Legislature(2019 - 2020)DAVIS 106
03/11/2020 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 | |
| HB153 | |
| HB237 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 237 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 153 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 153-PRE-ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS/FUNDING
[Contains discussion of HB 204 and SB 6.]
8:07:43 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 153, "An Act relating to early education
programs provided by school districts; relating to funding for
early education programs; and relating to the duties of the
state Board of Education and Early Development." [Before the
committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 153,
Version 31-LS0928\U, Caouette, 3/4/20, adopted as a working
document during the House Education Standing Committee meeting
on 3/9/20.]
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND noted that the committee had been given an
explanation of the first part of the sectional analysis [for the
CS, "Version U"] at the prior hearing on HB 153 and would
continue with the rest now.
8:08:01 AM
ERIN HARDIN, Legislative Liaison, Department of Education &
Early Development (DEED), co-presented the sectional analysis
for HB 153 [included in the committee packet]. She noted that
Section 10 aligned with Section 6 of HB 204. She shared the
description of Section 10 in the sectional analysis, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 10
AS 14.07.020(c) is amended to define an "early
education program" as a pre-K program for students
three to five years old if its primary function is
educational. The 3-year-old students are not included
in the program this bill proposes but are included to
ensure they are not excluded from existing State and
Federal programs.
MS. HARDEN added that this is so that Head Start programs are
held harmless by the proposed bill.
8:09:03 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked whether early pre-kindergarten ("pre-K")
for Special Education students would be covered and, if so,
where that was indicated under [Version U].
8:09:16 AM
MS. HARDIN offered her understanding that those children "are
covered regardless." She suggested a staff person representing
the Department of Education & Early Development (DEED) could
provide additional information in her upcoming time before the
committee. She continued by describing the changes that would
be made under Section 11 and 12 of Version U, shown in the
sectional analysis as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 11.
Amends AS 14.07.050 to allow DEED to supply
supplemental reading textbooks and materials related
to intervention services established under AS
14.30.765 and AS 14.30.770.
Section 12.
Amends AS 14.07.165(a), relating to the duties of the
state Board of Education and Early Development, by
adding to those duties a requirement to establish
regulations for pre-K standards and pre-K teacher
certification requirements.
8:10:41 AM
LOKI TOBIN, Staff, Senator Tom Begich, Alaska State Legislature,
as co-presenter of the sectional analysis, turned attention to
new Sections 13-16, which are described in the sectional
analysis as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 13.
Amends AS 14.17.500 by adding new subsection (d) that
establishes an early education student shall be
counted in the school district's average daily
membership (ADM) as a half day student once the early
education program has been approved by the department.
Section 14.
Amends AS 14.17.905(a) to include students in early
education programs approved by the department in the
definition of an elementary school.
Section 15.
Amends AS 14.17.905 by adding new subsection (d) to
avoid letting school districts count pre-K students
twice in Foundation Formula ADM calculations.
Section 16.
Amends AS 14.20.015(c) to ensure teaching certificate
reciprocity for teachers moving to Alaska from out-of-
state and adds that such teachers must complete at
least three credits or equivalency in evidence-based
reading instruction in order to be eligible for an
Alaska teaching endorsement in elementary education.
MS. TOBIN noted that Section 16 and 17 resulted from stakeholder
feedback.
8:12:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked how the term "evidence-based" is
defined within HB 153.
8:12:43 AM
MS. TOBIN referred to the definitions section of the bill
beginning on page 19 which provides a detailed definition of
evidence-based reading intervention.
8:13:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether questions shall be taken
during the presentation of the sectional analysis or shall be
held to the end.
8:13:46 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND indicated to allow the presentation first and
that questions shall follow.
8:13:56 AM
MS. TOBIN shared section seventeen, which read as follows:
Amends AS 14.20.020 by adding new subsection (l) that requires
all teachers to complete at least three credits or equivalency
in evidence-based reading instruction in order to be eligible
for an endorsement in elementary education."
8:14:21 AM
MS. HARDIN explained that the next sections are new and are
intended to ensure that gains realized by quality early
education are maintained through the third grade and had been
developed following extensive feedback from teachers, school
administrators, and community stakeholders. She referred to
section eighteen, which read as follows: "Establishes Article
15, Reading Intervention Programs. Establishes AS 14.30.760,
which directs the department to establish a statewide reading
assessment and screening tool to identify students with reading
deficiencies; assist teachers in monitoring student progress in
reading proficiency and provide training to teachers in reading
intervention tools. Establishes AS 14.30.765, which directs
each school district to offer intensive reading intervention
services to K-3 students exhibiting a reading deficiency.
Services must be implemented in a manner to include a high
amount of communication between teachers, parents,
administrators and the student. Considerable detailed
attention, including written and verbal parental notification is
given under this section for instances when a student failing to
progress toward reading proficiency that may result in the
student not advancing to the next grade level. Establishes AS
14.30.770, which directs the department to establish a statewide
reading program, specifically to assist school districts in a
variety of ways to affect the reading intervention services
described in AS 14.30.665, above. The department shall employ
and deploy reading specialists to districts, in addition to
making complementary tools and resources to districts in
addressing student reading proficiency. AS 14.30.775 aligns use
of the word "district" in this Act with the definitions given
elsewhere in statute when referring to a school district." She
explained that section eighteen corresponds to sections 8, 9,
13, and 14 of HB 204.
8:16:53 AM
MS. TOBIN shared section nineteen with the committee, which read
as follows: "Directs early education program staff to be
included in those organizations required to report evidence of
child abuse." She noted section twenty, which reads: "Repeals
AS 14.03.410, the early education grant program, in 11 years
once all school districts have had the opportunity to
participate." She added that section twenty-one "Establishes a
Teacher Retention Working Group as a new uncodified law of the
State of Alaska."
8:17:32 AM
MS. HARDIN drew attention to section twenty-two, "Is
applicability language, relating to endorsements in elementary
education issued on or after the effective date of this act."
She also noted section twenty-three, "Is transition language,
directing the department to use 2018-19 school accountability
rankings for purposes of determining the first cohort of lowest
performing schools, to identify their pre-K grant eligibility
for FY 21." She concluded the presentation of sectional
analysis with the effective date of July 1, 2020.
8:18:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for clarification as to what sections
section eighteen refers to, as it appeared to be its own
sectional analysis.
8:18:39 AM
MS. HARDIN recalled that section eighteen correlates to sections
8, 9, 13, and 14 of HB 204.
8:18:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for a description of HB 204.
8:19:14 AM
MS. HARBIN explained that HB 204 is the bill proposing the
Alaska Reads Act by request of the Governor.
8:19:36 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND added that HB 204 and HB 153 were assigned to
committee concurrently and that HB 153 would be the bill moved
out of committee.
8:19:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for clarification on which parts of
which bills are under consideration.
8:20:00 AM
MS. HARDIN answered that HB 153 committee substitute had
undergone substantive changes by the Senate Education Committee.
8:20:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether HB 204 should be passed for
all the intended legislation to become enacted and asked for
additional explanation on section eighteen of the analysis of HB
153.
8:20:42 AM
MS. HARDIN suggested that HB 204 would not be required to pass
the intended legislation. She began a recitation of section
eighteen.
8:21:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK interjected by asking for clarification of
section eighteen as it relates to other proposed legislation.
8:21:37 AM
MS. HARDIN explained that section eighteen of the sectional
analysis of HB 153 conforms to the committee substitute for the
sponsor substitute for SB 6, currently being heard in the Senate
Finance Committee.
8:21:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK expressed his concern that SB 6 may or may
not pass and based on his understanding, the references to SB 6
could be rendered obsolete.
8:22:21 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND added that HB 204 was set aside in the House
Education Committee, due to its similarity to HB 153. She
clarified that the committee substitute for HB 153 is identical
to SB 6.
8:22:51 AM
SENATOR TOM BEGICH, Alaska State Legislature, added that the
staff are presenting the information on the bills with
references to other pending legislation which contained
identical language however in different sections. He suggested
that, while the bills contain the same language, they were
independently drafted by the Department of Law and Legislative
Legal Services, resulting in structural differences. He offered
that the only language that should be considered pertains to HB
153 discretely and allowed that cross-referencing other pending
legislation is confounding the hearing on HB 153.
8:24:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK expressed his understanding that sections
referred to correspond instead are identical in both bills.
8:25:02 AM
SENATOR BEGICH confirmed Representative Tuck's summation and
added that HB 153 had undergone substantive changes since its
introduction.
8:25:21 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND added that committee procedure may have
contributed to the resulting confusion.
8:25:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked that the reference in section nine
refers to section five and asked section five of which bill.
8:26:12 AM
SENATOR BEGICH noted that the reference to comport with other
legislation had been made to honor the work that had taken place
among the similar proposed legislation. He summarized that HB
153 comports identically with SB 6.
8:27:32 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY referenced page nineteen of the bill, noting
"evidence-based reading intervention" and asked whether all
districts should already abide these standards as part of their
reading programs. She asked whether reading programs have been
evaluated and suggested that reading specialists conducting
intervention causes concern because the standards should already
exist in all reading programs.
8:30:04 AM
MS. TOBIN offered that page nineteen stating "evidence-based
reading intervention" was language developed by Legislative
Legal Services, and the sponsor requested that the definition
should be included in the bill. She suggested that
"intervention" be replaced with "reading" to provide
clarification of the intent of the statewide reading policy
proposed in the legislation. She added that DEED would be
available to answer questions on reading programs currently in
schools. She referred to the DEED requirements for training in
evidence-based reading, and that several sections of the bill
are instructive to DEED.
8:31:28 AM
MICHAEL JOHNSON, Ed. D., Commissioner, Department of Early
Education & Development (DEED), added that the five measurements
of reading progress should be standards of a quality reading
program, and local districts use curriculum to implement those
standards to achieve legislative intent. He suggested that,
should the bill pass, pre-K, intervention, and school
improvement harmonize to which funding is attached. He further
explained that should students demonstrate a lack of proficiency
the proposed bill provides for intervention strategies and
instruction from DEED to aid in meeting the standards.
8:33:03 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY suggested that schools are currently using a
comparable model of standards and intervention. She mentioned
the screening model Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy
Skills (DIBELS) as an example of intervention strategies which
should be already in practice.
8:34:23 AM
DR. JOHNSON agreed that districts should have reading programs
that align with the standards. He indicated that DEED is
limited in its power to intervene. He suggested that the bill
would provide training and support to achieve effective
interventions throughout the state.
8:36:17 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND suggested that the proposed bill should not
result in unfunded mandates to districts but would rather
position DEED to administer the reading interventions. She
noted that DEED staffing has endured significant cuts during an
eight- or ten-year period and the fiscal notes associated with
the bill should provide support in meeting the mandates.
8:37:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether the definition of "reading
teacher" proposed in the bill, on page 20, lines 2 -6, would be
that a teacher shall advance a certain number of student
performance, meet performance evaluation standards, and
additional regulations to be determined.
8:38:18 AM
DR. JOHNSON deferred his answer to Representative Hopkins'
continued line of questioning.
8:38:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether a teacher who is obligated
to teach students to read at or above grade level would be
required to demonstrate a specific number or proportion of
student performance that comprise a baseline and measurable
performance of a reading teacher. He asked for additional
information on teacher performance evaluation and how that would
be measured and by whom should the bill pass.
8:40:01 AM
DR. JOHNSON suggested that the proposed language is instructive
to districts to recruit teachers who have reading credentials
and is not intended to be instructive on how teachers are
evaluated.
8:40:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked for further clarification on how
the proposed bill would be implemented regarding teacher
performance and training.
8:41:32 AM
MR. JOHNSON suggested that the development of regulations
following the passage of the bill would be an opportunity for
teachers, schools, and districts to contribute expertise
regarding teacher performance and evaluation. He added that the
bill also contains language for DEED to offer training in
support of teacher performance and professional development and
falls short of instructing districts on performance evaluation
and retention of reading teachers in districts.
8:42:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS offered that certification is not
necessarily an indication of effectiveness in the classroom;
however, subject matter certifications provide for teacher
mobility within a district to adapt to changing needs. He asked
whether certification or training in reading would contribute to
more mobility for teachers within districts, or whether that
should be left to each district's discretion.
8:43:24 AM
DR. JOHNSON offered that endorsements, badging, and micro
credentialing is happening within and outside DEED, and should
be more widely available.
8:44:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS added that paraprofessionals should be
included in the discussion about training and certification and
recommended the consideration of such language in the bill.
8:44:14 AM
SENATOR BEGICH applauded the line of questioning by the
committee and regarded it as beneficial to aid in sorting out
roles and responsibilities and the question of any prescriptive
intent of the bill. He noted that rural school districts have
raised questions regarding certification and DEED role in
prescribing training. He conceded that the language in the bill
would benefit from additional scrutiny in this area. He added
that teacher recruitment and retention are significant obstacles
and that meaningful flexibility for districts should be a stated
goal of the legislation. He concluded with a suggestion of
collaboration to arrive at the level of flexibility that is the
least disruptive to the educator and provides the optimal
structure to support reading proficiency in a variety of school
environments.
8:47:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY suggested that additional analysis
should be provided under section eighteen due to the length and
complexity of the proposed language. She asked what teacher
certification reciprocity cited in section sixteen of the
analysis are currently either required or in practice by
districts that include cultural knowledge and cross-cultural
communication. She added that statistics in her district
reflect as much as thirty-eight percent teacher turnover in
addition to estimates of over twenty-five percent of households
being non-English speaking in the home. She added that there
are disproportionate number of children in her district in
foster care, and social worker turnover exacerbates challenges
faced by students in her district. She offered that this
underscores the diversity of needs throughout a variety of, and
particularly rural, communities.
8:50:35 AM
SENATOR BEGICH noted that the pre-K component of the bill as
th
well as SB 99 [proposed during the 30 Alaska Legislature] each
contain language regarding cultural relevance obtained working
with local communities, as proposed by Alaska Native leaders.
He added that the retention section on page eighteen, line
twelve, which is still in development, addresses cultural
relevance especially regarding English as a second language for
students. He referred to his testimony in an earlier hearing
regarding his experience in criminal justice and the
disproportional negative effects on Alaska Natives with
nontraditional family structures had informed this topic as a
priority. He encouraged suggestions for language to mitigate
disproportionally affecting these students and families. He
added that both rural and urban districts share some of the same
diversity among their populations and diligent development of
proposed language would benefit all Alaskan students and
communities.
8:56:21 AM
DR. JOHNSON added that the intent of the proposed bill is that
every child should learn to read proficiently, regardless of
[spoken] language. He encouraged collaboration to evince the
intent of the bill.
8:57:08 AM
SENATOR BEGICH referred to page eleven, lines 26-28 which
contained suggested language from Head Start leaders in the
state for cultural inclusion at the local level.
8:58:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY reiterated her belief that section
eighteen should undergo additional analysis and scrutiny
including public testimony to ensure a full understanding of the
proposed legislation and allow for modification of the language
were deemed necessary. She reiterated that districts and
demographic diversity across the state are positioned
differently to achieve the mandates set forth in the proposed
bill. She added that it is her intention to ensure equity among
a diversity of students and backgrounds, regardless of their
readiness and to consider their capability levels.
9:01:09 AM
MS. TOBIN shared that the sectional analysis for section
eighteen had been condensed from four pages of analysis to the
truncated version before the committee and the full version
remains available and will be forthcoming.
9:01:36 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND added that HB 153 was heard in the Senate
Education Committee over the course of eight hearings and that
the committee could expect adequate time to fully scrutinize and
amend the bill to ensure its efficacy of intent.
9:01:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether students would be required to
read English or read any language by third grade.
9:03:00 AM
DR. JOHNSON explained that there exists in Alaska "Immersion
Schools" where students are immersed in languages other than
English. He stated that the intent of the bill does not include
English as the required language; however, he acknowledged that
English is prevalent in Alaska society.
9:04:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether the proposed bill compels the
state to fund resources to support districts or whether
districts may be faced with an unfunded mandate to meet state
standards.
9:05:35 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND recommended that the fiscal notes of the bill
should offer clarity to answer Representative Prax's question
and recalled the constitutional obligation for the legislature
to provide education to Alaskans. She added that the proposed
legislation would result in DEED bearing of the burden and
resources to accomplish the intent of the bill.
9:06:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX rephrased his question to ask what it would
be that the legislature would be appropriating funds to obtain
or achieve, and how it should be measured.
9:07:23 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND answered that it would be that all students
achieve reading proficiency by grade three.
9:07:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether this includes reading in
language(s) other than English.
9:07:40 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND suggested that children should learn language
as early as possible and that children who are raised bilingual
are better positioned to learn. She recalled her experience as
a school board member during which she lamented the district
offering students foreign language as late as the seventh grade.
She also recalled the existing immersion programs which are more
effective the earlier students can participate.
9:09:20 AM
DR. JOHNSON answered Representative Prax's question of what the
legislature would be appropriating with the passage of the bill
as being akin to funding public safety to obtain a safer
society, and likewise funding public education should obtain a
more educated society. He noted that existing research
demonstrates that proficiency in any language enables
proficiency in English when it is introduced.
9:10:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX requested additional discussion outside of
committee to explore the concepts offered by Dr. Johnson.
9:10:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON lauded section nineteen on teacher
retention as addressing a major problem in Alaska schools. She
referred to indirect effects of poor teacher retention in
communities. She asked whether it had been considered to
include other community member feedback.
9:12:02 AM
DR. JOHNSON explained that the construct of the teacher
retention working group was included in the bill as an amendment
and expressed hope that previous successes in state government
programs working groups would be representative of a robust
stakeholder group in the proposed legislation.
9:12:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON expressed concern regarding the loss of
accreditation in the University of Alaska Education program, and
asked what strategies and resources are under consideration to
address the teacher shortage that is expected to grow.
9:14:04 AM
DR. JOHNSON recalled that University of Alaska Fairbanks and
University of Alaska Southeast education programs maintain their
accreditation. He suggested that passage of the bill would
provide incentives for the University to align their programs
with the intent of the bill, including accredited teacher
training. He also suggested that University representatives be
invited to testify on these matters.
9:14:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON noted that the loss of accreditation has
resulted in some displacement of students in the program and
asked whether consideration had been made to aid those
candidates in becoming certified teachers.
9:15:38 AM
DR. JOHNSON stated that the bill allows for three evidence-based
reading instruction credits "or equivalent" as approved by DEED
and should allow DEED to work with those candidates to achieve
certification despite the loss of accreditation of their
program.
9:16:10 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY asked whether DEED has surveyed districts to
determine their baseline reading programs and their alignment
with the proposed legislation.
9:16:57 AM
DR. JOHNSON stated that there had been previously enacted
legislation mandating such a survey, which is underway. He
added that DEED intends to provide the aggregated data by
district publicly on its website.
9:17:39 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY requested a sample of survey data in progress be
made available.
9:17:53 AM
DR. JOHNSON agreed to provide a sample of the data for
consideration.
9:18:02 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND directed attention to the fiscal notes, which
had been provided to the committee. She noted that they are
identical to the draft fiscal notes that were provided as part
of the bill packet.
9:18:22 AM
HEIDI TESHNER, Director, Finance and Support Services,
Department of Early Education & Development (DEED), referred to
a summary of all fiscal notes associated with the bill, and drew
attention to Fiscal Note number one, identified as the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) component 141 which is for zero
dollars. She then spoke about Fund Capitalization for the Public
Education Fund, identified as HB153CS(EDC)-EED-FP-3-5-20 and OMB
component 0284.
9:19:39 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:19 to 9:21 a.m.
9:21:40 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND directed the committee to refer to the OMB
component numbers and the draft number of the fiscal notes for
the purposes of discussion.
9:22:04 AM
MS. TESHNER drew attention to draft fiscal note number five, OMB
component 2084 Public Education Fund Capitalization. She
explained that the Foundation Formula is funded as depicted in
the fiscal note. The note takes into consideration the total
amount of projected state aid and divides that amount by the
Average Daily Membership (ADM) to establish the average cost for
ADM. She noted that this fiscal note calculates only half time
of ADM and aligns with the $4,685 in the analysis as estimated
per student average cost. She added that the amount is an
estimate and will be trued up after ADM is established. She
explained that six cohorts of students exist in the Early
Education Program, beginning in FY 24 with a cost of $1,724,100
and would increase to $4,305,500 in FY 25, and increase to
$6,887,000 in FY 26. She noted that the total foundation
formula would increase through FY 29 to a total $17,217,400 as
all six of the projected cohorts progress from the pre-K grant
program into the foundation formula funding mechanism.
9:24:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether the fiscal note under
consideration includes schools which currently have pre-K
programs that are compliant to standards yet to be developed.
9:24:58 AM
MS. TESHNER indicated that they are not reflected in the fiscal
note and only the students who are projected to participate in
the three-year pre-K grant program are. She allowed that
immediate costs could occur within the foundation formula
funding mechanism should schools qualify.
9:25:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether any of the fiscal notes
include those schools as described.
9:25:37 AM
MS. TESHNER confirmed that they do not.
9:25:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether a qualified school would begin
to receive funding under the foundation formula should the bill
pass.
9:26:06 AM
MS. TESHNER explained that, once standards had been developed by
DEED following the passage of the bill, schools that qualified
to the standards would be eligible to obtain funding through the
foundation formula in lieu of their own funding programs. She
referred to Alaska Statute 14.30.180 providing for appropriate
education for each child with a disability in the state between
ages three and twenty-two. She drew attention to draft fiscal
note number two, OMB component 2796, associated with school
improvement program and comprehensive intervention programs.
She noted that DEED would provide for school improvement
including one to two reading specialists based on school size
for ten schools in the first year, and up to twenty in the
second year and beyond. She explained that the fiscal note
depicts the maximum number of reading specialists in year one,
and five additional specialists over each of the succeeding four
years, subject to reevaluation based on actual needs. She
highlighted that DEED would recoup charges of $9,600 per person
and a one-time cost of $5,000 per person for time and equipment.
She noted that FY 21 would realize a one-time cost of $6,000 for
legal services for the development of regulations. She itemized
the cost per student for developing a new reading curriculum at
$25,000, and that approximately 10,000 students are estimated
per cohort, and that there are an estimated 40,000 students in
kindergarten through grade three. She added that 391 schools
have served students in kindergarten through grade three during
FY 19. She explained that 40,000 students divided among 391
schools results in 102 kindergarten through grade three students
per school on average and reading materials would be estimated
to cost $255,000.
9:29:50 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY suggested that districts may already have
materials that would meet the forthcoming standards
qualification and asked whether that had been taken into
consideration in the fiscal note.
9:30:19 AM
MS. HARDIN affirmed that it had been taken into consideration
and noted that the reading materials had been identified as
"supplemental reading materials."
9:30:36 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY suggested that there exists compliance to
standards yet to be developed and that actual interventions and
their associated costs would be nuanced.
9:31:32 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND suggested that the act of DEED providing
textbooks to schools is unusual.
9:31:46 AM
MS. TESHNER confirmed that it would be unusual.
9:31:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for clarification on the amount cited
per student as $255,000.
9:32:13 AM
MS. TESHNER stated that the fiscal note depicts $25,000 as the
cost per student when adopting a new reading curriculum, and the
total amount is $255,000.
9:32:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK pointed out a potential decimal typo
depicting 0.25 in the fiscal note and that it should read
$25,000 per student.
9:32:48 AM
MS. TESHNER acknowledged the typo and confirmed the amount as
$25,000 per student.
9:33:07 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:33 to 9:34 a.m.
9:34:36 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND indicated that page two of fiscal note
identified as OMB component 2796 paragraph five should be
revised.
9:34:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK suggested that the last sentence of
paragraph five should be correspondingly revised.
9:35:09 AM
MS. TESHNER confirmed that a correction would be forthcoming.
9:35:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK suggested that the final sentence correctly
aligned with the formula as stated and would await a revised
fiscal note to reconsider.
9:35:30 AM
MS. TESHNER referred to the comprehensive reading intervention
program reflected on fiscal note identified as OMB component
2796 that includes three staff and associated travel and
supplies expenses. She indicated that the program would require
a statewide screening tool for an estimated 40,000 students,
with a cost of approximately eight dollars per student. She
noted that assessment tool training of $53,000 is included in
the fiscal note as well. She summarized the fiscal note total
amount of $4,221,700 for FY 21 to implement the school
improvement and comprehensive reading intervention programs.
9:37:35 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND noted that the numbers depicted are listed in
thousands within the fiscal notes as is customary.
9:37:59 AM
MS. TESHNER drew attention to the fiscal note identified as OMB
component 2912 early education coordination, which addresses the
early education grant program. She noted that to operate the
development grant program and provide training and support to
grantees, it would require two Education Specialists and one
Education Associate position included in the fiscal note. In
addition to salary and benefit costs, department chargeback
costs of $9,600 per position would be needed, plus a one-time
cost of $5,000 per position for supplies and equipment. She
indicated that a one-time increment of $6,000 in FY 21 for legal
services costs associated with new regulations is included in
the fiscal note as well.
9:39:25 AM
MS. TESHNER turned attention to page 3 of the fiscal note
identified as OMB component 3028 pre-kindergarten grants, which
provides the funding breakdown by fiscal year for the three-year
grant program. She indicated that the estimated yearly cost of
the three-year program in FY 21 is $1,728,000 for the 368
students from cohort 1; furthermore, the total grant program
would cost $51,652,100 in FY 28 for cohort 6.
9:41:42 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND remarked:
Is this note that we're addressing right now ... the
districts that are currently delivering preschool that
are folded into the formula as soon as the department
approves those particular programs.
MS. TESHNER said the fiscal notes do not reflect any costs
associated with the district that currently provides a program
that could beat the standards adopted by the state board.
9:42:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK questioned whether districts could receive
both the grant and the [foundation] formula in FY 24.
MS. TESHNER said it's one or the other, adding that districts
can't receive the early education grant and be funded through
the foundation formula. She explained that if a district
currently has a program that could meet the standards, it will
bypass the three-year early education grant program, submit to
the state board for approval and subsequently count the students
through the October foundation count. She expounded that if a
district does not have a preschool program, it would enter the
three-year grant process based on its cohort ranking.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK surmised that the increases in FY 24, FY 25,
and FY 26 are reflective of more schools getting involved in the
grant program or increased costs in the grants.
MS. TESHNER noted that by FY 26 the program is serving three
sets of cohorts. She explained that cost increase reflects
those additional students.
9:44:59 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND announced that HB 153 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 237 Sponsor Statement 3.3.20.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2020 8:00:00 AM |
HB 237 |
| HB 237 Sectional Analysis 3.3.20.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2020 8:00:00 AM |
HB 237 |
| HB 237 Committee Packet 3.11.2020.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2020 8:00:00 AM |
HB 237 |
| HB 237 Version M.PDF |
HEDC 3/11/2020 8:00:00 AM |
HB 237 |
| HB237 FY20 and FY21 by district disbursment 3.4.20 DEED.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2020 8:00:00 AM |
HB 237 |