Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205
02/04/2020 09:00 AM Senate 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 | |
| SB6 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 6-PRE-K/ELEM ED PROGRAMS/FUNDING; READING
9:00:19 AM
CHAIR STEVENS announced the consideration of SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE
FOR SENATE BILL NO. 6, "An Act relating to early education
programs provided by school districts; relating to funding for
early education programs; relating to the duties of the
Department of Education and Early Development; establishing a
reading intervention program for public school students enrolled
in grades kindergarten through three; establishing a literacy
program in the Department of Education and Early Development;
and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR STEVENS said this is the third hearing and his intent is
to hold the bill. He asked the committee to focus the discussion
on the policy of retention regarding mandatory grade level
reading. He asked Senator Begich for comments.
9:00:56 AM
SENATOR BEGICH, speaking as sponsor of SB 6, said the point of
the bill is to ensure that the state effectively addresses
students' ability to read and graduate and go on to lead
meaningful lives. The committee has repeatedly said throughout
the hearings that a reading program without effective early
education and prekindergarten does not work. The data shows that
prekindergarten without an effective reading program is not
sustainable in the long run. SB 6 combines both with some extra
intervention which he and the governor's office support.
CHAIR STEVENS commented that there is enormous support for the
bill throughout this building, but a number of important points
need to be understood better. He called Mr. Griffin to the
table.
9:02:16 AM
BOB GRIFFIN, Senior Education Research Fellow, Alaska Policy
Forum, Anchorage, Alaska, stated that he has worked for the
Alaska Policy Forum as a volunteer education researcher for 11
years. He thanked Senator Begich and Governor Dunleavy for their
bipartisan effort to help the kids of Alaska. He thanked Senator
Hughes for her leadership on this issue with her bill last year.
He thanked Representative Drummond and Posie Boggs and all the
reading task force members that added to this "great stone soup
of a bill" that will be one of the best in the country. He noted
that Representative LeDoux introduced a similar reading bill as
early as 2013. People have been chipping away at this and
finally, a good bipartisan understanding of what needs to be
done exists. He also thanked the staff at the Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED) for their hard work.
MR. GRIFFIN pointed out that the number one priority of the
Alaska Education Challenge and the State Board of Education is
to improve early childhood literacy. He advised that when he
talks about this topic, he always starts with the statement that
Alaska's kids are just as bright, its teachers just as
dedicated, and Alaska's parents love their kids just as much as
anywhere else, but policy decisions drive some of the state's
disappointing outcomes.
9:04:18 AM
MR. GRIFFIN showed a map on slide 2 of his presentation to
illustrate that only 13 states, including Alaska, do not have
reading policies. States in dark blue have the most
comprehensive reading policies. Should SB 6 pass its current
form, Alaska would be the twelfth dark blue state. The committee
heard [policy analyst] Tom Keily of the Education Commission of
the States speak about the three components [of an early
literacy policy]--prevention, intervention, and retention. SB 6
is strong in all components. Of the policies recommended by the
Foundation for Excellence in Education, this bill scores
strongly in 12 of 14 categories.
MR. GRIFFIN presented Alaska vs. Florida NAEP [National
Assessment of Educational Progress] Standings 2003 on slide 3 to
frame "why we're here." In 2003, all states were required for
the first time to participate in NAEP. Florida was average in
2003. Alaska already had some deficiencies in some areas,
particularly in reading, but for eighth grade math, Alaska was
ahead of Florida for kids who qualified for free or reduced
lunch and kids who did not qualify, as shown by the numbers in
dark blue. He noted that he breaks his work into economic strata
because it makes it easier to compare high-poverty states to
low-poverty states. Nationwide, there is generally a 30-point
difference on the NAEP for kids who qualify for free or reduced
lunch and kids who do not.
9:06:26 AM
MR. GRIFFIN said the comparison between 2003 and 2019 on slide 4
shows that Alaska slid dramatically in its standings. The
numbers in red show the state finished in the bottom five in
seven of the eight categories shown on the slide. In the
meantime, Florida has risen to a top five finisher in four of
the eight categories and has increased its standing nationwide
in all eight categories. Florida was the original model for
comprehensive reading policies. California was the first state
to have strong retention policies, but it did not have the 14
points of Florida's strong reading policy.
MR. GRIFFIN said the reading policies that were put in place in
Florida were not just an accounting trick to make the scores for
kids in fourth grade look better. The effect has been shown in
eighth grade. For students eligible for free or reduced lunch
for eighth grade reading, Florida went from 38th to fifth in
U.S. rankings.
MR. GRIFFIN said an offensive narrative popped up last year that
Alaska's Caucasian kids were doing fine. It was just Alaska's
Native kids who were dragging test scores down. That drove him
to do some research. The chart on slide 5 shows the difference
between 2003 and 2017, which is similar to the difference
between 2003 and 2019. Caucasian kids who do not qualify for
free or reduced lunch moved to second to last with a slight
decline in scale score while Florida had a 14-point rise in test
scores for kids in this category. Alaska across the spectrum has
reading issues.
MR. GRIFFIN said the slide 2003-2018 Increase in K-12 Spending
Florida and Mississippi, highlighted in yellow, shows that their
increase in per student spending in average daily attendance was
about the national average, even though these states added the
pre-K and reading programs the committee is considering.
SENATOR BEGICH said he did not appreciate the comments he made
today and in the past about Alaska Natives. He continued to say,
"I'm going to say one more time that you've misrepresented my
position on that a number of times. When we were discussing test
scores, we talked in this committee about rural and urban test
scores. Your comments that continue to characterize that as a
Native and White issue are not appreciated by me. And I
recognize that we are working together today on this
legislation, but that really has hit me hard for the last year
and a half. I just really want to put that on the record. I am
disappointed that you've just brought it up again."
9:10:15 AM
SENATOR HUGHES said she appreciated Senator Begich's concern,
but it was important the record reflect that an op-ed described
it in those same terms and it was not correct. Mr. Griffin is
basically saying that many Alaska Native kids are doing
fabulously. The op-ed, which was disturbing to her, claimed that
Alaska Natives were dragging down the test scores.
CHAIR STEVENS stated that there is no intention to offend
anyone. He added that he understood Mr. Griffin to say that
Caucasians in urban Alaska are doing worse than in the past.
9:11:28 AM
MR. GRIFFIN agreed and apologized to Senator Begich. He added
that the comments were in an op-ed by Dermot Cole last year and
repeated in the Capitol and on the chamber floors several times.
He said he reviewed the scores after the op-ed came out and it
seemed odd that the upper middle income kids were near the
bottom of the nation and low test scores for Native kids were
somehow responsible for dragging down those test scores. He said
Alaska has low test scores across the spectrum.
SENATOR BEGICH replied, "Let's try to move forward with what I'm
hoping will be a way of bridging all gaps and I appreciate your
comments earlier today as you opened your presentation about how
we are working together in a bipartisan manner to improve
reading and to improve education for all Alaskans."
MR. GRIFFIN displayed graphs on slide 7 that showed NAEP
[National Assessment of Educational Progress] fourth grade
reading scores for students eligible for free or reduced lunch
in states with strong vs. weak retention policies. The seven
states with strong retention policies have about eight times the
average point gain over three NAEP cycles than the states with
weaker retention policies. This indicates more growth in
students eligible for free or reduced lunch.
MR. GRIFFIN pointed to the seven studies on slide 8 that talk
about the positive aspects of retention. He said the research on
this is mixed, but more and more the positive aspects of
retention are being found.
9:15:36 AM
MR. GRIFFIN concluded that the retention part of the bill does
make a big difference for outcomes in the end.
CHAIR STEVENS asked if he could give the committee a brief idea
about the difference between the strong-retention states and the
weak-retention states.
MR. GRIFFIN replied he would give some examples of weak
retention policies. In Arkansas students are only retained if
they do not participate in an Individualized Education Program.
In Oklahoma, a committee must make a unanimous decision in order
for a student to be retained. In Colorado, the school and parent
jointly suggest retention but the decision is made by the
superintendent. In New Mexico, parents can refuse the first
retention. In Iowa, students are not retained if they attend
summer school, regardless of the outcomes. Utah, Minnesota, and
Virginia have good, comprehensive reading policies but no
retention policy. He said his assessment is that weak retention
states have significant wiggle room in their retention statutes.
CHAIR STEVENS asked him to describe the policies of strong-
retention states.
9:17:55 AM
MR. GRIFFIN replied, as a general rule, strong retention states
require kids to read at a basic, minimum level of proficiency.
He pointed out that SB 6 says that students should be retained
if they are not reading at grade level. That would be aggressive
compared to some other states. A more reasonable cutline would
be to retain students who score far below proficiency, as
measured by the Performance Evaluation for Alaska's Schools
(PEAKS) scores. He said the state does not know where the bottom
is for those who score far below proficiency on the PEAKS but it
could be not knowing the alphabet in third grade. In Florida,
kids who do not demonstrate a basic proficiency reading level
are considered for retention.
CHAIR STEVENS opined that retention will be a big issue as the
bill progresses.
SENATOR HUGHES shared that when she looks at the chart of
reading gains on slide 7, she wants Alaska to be on the side of
greater gains. She said her preference is to have a proficiency-
based promotion policy rather than one focused on retention. She
reiterated her earlier statement that if legislators
accomplished nothing other than this bill this session, it could
be a game changer for these students, their futures, and the
state as a whole. However, if the state continues to socially
promote, the state is not going to get those outcomes.
SENATOR HUGHES proposed that legislators think hard about the
goals. For example, Colorado is being considered as a policy
model, but it is shown as a weak-retention state on slide 7 and
its scores went down in the six years that are shown. If Alaska
learns from other states and passes a bill with "teeth,"
retention could be phased in to avoid spikes. For instance, it
could be phased in so in the first year retention would apply
only to students in kindergarten. Thus, teachers and students in
first, second, and third grades, who had not fully participated
in the program would not be held responsible. The Alaska Board
of Education could develop an incentive program for teachers who
reached certain measurable progress. In the second year, the
retention policy would apply to students in kindergarten and
first grade, the incentive policy would apply to students in
second and third grade, and so on. By the fourth year of the
program, the retention policy would apply to all four grades.
She offered her view that Alaska should not fear proficiency-
based promotion policy because the outcomes will be greater and
students will have diplomas that will be valuable.
9:22:12 AM
SENATOR HUGHES commented that her understanding is that most of
the research studies were based on students being retained
without massive intervention, like what is proposed in SB 6.
Children who were retained in the early grades continued to be
behind the curve in the intermediate grades and were failing
across the board. She said it is psychologically and emotionally
traumatic to be held back, but it is also psychologically and
emotionally damaging to be failing in ninth grade. With a
proficiency-based promotion policy, those students who were held
back in kindergarten or first grade would likely be succeeding
by ninth grade. She acknowledged that the research did not apply
to this type of scenario. She said she would like the goal for
students held back in second grade because of reading deficiency
to be to catch up to their cohorts.
CHAIR STEVENS said he appreciated her consistency in this and
her contribution in the past.
SENATOR BEGICH, referring to slide 2, stated that Mr. Griffin
said the Alaska Policy Forum hoped Alaska would be one of the
dark blue states [representing states with strong reading
policies]. He noted that Colorado and Oklahoma, shown in dark
blue, are also listed as weak-retention states. He said right
now, any school district in Alaska has the ability to retain
kids. Mr. Griffin testified that he liked the bill because it
has a detailed, comprehensive reading policy and has a condition
for retention, which was one of the key parts of the 14 points
of the Foundation for Excellence in Education. Senator Begich
pointed out that the way the bill is construed, Alaska would be
in the category of dark blue states if the legislature can
maintain consistency with clear reading outcomes and known
policies. For instance, kids should not progress if they do not
meet those outcomes.
MR. GRIFFIN agreed. He said he has reviewed many reading bills
and this is one of the better ones. Of the 14 points, retention
gets the most attention. It makes people pay attention, but the
other 13 points beyond retention are important to create the
better outcomes Alaska seeks.
SENATOR BEGICH shared that he wants to ensure parents have a
voice in the retention decision. He asked Mr. Griffin if he
supported that as well.
MR. GRIFFIN replied he absolutely does. The parents' ability to
appeal is universal in all those policies.
CHAIR STEVENS invited Dr. Winters to testify.
9:27:52 AM
MARCUS WINTERS, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Wheelock College of
Education and Human Development, Boston University, Boston,
Massachusetts, informed the committee that he is an economist
who uses quantitative research methods to study the effects of
modern education policies. One thing he has studied a lot over
time is test-based promotion policies. He has particularly
studied Florida's policy in a variety of ways. He said his
presentation will lay out some basic findings from his studies
with a brief nod to how the comparisons are made.
9:28:56 AM
DR. WINTERS said his research in Florida addressed the three
questions shown on slide 2:
• What is the effect of retention under the policy on
later student outcomes?
• What is the impact of the policy on student
performance within the 3rd grade?
• What is the cost of retaining students under the
policy?
DR. WINTERS stressed that he was looking at the effect of
retention under the policy, along with the other interventions
that are part of Florida's policy. He added that the question
about the impact of policy within the third grade has not gotten
as much attention as it deserves.
DR. WINTERS presented the effect of retention on slide 3:
• In essence, compare the later outcomes of students who
scored "just" below the threshold on the reading exam
and thus triggered the policy to that of students who
scored "just" above the threshold and thus were not
likely to be retained
• Findings:
o Large immediate test score increase following
retention that fades over time
o Still a large positive effect in the 10th grade if
compare when at same grade level
o No significant effect on high school graduation rate
No significant effect on college entry
o Significant and substantial increase in GPA
o Significant and substantial decrease in taking
remedial high school courses
DR. WINTERS said he has done this study several times in
Florida. The first study came two years after the first class
was retained and the most recent one was conducted when the
first cohort retained under the policy graduated from high
school. That provided a look at longer outcomes and the
performance trajectory.
DR. WINTERS said he described the technique of looking at those
just below the threshold and those just above as regression
discontinuity, which is a strong research technique used
frequently in economics. It is considered as strong as a
randomized control trial in many ways because it allows the
comparison of two students who are very similar. The students
are followed over time to see and differences in outcome.
DR. WINTERS noted that high school graduation rates are
imprecisely estimated, but students who were retained in third
grade under the policy had higher grade point averages in high
school and took fewer remedial courses.
9:33:16 AM
DR. WINTERS said he also examined the question of whether the
policy affects everyone in the third grade because it should as
administrators try to avoid the perceived need for retention.
The expectation is that teachers and others in the school will
put more effort into pushing kids to increase reading
performance to avoid falling below the cutoff. For the first
year of the policy, he found a meaningful positive effect in
third grade performance, prior to the retention decision. He has
a working paper on a similar study he did in Arizona, which
adopted a policy similar to Florida's about a decade later, and
he found almost identical effects.
DR. WINTERS said he also looks at the question of whether
retention under the policy is costly, particularly for
taxpayers, because an additional year of schooling is much more
expensive than some other reading interventions. Retention also
imposes costs on the retained students, such as entering the
labor market or college a year later. The point that he makes in
the paper is that these costs are real, but they have been
overstated in prior work.
DR. WINTERS said a student retained under the policy does not
represent an additional cost to taxpayers until the student is
in 12th grade. But retention is not happening in a vacuum. Being
retained in the third grade under Florida's policy is associated
with much less than an a full year of additional schooling. If
the policy were not there, many students would have been
retained in a later grade. The policy moves retention into the
earlier grade and the students, on average, spend less than a
full year in that status. In Florida, the academic benefits from
the policy far outweighed the cost of retention when all factors
are considered.
CHAIR STEVENS mentioned summer school and individual tutors and
asked how the additional schooling is handled in Florida.
9:38:44 AM
DR. WINTERS answered that some students might move up and
reenter their cohort, but the biggest difference is that a
student who was retained in third grade because of the policy
might have been retained anyway, so the policy did not increase
the number of years in school for that student. If the policy
did not exist, many of those students would be retained in the
fourth or fifth grade or later. Being retained in third grade
under the policy dramatically reduced the chances of retention
in later grades. By including those students who would have been
retained at a later grade in the calculation, the cost to
taxpayers is less than a full year of additional schooling.
SENATOR HUGHES asked if the study only looked a school costs or
if reduced special education costs were also factored in. In an
earlier hearing, the committee heard that without a reading
program, some students end up in special education. And from
what she gathered from his testimony, he was only considering
the costs to school budgets, not societal costs. She noted that
some is data showing that students who do not learn to read
often end up incarcerated and on public assistance.
9:41:15 AM
DR. WINTERS replied he does not have the data to show whether
those students received fewer of those services. There is data
showing retention increased test scores and there is data that
can link increased test scores to some of those reduced
services, but it is not as strong. That could be an additional
reduction of costs, but it cannot be proven in the same
empirical manner.
DR. WINTERS said the Florida study did not show a large decrease
in the probability that retained students were placed in special
education. But there is convincing work showing that increasing
student performance reduces the probability of students getting
a new Individualized Education Program (IEP), particularly in
the category of specific learning disability. One reason that a
large effect is not seen in Florida's policy is that a lot of
specific learning disability classifications have been made by
third grade. There was not a lot of empirical evidence one way
or the other so that is not part of the cost estimate.
9:42:55 AM
SENATOR HUGHES asked if most states retain students primarily in
third grade, or earlier. She noted there is some concern about
the psychological impact about retention, and the older a child
is, the greater the concern.
DR. WINTERS replied that is an interesting question, but he is
not aware of work that has systematically looked at whether
there is a change in retention rates prior to a student entering
third grade. He said it makes intuitive sense that schools might
respond that way, but he has not seen any systemic work on that.
His work has been focused on measuring the effect of retention
under the policy in Florida, and that is all happening in the
third grade.
SENATOR HUGHES asked him to comment on the possibility of a
phased-in approach for a proficiency-based promotion policy that
would be paired with incentives. The full policy would only
apply to the cohort of students who have had the full advantage
of the great reading program. She asked if he had seen anything
like that in other states and whether that might be a solution.
She said this state would not want a huge number of students to
repeat a grade the first year the policy is implemented, and a
phased-in approach might avoid that.
9:45:17 AM
DR. WINTERS responded that he did not know of any direct
evidence that looked at that approach, but there is evidence
that schools respond to these policies by making improvements
before third grade. His work that shows a jump in third grade
performance relative to later grades suggests that schools are
trying to make gains to push students over that line. Test
scores do not exist for earlier grades. In the similar study in
Arizona where he saw that third grade effect, some qualitative
(not quantitative or empirical) research was done by WestEd.
They reported through interviews with school leaders and
teachers that schools were focusing on reading instruction and
making changes in early grades, so there is reason to believe
that schools will increase the effort prior to third grade with
some incentives and other additional resources. In Florida,
retention is the culmination of the policy, but other things are
going on in earlier grades.
DR. WINTERS added that the other thing that should be considered
when adopting these policies is where to draw the line that
triggers the policy. That varies in different states. Florida
saw a large increase in retention because the line between Level
1 and Level 2 was very high relative to the distribution of
reading performance within the state. Trying to study the effect
of retention in Arizona was difficult because the cutoff was so
low that few students were retained. Policy makers need to think
about where the best place is to draw that line, making sure
that students who need treatment get it but also keeping in mind
how many students might be affected.
CHAIR STEVENS called on Ms. Gallanos from the Colorado
Department of Education.
9:48:36 AM
ANJI GALLANOS, Director of Preschool Through 3rd Grade Office,
Colorado Department of Education, Denver, Colorado, shared that
she was a former Alaska teacher and employee of the Alaska
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) where she
served as the literacy content specialist and early childhood
education director. She said the Colorado preschool office
supports state-funded preschool and the K-3 reading initiative
called the READ Act.
MS. GALLANOS said she would share information about two Colorado
programs as opportunities for reflection. Colorado has funded
part-day preschool for 31 years and is showing strong outcomes.
Students who participated were more likely to do better on third
grade summative assessments, were less likely to be identified
as having a significant reading deficiency, and were more likely
to graduate on time. The investment Colorado is making in three-
and four-year-olds is seeing strong long-term results. She said
she would provide a copy of the Colorado 2020 legislative report
with outcome data.
MS. GALLANOS reported that Colorado has learned that the purpose
of preschool is not just school readiness. That is just one step
of a child's academic preparation. For the impact of high-
quality preschool to be seen, children must continue to receive
the benefits of a quality education into the early grades.
Colorado has committed to a stronger connection of efforts
across preschool through third grade systems. This integrated
approach builds upon successes and will help more students stay
on track for school success.
MS. GALLANOS said that in addition to the preschool program,
Colorado joined 37 other states to implement a K-3 reading
initiative. The 2018/2019 school year was the fifth full year of
implementation for the Colorado READ Act. There has seen deep
commitment from school leaders, teachers, and parents but the
state realized it needs to see better outcomes in reading. It
takes time for parents and teachers to work together to
successfully support reading acquisition. Colorado has been
consistently monitoring for the best outcomes and does not
consider a lack of significant progress to be a sign of lack of
success. Rather, it is an opportunity to recommit and refocus
efforts.
MS. GALLANOS advised that as Alaska considers SB 6, it can learn
from Colorado and the 37 other states. Many states have K-3
reading policies and although SB 6 and the Colorado bill are
different, almost all K-3 reading bills have certain things in
common.
9:52:54 AM
MS. GALLANOS said the first commonality is polices related to
screenings, assessments, and collaboration with parents on
individual planning. Most states use a screener that is reliable
and valid at demonstrating which students will be most at risk
to fail third grade assessments. The screener is used to
identify students with reading deficiencies, it monitors
progress, and supports the notification of parents. It helps to
create individual reading plans so that interventions can be
collaborative between parents and schools. Screening is critical
for supporting intervention. Intervention plans have to be
written with that knowledge. Plans written without knowing the
areas of deficiencies cannot help provide accurate planning.
Quality screeners that are discrete enough to flag students
likely to fail outcomes tests will stop the pattern of failure.
In Colorado, ongoing screening and statewide reporting allowed
the state to identify exactly how the Colorado READ Act was
being implemented and quickly make necessary changes.
MS. GALLANOS said another common factor is policies for
intensive intervention for children who need it and retention in
third grade. Only a few states have policies related to direct
support from the state department of education. Colorado
provides early literacy grants to school districts, which have
shown strong outcomes. Those grants provide direct support
through coaching, intervention services, and professional
development. Mississippi, Arizona, and North Dakota are states
that provide direct support as in SB 6.
9:55:09 AM
MS. GALLANOS said the Colorado bill, although different than SB
6, can be a learning tool, but first it is important to
understand and align with the science-based reading research.
This is 30 years of research compiled from thousands of studies
with similar findings on how the brain processes written text
across multiple languages. These studies provide conclusive
evidence about how people learn to read, why some struggle, and
the type of instruction shown to have the greatest impacts on
reading outcomes.
She said Colorado came to recognize that it had implementation
challenges and it needed greater intensity to support reading
outcomes. The state board of education and state legislature
made changes to the READ Act in 2019 and that bill passed with
rare, unanimous consent.
MS. GALLANOS said it might be useful for Alaska to reflect on
the metrics that led Colorado to reauthorize its READ Act. For
Colorado, success of the K-3 reading initiative was defined as a
reduction in the number children identified as having a reading
deficiency, as demonstrated by one of seven districts-choice
screening tools.
Each year about 14 to 16 percent of children in Colorado were
shown to have a significant reading deficiency (SRD). However,
Colorado did not measure the number of students newly identified
and the number of students who were no longer identified, so
they had no way to measure the flow of students coming in as
newly identified and the flow of students making progress and
those no longer identified with a SRD. This made it seem as
though the rate of children with significant reading
deficiencies was stagnant, even though there was no way to
confirm that data. She suggested that Alaska can start by
ensuring that the metrics that are used to measure student
growth actually show how many students move between benchmark
points on a reliable and valid screening tool.
MS. GALLANOS advised that what success looks like in Alaska also
needs to be identified. Most states' summative assessments only
measure a child's ability to read and understand grade level
text. Summative assessments cannot show if students can decode
actual words in the text. A reading submeasure could be useful
to identify whether poor performance is related to comprehension
of the test or lack of ability to decode the words.
She said another key point that is not in SB 6 is that Colorado
provides funding for each student identified with a reading
deficiency. Colorado school districts get about $650 for every
student identified with a reading deficiency, using one of the
seven assessments. She said two things happen. First, there is
no direct comparability between assessments. She suggested that
selecting one assessment as a baseline could be an opportunity
for Alaska to have a more aligned approach. Second, carefully
think through whether or not to allocate specific dollars per
child. Districts tend to come to depend on a certain amount of
available funding, which could be a disincentive to reduce the
number of students identified. SB 6 funds districts as a whole
rather than providing per pupil funding. She noted that Oklahoma
is the only other state that provides per pupil funding.
10:00:00 AM
MS. GALLANOS related that the Colorado Department of Education
initially was prohibited from asking districts about how the per
pupil funds were spent, so it had no idea if the funds were
being used for interventions. With the reauthorization, Colorado
can review district budgets and authorize allowable use of
funding. Budget and expenditure monitoring can help to ensure
that funds are being used for the necessary intervention.
MS. GALLANOS reported that Colorado, along with many other
states, realized that many teachers did not know how to teach
children to read based on reading science and effective
practices. From her experience and work in Alaska as a teacher
and an employee of the department, she believes that many
districts are implementing reading practices that are not only
ineffective but detrimental to reading development. The Colorado
legislature mandated that all K-3 teachers in the state pass an
approved course in foundational reading. Colorado is taking a
close look at the types of instructional programs districts are
using, the professional development provided, and the way that
higher education is preparing teachers. Colorado has an approved
list of instructional programs and is working with its educator
effectiveness division to improve teacher prep programs to
ensure that higher education institutions are providing
coursework in evidence-based reading practices.
10:01:47 AM
MS. GALLANOS noted that Colorado retains few students, but
screening, intervention, teacher training, and supports must
form the basis of a program so that a retained student does not
receive another year of the same type of programming. Colorado
is focusing on the foundation of the program and the things
needed to assure that students have solid supports and that
retention is a last option.
MS. GALLANOS noted again that the Colorado and Alaska bills are
different. Alaska is unique, and Alaskan educators understand
how to support students. SB 6 aligns the preschool program with
K-3 by investing in intervention early. She encouraged the
legislators to be well versed in the types of preschool
implementation and K-3 reading policies across the nation.
MS. GALLANOS concluded by stating that 30 years of research and
evidence show that if children are supported early and taught to
read using evidence-based, systemic processes that include
phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary development
and comprehension, all but 2 to 5 percent of children will learn
to read and in that, children in Alaska are no different from
children in any other state.
10:03:21 AM
CHAIR STEVENS said he appreciated her thoughts on the science of
reading; the committee has heard that repeatedly. He asked if SB
6 does enough to bring teachers into the modern world to make
sure that everyone is ready through professional development to
take students forward.
MS. GALLANOS replied she is encouraged by the way SB 6 draws on
research about how students learn to read. This started with the
research put out by the National Reading Panel in 2000, so there
are ample resources and solid programs. Mississippi has done a
lot of work in training teachers specifically on evidence- and
science-based reading intervention. Colorado now is reviewing
160 instructional programs to see which vendors are providing
the best product.
SENATOR BEGICH said Senator Stevens was asking whether SB 6
allows for that provision. He said reviewing curriculum is a
department function and the department is seeking to do that in
regulation. He asked if SB 6 needs to be stronger in its
direction.
10:05:58 AM
MS. GALLANOS responded that the bill should define and clearly
outline what it means by science- and evidence-based reading.
That could be a lesson gained from Colorado where the
legislation was clear in defining science- and evidence-based
reading and what it looked like. This ensures that when
districts or the department interprets that, there is backing in
the language in the law.
SENATOR BEGICH observed that that was one of the more detailed
elements in the Colorado READ Act. He said it was not included
in the Alaska bill to try to reduce the volume, but that can be
reviewed. In the past, the department has not provided
substantial support to districts, but the bill and fiscal notes
reported at the last hearing underscore a significant financial
commitment from the administration to support districts in
providing training opportunities for their teachers. He asked if
that is consistent with the types of support necessary to ensure
teacher readiness and understanding to teach children to read.
MS. GALLANOS replied absolutely. When Colorado reauthorized its
bill, it put intentional effort into training all K-3 teachers.
Now the Colorado Department of Education is responsible for
training nearly 60,000 K-3 teachers in evidence-based reading. A
request for proposals (RFP) went out to find vendors to help
provide that training because it is needed. She acknowledged
that when she taught in Alaska, she did not know how to teach
students to read. She was not taught those skills when she
earned a master's degree in education. Higher education programs
are not focused on training teachers how to teach reading. Many
districts do not know how to provide professional development in
reading. She emphasized the importance of supporting teachers so
they can support readers and identify students with reading
delays. That aspect has been important in Colorado.
SENATOR BEGICH said two elements in the bill speak to that. One
section talks about the department's responsibility to offer
trainings. The bill has accountability clauses that are based on
research so the state will know it is getting what it needs. He
related that one of the reading task force findings was the need
to screen for learning disabilities and the bill tries to do
that. He asked if she had recommendations to strengthen that
section. He noted that one thing he enjoyed about the Colorado
READ Act is the way it continues to evolve by making data-based
adjustments. He said that is one intent of SB 6; to get it
started, to measure, and then make quick adjustments each
subsequent year. He asked if the bill does enough to screen for
disabilities such as dyslexia.
MS. GALLANOS said she could not comment on whether SB 6 does
enough to address dyslexia without first conferring with Alex
Frasier, Colorado's dyslexia expert. However, a separate bill
passed the Colorado House last year created a dyslexia task
force and working group. That working group offered parents and
advocates an opportunity to review the Colorado legislation and
identify its shortcomings. The working group is taking an in-
depth look at the types assessments and relying on expert
testimony about whether Colorado's assessments are discrete
enough to support the identification of dyslexia. She encouraged
the committee to consider establishing a dyslexia task force and
working group to provide expert guidance to see if SB 6 looks
for the risk factors in a way that supports students with
dyslexia.
CHAIR STEVENS said he and Senator Hughes do not know what the
University of Alaska is doing in terms of teaching the science
of reading. The committee needs to find out.
10:13:52 AM
SENATOR COGHILL summarized that SB 6 contemplates intervention
services and hiring reading specialists. He said one of his
concerns regarding intervention is that regular K-3 teachers
will not be able to perform at the same level of teaching. He
asked if Colorado had a concerted effort to bring teachers up to
the same standard. "One of my fears was that we'd find ourselves
in a mismatch situation," he said.
MS. GALLANO agreed that K-3 general education teachers need to
provide an opportunity to extend interventionist learning into
the classroom. She shared that her work as a special education
teacher in K-3 was enhanced by a partnership with the general
education teacher. An interventionist can provide support, but
kids need to be in a classroom that provides additional support
and opportunity for students to practice what they are learning.
A partnership has to happen between the general education
teachers and intervention teachers.
CHAIR STEVENS noted that further work clearly is needed with
dyslexia and the University of Alaska. He called Commissioner
Johnson to the table.
10:16:22 AM
MICHAEL JOHNSON, Ph.D., Commissioner, Department of Education
and Early Development (DEED), Juneau, Alaska, stated that his
comments would touch primarily on implementation and briefly on
the question of retention. He said the bill is full of elements
implementation and for some of the large components, the
department will need to work collaboratively with the State
Board of Education through regulation and with school districts
and teachers and parents so the implementation has the greatest
chance of success. The work to develop high-quality standards
for the pre-K program has already begun but it needs to be
finished and adopted by the board. Then the department will need
a process to award the grants associated with the program. It
will also need to help the districts meet the grant application
standards.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON said the department will need a process to
award grants associated with the program and they will need to
do some work to assist districts in meeting those standards. The
bill also has a lot of requirements for the department to
provide professional development and training for educators.
Also, the department has to collaborate on selecting a screening
tool because most districts currently are doing screenings.
Implementation includes parent notification and resources and
involvement and public data reporting and independent data
analysis. The bill assumes continual improvement and refinement,
whether through regulation or future legislation, so data is
important. He noted his interest in ensuring that the bill works
for students and not against districts. He said the data will be
used for program assessment and evaluation. School-based reading
improvement is a big part of the bill. All of that will be
implemented in conjunction with the state board and school
districts.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON emphasized that SB 6 is not a retention
bill. It is about giving every child the possibility of learning
to read. He said retention has generated lots of interest but
that is just one kind of intervention. As this discussion goes
on, he asked the committee to keep in mind that it is just as
detrimental to minimize the impact of promoting students who are
not proficient in reading as it is to overuse retention as an
intervention. He said he would not expect that anyone will
celebrate retention, but it is a legitimate intervention for
some students.
10:21:30 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON said a wide assumption about the meaning of
retention is that students are automatically held back if they
score poorly on one test, but that is not in this bill. Another
assumption is that retained students will receive the same
instruction a second time. SB 6 provides that students who are
retained will get the instruction they need.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON pointed out that Alaska's statutes already
assume that retention is possible. AS 14.03.072 requires each
district to annually provide parents with grade retention
standards. Almost every school district in the state has
retention policies in board policy. For example, the Anchorage
School District recognizes, especially in the lower grades, that
retention may be necessary to ensure student proficiency in
reading and mathematics. When academically appropriate, the
superintendent or designee shall promote alternatives to
retention among certified staff. Northwest Arctic Borough School
District says retention may be considered when a student does
not have the required appropriate and necessary skills and
knowledge.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON said he sees four categories that have been
worked into the bill related to promotion or retention. One,
communication is a strong element. By statute, school districts
are required to report grade level retention standards and
policies. The districts must explain implementation of
intervention or progression strategies. The second big category
is collaboration. Retention cannot be made in isolation; a group
of people that includes the parent, teacher, and others must
make that decision. Third, the bill provides guidelines and
safeguards. It states that a school board may exempt a student
from delayed grade level progression for good cause and lists
some of the exemptions. This bill provides an appeal process,
exemptions, guidelines, and safeguards. Currently, the state has
no safeguards for retention; it is just allowed. The fourth big
category is transparency because school districts must report
the number and percentage of students retained and the number of
students promoted who are not proficient in reading.
10:24:55 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON stated that the goal is to avoid retention
through quality instruction that results in proficient readers.
The bill provides for students who may need additional time and
instruction. It treats promotion and retention in a balanced
manner and it gives students, parents, and administrators the
structure needed to elevate all voices to make the best decision
possible for each student individually. The bill requires parent
involvement and it requires that families be given information
and resources to support children learning to read. For
teachers, this bill allows retention as one of many
interventions and it documents the expertise and recommendations
of teachers. Retention can be for a whole grade or part of a
grade or one subject of a grade. For principals,
superintendents, or school boards, this provides a process to
make sure there is consistent, thoughtful, and effective
decision-making about all students. This bill provides annual
reports to the legislature regarding the implementation and
effectiveness of the Alaska Reads Act, including promotion and
retention. Most importantly, this bill provides students
multiple pathways to demonstrate proficiency and provides
evidence-based interventions if needed and multiple safeguards,
whether students are promoted without grade level readings
skills or retained.
CHAIR STEVENS commented that "it's easy to get wrapped around
the axle on retention when, in fact, that's not what this is all
about." It is about improving the system for students. He asked
the commissioner to discuss screening tools.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON explained that a screening tool is an
assessment to identify students who might not be on track with
learning to read. The tool looks different at each grade level
and vendors provide the tool. Many school districts in the state
have used AIMSweb, for example. In first grade, students would
be screened for identification of sounds and letters. In third
grade, students would be screened for reading fluently enough to
comprehend. It is a quick measure to identify students who may
be struggling with learning to read.
SENATOR BEGICH thanked the commissioner for the summary that
underscores the work done to hear all voices. This bill is a
balance. It may not include everything some would want in a
bill, but it is a comprehensive look at these different
strategies.
10:28:45 AM
SENATOR HUGHES said she appreciated the point that a
proficiency-based promotion policy is one tool, and it would be
the last tool. That is important to keep in mind. It would be a
small group of students. The bill talks about considering not
promoting a child who is reading below proficiency. Her
understanding is that category is quite broad. Dr. Winters spoke
about a certain threshold or cut line. Her understanding is that
some other states refer to far below proficiency. She wondered
whether that language should be adjusted. A child who is just a
bit below proficiency could probably be helped in the next grade
but being far below proficiency is a real concern.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON replied he just heard of that idea in the
last few days and it is worthy of consideration.
SENATOR HUGHES raised two issues to consider before moving SB 6
on to the next committee, class size and eligibility dates for
enrollment. She mentioned that she had a discussion with Senator
Begich about how helpful it would be to teachers if students are
slightly older throughout the grades. The amount of intervention
would be less. With a cutoff date of September 1, particularly
for the four-year-old cohort, students who are three years old
could start in August. Little boys often lag developmentally
behind little girls, although either gender may not be on par as
far as readiness and development. It concerns her that a very
young three-year-old could be part of a four-year-old cohort.
Eligibility dates factor in for preparation for four- and five-
year-olds, along with grades K-3.
SENATOR HUGHES noted that as far as class sizes, she heard from
a first-grade teacher with 26 students. Florida's constitution
has a limit of 18 students for kindergarten through third grade.
She understands that the Anchorage School District has a policy
of around 20 students. She would like to have a discussion about
class size and to encourage districts to have a policy about
class size. This act will be more successful if the K-3 classes
are smaller, as well as for the four- and five-year-olds.
SENATOR BEGICH said that in response to the discussion with
Senator Hughes, there has been consideration about adding
language in the research section for a report on class size. The
age issue is also being looked into. Those recommendations will
be brought to the committee.
10:33:31 AM
CHAIR STEVENS observed that there were still many questions to
consider and held SB 6 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 22_SSSB006_AK-Reads-Act_Testimony_DrMarcusWinters_Bio_04Feb2020.pdf |
SEDC 2/4/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 6 |
| 23_SSSB006_AK-Reads-Act_Presentation_DrMarcusWinters_04Feb2020.pdf |
SEDC 2/4/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 6 |
| 24_SSSB006_AK-Reads-Act_Presentation_AK-Policy-Forum_BobGriffin_04Feb2020_revised.pdf |
SEDC 2/4/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 6 |