the bill would have to speak to
intent.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether an extended invitation to the
lowest performing schools to join the reading program would be
"sufficient."
MS. MELIN expressed that she is unsure of what the best approach
would be.
9:52:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS expressed appreciation for the support
for Amendment 43.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY requested an opinion on Amendment 43 from
the bill's sponsor.
9:53:02 AM
SENATOR TOM BEGICH, Alaska State Legislature, said there was no
specific intent during discussions with the commissioner of DEED
when the initial three concepts of the proposed legislation were
conceived. He reminded committee members that the three
concepts were early education, the reading program, and
intensive support from DEED to districts with struggling
schools. He clarified that the intention was that the
legislature would determine the best process for realizing those
three concepts, and he shared the opinion that Amendment 43
would not undermine or contradict the purpose of the proposed
legislation, which in this discussion, is consistent
departmental support to ensure schools have the needed tools.
9:56:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY removed her objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 43, as amended, was adopted to HB
164, Version I, as amended.
9:56:39 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:56 a.m. to 9:58 a.m.
9:58:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved and asked unanimous consent for the
House Standing Committee on Education to direct Legislative
Legal Services to make technical and conforming changes in
drafting a committee substitute, including all amendments
adopted prior to the conclusion of the first session of the
Thirty-Second Alaska State Legislature.
9:58:55 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY discussed the importance of compiling the
amendments in a committee substitute.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND removed her objection. There being no further
objection, the motion to direct Legislative Legal Services to
compile the adopted amendments into a committee substitute was
adopted.
10:00:39 AM
[The House Education Standing Committee recessed at 10:00 a.m.
to a call of the chair.]
4:04:01 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND called the House Education Standing Committee
back to order at 4:04 p.m. Representatives Zulkosky, Story,
Hopkins, Gillham, and Drummond were present at the call to
order. Representative Cronk arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
4:04:58 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:05 p.m. to 4:07 p.m.
4:07:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY moved to adopt Amendment 62, labeled 32-
LS0731\I.30, Klein, 5/11/21, to HB 164, Version I, as amended,
which read as follows:
Page 8, lines 4 - 7:
Delete all material.
Reletter the following subparagraphs accordingly.
Page 8, lines 13 - 16:
Delete all material and insert:
"(3) the performance on the statewide
screening or assessment tool of students in a grade
above grade three who did not progress to grade four
or progressed to grade four based on a parent's or
guardian's decision under AS 14.30.765(d)."
Page 28, lines 20 - 28:
Delete all material and insert:
"(7) explain that if the student has a
reading deficiency at the end of the school year, the
parent may consider delaying the student's
progression;"
Renumber the following paragraph accordingly.
Page 28, line 31, through page 29, line 11:
Delete all material and insert:
"(d) If it is determined, based on a statewide
screening or assessment administered in the spring,
that a student has a reading deficiency, the student's
teacher and other pertinent district staff shall
notify and attempt to meet with the student's parent
or guardian to explain that the student will not be
able to maintain adequate academic progress at the
next grade level. School staff shall work with the
parent or guardian to schedule a date, time, and place
for the meeting, to be held not later than 45 days
before the end of the school year. Following that
meeting, the parent or guardian shall determine
whether the student will progress to the next grade."
Page 29, line 21, through page 30, line 7:
Delete all material.
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
Page 30, line 11, through page 32, line 21:
Delete all material and insert:
"(g) If no parent or guardian attends the
meeting under (d) of this section, a superintendent or
superintendent's designee shall decide whether a
student will progress to the next grade. If the
superintendent or superintendent's designee decides
that the student will not progress to the next grade
level, 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)
of this section and that the parent or guardian may
decide to progress the student during the meeting.
(h) For a student who does not progress to the
next grade, the district in which the student is
enrolled shall
(1) review the student's individual reading
improvement plan;
(2) provide intensive reading intervention
services to improve the area of reading deficiency
using effective instructional strategies to accelerate
student progress;
(3) provide additional services and support
to improve the student's identified area of reading
deficiency, including
(A) a transitional instructional setting
that is designed to produce learning gains;
(B) supplemental tutoring offered by a
person with specialized reading training;
(C) increased time dedicated to the reading
instruction methods described in (a)(3) - (5) of this
section, including more extensive opportunities for
guided practice, and error correction and feedback;
(4) develop a plan for reading at home
outlined in an agreement with the student's parent or
guardian, including parent or guardian participation
in training workshops and regular parent or guardian-
guided home reading activities;
(5) upon request by the student's parent or
guardian, develop a plan for the student's mid-year
progression.
(i) A district shall, for the remainder of the
academic year, and, if necessary, for additional
school years, continue to implement an individual
reading improvement plan for a student promoted mid-
year under (h)(5) of this section."
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
4:07:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:07:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 62.
4:07:20 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY said the conceptual amendment would add
"or guardian" after "parent" on page 1, line 15 of Amendment 62;
it would delete the term "statewide" from page 1, line 21; if
would delete page 2, line 14 through page 3, line 13; and it
would insert:
If no parent or guardian attends a meeting under (d)
of this section, the student will progress to the next
grade. The district or school in which the student is
enrolled shall immediately provide oral and written
notification to the student's parent or guardian,
explaining that the parent or guardian may reschedule
the meeting provided under (d) of this section. At
the rescheduled meeting, the parent or guardian may
decide to progress or retain the student.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND removed her objection for Conceptual Amendment
1 to Amendment 62.
4:11:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected for the purpose of discussion.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND pointed out the motion to adopt the conceptual
amendment was by the maker of the original amendment.
4:11:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY removed her objection. There being no
further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted to
Amendment 62.
4:12:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY reviewed Amendment 62, as amended. She
expressed concern regarding the retention language nestled
within the mandatory portions of the bill, which would give a
superintendent the authority to retain students regardless of
the superintendent's relationship or knowledge of the student.
She recalled testimony on the importance of making student
progression or retention decisions in consultation with a parent
or guardian, and she said Amendment 62, as amended, would remove
mandatory retention determinations, and leave such decisions
with the parents or guardians. She said retention has been
shown to not be a good strategy for addressing achievement gaps,
but that it's important to inform the state while protecting the
ability of parents or guardians to decide whether to retain a
student.
4:14:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS expressed approval of allowing parents or
guardians to make the retention decision in consultation with
the school district, and he said he would support Amendment 62,
as amended.
4:15:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed the understanding that Amendment
62, as amended would align with current policy regarding
retention decisions. She said, "We had been told ... that it is
the policy now that, if the parent wanted to, that the student
could be retained."
4:17:03 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND shared her understanding that retention can
punish a child for a lack of parental involvement or poor
teaching, and she said children deserve as much leeway as
possible without the threat of "flunking out."
4:18:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY withdrew her objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 62, as amended, was adopted to HB
164, Version I, as amended.
4:18:53 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND expressed the understanding that the adoption
of Amendment 62, as amended, has impacted Amendments 34, 35, 36,
37, 38, and 40, and she proposed a brief at-ease.
4:19:10 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:19 p.m. to 4:26 p.m.
4:26:15 PM
CO-CHAIR STORY moved to adopt Amendment 34, labeled 32-
LS0731\I.40, Klein, 5/10/21, to HB 164, Version I, as amended,
which read as follows:
Page 27, line 21, following "services":
Insert ", to the extent practicable,"
Page 29, line 3, following "guardian":
Insert "as many times as practicable"
Page 29, line 25, following "guardian":
Insert "as many times as practicable"
4:26:28 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said Amendment 34 would add "to the extent
practicable," referring to the number of reading progress
updates, and she said at least 10 updates is the goal. She then
discussed the possibility of a conceptual amendment, due to
lines 4-8 of Amendment 34 being affected by the adoption of
Amendment 62, as amended.
4:27:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 34, which would delete lines 4-8 of Amendment 34.
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 34
was adopted.
4:29:29 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND withdrew her objection of Amendment 34, now
amended. There being no further objection, Amendment 34, as
amended, was adopted to HB 164, Version I, as amended.
4:29:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to adopt Amendment 35, labeled 32-
LS0731\I.63, Klein, 5/11/21, to HB 164, Version I, as amended,
which read as follows:
Page 28, line 2:
Delete "If at any time during the school year"
Insert "If, during the school year,"
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND announced that, there being no objection,
Amendment 35 was adopted to HB 164, Version I, as amended.
4:30:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY withdrew Amendments 36, 37, and 38.
4:30:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS withdrew Amendment 40.
4:31:30 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:31 p.m. to 4:32 p.m.
4:32:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt Amendment 32, labeled 32-
LS0731\I.22, Klein, 5/10/21, to HB 164, Version I, as amended,
which read as follows:
Page 26, line 6:
Delete "shall"
Insert "may"
Page 26, line 9:
Delete "shall"
Insert "may"
Page 26, line 11:
Delete "The intensive reading intervention"
Insert "If the district elects to provide
intensive reading intervention services, the"
4:32:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said Amendment 32 would allow school
districts flexibility in implementing programs. He noted the
possible lack of capacity for reporting requirements in certain
school districts, and he expressed the importance of allowing
school districts to do what's best for their students.
4:34:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY discussed reading standards and the
importance of supporting children in meeting those standards.
She then described certain aspects of Amendment 32 that need
amending, including monitoring reading progress and incorporated
daily, targeted small group reading interaction.
4:37:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY stated her support for Amendment 32.
She agreed that communities and organizations in rural areas
have fewer resources, and she expressed appreciation for local
reassessment of intervention strategies.
4:39:59 PM
MR. MASON noted the key components of this legislation:
universal voluntary pre-k, DEED support for school districts,
and a state policy on evidence-based reading intervention. He
expressed that Amendment 32 would change the reading
intervention driver "dramatically," by making it a voluntary
program instead of requiring intervention. He said Amendment 32
would defeat the purpose of HB 164 and its companion legislation
SB 111.
4:41:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS noted the experimental nature of the
program, as evidenced by the high number of sunset dates in
Version I. He said evidence has shown that early education
works, but he expressed that there is no such evidence
supporting the reading intervention program. He expressed that
Amendment 32 would allow a "decent middle ground" and that he
supports it.
4:42:56 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND pointed out that DEED would provide training
to school district staff in "explicit and systematic instruction
and phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, development in
reading fluency, oral language skills, and reading
comprehension." She expressed not understanding how a school
district could ignore a need, when the training to address the
need would be provided. She said that, while she would like
school districts to have local control, she's concerned that
adopting Amendment 32 would allow school districts to not
address students' needs.
4:44:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY pointed out that schools continue to
instruct, even in the absence of requiring legislation, and
there continue to be statewide efforts to close the achievement
gaps. She discussed the possibility of having conversations
during the interim with school districts on what could work best
for smaller school districts, or those with other contributing
factors to the achievement gap. She opined that Amendment 32
would be a step in the right direction.
4:47:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS shared his understanding that the
passages regarding the statewide screening process, teacher
training, other educator training, reporting requirements, and
the option for districts to adopt their own statewide screening
process and its implementation would remain in place. He said
the intent of Amendment 32 is to not prohibit districts from
being able to receive the DEED training, but to allow them the
option for adopting the retention aspect of the proposed
legislation.
4:48:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY shared her understanding that the retention
aspect had been removed. She discussed the framework of what
has been proven to work, the importance of local, place-based
interventions, and the desire to make parents and communities
comfortable.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND discussed the verbiage that specifies a school
district "shall" provide an individual reading improvement plan
for each student in grades kindergarten through three who is
determined to have a reading deficiency based on the statewide
screening assessment tool. She said, "I think it's pretty clear
that this bill wants reading interventions to happen."
4:51:26 PM
MR. MASON noted that Amendment 13 included support for reading
improvement plans, and that the state would provide $1,000 for
support for each student in grades kindergarten through three
who is determined to have a reading deficiency. He suggested
that changing the "shall" to "may" would call into question
whether school districts would still be able to access that
support if the school district opts out of the reading
intervention program.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND said she doesn't see where the stipend would
reflect in the amendment under discussion.
4:52:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY maintained her objection.
4:52:41 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Cronk, Gillham,
Hopkins, Zulkosky, and Drummond voted in favor of adopting
Amendment 32 to HB 164, Version I, as amended. Representative
Story voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 32 was adopted by
a vote of 5-1.
4:54:00 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:54 p.m. to 4:55 p.m.
4:55:17 PM
[Amendment 44 was set aside.]
4:55:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt Amendment 45, labeled 32-
LS0731\I.18, Klein, 5/10/21, to HB 164, Version I, as amended,
which read as follows:
Page 33, line 14, following "specialist":
Insert "for a period of not less than one year,
or until every student requiring intervention has
progressed beyond the student's individual reading
plan,"
Page 33, following line 16:
Insert a new subparagraph to read:
"(A) working directly with teachers and
students to implement individual reading plans;"
Reletter the following subparagraphs accordingly.
Page 33, following line 26:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(5) employ and assign an additional
reading intervention specialist at a school for every
four classes in which at least 25 percent of students
require reading intervention services;"
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 40, line 4:
Delete "AS 14.30.770(a)(10)"
Insert "AS 14.30.770(a)(11)"
4:55:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said Amendment 45 would create the
position of reading specialist within DEED and placing that
specialist in a classroom that has least 25 percent of all
students on an individual reading plan. He clarified that the
reading specialist would be working specifically to implement
the individual reading plans. He said the reading specialist
would remain in the classroom for no less than one year or until
every student requiring intervention has progressed beyond the
student's individual reading plan. He noted that a fiscal note
would likely be attached as a result of adopting Amendment 45.
4:58:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY removed her objection.
4:58:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK objected.
4:58:29 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Hopkins, Zulkosky,
Drummond, and Story voted in favor of adopting Amendment 45 to
HB 164, Version I, as amended. Representatives Cronk and
Gillham voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 45 was adopted
by a vote of 4-2.
4:59:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt Amendment 46, labeled 32-
LS0731\I.19, Klein, 5/10/21, to HB 164, Version I, as amended,
which read as follows:
Page 33, line 31, following "additional":
Insert "optional"
4:59:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said Amendment 46 would introduce the
word "optional" with regards to additional reading materials.
He said he wants to ensure that no reading materials would be
forced onto any school district, and that the districts would be
able to choose the material.
5:00:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY withdrew her objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 46 was adopted to HB 164, Version
I, as amended.
5:00:30 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 5:00 p.m. to 5:01.
5:01:00 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
5:01:35 PM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND announced that Amendment 47 would be rolled to
the bottom.
5:02:08 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 5:02 p.m. to 5:03 p.m.
5:03:06 PM
CO-CHAIR STORY moved to adopt Amendment 48, labeled 32-
LS0731\I.47, Klein, 5/10/21, to HB 164, Version I, as amended,
which read as follows:
Page 34, lines 18 - 22:
Delete all material and insert:
"(10) annually convene, either in person or
electronically, a panel to review and provide
commentary on the effectiveness of the reading
intervention programs established under AS 14.30.760 -
14.30.775; the panel must include teachers of grades
kindergarten through three, school administrators, and
parents of students in grades kindergarten through
three, who collectively represent the regions of the
state and include stakeholders from indigenous
language immersion programs, representatives from
early education stakeholder groups, and researchers of
best practices for improving literacy performance of
indigenous students and students whose first language
is not English."
5:03:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK objected.
5:03:20 PM
MS. TOBIN reviewed Amendment 48, which would add regional
representation, stakeholders from indigenous language immersion
programs, representatives from early education groups, and
researchers of best practices, among other additions.
5:04:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY expressed appreciation for Amendment 48.
5:05:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 48 was adopted to HB 164, Version
I, as amended.
[HB 164 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|