Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
04/19/2018 01:30 PM House 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 | |
| SB105 | |
| SB104 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 104(2d FIN)
"An Act relating to the duties of the Department of
Education and Early Development; relating to the
duties of the state Board of Education and Early
Development; relating to school curricula; and
relating to a system for managing student information
and records related to individualized education
programs for children with disabilities."
2:10:57 PM
Co-Chair Foster relayed that the conversation was a
continuation of the previous day's meeting. He stated that
he would likely set the bill aside. He asked Ms. Hartmann
to the table.
2:11:41 PM
BRITTANY HARTMAN, STAFF, CO-CHAIR MACKINNON, reviewed the
sectional analysis:
Section 1 AS 14.07.030:
The Department may not require a school district to
review their curriculum more than once in a 10-year
period.
Section 2 AS 14.07.165:
The State Board of Education shall review the math and
English Language Arts curricula used throughout the
state, every 5 years, to ensure the curricula is still
effective and is using best practices.
Section 3 AS 14.07:
Section 3 requires the State Board of Education and
the Department of Education and Early Development to
work together to find, review, and test the best
available curricula and the best practices for
instruction of those math and English/Language Arts
curricula. The department may provide incentive
payments to school districts that choose to implement
the incentivized curricula and best practices.
Specifically:
(a) The Board will establish the standards and
procedure to review, rank, and approve curricula
for school districts to use in each grade level.
(b) and (c): The Department will review curricula
from Alaska, other states, and other countries
and identify the best curricula for each grade
level and the best practices for teaching each
subject by July 1, 2019. If the identified
curricula and best practices meets certain
requirements, the department will submit them for
review by the board. The requirements are:
appropriate, compliance with nondiscrimination
standards in state law, aligned with state
standards, and result in improved academic
achievement.
(d) The Board may approve of the curricula
submitted by the department. If they do so, the
Department will then categorize the two curricula
as "incentivized" curricula and "designated
effective" curricula. The incentivized curricula
will be the best available and will be the
curricula used in the pilot program. The
designated effective curricula are curricula that
the department finds appropriate and effective.
(e) Establishes the three-year pilot program,
starting in the 2019-2020 school year, to test
the appropriateness and effectiveness of the
"incentivized" curricula. Schools can apply to be
in the pilot program and will be reviewed and
approved of by the Department based on capacity
and readiness. The Department shall select five
schools, from those that apply, to receive
incentive payments to assist with the purchase
and implementation of the curricula and best
practices. The Department must select districts
and their curricula as follows, in order to get a
comprehensive view of the best curriculum for all
Alaska:
a. Urban District math
b. Rural District math
c. Urban District English Language Arts
d. Rural District - English Language Arts
e. Urban or Rural District math or English
Language Arts
The total cost of the three-year pilot program
cannot exceed $10,000,000.
(f) If the pilot program shows that adoption of
the incentive curricula is appropriate and
effective, the department may make available to
all districts the curricula and one-time
incentive payments starting in the school year
beginning in 2022 and ending in the school year
that begins in 2024.
(g) Incentive payments are limited to a school
district's ADM multiplied by 150 and are subject
to availability of funding in (h). In order to
get an incentive payment, a district must be
ready and have the capacity to implement the
incentivized curricula and have not previously
used the curricula.
(h) Limits the funding available to school
districts that adopt the incentivized curriculum,
for years 4-6, to $20,000,000, plus any
unexpended money available under (e)(4).
(i) The Department shall publish all curriculum
used by all school districts, on the Department's
website. The incentivized curricula and the
designated effective curricula, identified by the
Board, will also be published on the website.
(j) The Department shall submit an electronic
report to the legislature providing information
on the pilot program and the curricula that each
school district adopts.
(k) Requires school districts to submit the
relevant information to the department that is
needed for the department to carry out its duties
under this section.
(l) All payments for the pilot program and
curricula are subject to appropriation. If
insufficient funding is available to distribute
payments to all school districts that request
funding in a year, the department may distribute
payments to the remaining school districts the
following school year.
(m) If the applications for participation in the
pilot program are insufficient to meet the
requirements under (e) of this section, the
department may select five school districts from
those that apply, taking into consideration
geographical diversity.
(n) Provides for the continuation of incentive
payments after the pilot program ends. Incentive
payments may go to school districts that use
curricula reviewed and approved by the Board
under AS 14.07.165(c).
(o) Defines "rural," "school district," "school
district's ADM" and "urban"
AS 14.08.182
Establishes the curriculum improvement and best
practices fund, which consists of an initial
$30,000,000 to fund the first six years of the
curricula incentive program. The funds can be
spent without further appropriation and do not
lapse.
Section 4 AS 14.08.111:
Conforming language requiring a regional school board
to review all textbooks and instructional materials at
least once every 10 years.
Section 5 AS 14.14.090:
Conforming language requiring a school board to review
all textbooks and instructional materials at least
once every 10 years.
Section 6 AS 14.16.020:
Conforming language requiring management of state
boarding schools to review all textbooks and
instructional materials at least once every 10 years.
Section 7 AS 14.30.285:
The department shall make available to school
districts an electronic system for managing student
information and tracking records relating to
individualized education programs for children with
disabilities.
Section 8 Repeals:
Repeals sub-sections (e), (f). (g), (h), (j), (l), and
(m) in AS 14.07.180 that pertain to the pilot program,
it's incentive payments, and it's reporting
requirements.
Sec. 9 4 AAC 05.080(e):
Annuls the regulatory requirement of a local school
board having to evaluate their curriculum every 6
years.
2:17:55 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Kawasaki mentioned that the bill talked
about the Math and Language Arts curricula. He wondered
about other curricula offered in schools.
Ms. Hartmann replied that the intent of the legislation was
to provide the best core of reading, writing, and
arithmetic; once the core had been found to improve student
outcomes, the bill would allow for science history, and
physical education to be reviewed.
Representative Kawasaki asked why the state would want to
have the core written into statute, rather than regualtion.
Ms. Hartmann explained that the only regulatory issue that
would be moved was curriculum review, which was an
expensive and arduous task for districts.
2:20:19 PM
Representative Wilson thought that the review was a fine
idea. She wondered whether how it would be determined which
student years would be under review.
Ms. Hartmann responded that bill currently applied to
curriculum review for K-12.
Representative Wilson commented that review of K-12 for
just the Anchorage School District would cost $5 million.
She wondered about the $10 million cost expected in the
first year.
Ms. Hartmann relayed that the reason that the first year
showed a cost of $10 million was because two larger school
districts were included. She did not believe that it would
be possible to do the review in Fairbanks and Anchorage,
along with two others, which could require smaller schools
to be put in the pilot program.
Representative Wilson understood that the bill would need
to be changed in order meet costs for review of K-12
curriculum for all the listed schools involved in the pilot
year.
2:22:43 PM
Representative Grenn referred to Section 3 (i) of the bill:
(i) The Department shall publish all curriculum used
by all school districts, on the Department website.
The incentivized curricula and the designated
effective curricula, identified by the Board, will
also be published on the website.
Representative Grenn asked for further clarification of the
subsection.
Ms. Hartmann responded that the idea to insert the section
came from the commissioner of education with the goal of
having a "publisher's clearing house" of sorts on the
Department of Education and Early Development website where
every school district would publish all their curriculum,
for each subject, K-12. She furthered that this would offer
more transparency of the curriculum being delivered.
Representative Grenn asked if the information would be
available to other school districts.
Ms. Hartmann understood that all curriculum would be online
for all schools to peruse.
2:24:24 PM
Representative Grenn suggested that a school district
outside of the pilot program would have access to the
information and could integrate desirable curriculum into
their system.
Ms. Hartmann replied in the affirmative.
2:25:05 PM
Representative Tilton referred to the duties of the
regional school board in Sections 4 and 5. She asked how
the sections affected homeschool families.
Ms. Hartmann responded that the sections did not apply to
homeschoolers in any way.
2:26:04 PM
Representative Ortiz referred to the beginning of
Section 3:
Section 3 requires the State Board of Education and
the Department of Education and Early Development to
work together to find, review, and test the best
available curricula and the best practices for
instruction of those math and English/Language Arts
curricula.
Representative Ortiz thought that "best available curricula
and the best practices for instruction" was a lofty goal.
He understood that the department and the state board would
determine what was the "best".
2:27:50 PM
Ms. Hartmann responded that the department, and the state
board, in consultation with teachers and other stakeholders
from around the state, would determine what curriculum was
best.
Representative Ortiz commented that curriculum that worked
in one are of the state might not work as well in another
area.
Ms. Hartman clarified that in order to determine what
worked best in both urban and rural Alaska, different
curricula had to be investigated for each that incorporated
Math and English while recognizing the individual needs of
the areas.
Representative Guttenberg asked about a digital divide
between school districts; some schools could not function
online. She asked whether the curriculum review would
address the bandwidth disparity in the state.
Ms. Hartmann replied that the goal was to help provide the
best curriculum and teaching practices to teachers and
students by paying for textbooks, training, and
professional materials. She said that there was no
technology piece to the legislature.
Representative Guttenberg noted that there were many
educational programs and curriculum available online. He
felt that the digital divide in the state needed to be
addressed.
2:30:38 PM
Vice-Chair Gara thought the goal was to achieve better
curriculum for students. The department would search for
the curriculum and make it available to districts. He
assumed there would be a couple of positions that would be
needed for the pilot program.
Ms. Hartmann responded that the fiscal note reflected 3
new, full-time positions in the department. She said that
the goal was to have improved educational student outcomes;
the pilot program would consist of 5 school districts but
every student in every school district would have access to
the curriculum.
2:32:19 PM
Vice-Chair Gara surmised that better curriculum would be
found through help of the department and grant money would
be used to help qualifying school districts to purchase the
curriculum. He wondered whether the grant program would be
available for curriculum found by another school district.
Ms. Hartmann responded that the department was charged to
find the best curriculum in the state, the nation, and the
world. Once the best curriculum had been identified it
would become what the incentivized payments could be used
for.
Vice-Chair Gara understood that the department would make a
list of the approved curriculum.
Ms. Hartmann responded that all the best curricula found
would be posted online but only one would be eligible for
incentive payments.
Vice-Chair Gara thought that the teaching practices would
be fitting to whichever curricula was chosen. He wondered
whether the district should be able to use the funds for
purchasing material that would help their instructors with
teaching practices unrelated to the new curriculum. He
understood that the teaching practices in the bill would be
related to the chosen curriculum.
Ms. Hartmann replied that was correct.
2:35:11 PM
Co-Chair Seaton referred to proposed review of curricula
every 5 years. He wondered why the two most static areas of
curricula would be reviewed so frequently.
Ms. Hartmann answered that to make sure the found curricula
was still the best it would need to be reviewed, at the
board level, every 5 years.
Co-Chair Seaton was not sure how the reviews could be
conducted for the entire state so frequently. He noted that
rural districts varied wildly across the state. He
questioned whether it was going to be a comprehensive
determination if only one district did Math review and one
did English.
Ms. Hartmann replied that the sponsor had been told that
five school districts, 2 urban and 2 rural, was a good
sampling. She said that it could always be expanded or
decreased.
Co-Chair Seaton felt that the concept assumed that
education was occurring in silos.
Ms. Hartmann replied that the intent was not to direct
anyone into silos. The intent was to let districts do what
they deem best. She said that many studies had shown that
curriculum was one of the best levers to pull to improve
student achievement.
2:41:06 PM
Co-Chair Seaton guessed they were providing incentive to
implement a textbook based, single subject curriculum. He
did not know if there was any model to see if the other
more participatory models were being incentivized. He
thought the issue should be considered. He spoke about the
goal of advancement and achievement for school districts.
He did not know whether a single focus curriculum would get
the school districts to the intended place.
Ms. Hartmann appreciated the comments. She stated that
there were many hurdles facing the education system. The
bill was a step in improving the system.
Representative Pruitt asked whether the goal was to find
one set of curricula to incentivize; and if so, would that
be per district or for the entire state.
Ms. Hartmann replied that the incentivized curricula would
be two in two forms, one that worked for urban areas and
one that worked for rural areas.
Representative Thompson thought the bill sounded good;
however, he stated that many school districts were already
doing this work. He felt that the department was looking
all the time at better curriculum. He expressed discomfort
with the addition of three positions to the department
during the state's current fiscal climate.
2:46:27 PM
Representative Wilson whether the state had a testing
mechanism for the state's schools.
PAUL PRUSSING, DIRECTOR, STUDENT LEARNING, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, replied that as of recent
over 90 percent of the students in the state had taken a
Language Arts exam, 88 percent took a Math exam, and 82
percent had completed a Science exam.
Representative Wilson asked how difficult it was to utilize
the test results for determining which curricula was
delivering expected results.
Mr. Prussing responded that the hope was that Every Student
Succeeds (ESSA) application would be approved. He said that
the application contained an accountability system and
growth model. The more standardized test information that
was available to show growth would be beneficial, from that
information it could also bee seen which schools were
producing the best results. He added that professional
development funds could be leveraged to create efficiencies
when best practices were shared between districts. He
stated that the search for a good curriculum could be time
consuming for superintendents and sometimes many curricula
would be identified as "best," which was why it was
important that districts be able to share data.
2:50:10 PM
Representative Wilson asked about districts that were
continually in decline.
Mr. Prussing replied that there were two processes - a
state coaching process and under the new ESSA plan
districts could receive assistance in analyze data to
determine where the deficiencies stemmed from, like high
teacher turnover. He said that teacher turnover rate could
not be controlled; however, districts could control the
professional development around a well-defined curriculum.
Representative Wilson supported Mr. Prussing's final
remark. She questioned why the bill extended from K through
12, rather than K-5 or K-8.
Ms. Hartmann believed the goal was to improve all grade
levels. She shared that the state had a 52 percent
remediation rate of freshman entering university from
Alaska's high schools.
2:54:38 PM
Vice-Chair Gara remarked that the state was facing two
problems. The department had been consistent and had
supported the effort to retain teachers. He probed whether
the legislation was the best choice financially for the
state.
MARCY HERMAN, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, noted that the commissioner had
testified in support of the bill the previous day. She said
that the department had worked with the sponsor for over a
year on the legislation. She shared that significant
improvements in grade level reading had been witnessed
within the 3-year pilot program of Reading First. She
stressed that curricula could make a significant difference
in education outcomes.
Mr. Prussing added that the commissioner had read the
research from other states. He said that one of the biggest
policy drivers for education was clear curriculum adoption.
2:57:53 PM
Vice-Chair Gara thought the testimony made sense. He noted
that they were not going to get better student success by
cutting teachers and school days. He asked what the
department had been doing in terms of finding curriculum to
date.
2:59:03 PM
Mr. Prussing replied that putting the curriculum on the web
site would allow for other districts and the public to see
what was being used. He said that currently, local boards
adopted curriculum and text books. He said that in the past
the department had worked to help districts align their
curriculum to state standards.
Vice-Chair Gara understood that schools were struggling
with funding. He felt that the three additional positions
were crucial to the bill.
Mr. Prussing agreed the positions were critical to the
department. He said that the positions would continue to
keep a current list of what was working in the state, in
the country, and in the world.
Ms. Hartmann added that the bill benefitted every school
district; the first three years would be a test to be sure
that the program was appropriate and effective, the
following three years would provide fund for every school
that wanted to participate.
3:02:15 PM
Representative Guttenberg wanted to talk about Math class.
He talked about grouping children together so that students
with stronger aptitude could be coupled with those that
needed additional help. He wondered how much teaching style
played a role in the success of curriculum.
Mr. Prussing replied that using a curriculum of adoption
allowed teachers to modify teaching strategies for their
individual students. He believed that a dialogue between
teachers about what was working was necessary.
3:05:55 PM
Representative Guttenberg understood that some curriculums
were proprietary, and many computer programs were
proprietary. He wondered about how existing and new
curricula would merge.
Mr. Prussing replied that the program was voluntary, and
districts could choose not to participate. He said that if
a district had already invested in a program they could
chose not to participate. He felt that the bill created a
dialogue amongst educators about what worked and what did
not.
3:08:11 PM
Representative Ortiz stated that the issue of curriculum in
schools had always existed. He spoke about whether the bill
would be the best way to spend $30 million for education.
He thought teachers were always the factor that made
classrooms a success. He wanted to incentivize teachers. He
stated that in the end the curriculum was not more
important than teachers.
Mr. Prussing replied that good curriculum could attract
better teachers. He lamented that it was a challenge to get
curriculum that was consistent for longer periods of time.
Representative Ortiz agreed it was not an easy task to find
a ubiquitous curriculum that fit every classroom. He
contended that a good teacher could take a lousy curriculum
and still produce results, rather than having a great
curriculum and a weak teacher.
3:12:16 PM
Co-Chair Seaton stated that there were blue ribbon schools
and information about the curricula of those schools could
be used to determine which curriculum was working most
effectively.
Mr. Prussing believed it was the important aspect of the
three positions in the bill. The state had not had the
ability to look at its own data thoroughly. He stressed
that the department had lost 25 staff. He agreed there were
numerous variables. He stressed the importance that
districts be aware of what was going on in schools and what
was working. He said that a good principal, long term
staff, and a well-defined curriculum were all necessary for
successful schools.
3:15:31 PM
Co-Chair Seaton spoke of the blue-ribbon school at Anchor
Point. He felt that that school could be looked to for a
successful curriculum. He recognized that there were
varying factors that contributed to successful schools. He
thought that high achieving schools across the state should
be investigated for success practices. He expressed concern
for curriculum as silos for development.
3:17:54 PM
Co-Chair Foster set an amendment deadline of 5:00 p.m.
Friday, April 20, 2018.
CSSB 104(2d FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Representative Wilson asked about amendments to HB 411.
3:18:29 PM
AT EASE
3:18:45 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster replied the committee was holding HB 411 at
present.
Representative Wilson noted that industry was watching to
see what the legislature was doing. She hoped that delaying
hearing of the bill would not result in a loss of
investment in the state.
Vice-Chair Gara noted there had been an announcement in the
paper that day about a new oil discovery. He was not
concerned about a delay of a couple of days.
Representative Wilson encouraged hearing the bill sooner
rather than later.
Co-Chair Foster provided the schedule for the following
day. [The meeting was recessed to a call of the chair but
never reconvened.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 105 - Marital & Family Therapy Q & A Summary.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2018 1:30:00 PM |
SB 105 |
| CSSB 105(FIN) - Mat Su Health Foundation testimony.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2018 1:30:00 PM |
SB 105 |
| CSSB 105(FIN) AK Behavioral Health System Assessment 2016.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2018 1:30:00 PM |
SB 105 |
| SB 105 Amendments.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2018 1:30:00 PM |
SB 105 |
| SB 105 - New amendment #1 N.4.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2018 1:30:00 PM |
SB 105 |
| SB 102 FY16 Broadband Totals and District Subsidies 4.18.18.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2018 1:30:00 PM |
SB 102 |
| SB 105 Response to HFIN Questions DHSS Brodie 041918.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2018 1:30:00 PM |
SB 105 |