Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/29/2018 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 | |
| SB105 | |
| SB104 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 122 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 105 | 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."
9:46:35 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon relayed the bill was returned to the
committee on February 22, 2018. Over the interim, the
Department of Education and Early Development went through
a process that engaged community members from across the
state on the Alaska Challenge. The Senate Finance Committee
called the bill back to committee to have an opportunity to
work with the commissioner of education, the department,
and other stakeholders to try to provide something
beneficial in the form of education - the foundation of
education being curriculum. She invited her staff to the
table.
Vice-Chair Bishop MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute for SB 104, Work Draft 30-LS0786\Y (Laffen,
3/27/18).
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for discussion.
BRITTANY HARTMANN, STAFF, SENATOR ANNA MACKINNON, discussed
the committee substitute for SB 104. The bill ultimately
sought to improve educational outcomes for Alaska students
by providing them access to the best curriculum available.
The committee substitute was the result of more than a
year's worth of work in close collaboration with all
relevant stakeholders including teachers, state school
board members, DEED, superintendents, education
associations, and more. There were multiple ways to improve
educational outcomes. After doing much research, curriculum
was found to be one of the best ways to achieve improved
outcomes. In the CS before the committee, the sponsor
believed it contained an excellent pathway to achieve the
goal of improved outcomes. She read from the sectional
analysis and the explanation of changes (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 14.07.165:
NEW: 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:
NOTE: This was section 2 in Version N
NOTE: * are sections that are repealed on July 1,
2025.
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) AMENDED: 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 non-
discrimination standards in state law,
aligned with state standards, and result in
improved academic achievement.
NOTE: Section 2(c) in Version N was deleted.
(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) *AMENDED: 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) *AMENDED: 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) *AMENDED: The Department shall submit an
electronic report to the legislature
providing information on the pilot program
and the curricula that each school district
adopts.
9:53:02 AM
NOTE: The report requirement was changed to
include information on the pilot program
(k) NEW: 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)*NEW: 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) NEW: 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"
NEW: 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:
NEW: 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.
NOTE: This was previously Section 6 in Version N
Sec. 9 4 AAC 05.080(e):
Annuls the regulatory requirement of a local
school board having to evaluate their curriculum
every 6 years.
NOTE: This was previously Section 7 in Version N
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair MacKinnon invited department staff to comment on
whether the department was supportive or neutral on the CS
and to review the fiscal note.
MARCY HERMAN, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, was available for questions. The
commissioner had appeared before the committee and spoken
about the bill. She relayed that the department had worked
for about a year on Alaska's Education Challenge and since
January working on the bill with Co-Chair MacKinnon and her
staff. She relayed that Commissioner Johnson believed that
curriculum was one of the levers that the department had
not pulled in increasing student achievement. She noted
that the legislation was a way to incentivize school
districts to take a look a curriculum that the department
and board would put forward and to use the $150 per ADM to
purchase curriculum and materials necessary to improve
student achievement. She added that under Alaska's
Education Challenge, there were 30 to 40 stakeholders
meeting presently. She deferred to Mr. Prussing and would
review the fiscal note after his statement.
9:57:23 AM
Senator von Imhof asked Ms. Herman to briefly describe
Alaska's Education Challenge. Ms. Herman stated that
Alaska's Education Challenge was an 11-month effort to
consider how to make education better in the state. She
discussed Alaska's poor performance for 4th and 8th grade
reading and math. She continued that it was Commissioner
Johnson's and Governor Walker's idea to get the pulse of
the state on the best way to go about improving education
for Alaska's students. Alaska's Education Challenge came up
with three guiding principles: safety and wellbeing,
responsible learning, and family community tribal
compacting. The group put forward 13 recommendations under
the guiding principles. She reported that the department
was working with stakeholders and a pier organization for
state chief school officers to determine the department's
capacity to take on some of the work and how the department
could work best with its stakeholders and partners
statewide.
Senator von Imhof referenced the passage of Alaska State
Standards in 2012. She wondered about Ms. Herman's
statement that curriculum had not been one of the levers
the department had pulled. She was incredulous that
curriculum had not been addressed and hoped the department
could explain the reason it had not been addressed. She
mentioned having been on her school board when the
standards were passed. She conveyed that immediately
following the passage of the standards in 2012, the board
reviewed its curriculum. She wanted the department to
state, for the record, why it did not address curriculum
until now.
PAUL PRUSSING, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF STUDENT LEARNING,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, relayed that
in state statute the legislature gave its authority to the
local district. Therefore, the department did not have the
authority to mandate what text books or curriculum were
used. The bill provided a framework for districts to look
at their curriculum which alleviated some of the work
districts would otherwise have to do to adopt a curriculum.
However, it did not mandate the curriculum. He believed the
intent of the statute was that authority was given to the
local boards. He reported that the state had had programs
in the past, such as Reading First (part of the No Child
Left Behind Act), where grants were given to districts that
adopted specific reading programs with a goal of assuring
that all kids were proficient by the end of third grade.
The grant program ended but showed some effective results.
The department had pulled the lever slightly but not to
such an extent as reflected in the legislation. He believed
it was a good step forward.
10:01:29 AM
Senator von Imhof appreciated that the department did not
have the authority to mandate certain curriculum or
textbooks. She commented that when the department passed
state standards but failed to show leadership, mandated or
unmandated, of any type of aid to the 53 districts that had
a wide variety of financial support and struggles was like
feeding them to the wolves. She thought the department
should have helped by creating a curriculum available (not
mandated) to the districts. She asserted that it should
have happened 5 years prior. She thanked the sponsor for
bringing the legislation forward.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that she had tried to advance the
notion of the bill for the previous 6 years. She had sent a
letter to the state schoolboard asking for their
recommendations on curriculum. She had also been frustrated
believing that the department and the state school board
should have been supporting districts to a greater degree.
She opined that Alaska's students were taking the brunt of
the state's failure to provide for their education. She
referenced constrained budgets in the past and emphasized
that the bill before the committee had been a collaborative
effort with DEED. She appreciated everything the department
had done to support the current idea. The bill was a Senate
Finance Committee proposal to provide a foundation for
school districts and teachers to have support to provide
best outcomes for students.
10:04:21 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman remarked that in defense of the
administration he went back in history to understand why
the committee was addressing the issue today. He recalled
that prior to SB 35 [Legislation passed during one of the
terms of Mr. John Sackett: House of Representatives (1967-
1970) and Senate 1973-1986], the state used to operate
under the state operating school system (SOS). He explained
that the SOS was where the state dictated to school
districts what needed to be done and what criteria needed
to be accomplished. Senator Sackett introduced SB 35 that
set up the current system giving independence to school
districts to have them decide what they felt needed to be
done. He was not saying that the system was perfect, but
from his experience, the decisions regarding education and
the direction for students was best decided by school
boards that were elected independently of the legislature.
Co-Chair Hoffman indicated school districts had the mandate
to present their case about what needed to be done in their
districts. It might differ from what might happen in
Tuntutuliak versus in Anchorage or in Juneau. He firmly
believed districts needed to make the decisions around
curricula and direction of education. He suggested that it
might be appropriate to consider provisions as presented in
SB 104 on a demonstration project to move forward. He did
not want to criticize the department for its position
because past legislators had passed laws that were before
the committee today.
10:07:02 AM
Senator Stevens had served on his local school board and
relayed the difficulty of establishing a curriculum and the
cost associated with curriculum, the key to a fine
education for Alaska's students. He was pleased to see the
legislation but had a couple of concerns. First, he wanted
to confirm that the districts supported the legislation. He
also expressed concern about how the department, having
been reduced significantly, would supervise the bill. He
wondered if additional staff was planned. Instructing the
department to implement the law without additional
personnel would be akin to throwing the department to the
wolves and a great concern to him.
Mr. Prussing stated that when he reviewed the fiscal note
he had added 3 additional staff; 2 content education
specialists and 1 associate to help drive the work and keep
things going. He had been with the department for 18 years
and had seen many personnel reductions. Some of the 20 or
more positions that had been cut were content specialists
that drove curriculum work. When adopting standards in the
past, the department had created a 3-step process: an
awareness process, a transitional stage, and an
implementation stage. The department had focused its
efforts in helping districts align their curriculums to the
new standards. The department also worked with districts on
measuring students' success with the curriculum. The
Performance Evaluation for Alaska's Schools (PEAKS)
Assessment measured only a thin layer. The department had
assisted districts with a formative assessment process.
Most districts had adopted the Measure of Academic Progress
(MAP) test which was given 3 times per year. It provided a
benchmark for teachers to see the movement of students
through the curriculum. He stressed the importance of
having 2 additional content specialists. In the past, the
department had had 2 content specialists that had done the
majority of the work and had had a great impact on
education.
Senator Stevens believed the legislation moved the state
forward in curriculum development. He did not think it took
away local control, as it gave the districts the option of
choosing whether to participate. Mr. Prussing agreed and
added that it would be important for districts to assist
the department in selecting the curriculum.
10:10:25 AM
Senator Olson referenced his schooling through the Bureau
of Indian Affairs System in Golovin, Alaska, and his
experience watching the implementation of the SOS program.
At the time, Golovin was hesitant to participate in the SOS
Program. He applauded Senator Sackett's efforts to ensure
local control because it allowed for buy-in from people who
were very concerned about their children's academic
performance. He shared Senator Stevens' concern regarding
local control.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that self-determination, as
stated in the constitution, was one of her team's primary
motivators in choosing the course of action outlined in the
bill. School districts had appeared before the legislature
multiple times stating that the lack of inflation proofing
the base student allocation or removing energy subsidies,
which at one time the state provided through $150 per
barrel oil, created challenges. Her team struggled with
what to do in a centralized way to provide benefits to
communities, especially to the smaller rural communities.
It was her understanding that many of the larger school
districts were circling around particular curricula in math
and language arts and they were starting to line up in
finding the best means for student achievement. There were
certain smaller community school districts that had less
opportunities than the larger school districts to explore
curriculum. For this reason, she pursued finding curriculum
as a basis. She was trying to find a way of incentivizing a
rigorous process for the state school board and to provide
parents with electronic access of the curriculum being used
across the state. She wanted parents to see what urban
areas in the state might be doing differently than their
own district and why. She thought collaboration was
necessary, hence the reason for her introducing SB 104.
Co-Chair MacKinnon continued to discuss the bill. The bill
offered a product electronically that all districts and
parents could see of incentivized or designated curricula
that met Alaska state standards. School boards could move
into the designated standards and adopt the state curricula
without that same vigor that might be invested in the
review and adoption process. Parents, teachers, and
administrators would be able to see what everyone was
doing, to see test results, and to ask questions. She noted
that some of the smaller school districts were doing
tremendously well for their students, some of whom had
scores that exceeded some of the urban schools. The bill
before the committee offered collaboration with all
parties.
Co-Chair MacKinnon appreciated consideration of the bill.
She wanted to hold the bill until the following Tuesday and
encouraged members to contact their local school districts.
She stated that there was a large fiscal note of $30
million. She estimated that achievable outcomes would be
necessary to pass the bill from committee.
10:16:57 AM
Senator von Imhof thought there might be some confusion
between standards and curricula. She also mentioned the
need for determining the materials that would be used with
the curricula and thought they would be decided on at the
local district level. She noted that there were districts
in Western Alaska that used local flora and fauna in
curriculum. She drew attention to documents "Parent
Roadmap: Supporting Your Child in Grade Five -
Mathematics," and "Parent Roadmap: Supporting Your Child in
Grade Three - English Language Arts," (copy on file).
Senator interjected that the document Senator von Imhof was
referring to was available online.
Senator von Imhof continued that the Anchorage School
District created the document. She hoped the State of
Alaska would generate a similar document at some point. She
referred to page 4 of the handout, which showed one of the
standards for 5th graders in math. Students had to
understand how to divide objects into equal shares
preparing students for the division of fractions. Page 3
listed curricula of 3 or 4 things a teacher needed to do
throughout the year. She posed the question about which
textbooks and workbooks should be used. She asserted that
such things were part of local control. She talked about
being on the local school board when the standards were
changed. She relayed that the process was expensive, long,
and tedious. She was hoping to see the state do something
similar to the example she provided. Local control was and
would always be available in how the individual teacher
taught concepts. She also hoped that the department would
take advantage of the resources of the Anchorage School
District.
10:20:44 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon referenced another component to the bill
pertaining to Individual Education Plans (IEP)s. Her team
had brought the idea forward. The section on recording
electronic data so that parents could review it came from
the Alaska Challenge and the department suggesting the
information should be shared in order to support local
control. She invited Senator von Imhof to speak to the IEP.
Senator von Imhof informed the committee that an IEP was
available to any student in Alaska whose collective
teachers including special education teachers, general
teachers, and parents felt it was necessary to provide
extra special supports for a student. Creating and IEP was
time consuming and extensive and was created in
collaboration with care givers, teachers, and parents. If a
child or family moved from one district to another, often
times the child's IEP was not transferable electronically.
It had to either be copied and mailed or faxed one page at
a time. Some of the smaller districts only had 10 megabytes
of capacity. The worst case would be for the new district
to have to do a completely new IEP. One of the
recommendations that came out of the DEED performance
review in 2016 was to suggest that all districts around the
state went to one standard software for IEPs paid for by
the state. Districts would be alleviated from paying for
the software. She thought the idea made good sense. Many
districts agreed with the idea of having a standard
software. When a child moved from Bethel to Anchorage the
IEP could be sent electronically keeping the transition
much simpler and less disruptive.
10:23:34 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop referenced his experience as a legislator
and working for previous administrations. He spoke to the
need for continuity. He mentioned seeing 3 different
administrations and 3 different evaluation tests. He did
not want to see the goal post moved for kids. He advocated
choosing a lane and staying in that lane. He acknowledged
the challenges of educating children. He relayed his
personal experience as a child moving from one school
district to the next. He brought up the subject of
outcomes. He hoped that education was preparing children to
enter the workforce and to be a benefit to society rather
than a burden. He wondered how to measure success. In his
experience as the Commissioner of Department of Labor and
Workforce Development his department worked with DEED to
put a process in place to track an individual after high
school. He reemphasized the need for consistency for the
sake of kids.
Co-Chair MacKinnon supported Vice-Chair Bishop's comments.
She thought everyone had different abilities. Some people
blossomed outside of school and perseverance was what was
needed to continue in the world. She wanted a good
foundation for Alaska. Math and English were the areas of
focus in the bill.
10:26:40 AM
Senator Stevens agreed with Vice-Chair Bishop. He added
that the goal of education at the beginning of the country
was to create citizens of the state and country.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated she wanted to bring the bill back
up early in the following week to move the bill along. She
emphasized she wanted the fiscal note prior to moving the
bill out of committee.
Ms. Herman appreciated the passion for education as
expressed by the committee. The department would finalize
the fiscal note and submit it to the committee for
consideration.
Mr. Prussing thanked the committee for its hard work on the
bill. He addressed Vice-Chair Bishop's comments. He relayed
that the department was working with Career and Technical
Education (CTE) through the Carl D. Perkins Career and
Technical Education Improvement Act in getting CTE teachers
trained to teach math within the CTE program. Vice-Chair
Bishop remarked that he could spend another 30 minutes
talking on the subject in a positive way.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if Ms. Hartmann could address
Senator Olson's question regarding who her team had reached
out to. Ms. Hartmann recalled that when the bill was first
heard in committee the previous April there was no
opposition from school districts. Recently, the team had
reached out to the Lower Kuskokwim School District, the
Yukon-Koyukuk School District, the Anchorage School
District, and the Fairbanks School District. She had heard
back from all of them and would be happy to share their
information with everyone. She had also heard back from the
Board of Education's members, local school district board
members, rural and urban superintendents, and the Alaska
Council of School Administrators who were reviewing the CS.
She reported getting good word back. Co-Chair MacKinnon
asked if it was positive feedback versus concerns on the
bill. Ms. Hartmann responded, "yes."
Senator Micciche expressed interest in hearing feedback
from stakeholders mentioned by Ms. Hartmann. He would be
reaching out to his local district. Co-Chair MacKinnon
stated that her office had reached out to his school
district to testify. They were not available but had
reviewed the bill.
Senator Stevens addressed the issue of IEPs, and his desire
to learn more. He suspected that some districts might be
concerned about receiving IEPs that were different from
their own.
SB 104 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair MacKinnon relayed that the committee had not
scheduled a meeting for the following day. She reviewed the
agenda for Monday's meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSSB 104 Bill version Y.pdf |
SFIN 3/29/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 104 |
| CSSB 104 Sponsor Statement version Y.pdf |
SFIN 3/29/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 104 |
| CSSB 104 Sectional Analysis ver Y.pdf |
SFIN 3/29/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 104 |
| SB 105 - Senate Finance Q A.pdf |
SFIN 3/29/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 105 |
| SB 105 - Letters of Support.pdf |
SFIN 3/29/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 105 |
| CS SB 105 FIN wrok draft v N.pdf |
SFIN 3/29/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 105 |
| CSSB 105(FIN) - Summary of Changes.pdf |
SFIN 3/29/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 105 |
| SB 104 Von Imhof Document ParentRoadmap_ELA_3.pdf |
SFIN 3/29/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 104 |
| SB 104 Von Imhof Document - ParentRoadmap_Math_5.pdf |
SFIN 3/29/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 104 |