Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/22/2018 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 | |
| SB168 | |
| SB104 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 168 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE BILL NO. 104
"An Act relating to the duties of the state Board of
Education and Early Development; and relating to
school curriculum."
9:39:04 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon informed the committee that the
Committee Substitute (CS) for SB 104(FIN) was moved from
committee on April 14, 2017. The committee would be
rescinding its action in moving the bill out of committee
and would then adopt a new CS.
Vice-Chair Bishop MOVED to RESCIND the action of the
committee to report CSSB 104(FIN) from committee on April
14, 2017. There being NO OBJECTION, the bill was before the
committee for consideration.
Vice-Chair Bishop MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for SB 104, Work Draft 30-LS0786\N (Glover,
2/21/18).
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBEJCTED for discussion.
Co-Chair MacKinnon spoke to the CS. She stated that the
committee had been working with the Department of Education
and Early Development (DEED) and school districts to
improve student success and test scores. The state
continued to have challenges in competing both at the
national and global level. Over the course of the previous
summer, the department "undertook Alaska's Education
Challenge." She explained that the reason she wanted to
take a "second look" at the legislation was to examine the
best recommendations to improve student outcomes. In
consultation with the department and the commissioner, the
bill requested what she considered was possible to achieve.
She announced that the bill would enable the state to do
better with the investments the state made versus doing
more with less. The bill provided improved access to the
best curriculum in the United States (US) and the world and
empowered the state Board of Education to adopt the best
curriculum and offer flexibility to local school districts
with enough time to adopt and review the curriculum.
9:43:42 AM
BRITTANY HARTMANN, STAFF, SENATOR ANNA MACKINNON, spoke to
the CS. She explained that SB 104 allowed DEED, in
consultation with school districts, to find the best
curriculum for English/Language Arts and Math from around
the world in three tiers; tier 1 was the highest quality.
Once reviewed and approved by the state Board of Education,
the curriculum will be tested as part of a pilot program in
five districts (2 rural and 2 urban) around Alaska for two
years to determine its effectiveness. The districts chosen
for the pilot program would receive the curriculum paid for
by the state, not exceeding 150 times the school formula's
average daily membership (ADM) or $10 million. She
elucidated that if the new curriculum improves student
outcomes, school districts, if they so choose, would be
granted 3 school years to request the curriculum and
funding would be distributed in the order of requests in
addition to one-time funding of 150 times the districts ADM
not to exceed $6.7 million per year.
9:44:44 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
9:45:35 AM
MICHAEL JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
EARLY DEVELOPMENT, expressed his excitement over the bill.
He declared that the legislation was "well-conceived and
informed by the challenges of the past," recognized current
realities, and shared a vision for the future. The best
practices were discovered through participation in the
Alaska Education Challenge. He stated that the legislation
used curriculum as a lever for support and a lever for
improvement. He stated that the department was looking
forward to the positive impact the bill would have on
students.
Senator Stevens referenced a provision that extended the
requirement for curriculum review from every 6 years to
every 10 years. He asked for the rationale. Commissioner
Johnson replied that the rationale had multiple factors. He
explained that the requirement did not prevent adopting or
reviewing a curriculum in a shorter time frame. He noted
that many curricula had digital components and the content
was frequently updated. The content of some subjects such
as math did not change dramatically over time and the 10
year time period created efficiencies.
9:49:11 AM
Senator Olson referenced Senator Stevens' point, and
wondered if rapid technology advancements changed more
frequently than a period of 10 years, which might lower
test scores. Commissioner Johnson agreed that much would
change over a ten-year time frame. He thought that in terms
of purchasing a curriculum it was important to be mindful
of the risk of too many changes in too short of a time
frame. He thought the argument could be made that the
bill's time frame provided stability for a curriculum that
addressed student's needs.
9:51:08 AM
Ms. Hartmann addressed a Sectional Analysis for CSSB 104
(version N) (copy on file):
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 14.07.180:
(a) The Board of Education must establish standards
and a procedure for the review, ranking, and approval
of math and English language arts curricula for school
districts to use in each grade level.
(b) The Department shall review math and English
language arts curricula from
Alaska, other states, and other countries. The
department has until July 1, 2019 to identify the
three best curricula in these subjects for each grade
level and the best practices for teaching each
subject.
(c) The Board of Education shall approve curricula
currently being used by the five best performing
schools (two urban schools and three rural schools)
according to the scores of the 2018 Performance
Evaluation for Alaska's Schools assessments (PEAKS).
(d) The Department may submit the curricula that they
find to be the best (under section b), to the Board of
Education for approval, if the Department deems the
curricula appropriate, aligned with education
standards, and results in improved academic
achievement for students.
(e) The Board may approve of the curricula submitted
by the Department (under section d) as long as it is
consistent with the standards established by the Board
of education under (a) of this section. The Department
shall rank the approved curricula in 3 tiers. Tier 1
is the curricula that the Department ranks the highest
for each grade level.
(f) The Department shall conduct a two-year pilot
program beginning in the 2019 school year to test the
appropriateness and effectiveness of the tier 1
curricula approved. The Department shall select 5
school districts to participate in the pilot program
(at least 2 rural schools and 2 urban schools) and
those districts will be given no more than a combined
total of $10 million to purchase and implement the
curricula.
(g) If the Department deems the curricula appropriate
and effective, the Department shall make the curricula
and one-time incentive payments available to all
school districts starting in school year 2021 and
ending in the school year of 2023. If a school
district chooses Tier 1, they will receive a one-time
appropriation. This appropriation is available for all
districts and shall not exceed a combined total of
$6,700,000 for all districts that apply each year.
This incentive payment will be available for 3 years,
however districts will only receive a one-time
payment. The Department shall award incentive payments
in the order of which the request is received. The
incentive payment will not exceed 150xADM.
Ms. Hartmann delineated that the $30 million fiscal note
was predicated on the number of students statewide, roughly
129 thousand and multiplied that by 150 divided over 5
years.
9:54:58 AM
Ms. Hartmann continued to address the Sectional Analysis:
(h) The Department shall publish all curriculum
currently used by all school districts, on the
Department's website. Included in that curriculum will
be the 3 tiers of the English language arts and math
curriculum adopted.
` (i) The Department shall submit an electronic report
to the legislature providing information on the
curricula that each school district has adopted.
(j) All payments for the pilot program and curricula
adoption are subject to appropriation. This section
provides the definitions for "rural", "school
district" and "urban".
Sections 3-5 AS 14.08.111, AS 14.14.090, and AS
14.16.020:
Conforming language requiring school boards to review
all textbooks and instructional materials at least
once every 10 years.
Section 6 AS 14.07.180(f), 14.07.180(g), 14.07.180(j):
Repeals the pilot program and the one-time incentive
payments on July 1, 2024.
Sec. 7 4 AAC 05.080(e):
Annuls the regulatory requirement of a local school
board having to evaluate their curriculum every 6
years.
9:57:01 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman addressed Section 2(h), which pertained to
publishing all curriculum currently used by all school
districts. He asked whether the requirement included the
curriculum developed because of the bill. Ms. Hartmann
answered in the affirmative. She stated that all three
tiers established through the legislation would be
published online.
Co-Chair MacKinnon interjected that the goal was to provide
an incentive program of best practices. She found that the
larger school districts were agreeing on a set of criteria
that already existed. However, in the smaller districts it
was more difficult to find the time or expertise to engage
in the same process as the larger districts. She thought
there was a disadvantage for smaller districts. She
observed that sometimes salespersons from other states
offered Alaska's smaller districts curriculum that was not
supportable in a rural area. She emphasized that the bill
would not impose a curriculum that did not fit into a local
community. Rather the bill attempted to empower the state
school board to help find curriculum that works in rural
school districts and all districts as well. She thought
curriculum was a foundational tool and hoped an empowered
statewide school board that was provided resources could
find the best practices, work with school districts, and
utilize a pilot program to discover curriculum that worked.
She reiterated that her hope was the statewide school board
could identify a curriculum that offered Alaskan students
an opportunity to compete globally.
10:01:50 AM
Senator von Imhof clarified that there was a difference
between curriculum and state standards. She understood that
the program was volunteer and did not impede on local
control.
Co-Chair MacKinnon added that it was her hope that the bill
would provide school districts the opportunity to use
something vetted by the state school board and not be
subject to the 6 year review process
Senator Stevens thought the bill was forward-looking. He
had concerns. He commented on staff reductions at the
department and wondered how it would achieve the goals of
the bill. Co-Chair MacKinnon clarified that there would be
a forthcoming fiscal note with three positions that were
previously removed from the department, however the new job
duties would be different in support of reading, writing,
and math.
10:05:03 AM
Senator Micciche added that there would be "fairly
significant contract dollars for some of the curriculum
evaluation." Co-Chair MacKinnon indicated that the bill
would need to have the support of the full legislature to
move forward. The goal was to reduce the costs to school
districts and improve educational outcomes. She added that
the fiscal note would be scrutinized but if adequate
funding was not provided the goals would not be met.
Senator Stevens thought education was a unifying issue and
applauded Co-Chair MacKinnon's efforts.
Co-Chair MacKinnon affirmed that the committee would
continue to work with the department on the bill and fiscal
note. She reported that Senator von Imhof wanted to ensure
that the curriculum chosen by the state school board met
the Alaska Standards, which was currently the board's
responsibility.
Ms. Hartmann mentioned three other benefits of the bill.
The bill would save school districts time and money through
the extension of the curriculum review and paying for the
curriculum, which freed up funding for other needs. The
bill allowed for collaboration among school districts in
both teacher training and professional development.
Senator von Imhof thought the Division of Student and
School Achievement under DEED whose core mission was "to
provide academic standards, academic assessments and
accountability and assist schools by providing programs
technical onsite and distance delivery support" would
likely be affected by the bill. She noted that the division
had a total of 41 staff, twelve positions were Education
Specialist II, which were the positions that would be added
by the bill. She thought it was important to take advantage
of all the state's resources. She maintained that the
bill's goals needed accountability, data collection, and
collaboration between districts. She mentioned that some
school districts used Power School software that was a
platform for student information. She wondered if in
addition to working with curriculum, the bill would address
software to allow districts to communicate with each other.
10:09:15 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop voiced that besides the collaboration
across school districts, he hoped the university would
collaborate with the school board to ensure the curriculum
was sufficient to carry the student into post-secondary
education.
Co-Chair Hoffman agreed with Senator Stevens remarks. He
thanked Co-Chair MacKinnon for taking leadership on the
issue. He acknowledged that the topic of education
solutions had been discussed for some time and believed the
bill was a good approach.
Co-Chair MacKinnon reiterated that the legislation was a
committee bill and appreciated members' work on the issue.
She informed the committee that there was not currently an
updated fiscal note for the CS.
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed the agenda for the following
day.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 104 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SFIN 2/22/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 104 |
| CSSB 104 Version N Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SFIN 2/22/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 104 |
| SB 168 work draft version D.pdf |
SFIN 2/22/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 168 |
| SB 168 Fast Track StatewideTotals-Op Cap.pdf |
SFIN 2/22/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 168 |
| SB 168 FY18 Supplemental Summary and Detail with LFD Notes-Senate.pdf |
SFIN 2/22/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 168 |
| SB 104 work draft version N.pdf |
SFIN 2/22/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 104 |