Legislature(2019 - 2020)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/26/2020 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
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 |
SENATE BILL NO. 6
"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."
9:03:00 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof read the title of the bill. She noted
that the bill was the only item on the agenda. It was the
first hearing on the bill.
9:03:51 AM
SENATOR TOM BEGICH, SPONSOR, commented that the complexity
of the bill title underscored the complexity of the bill.
He discussed the process by which the bill came to be. He
had introduced SB 99 three years previously, which was
directly related to Pre-Kindergarten (Pre-K) education. He
had consulted with a variety of stakeholders including:
early education specialists, the Department of Education
and Early Development (DEED), and a number of
superintendents, school board members and educators in the
state. He had discovered that research showed there needed
to be a strong reading program to go along with Pre-K
education, or educational gains would be lost. The previous
year SB 6 had been introduced as a universal, voluntary,
evidence-based Pre-K bill.
Senator Begich noted that the previous October the
commissioner of Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED) had approached him on behalf of the
governor and had discussed the bill. Principals were
discussed such as strong evidence, cultural basis, and
local control. He emphasized the evidence-based nature of
the bill. The sponsor did research in other states to
identify best practices. He had also looked at efforts
within the department for intensive intervention with
largely failing schools in order to perhaps gain insight or
use resources.
9:07:20 AM
Senator Begich discussed the concept for SB 6, which was
intended to be a template and conversation starter. He
relayed that prior to the introduction of the bill, he had
met with stakeholders to get as much input as possible. In
the process of developing the initial template, the Senate
Education Committee had considered the bill through eight
hearings in which the bill was substantively changed. The
committee substitute included 34 changes from the original
bill. He stressed that there had been input from hundreds
of educators, school board members, and superintendents.
9:09:10 AM
Senator Begich read from the Sponsor Statement (copy on
file):
Early education is imperative for our state. When
examining Alaska's long-term economy and opportunity
for all Alaskans, it is essential to consider how we
can both increase Alaskan's productivity as well as
reduce potential drains resulting from the unrealized
potential of our citizens. Early education and the
ability to read is an important part of that equation.
The markers for success develop early in life and
brain science underscores that how we use our brains
at those crucial early years before we enter
Kindergarten as well as how prepared we are when we
enter our K 12 education have a dramatic impact on
how well we will do in school and life. Research shows
us that those who live in poverty have an incredibly
difficult time catching up with others if they come to
school ill-prepared. That same research shows that
those who have a high-quality preschool experience go
on to future academic and personal success. Studies
such as the Perry Preschool Project Study and others
report that every dollar invested in high quality pre-
K can save up to $7 in long-term government expense by
reducing the need for remedial education, and
involvement in the criminal justice and public
assistance systems.
High quality early education programs are an
investment in our future. Universal voluntary early
education available to students before they enter
kindergarten improves school readiness, reading
levels, and long-term economic performance. Long term
studies, again such as the Perry Preschool Project
Study, also suggest students with access to high
quality preschool are less likely to be incarcerated
and less likely to receive government assistance as
adults. Alaska's current pre-Kindergarten programs
such as those in Anchorage, Mat-Su, The Lower
Kuskokwim School District and Nome and our early
education programs including Head Start, Best
Beginnings, and Parents as Teachers, provide access to
families for such high quality early education, but
are, according to our Department of Education and
Early Development (DEED), only available to 10% of
Alaska's 4 year-olds. CS SSSB6 (EDU) would take
lessons learned from those programs and provide all
school districts with the opportunity to provide high
quality early education to their students if they so
choose.
CS SSSB 6 (EDU) also establishes new statewide
literacy program and intensive reading intervention
services for students experiencing reading
deficiencies starting in Kindergarten through grade
three. Initially, up to ten struggling schools will
have the opportunity to apply for an on-the-ground
reading intervention specialist to be engaged and
present in their school for an entire year.
DEED funded reading intervention specialists will
support existing school staff, engage and build
community understanding in evidence-based reading and
work with local teachers and support staff to improve
reading scores and assessments through evidence-based
reading instruction.
Thrice annual reading proficiency screenings or
assessments provide teachers and school officials with
the required insight into each student's reading
proficiency. For students experiencing reading
deficiencies, each student will receive personalized
and individual attention to improve their reading
proficiency.
There is much to be said about early education, but
the critical piece is that children's pace of
intellectual development potential peaks before age
six, making those years especially important for
future success. An important partnership between a
parent and child begins before the child enters
kindergarten, when the parent helps the child develop
rich linguistic experiences that help form the
foundation for reading and writing, which are the main
vehicles for content acquisition.
High quality early education prepares students for
reading readiness, allowing students to enter
kindergarten armed with the knowledge and tools for
future academic success.
Senator Begich affirmed that under the legislation, local
school districts would still be able to use high-quality
screening instruments and would not replace existing texts.
He referenced the Moore v. State of Alaska lawsuit [a 2004
lawsuit in which a variety of plaintiffs challenged the
adequacy of the education system under the state
constitution], and identified that one of the judge's key
findings was that the support by DEED had been insufficient
to help school districts teach children to learn. The
lawsuit had focused on low-performing districts. He noted
that the bill would provide additional support at the
departmental level. The bill would identify a number of
reading specialists that would be available within each
district. The legislation would provide the opportunity for
reading specialist training and other supplemental support
from the department.
Senator Begich emphasized that investment in education was
important. He believed the bill would transform the way
children were educated in the state, in a way that would
add to the state's economic and overall success.
9:13:49 AM
L?KI TOBIN, STAFF, SENATOR TOM BEGICH, addressed a
Sectional Analysis (copy on file):
CS Sponsor Substitute Senate Bill 6 (EDU)
Version: 31-LS0159\O
Section 1.
Establishes this Act as the Alaska Reads Act.
Section 2.
Amends AS 14.03.060(e) to include an Alaska Department
of Education and Early Development (the department)
approved early education program, including head
start, as part of an elementary school.
Section 3.
Amends AS 14.03.072(a) to include reading intervention
services in addition to intervention strategies for
early literacy.
Section 4.
Amends AS 14.03.078(a) which directs the department to
include information collected under AS 14.03.120,
Parent as Teachers, and AS 14.30-760 14.30.775, the
Alaska Reads Act, including data on how districts use
their professional service days, in their annual
report to the legislature.
Section 5.
Amends AS 14.03.080(d) by changing the date a student
is eligible to enter kindergarten and establishes an
eligibility waiver process.
Section 6.
Amends AS 14.03.080 by adding new subsection (g) which
changes the date a child is eligible to enter a public
early education program.
Section 7.
Amends AS 14.03.120 by adding new subsection (h) which
establishes annual reporting requirements for school
districts regarding student performance metrics in
grades K-3. This includes data relating to class size,
the number and percentage of students in K-3 who are
proficient at grade-level skill reading, and number
and percentage of students who are retained from
advancing in grades K-3.
Section 8.
Creates AS14.03.410 which codifies a statewide pre-K
program, providing a stair-step, three year grant
program to provide training and assistance to school
districts in developing their local pre-K program.
Over six fiscal years, all school districts are
offered the opportunity to participate.
AS 14.03.420 codifies the Parents As Teachers (PAT)
program as a program of the state within the
department, and specifies criteria for PAT to
demonstrate its efficacy in supporting school
districts with pre-K education.
Section 9.
Amends AS 14.07.020(a) and directs the department to
supervise all early education programs, approve those
early education programs established under AS
14.03.410, establishes a new reading program, AS
14.07.065, and reading intervention programs of
participating schools, AS 14.30.770.
9:17:12 AM
Ms. Tobin continued to address the Sectional Analysis:
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.
Section 11.
Amends AS 14.07.050 to allow the department 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.
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.
Section 17.
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.
Section 18.
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.
9:21:38 AM
Senator Olson asked about the issue of retention and asked
how the sponsor could allay concerns about children being
held back.
Senator Begich referenced page 2, line 19 of the bill,
which showed current state policy. The bill did not change
current retention standards in state law, but did change
the parameters around reporting. Currently there was no law
to require retention reporting. He asserted that the bill
also strengthened the relationship between parents,
teachers, and the administration, which was not a current
requirement. He referenced page 17, line 6 of the bill,
which had new language pertaining to demonstration of
reading capability. There was no requirement in the bill
that a student be mandatorily retained. He discussed
exceptions listed on page 19 of the bill.
Senator Begich continued to address Senator Olson's
question. He thought there was a number of protections in
the bill. He reiterated that the bill did not do anything
to add retention language to existing law. He thought the
bill would ensure the final retention decision was informed
and was a joint decision. He mused that there could be
stronger protection for parents in the bill.
9:25:14 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof referenced reporting requirements in
Section 7. She asked if there was intent to create a new
series of tests or if the intent was to use the existing
MAP testing.
Senator Begich understood that existing programs such as
MAP testing would be acceptable under the bill.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked who would receive the data
mentioned in the bill and what would be done with it.
Senator Begich reported that the data would be received
annually by the department as well as the House and Senate
Education Committees. There was a provision in the bill
that would create a review group of parents, instructors,
and principals; that would also review data produced from
the report and would report on the efficacy of the act. The
provision had been an addition in the Senate Education
Committee.
Co-Chair von Imhof referenced continuing education and
teacher certification in early reading. She asked if
teachers would need to pay for the certification.
Senator Begich noted that currently every teacher was
required to recertify and was responsible for the cost. the
bill required that three credits of the required continuing
education would have to be in reading education. The bill
would not change the current policy on payment for
continuing education.
Senator Wielechowski mentioned a constituent that had
worked on the bill with the sponsor. He referenced Section
18, pertaining to the department adopting an assessment
tool to administer to students in kindergarten through
third grade. There was a suggestion to move the age back to
Pre-K. He asked for the sponsor to comment.
Senator Begich stated that initially the stakeholders had
discussed screening at the Pre-K level to identify learning
disabilities. There was federal law that required some
screening. There were two reasons the change was not made
in the bill: not every child had Pre-K, and there was a
question whether the screening was age appropriate. He was
unfamiliar with the screening tools for the Pre-K age. He
was not averse to the idea and deferred further comment to
a subject matter professional.
9:29:50 AM
Senator Wielechowski had a question about Section 14 on
page 20, which required the department to establish a
reading program for the lowest-performing ten percent of
schools. There had been a suggestion to increase the number
to 40 or 50 percent.
Senator Begich stated that the matter had come up in the
Senate Education Committee. He thanked Senator Gary Stevens
and staff for their work. There had been discussion that
the pool of 10 percent of schools might be too small for
the intensive effort. He had spoken to the commissioner and
the governor about the issue of potentially expanding the
size of the pool. He suggested that the program be open to
the bottom 25 percent of lower performing schools. He had
read a note from Senator Wielechowski's constituent earlier
in the day. He shared a concern about the suggestion of
larger groups that all the money would go to those that
needed the money less than others. He affirmed that he felt
the pool should be larger, and a former member of the
Alaska Board of Education had suggested the same in
testimony.
Co-Chair von Imhof commented that any increases in the
number of schools would change the fiscal note. She
reminded that there were many competing needs in the state
(including school bond debt reimbursement), and the
committee would need to prioritize. She referenced the
price of oil.
9:32:07 AM
Senator Wielechowski discussed teacher education and how
the state educated teachers to teach reading.
Senator Begich stated that the bill included a number of
provisions related to teacher education and how reading was
taught. There was a number of departmental responsibilities
that were identified, such as paying for teachers to attend
regional conferences. He continued that specificity was
spoken to in a number of provisions regarding what was
entailed in reading comprehension and the additional
required credits for teachers. He stated that he had worked
with teachers on the provisions.
Senator Begich spoke to Co-Chair von Imhof's comment on the
expanding pool. He asserted that the bill provided for
intensive support for up to ten schools, and the cost would
not change. He thought there would not be a change to the
fiscal note if the number of eligible schools increased;
there would only be increased competition for the grants.
He estimated that there was a total of 505 schools. An
expanded pool would increase the number of eligible schools
from 50 to about 150.
Co-Chair von Imhof understood that Senator Begich was
referring to increasing the number of schools that would
qualify for the grants, but not increasing the number of
schools that would receive the grants.
Senator Begich agreed.
Senator Bishop asked about teacher retention and if the
subject had been discussed.
Senator Begich stated that teacher retention had come up
numerous times in the work on the bill. There was a
provision in the bill related to the topic.
Ms. Tobin specified that the provision was in Section 22,
which established a teacher retention working group.
Senator Begich stated that the provision had been proposed
in committee by Senator Mia Costello. The group would be a
task force and would include teachers, principals,
superintendents, and board of education members to do a
deep dive on the issue. The group would come up with
strategies for recruitment and retention. He thought the
provision was a critical component of the bill.
Senator Bishop wanted to expand on Co-Chair von Imhof's
earlier comments regarding data when DEED staff was
testifying on the bill.
Co-Chair von Imhof understood that rural teacher housing
was a challenge and thought that there had been several
ideas in the past to build rural housing for teachers in
areas where it was needed. She thought it was another
funding question.
9:36:42 AM
Ms. Tobin continued to address the Sectional Analysis:
Section 19.
Directs early education program staff to be included
in those organizations required to report evidence of
child abuse.
Section 20.
Repeals AS 14.03.410, the early education grant
program, in 11 years once all school districts have
had the opportunity to participate.
Section 21.
Establishes a Teacher Retention Working Group as a new
uncodified law of the State of Alaska.
Section 22.
Is applicability language, relating to endorsements in
elementary education issued on or after the effective
date of this act.
Section 23.
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.
Section 24.
Establishes an effective date of July 1, 2020.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked about Section 19. She asked if it
would be a criminal offense if a teacher did not report
evidence of child abuse.
Senator Begich did not know the answer to the question with
regard to criminality, but the situation would place the
organization under a reporting requirement. The section was
conforming language to the statute.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked if the sponsor could look into the
matter and let the committee know.
Senator Begich agreed to provide the information.
Senator Bishop brought up the issue of teacher training
with regard to Section 19.
Senator Hoffman referenced Section 23 and using the
information from 2018-19 for school ranking. He asked if
the ranking had been completed and when the information
would be available.
Senator Begich thought the ranking had been completed. He
thought the commissioner could speak to the topic.
9:40:29 AM
MICHAEL JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
EARLY DEVELOPMENT, thanked the bill sponsor, the governor,
Senator Gary Stevens, the Senate Education Committee,
staff, and anyone that had contributed to the bill's
development. He stated that the Alaska Reads Act
represented multiple years of work. He mentioned the state
board of education's strategic planning process, which
resulted in the priority of increased reading proficiency.
He thought there had been thoughtful dialogue over a number
of years. The bill was a comprehensive approach, and had
three main parts: a Pre-K section, K-3 reading
interventions, and resources and support for low performing
schools. He thought the bill provided the structure and
support to help students.
Commissioner Johnson continued his remarks. He thought that
the bill gave everyone a voice. The bill required that
parents be part of the decision-making process. The bill
allowed a number of interventions by teachers to serve
students. The bill provided a process by which a principal
or superintendent had a consistent, thoughtful, and
effective decision-making process for student's progress
toward reading proficiency. The bill would provide
legislators with annual progress reports.
Commissioner Johnson thought most importantly, the bill
provided students multiple pathways to demonstrate
proficiency in reading, and would provide evidence-based
interventions if needed. The bill provided students
multiple safeguards. He summarized that the bill provided
and opportunity for everyone involved to have the structure
and support needed to make the best decisions for students.
9:44:56 AM
Senator Bishop asked the commissioner if he could identify
one thing to improve the bill.
Commissioner Johnson stated he would pass the bill. He
referenced increasing the pool of schools that could be
eligible for increased resources and supports. He thought
that by expanding the pool there was a greater chance of
applying the resources effectively and reaching more
schools over time.
Senator Hoffman recalled that several years ago the
administration intervened in administering education in the
Yupik School District. He asked if there was information as
to how the department had improved education for the Yupik
School District.
Commissioner Johnson agreed to provide the information. He
thought the bill envisioned a different type of
intervention that what Senator Hoffman was referencing. He
asserted that the bill proposed a more cooperative
arrangement with schools.
Senator Hoffman referenced Section 23 and asked if the
commissioner could provide school accountability rankings
for 2018-19.
Commissioner Johnson stated that the department could
provide the information. He informed that the data was part
of the Every Student Succeeds Act, which was in its second
year.
Co-Chair von Imhof OPENED public testimony.
9:49:20 AM
DIANNE SHIBE, MAT-SU EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, PALMER (via
teleconference), testified in support of the bill. She had
been a high school English teacher since 1993. She
encouraged the committee to support the idea that parents
should have the final decision on matters concerning
students. She commented on reduced funding in education.
She pondered what would happen with the passage of SB 6
with no increase in funding for districts to successfully
implement the program. She cited kindergarten classes with
a size of 27 to 28 students. She noted that the State of
Florida was a success model and had a constitutional
amendment limiting kindergarten through third grade class
sizes to 18. She asked the committee to consider
appropriate funding.
9:51:26 AM
SANDI RYAN, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke in
favor of the bill. She was a math and computer science
teacher and served as the president of the Fairbanks
Education Association. She was happy to see that the state
recognized the importance of reading education. She
emphasized the importance of Pre-K education. She hoped the
committee was considering the strain of placing unfunded
mandates on school districts. She asserted that if funding
continued to decrease, or if a program was added, class
sizes would be impacted. She was concerned with the
prescriptive nature of the current bill. She noted that
public education was facing a $30 million cut across the
state. She asked members to keep in mind that schools had
reached a point where it was impossible to do more with
less.
9:53:58 AM
JUDY ELEDGE, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. She had been a teacher
since 1981. She had worked in the lowest performing schools
since 2003. She had been a principal and teacher. She
questioned whether more money would make schools more
successful. She asserted that the bill could be implemented
without additional funds. She thought there was nothing in
the bill that could be considered an unfunded mandate. She
reminded that all five of the state's largest school
districts supported the bill, including the retention
component. She did not support retention unless supports
were ensured, which she thought the bill included. She
agreed with the commissioner in expanding the number of
low-performing schools that would be eligible for
additional supports to 25 percent.
9:56:25 AM
MIKE BRONSON, ANCHORAGE BRANCH NAACP, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. He thanked
Senator Gary Stevens and Senator Cathy Giessel for their
work on the bill. He thought the bill brought to bear two
or three important tactical approaches to helping improve
students' reading. He expressed concern about the fiscal
note addressing the scale and urgency of the concern and
that the number of interventions provided to schools were
too little. He mentioned concern about the number of pre-
schools allocated around the state.
9:57:48 AM
BOB GRIFFIN, ALASKA POLICY FORUM, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. He noted
that Alaska was one of 14 states without a comprehensive
reading policy. He cited that Alaska rated 51st in fourth
grade scores for low-income and upper-middle income kids.
The point spread indicated a grade level of achievement. He
recalled that someone had testified that poverty rate was
to blame for the test scores but cited other states with
higher poverty rates and higher scores. He cited that
Alaska was near the bottom in eighth-grade reading. He
mentioned reading improvements in Florida after a law
similar to the proposed bill was enacted. He thought there
were a least 14 improvement strategies in the bill, and he
thought the retention provision was the most contentious.
He referenced improvements in states with retention models.
He hoped that SB 6 would be effective, however if the state
continued to show scores far below average, he recommended
that a stronger retention element be considered.
10:00:46 AM
JODI TAYLOR, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the bill. She had helped facilitate a college
prep testing course and had discovered that children
started lagging behind in third grade. She was a parent
working on the advisory board for her children's school,
and she felt the bill gave parents a voice. She thought the
bill would hold the schools accountable. She thought
reading should be a core function of a school. She
discussed the importance of reading in life outcomes. She
discussed the success of her daughter being retained one
grade.
10:02:23 AM
DEENA BISHOP, SUPERINTENDENT, ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in favor of the
bill. She communicated that the bill aligned with the
Anchorage School District's (ASD) strategic plan to have 90
percent of third grades students reading at grade level.
She thought that the legislation would empower teachers to
ensure students learned to read. She commented on the
difference in student's abilities in Alaska as compared to
other states. She was not interested in a consensus bill.
She preferred a bill based on research and one that would
make positive change. She thought continued forward motion
would provide clarification of student needs. She thought
the sponsor had heard from stakeholders that would inform
the process. She understood the need for assessment and
reporting. She commented on the importance of literacy.
10:06:09 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof disclosed that she had served on the
Anchorage School Board from 2012 to 2013. She discussed the
work of the board. She believed that reading performance
had improved after the board president increased the
reading requirement by 90 minutes for elementary schools in
Anchorage.
10:06:46 AM
PETER HOEPFNER, CORDOVA SCHOOL BOARD, CORDOVA (via
teleconference), discussed his concerns with the bill. He
supported additional Pre-K funding. He was concerned about
the funding level for Pre-K, which he thought would lead to
larger classes. He thought the retention piece was
bothersome because of all the exceptions. He cited research
that indicated retention regressed students up to two
years. He was concerned about school capacity for fill out
grants. He wondered what would happen when the bill was not
successful in increasing scores. He commented on the size
and complexity of the bill and thought there were good and
bad parts. He was concerned that the Alaska Reads Act was
putting the cart before the horse. He mentioned the effect
of Adverse Childhood Experiences. He wondered if the bill
would address the issues students had.
10:09:43 AM
ELLIS OTT, FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR SCHOOL DISTRICT, FAIRBANKS
(via teleconference), spoke to his concerns with the bill.
He had serious concerns with the third-grade retention
component of the bill. He thought evidence clearly showed
that there was damage caused by retention. He thought
evidence-based policy should dictate that retention was
used a rare last resort. He thought if followed statewide,
the retention provision could cause Alaska to have the
highest rate of third-grade retention in the country. He
recommended that the third-grade retention component be
removed from the bill. He thought fourth-grade reading
assessments had been contaminated. He discussed urban
versus rural school district achievement. He thought
legislation should avoid being over prescriptive.
10:12:15 AM
MELANIE HADAWAY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR TEACHING AND
LEARNING, FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR SCHOOL DISTRICT, FAIRBANKS
(via teleconference), testified in opposition to the bill.
She thought the intent of the bill was admirable but had
concerns with the prescriptive nature of the bill. She was
worried about the ability of small rural districts to meet
the requirements of the legislation. She was glad to see
the inclusion of evidence-based reading instruction. She
referenced statewide screening and pointed out that the
process of administering state assessments was labor and
time intensive. She hoped the cost impact on smaller
districts would be considered. She thought a missing
component was how proficiency would be reported to align
with other assessment systems. She recommended adding a
fifth consideration on page 15 of the bill. She had
considerable concern with Section 18 of the bill, and
thought the prescriptive nature was problematic. She
thought the phrases "daily targeted instruction" and "small
group reading instruction" was too prescriptive. She had
problems with the retention provision. She thought the
approach to retention presented limited exceptions and
ignored the long-term evidence of negative outcomes. She
thought retention also contributed to misrepresentation of
achievement scores. She thought the sponsor should be
commended.
Co-Chair von Imhof encouraged testifiers to provide written
testimony if the time allotted was not sufficient.
10:15:45 AM
NICK SCHOLLMEIER, DILLINGHAM CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
DILLINGHAM (via teleconference), testified in support of
the bill. He was an elementary principal. He thanked the
legislature for recognizing the importance of reading. He
was concerned with Section 18 of the bill pertaining to
progress reports, and felt it was cumbersome. He had 57
students that scored below the 30th percentile on a
national assessment test. He thought line 27 would have
required a progress report for each student every two
weeks, which would result in many hours being spent away
from teaching students. He highly recommended for the
provision to provide for sending progress reports quarterly
or annually to ensure teachers could maximize content time.
10:17:27 AM
POSIE BOGGS, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the bill. She had submitted written testimony.
She agreed with Commissioner Johnson in that the bill
should be amended to increase the number of schools that
were eligible for the three-year grant. She recommended
that to keep the integrity of reading program that the
grants include a couple of schools at each performance
level. She recommended aligning the Parents as Teachers
Program with evidence-based early reading instruction. She
wanted to add terminology found in federal law pertaining
to reading and evidence components. She cited that having
books in the house and being read to increased oral
comprehension but did not help pre-reading skills as much
as educating parents. She thought the state could save
money if it took a deeper look at not duplicating screening
efforts and asking DEED and school districts to partner via
the federal reading mandate.
10:21:25 AM
BRAD GALBRAITH, FOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION IN
ACTION, PHOENIX, ARIZONA (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the bill. He recognized the importance of
reading achievement by the third grade as a skill for
success. His organization had worked on reading policies
throughout the country and had identified 14 key
principles. He was encouraged that the bill covered many of
the principals; some of which focused on strategies to
support students, home reading strategies, and retention.
10:23:03 AM
TOM KLAAMEYER, ANCHORAGE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, ANCHORAGE
(via teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. He had
worked for 24 years teaching social studies in Anchorage.
He appreciated the collaborative bipartisan work on the
bill. He did not think there was debate on the importance
of student reading. He commented on the Anchorage School
District (ASD) budget and thought it was difficult to focus
on new demands while struggling to meet current
requirements. He was excited by the Pre-K opportunities in
the bill. He was worried that rather than empowering
teachers to be better at teaching reading; it would make
jobs more difficult with larger class sizes, increased
demands, and less resources. He implored the legislature to
fund school districts for reducing class sizes and
increasing educational efficacy.
10:25:31 AM
STEPHANIE BERGLUND, CEO, THREAD, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), supported the bill. She thought current
Pre-K resources were working, and thought expanding the
services would better maximize parental choice and early
learning options. Her organization estimated that there was
currently only half the capacity for quality early
childhood programs that were needed. She encouraged
diversity of services through collaborative, mixed-delivery
systems. She emphasized the importance of high-quality
programs. She discussed teacher education. She was worried
that degreed teachers would gravitate to Pre-K and leave
fewer highly educated teachers in other early childhood
settings. She thought quality pre-K education needed to be
a part of the state's economic infrastructure.
10:27:42 AM
DONNA MCCARREY, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
to the retention provision of the bill. She was a retired
teacher in ASD. She discussed her sons' positive experience
with being retained. She did not think all cases of
retention should be considered negative.
10:29:00 AM
CHRISTINE VILLANO, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
shared her concerns with the bill. She was a retired
teacher that had taught in Fairbanks and rural areas. She
had focused on teaching reading and writing. She loved many
components of the bill such as additional Pre-K funding.
She was concerned about potential unfunded mandates in the
bill. She questioned whether districts would reprioritize
spending. She wondered how much time and materials would be
needed. She asserted that early primary teachers often
faced large class sizes and would be hard pressed to do the
extra components in the bill. She thought there were many
prescriptive elements in the bill. She was concerned with
Section 14.3 on page 15. She thought educators needed to be
involved with the selection of materials, training, and
other elements in the bill. She believed that people with
classroom experience in the state had much to offer the
legislature on the matter. She thought teachers had to be a
part of the process of how the legislation evolved and how
it would look in the future. She mentioned the importance
of class size.
10:32:38 AM
DENISE LISAC, SELF, DILLINGHAM (via teleconference), spoke
in support of the bill. She was a retired reading teacher.
She had been involved in writing standards for No Child
Left Behind and testifying for the Common Core. She
questioned how the bill was different. She referenced low
teacher retention in rural Alaska. She discussed class
sizes. She thought it seemed like there was a lot of
accountability and communication in the bill, which could
be accomplished in smaller classes. She spoke to teacher
improvement and thought teachers should agree on a good
reading program. She stressed the importance of students in
grade 4 through 12. She mentioned the importance of math
and science.
10:35:08 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair von Imhof wanted to address the fiscal notes.
HEIDI TESHNER, DIRECTOR, FINANCE AND SUPPORT SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, explained
that she would address five fiscal notes. She addressed FN
1 from the Department of Education and Early Development,
OMB Component 141. She explained that the fiscal note did
not show any costs as the note involved the foundation
program and was a General Fund transfer from the Public
Education Fund. She stated that FN 5 would show the actual
costs related to students that would flow into the
foundation formula after the costs had flowed through the
three-year early education grant program once it was
approved. The fiscal notes assumed that the programs would
be approved, and the students would flow into the formula.
Starting in FY 24, there would be a $1.7 million cost to
the foundation formula.
10:37:05 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked for more explanation of the bill
mechanics within Base Student Allocation (BSA) formula
funding.
Ms. Teshner stated that the $4,685 referenced in the fiscal
note was an estimated average cost per student. The actual
students, once districts submitted counts to the
department, would be put into the formula.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if the number went through
multipliers.
Ms. Teshner answered in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for details on the estimated $4,685.
Ms. Teshner relayed that the department had looked at the
FY 21 state entitlement projected amount of a little over
$1.2 billion, divided the amount by the total project
average daily membership, and then halved the number.
Co-Chair von Imhof referenced FN 4, which had a table that
broke down the numbers further. She thought FN 1, FN 4, and
FN 5 were discussing the same numbers.
Ms. Teshner answered in the affirmative.
Senator Bishop thought there were 5 fiscal notes. He looked
at the analysis on page 2 of FN 4, and thought the bill was
creating three new programs.
Ms. Teshner stated that all the fiscal notes and bill
covered three new programs.
Senator Bishop asked if the fiscal notes all rolled into a
total. He asked for a more detailed explanation.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked if Ms. Teshner had a summary of
the fiscal notes with totals.
Ms. Teshner stated that the projected total of all the
fiscal notes for FY 21 was $6,347,700. By 2026, the total
for all fiscal notes was $91,356,900 over the span of time.
She offered to provide a chart that went from FY 21 to FY
29, when the proposed education grants were projected to
close.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked to address FN 2 and FN 3.
10:41:51 AM
Ms. Teshner addressed FN 2, OMB Component 2796. The fiscal
note reflected the costs associated with the School
Improvement Literacy Program and the Comprehensive Reading
Intervention Program. She read from the Analysis on page 2
of the fiscal note:
The school improvement literacy program, created under
AS 14.30.770, is established in the Department of
Education & Early Development (DEED)to provide direct
support and intervention in district and school
literacy programs. During the first year, up to 10
schools identified from the lowest 10 percent of
schools, would each be served directly by Reading
Specialists employed by DEED and up to 20 schools
would be served in the second year and beyond.
Depending on school size and need, either one or two
Reading Specialists would be assigned to each school.
DEED anticipates employing from1 0 to 20 Reading
Specialists in year one and 20 to 40 Reading
Specialists in the subsequent years.
Ms. Teshner noted that salary and benefit costs for staff
were reflected in the fiscal note: there were department
charge-back costs of $9,600 per student, and one-time costs
of $5,000 per person for supplies and equipment. In FY 21
there was a one-time cost for legal services associated
with regulation adoption. The purchase of supplemental
reading textbooks and materials for the School Improvement
Literacy Program would be $255,000.
Ms. Teshner continued to address FN 2 and spoke to the
Comprehensive Reading Intervention Program as described in
Analysis on page 2 and page 3 of the note. She detailed
that DEED would manage and support the program and would
provide direct support and training for all K - 3 teachers
on the use of the statewide screening or assessment tool.
The staff reflected in the fiscal note was four staff
members as well as the department chargebacks for the staff
and one-time costs for supplies and equipment. The staff
would be required to participate and present at statewide
professional development, and there were associated travel
costs of $1000 per employee.
Ms. Teshner detailed that there was funding of $320,000 for
the program's adoption of the statewide screening or
assessment tool. There was a projected cost of $53,000
associated with a grant for districts to attend the
statewide professional development to learn the use of the
tool. The fiscal note showed an overall estimated cost for
FY 21 of $4,221,700. She noted that there was a chart on
page 3 of the fiscal note that outlined the two programs
and funding by line item, as well as combined totals.
10:45:10 AM
Senator Bishop asked for reasoning as to why there was not
a geographic cost differential included in the fiscal note.
He referenced the second paragraph of the Analysis on page
2.
Ms. Teshner noted that it was not known where staff would
be located, and therefore it was hard to estimate any
geographic cost differential.
Co-Chair von Imhof observed that there would be an
additional approximately $25 million per year going towards
education if the bill were to pass. She thought the fiscal
note indicated a BSA increase on an annual basis. She
emphasized that the fiscal notes represented a pivotal
change and a financial commitment rather than a short-term
grant.
10:46:56 AM
Co-Chair Stedman commented on the sensitivity of the
education funding formula and thought it would be a good
idea for the committee to examine the calculations. He
wanted the committee to be familiar with how the BSA
formula worked. He commented on the political sensitivity
of the issue. He wanted to see the proposed funding within
the formula.
Co-Chair von Imhof noted that the committee modelled many
fiscal scenarios. She asked if the commissioner had the
ability to model different student demographics within the
education formula and show how it might change the formula.
Co-Chair Stedman wanted to examine a potential reduction in
the BSA.
Co-Chair von Imhof thought the funding in the bill was
focused. She pointed out that there were accountability
mechanisms in the bill. She wondered if the bill was slowly
moving the BSA to more focused funding. She thought the
committee should consider how class sizes affected the BSA.
She wanted committee members to mull over the bill
presentation. She asked members to communicate with her
office regarding any thoughts on the bill.
10:50:00 AM
Ms. Teshner addressed FN 3, OMB Component 2912. The fiscal
note addressed costs associated with early learning
coordination. The costs were for operation of the Early
Education Grant Program, as well as providing training and
support for the grantees. There were three estimated staff
members to operate and manage the program. Aside from
salary and benefits, there were department chargeback costs
of $9,600 per person. There was a one-time cost of $5,000
per person for supplies and equipment. There was a one-time
cost for $6,000 for the state board to adopt regulations
for standards. In FY 21, it was estimated to be $401,900
Ms. Teshner addressed FN 4, OMB Component 3028. The fiscal
note addressed costs associated with the early education
program grants. She referenced the table on page 3 of the
fiscal note, which provided a breakdown of costs. The
fiscal note estimated participation from 10,000 students
from a four-year-old cohort. There were an additional 3,675
students that would be served by the legislation. Table 2
showed costs of when different cohorts would flow through
the program. Table 3 showed which students in cohorts would
be included in the math. Table 4 showed the number of
students that would be served. It was estimated that over
the course of the three-year grant program, starting in FY
21 and going to FY 29, there was an estimated total cost of
$51,652,125.
Senator Bishop assumed the Parents As Teachers (PAT)
Program would be inside the bill. He referenced FN 3. The
appropriation for PAT was currently housed in Department of
Health and Social Services.
Senator Wilson thought the PAT Program federally qualified
the state for funding for the Families First Services
Initiative through the Office of Children's Services. He
was not sure the moving the program would have an effect on
qualification.
Co-Chair von Imhof set the bill aside.
SB 6 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 6 Sectional Analysis v. O 2.20.2020.pdf |
SFIN 2/26/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 6 |
| SB 6 Sponsor Statement v.O 2.20.2020.pdf |
SFIN 2/26/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 6 |
| SB 6 Explanation of Changes v. O 2.20.2020.pdf |
SFIN 2/26/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 6 |
| SB 6 v.O Fiscal Summary 2.21.2020.pdf |
SFIN 2/26/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 6 |
| 11_SB006_AK-Reads-Act_Background_DEED_What-and-Why_23Jan2020.pdf |
SEDC 1/23/2020 3:30:00 PM SFIN 2/26/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 6 |
| 15_SB006_AK-Reads-Act_Support_Superintendents' Letter Advocating for Reading Initiative_11Dec2019.pdf |
SEDC 1/23/2020 3:30:00 PM SFIN 2/26/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 6 |
| SB 6 Public Testimony - V. Brooks 2.18.2020.pdf |
SFIN 2/26/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 6 |