Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
03/31/2021 09:00 AM Senate EDUCATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB111 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 111 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 111-EARLY EDUCATION; READING INTERVENTION
9:03:31 AM
CHAIR HOLLAND announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 111
"An Act relating to the duties of the Department of Education
and Early Development; relating to public schools; relating to
early education programs; relating to funding for early
education programs; relating to school age eligibility; relating
to reports by the Department of Education and Early Development;
relating to reports by school districts; relating to
certification and competency of teachers; relating to assessing
reading deficiencies and providing reading intervention services
to public school students enrolled in grades kindergarten
through three; relating to textbooks and materials for reading
intervention services; establishing a reading program in the
Department of Education and Early Development; relating to
school operating funds; relating to a virtual education
consortium; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR HOLLAND said the meeting would begin with invited
testimony and then continue the sectional analysis. He called on
invited testimony.
9:03:59 AM
DEENA BISHOP, Ph.D., Superintendent, Anchorage School District,
Anchorage, Alaska, said that every child in Alaska deserves the
fundamental right to learn to read. SB 111 is the most important
piece of legislation in her 31-career as this legislation holds
school districts across the state accountable to the great
mission that every Alaskan student reads well by third grade.
Her testimony will focus on the reading components of the bill.
People want to make a lasting impact on student learning in the
state of Alaska. A reading bill is critical. With this bill,
school districts, in conjunction with the Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED), are empowered to set a
clear focus to guide implementation. This is the real work of
reading improvement. High-quality, evidence-based reading
instruction matters to all students to be strong readers by
third grade. Clear legislation is necessary to provide explicit
and systematic instruction in phonological awareness, phonics,
vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension strategies. It should
happen in every primary classroom. The reading wars are over.
Phonics and phonemic awareness are essential to reading.
DR. BISHOP said that early literacy screening tools administered
three times a year are critical for identifying students with
potential reading difficulties and monitoring towards
proficiency. That is key in the bill. She would suggest
revisiting legislation throughout the bill's existence with
updated reports to check on implementation fidelity and learning
success in Alaska's school districts. She believes that if the
state is doing this, it will see a difference.
DR. BISHOP said that she appreciates the preschool funding
continuing in this bill. For many Alaskan children, early
interventions in reading skills will support the outcome of
reading by third grade. Evidence-based reading interventions are
key. This would support having a plan for intervening with those
students not quite reaching proficiency every year. This will
keep their parents informed and keep them as partners in the
work. It may avoid any type of retention. Interventions do
matter.
DR. BISHOP said that statewide teacher training on the science
of reading is essential. This is not generally taught in
preservice programs at universities. This provision will drive
high-quality training for educators and support them in this
work. Teaching all children to read is hard work and supporting
teachers in schools is essential.
DR. BISHOP said that she supports DEED having the authority to
guide high-quality reading instruction. The book Shadows on the
Koyukuk by Sydney Huntington shows the importance of reading for
all. Sydney Huntington, an Alaska Native, attended a Bureau of
Indian Affairs school prior to statehood. He only went to third
grade. However, in his book he states that the greatest gift he
was ever given in his school was the gift of a teacher teaching
him to read. When he could read, the world opened up to him. He
is one of Alaska's great elders. When he learned to read, life
changed for him. Just like Sydney Huntington, every Alaskan
child deserves the right to read by third grade.
9:09:26 AM
KYMYONA BURK, Ed.D., Policy Director for Early Education,
ExcelinEd, Tallahassee, Florida, said that now more than ever is
the time to establish policies that support students, especially
in a time of significant learning loss because of the pandemic.
Strong policies like the committee is considering today lay the
groundwork for equipping parents, students, and teachers with
the proper tools and resources necessary to ensure Alaskan
students are reading at grade level by the time they enter
fourth grades. She is a former state literacy director for the
Mississippi Department of Education and led the implementation
of the Literacy-Based Promotion Act. Mississippi focused its
attention on strong, early literacy policies and has had
significant results in a short amount of time. It was a
comprehensive approach and state-led effort. Mississippi focused
on a few things that are in SB 111. Mississippi is supporting
teachers through professional development in the science of
reading, allowing literacy coaches and reading specialists to
provide onsite dedicated support to improving and changing
literacy instruction and adopting high-quality instructional
material aligned to the science of reading.
DR. BURK said that for students, Mississippi is assessing where
students are with universal screeners to ensure that teachers
are able to provide the instruction needed to fill the gaps and
address reading challenges and deficiencies and also create
individual reading plans. Teachers are able to indicate and
track the strategies they have used and to determine whether
those strategies are working and if they are not, to change
course and implement new strategies and interventions. Lastly,
Mississippi wants to equip parents and families with the
resources to support student learning at home and to let them
know that this is a partnership. Parents are needed to make sure
the student's journey at school is successful. In the last
decade, Mississippi has adopted these policies to support this
work, including the first-ever investment in pre-K with early
learning collaboratives and its Literacy-Based Promotion Act.
Mississippi's preservice candidates who want to be licensed in
early elementary education must pass an assessment on the
science of reading.
DR. BURK said that early literacy is also an economic issue.
Data from the Annie E. Casey Foundation show that students are
less likely to drop out of high school if they have a strong
foundation in reading and are more likely to go on to college
and secure a successful career path. As the legislators consider
SB 111, they should consider how to change the lives of
students, parents, and teachers for the better and how to ensure
that students are set up for success early and have a strong
foundation to improve the economic health of the state and the
quality of life for students.
CHAIR HOLLAND noted that Alabama passed a program in 2019 and
instituted it in 2020. He asked if it is similar to this
legislation.
DR. BURK responded that the Alabama literacy initiative includes
dyslexia. Mississippi has a separate law for dyslexia. Alabama's
bill is one of the most comprehensive literacy bills to date.
Tennessee just passed theirs. All these components that the
committee is considering today are in the bills from
Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee.
9:14:34 AM
SENATOR HUGHES observed that Dr. Burk's presentation talked
about what Mississippi did for students, teachers, and parents
and that SB 111 has some pieces to engage parents in K through
third grade. She asked Ms. Burk if she can name any specific
things about the components for parents.
DR. BURK replied that part of Mississippi's law provided parents
with read-at-home plans. Those include strategies in each of the
components of reading that parents can do at home for free.
South Carolina enacted Mississippi's read-at-home plans. In
Mississippi, parents are part of the individual reading plans.
Parents can't assist if they don't know, so they are notified
immediately of screener results and told their child may have a
reading deficiency. Parents are part of the process. The Early
Learning Collaborative Act provides training for districts to
train parents. There are parent guides about standards for math
and reding, grades K-8.
SENATOR BEGICH said that this bill terminates early learning
after a few years with a sunset clause. He asked for her
thoughts on that.
DR. BURK replied that she cannot lobby on things, but yesterday
Mississippi doubled down on its commitment to early childhood by
providing more funding and expanding the number of seats
available to four-year-olds. Pre-K and that quality early
childhood experience is extremely important to ensuring that
children are ready and on that trajectory to be successful by
the end of third grade.
CHAIR HOLLAND said that Senator Begich brings up a good point.
He asked Dr. Bishop for any thoughts on the sunset for the pre-K
portion of SB 111.
DR. BISHOP responded that although she likes to never have to
worry about funding, she is confident that the state will show
evidence for the state investment in pre-K. She does not fear it
because she believes in what they can do if everyone is aligned
with a cogent program. The state will see success in children
and it will bring additional investment very similar to what Dr.
Burk just shared.
CHAIR HOLLAND said his idea with the sunset is that the bill is
changing the foundation formula and increasing the education
budget. Ten years is a great period of time to look at this. The
committee could decide if more time is needed. He fully
anticipates that some future legislature will revisit this and
fix it long before the sunset happens, but it does need fiscal
sideboards to ensure good use of education funds.
SENATOR BEGICH said his issue is about consistency and the
message sent to parents. It has been indicated that the reason
for the sunset clause is because the state is experimenting with
pre-K, so the state needs to see evidence. He asked if she feels
the pre-K experience in the Anchorage School District for the
last decade has been experimental or if it has shown results,
because she has testified that Anchorage's early education
program has had results.
DR. BISHOP responded that there is solid and evidence that the
Anchorage School District has taken its own operational monies
and expanded 16 additional pre-K classrooms. Pre-K is essential
and it works. She is not trying to be contrary; she believes in
evidence-based reading instruction and early intervention, as
early as for three- and four-year-olds. The state can make this
happen ubiquitously across the state. It is not a pilot and
Anchorage invests its own operational funds to educate four-
year-olds.
CHAIR HOLLAND responded that he does not doubt that the
Anchorage School District is making early education and pre-K
work. His concern is that the execution in the field of the plan
determines whether pre-K works as SB 111 puts forward.
SENATOR BEGICH asked Dr. Bishop to respond to changing the age
of entry from September 1 to June 1.
DR. BISHOP answered that she hasn't looked at the evidence or
research around age, but her experience is that she had more
success as an elementary principal when the entry date was later
rather than earlier.
SENATOR BEGICH said that the bill in about four years takes the
"should" clause for retention to a "must" clause for retention.
That has been referred to as hard retention. He asked for her
position on hard retention and its efficacy on ensuring that
students graduate from the Anchorage School District. He noted
that neither the school-age clause or retention clause has
sunset dates, only early education and intensive reading
intervention do.
DR. BISHOP replied that initially when the bill was being
drafted a couple years ago, she spoke to superintendents and
school leaders in those southern states that have this
legislation. She spent the most time in Florida with Dr. Barbara
Jenkins, who is in Orlando with over 250,000 students. The
evidence-base on retention is not solid. However, interventions
are key. Florida has hard retention. Dr. Jenkins said that
educators do not like to retain students unless it benefits
them, which means that something different is done. What was
meaningful was preschool, getting early literacy right. Teachers
do everything they can so they do not retain students. While it
was out there as a consequence, Florida did not see mass
retentions. The prediction was that everyone not reading at
grade level would be retained. That did not happen. Kids were
not retained yet reading instruction was increased. The evidence
on retention is that just keeping a child in the same seat does
not improve student learning. The key is in the interventions
that change things. As an educator who knows the will and work
of educators in the Anchorage School District, they will rally
around students and with parents to enable the learning to
happen. For English language learners and students with learning
disabilities, provisional waivers work when retention is not
appropriate. She does not have fear with this. She has gained
that knowledge from experts who are in states with hard reading
retention. They don't retain kids because they are increasing
the learning and proficiency of students.
SENATOR HUGHES said she appreciates Dr. Bishop's response. A lot
of people are looking at research that showed that retention
created problems, but that research was not based on schools
that had read-by-nine programs and schools that had intensive
interventions. She is glad that Dr. Bishop took the time out to
reach out to superintendents across the U.S. She is renaming it
a strong promotion policy. The effective date is out five years.
It will not going into effect until a student has had a chance
to have all those interventions. Some of the states put in a
promotion policy right away. This bill would delay it. She
doesn't think there will be an uptick [in students retained].
She believes that there will be an uptick in students being
successful and teachers having a sense of reward for moving
students to the next grade level who are truly prepared.
9:31:13 AM
KATHERINE ELLSWORTH, Ph.D., Executive Director, Federal
Programs, Mat-Su Borough School District, Palmer, Alaska, said
that she is appreciative of SB 111 and its focus on reading and
early literacy. The Mat-Su Borough School District has looked at
studies of those who have attended a Mat-Su preschool vs. those
who did not. Students take the Kindergarten Developmental
Profile when they enter school in the fall. Those who attended
Mat-Su preschools outscored their peers who did not in all 13
areas of the Kindergarten Profile, most notably, in print
awareness and knowledge of letters and symbols followed by
classifying and sorting objects, phonological awareness, and
number recognition. Mat-Su knows that the preschools are getting
the results it wants, which is preparing students to enter
kindergarten with a strong skill set.
DR. ELLSWORTH observed that SB 111 indicates that it will be
culturally responsive to local communities and accessible,
regardless of socioeconomic status, which is key for early
education programs. Mat-Su supports Parents as Teachers for
early literacy. Mat-Su has one currently called Read to Me Now
to promote reading with students before they come to school.
DR. ELLSWORTH said the mantra of the Mat-Su Superintendent Randi
Trani is everyone should want for all kids what they want for
their own kids, and this bill exemplifies that. Mat-Su wants all
kids in the state to read on grade level by grade three. This
bill has a clear pathway for teachers to be qualified in the
areas they are teaching, whether as a reading teacher or in an
early education program. It provides multiple pathways for
teachers to develop their skills.
DR. ELLSWORTH said that the Mat-Su Borough supports curricula
for students that is evidence-based and incorporates the five
areas of reading. For almost a decade Mat-Su has been working to
building its RTI (Response to Instruction) or MTSS (Multi-Tiered
System of Support), so it knows that reading assessment tools
and progress monitoring are key to providing interventions and
tracking student progress. It is a best practice that should be
done statewide for all students. For those who are struggling,
providing reading opportunities for students outside of the
school day is key. Providing meaningful, timely progress reports
to parents and keeping them involved is so key. She said she is
glad to see that written into the bill.
DR. ELLSWORTH stated that the virtual consortium has been a long
time coming. Alaska needs that to get quality education to all
students no matter where they live. Regarding the cut-off date
for students to turn five for kindergarten, she spent eight
years teaching kindergarten. She could tell in the first few
days of school who had July and August birthdays. They may be
academically ready but often struggle socially. If the date is
moved to June 1, then she would expect preschool to be available
to all students. Being older for kindergarten has a lot of
advantages.
DR. ELLSWORTH suggested that a decision about retention at third
grade be made by a team, like an Individualized Education Plan
(IEP) team does for special education students, and the final
decision for retention would rest with a superintendent or the
superintendent designee. The final decision about retention
should rest with someone trained in education.
DR. ELLSWORTH mentioned page 27, line 23, that talks about a
policy for grade level progression and said she would like more
guidance with that, such as would that be expanded at district
discretion. Overall, Mat-Su strongly supports the bill. All kids
in Alaska deserve to be able to read well and read well by third
grade. This bill ensures that.
SENATOR BEGICH noted that pages 7 and 17 are about Parents as
Teachers and that the only language relating to culturally
responsive is in pre-K policies. Both of those are terminated at
certain time in this bill. He has suggested maintaining the
standards for pre-K in the bill. He asked if she were aware
those are not retained at the present time.
DR. ELLSWORTH responded that like Dr. Bishop, she feels that
once the state sees the benefits of preschool and how that
affects student achievement, the state will want to continue
funding that.
SENATOR BEGICH said that brings him to the issue of what works
and what doesn't work. He asked whether she would agree that
Mat-Su has evidence that its high-quality, voluntary early
education programming works. She had mentioned the date change.
The places used as evidence for changing the age eligibility
have been Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and Australia, which all
have strong early education components. He asked her if early
education is supported by evidence in the Mat-Su School District
or is it experimental at this point.
DR. ELLSWORTH answered that it is not experimental. Mat-Su has
been explicit and purposeful about implementing pre-K programs.
Mat-Su reviewed and adopted curricula and all preschool teachers
were trained on the implementation of the program. Mat-Su uses
assessment tools in the spring and fall to measure progress. One
of the beauties of this bill is that it is explicit about
support and having evidence-based programs. That is key to
excellent learning.
SENATOR BEGICH thanked her for her response.
9:42:40 AM
BOB GRIFFIN, Senior Education Research Fellow, Alaska Policy
Forum, Anchorage, Alaska, presented Top 10 Myths and
Misconceptions Surrounding Alaska's K-12 Reading Crisis. He said
that a lot of his comments would be similar to what he provided
last year, but there are a few new committee members. He is a
big fan of this legislation. People have been working on this
for many years and hopefully can push it across the finish line
this time. The state needs reading legislation for many
different reasons. One is the state's dismal outcomes, but it
should be effective legislation. He has recognized these top 10
myths since he has been working on this legislation since 2014.
MR. GRIFFIN presented Myth 1: All research indicates students
should ALWAYS be socially promoted, even if they are far below
expected proficiency in reading in 3rd grade. He showed a list
of 15 studies supporting the effectiveness of performance-based
promotion.
MR. GRIFFIN presented Myth 2: We don't need a minimum reading
standard for 3rd grade promotion because urban students in
Alaska have reading scores that are above average. (Implying
that rural schools are responsible for dragging our scores down
dramatically). The state PEAKS results show it is not an
urban/rural thing at all.
MR. GRIFFIN presented Myth 3: Poverty is the key contributor to
Alaska scoring dead last in the NAEP US 4th grade reading for
low-income and upper/middle-income students. The state is dead
last in NAEP, but Alaska is one of the lowest-poverty states.
MR. GRIFFIN presented Myth 4: Ethnic minorities are primarily
responsible for our low NAEP scores and white Alaskan students
score above average. He called this narrative offensive.
MR. GRIFFIN presented Myth 5: Alaska's unusually high ethnic and
linguistic diversity greatly contribute to reading test scores
far below average. A 2015 study by a University of Alaska
Anchorage professor said that Anchorage was one of the most
diverse cities, but a 2021 collaborative investigation came to a
different conclusion, Anchorage was 126th in ethnic diversity
and 182nd in linguistic diversity.
MR. GRIFFIN Myth 6: We don't have to worry about our 4th grade
NAEP reading scores because Alaska has above average growth in
NAEP reading scores between 4th and 8th grade. Alaska does have
above average growth in NAEP reading scores between 4th and 8th
grade, but Alaska is still doing poorly in math and reading in
grade 8.
MR. GRIFFIN presented Myth 7: High quality Pre-K improves NAEP
scores more than comprehensive reading policies.
MR. GRIFFIN presented Myth 8: States that use the Florida
performance-based promotion 3rd grade reading model saw their
test scores increase in 4th grade reading but didn't improve 8th
grade scores or math scores. Early childhood literacy
improvements helped Florida in every category.
MR. GRIFFIN presented Myth 9: With a comprehensive reading
policy that socially promotes very weak readers, Alaska's kids
can still achieve NAEP scores near the US average in a few
years. States that used performance-based promotion, or hard
retention, did better than states with comprehensive reading
programs that do not use performance-based promotion policies.
MR. GRIFFIN presented Myth 10 Source NEA Rankings and Estimates:
Florida and Mississippi dramatically increased their per-student
spending to add universal Pre-K and a comprehensive reading
policy. Florida and Mississippi increased their spending just
slightly above the national average.
MR. GRIFFIN presented his Conclusion: Kids who haven't learned
to read, can't read to learn and face dismal prospects in life.
Despite favorable demographics and funding compared to other
states, Alaska has slipped to the very bottom of NAEP reading
scores across the spectrum of race and economic status. Alaska's
kids are just as bright, our education professionals are just as
dedicated and our parents love their kids just as much as
anywhere else. Alaska's kids can't afford another year of
inaction on a comprehensive reading policy to address our
childhood literacy crisis.
CHAIR HOLLAND said that was like drinking from a fire hose. He
appreciates the information and will go over this in the future.
9:53:28 AM
SENATOR BEGICH observed that Mr. Griffin is fully aware that
Florida has over 80 percent attendance in its preschool program,
which is in its BSA, base student allocation.
MR. GRIFFIN responded that yes, he does. He would be hard
pressed to change anything in the approach that Florida has. He
would acknowledge that its pre-K program probably does help them
maintain that number one status in early childhood reading in
the United States.
SENATOR BEGICH said in the 2019 report about the retention
program in Florida, roughly 20 percent of third graders faced
possible retention. In Florida, a third grader had to score
level 2 or higher. Nearly 20 percent of third graders were at
level 1. That would give some pause to think about one-fifth of
students retained and the potential costs related to that.
MR. GRIFFIN replied that through the process, a large number of
kids with reading deficiencies are identified early on, but the
number retained is actually quite small. It is one thing that
makes people sit up and pay attention to the policy. No one
likes to see a nine-year-old repeat third grade. Any retention
would include an intervention year that would be much different
for the student from the year before. No one likes to see a 15-
year-old who is illiterate who has been socially promoted. With
reading the literature from Professor [Linda Darling-]Hammond
from Stanford, he agrees retention is something to be avoided,
but with a strong intervention, it is the key component.
Evidence from states that have tried other paths shows it is the
key component.
SENATOR BEGICH noted that the Florida reading law provides $500
per student in that level 1 reading category, and asked what the
impact of that extra money has been.
MR. GRIFFIN replied that it probably has a positive impact. He
does not have the data in front of him. He would hesitate to
vary from any policy that veers significantly from what has been
successful in Florida and Mississippi. Without expending a lot
of resources, they have produced amazing results. Miami-Dade
kids have reading scores that are statistically
indistinguishable from the upper-middle income white kids in
Alaska.
SENATOR HUGHES said she assumes that the 20 percent in Florida
includes students with disabilities and English language
learners. That must be kept in mind. She thanked him for busting
the myth regarding promotion, which is significant. She is a
firm believer that with interventions, it will be rare,
especially since it will take place after educators have been
trained. She asked if Florida has a way to catch a child up to a
cohort if the child is retained because that is the hope with
the bill.
MR. GRIFFIN said his understanding is that Florida has a
provision in statute to allow kids to rejoin their cohort if
retained. He will follow up on actual retention stats for
Florida. He is certain it is far below 20 percent. Although many
kids faced the threat of retention, the number is far below 20
percent.
SENATOR BEGICH said that Mr. Griffin is right, that it doesn't
mean that 20 percent was held back, but the 20 percent excludes
those who qualified for an exemption because they are not
required to test for the different levels. He would be
interested to know the actual numbers retained.
10:01:32 AM
MARK LACKEY, Executive Director, CCS Early Learning, Wasilla,
Alaska, said that CCS Early Learning is one of 17 Head Start
grantees in the state. He is speaking on behalf of the Head
Start Association, which includes all the grantees. He is
excited to see Alaska considering additional pre-K. He is
excited to see legislation around reading. Head Start has long
thought that those two things are important for the state.
Alaska has been behind the game in pre-K for many years. Head
Start is excited to see this discussion happening and
supportive. His testimony is about making sure that this is
rolled out in a coordinated, collaborative way with no
unintended consequences.
MR. LACKEY said the one issue his association has brought
forward is how state funding can have a negative impact on
federal funding. He provided two documents to the committee. One
is a chart that shows all of the federal funding for Head Start.
The chart shows that in federal FY20, $57.9 million came to the
17 grantees to provide early childhood services across the
state. That is base operational funding. The blue line from FY8
to FY20 shows that federal money has been on the uptick. A lot
of federal money has been coming to the state to provide Head
Start and Early Head Start services. That money goes directly to
local grantees. The grantees write the federal grants. The
grantees have been successful lately in pulling down one-time
federal funding. In FY19, grantees brought in $29 million of
federal funding that largely went to build facilities. That is
the size and scope of federal investment in pre-K.
MR. LACKEY said that the association has a concern connected to
the other document he provided, Head Start Regulations. Federal
government requires that Head Start is fully enrolled at all
times. The first piece of statute that he provided is that if
programs are chronically underenrolled, the Office of Head Start
has the authority to withhold or withdraw funding. That has been
an issue experienced in Alaska. The state has had $2 million of
preschool funding for many years. There have been instances of
programs, especially in small communities with few eligible
children, where districts would open up a pre-K program with
state funding where a Head Start was already in existence and
half the kids would be in pre-K and half would be in Head Start.
Those programs become chronically underenrolled. The association
is hopeful that as Alaska starts to consider increasing
investment in pre-K that from the outset those sorts of conflict
are avoided. Everyone wants more students served, not for less
federal funding to come to the state or for there to be
competition over children. The goal is for more children to be
served and ready for school.
MR. LACKEY said the second regulation is that grantees
demonstrate the need within the community as they write federal
grants, so they are looking at existing childcare, existing
state pre-K, not duplicating services or creating a situation of
competition. The state of Alaska should consider that. Head
Start cannot serve all children in the state of Alaska. Head
Start's focus is on low income kids, kids in foster care, and
kids who are homeless. The association is hopeful that the
committee can consider some type of criteria about where the
state funding goes.
10:08:42 AM
SENATOR HUGHES asked if a community wants preschool that meets
the standards in the bill, if Head Start can meet the state
requirements so a district would not need its own preschool. She
also asked if Head Start has the flexibility to meet the higher
pre-K standards of early literacy.
MR. LACKEY replied that every Head Start program is locally
administered and governed by a board of parents and a board of
directors. Head Start regulations give every grantee the
flexibility to operate the program as those boards see fit. Head
Start has mindboggling regulations and it must monitor every
child for ongoing development on a variety of measures over
time. Every single program is responsible to its local community
and the federal government. The state Department of Education
has that data on Head Start preschool programs. Head Start
observes children over time; there is an ongoing assessment.
SENATOR HUGHES said the short answer is yes, every local program
could choose to follow what will be prescribed by the state for
pre-K, which might help ensure that they would not meet
enrollment numbers if the district started another program.
MR. LACKEY responded that grantees can provide the program that
the local community wants and expects, but the challenge is that
if there is no requirement from the state to consider what is
already being provided, if there is no stability of funding,
those federal funds could be at risk. If districts put in an
application and starts a pre-K program and if the districts are
not in good communication or collaboration with Head Starts in
their community, those federal funds could be at risk. Head
Start is asking districts to look at services already in
existence.
SENATOR HUGHES said she believes that local Head Start programs
could approach districts and say they could be the preschool
program and meet all the state requirements. She asked if he
agrees.
MR. LACKEY said he was not sufficiently familiar with SB 111 to
know whether she meant state or federal funding.
CHAIR HOLLAND advised that Mr. Lackey cannot answer that
question from a legal standpoint.
SENATOR BEGICH asked if he had reviewed page 17 of the bill that
defines the qualities that Senator Hughes was referring to
because it is certainly not childcare. In SB 8 and SB 42, there
were provisions requiring coordination. He said he believes it
is in this bill but he cannot remember where it is. It is a
simple paragraph requiring local coordination before starting a
program. If it is not in SB 111, he said he is sure the
committee will want to add it. He said Mr. Lackey's concern is
one that has been brought up repeatedly when early education
bills have been brought up. The committee's concern is ensuring
that quality early education meets those really good standards
as Senator Hughes has been clear at pointing out. The question
she was asking was if Head Start would be able to bring programs
to the standards of the bill.
CHAIR HOLLAND said he thought that Mr. Lackey is concerned about
making a legal commitment about being able to participate in
this program. He asked Mr. Lackey to respond.
MR. LACKEY said that on page 17 he sees evidence-based programs
that meets federal standards for early education programs. He is
curious about what the federal standards are for early
education. He said he suspects those would be the federal
regulations for Head Start. That is his suspicion, but he
doesn't know that. He is confident in the quality of Head Start
programs and those programs would meet or exceed the quality
levels being proposed in SB 111.
SENATOR BEGICH said he appreciates that answer. It reinforces
that they are not talking about competition over resources. They
are talking about improving education for kids. It is about
reaching that standard.
CHAIR HOLLAND asked how many programs are run by the 17
grantees.
MR. LACKEY answered that the 17 grantees are located in over 100
communities across the state. He can provide the list of
grantees and list of communities. For example, Kawerak is in 11
communities throughout the Nome region. RurAL CAP fills in the
gaps all over the state in 24 communities. His grantee serves
Wasilla, Palmer, Meadow Lakes, Chugiak, and Eagle River.
CHAIR HOLLAND asked how many children are in the programs.
MR. LACKEY replied about 4,000 cumulative a year, although COVID
is not a normal year.
CHAIR HOLLAND asked what ages. He assumed birth through age
five.
MR LACKEY said that is correct and the numbers can be broken
out.
CHAIR HOLLAND said that he wanted to make it clear that it was
not 17 programs and that there are 4,000 children. It is federal
funds that are important in Alaska.
CHAIR HOLLAND asked his staff to continue the sectional analysis
starting with AS 14.30.765(g) of Section 33.
10:19:44 AM
ED KING, Staff, Senator Roger Holland, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, suggested that it might be appropriate to just
finish reading the sectional and save the conversation for a
later date.
CHAIR HOLLAND said there would probably be another sectional
analysis for a committee substitute that will show up in the
future.
SENATOR BEGICH agreed with the approach but asked for more
details about page 30, AS 14.30.770, the issue of the five
participating schools each year. He would like more description
about what that process would look like.
MR. KING said that was coming up in the sectional analysis and
he could either expand directly on that or come back to it at
the end if there is time.
CHAIR HOLLAND said the committee could revisit that after the
sectional analysis.
10:21:07 AM
MR. KING continued the sectional for SB 111, beginning with AS
14.30.765(g) of Section 33:
Sec. 33 7/1/21 [Effective date] This section adds several
new sections of law related to reading intervention:
• AS 14.30.760 directs DEED to establish a statewide
reading assessment and screening tool to identify
students with reading deficiencies and establishes a
timeline in which assessments are conducted.
• AS 14.30.765(a) directs each school district to offer
intensive reading intervention services to K-3
students exhibiting a reading deficiency and
communicate with parents and guardians.
• AS 14.30.765(b) directs school districts to provide
individual reading improvement plans for K-3 students
exhibiting a reading deficiency and defines the plan's
components.
• AS 14.30.765(c) requires districts to notify a
student's parents that their child has demonstrated a
reading deficiency along with corresponding
information about remedying the deficiency.
• AS 14.30.765(d) outlines a procedure for communicating
which a child's parents about the potential need to
delay promotion to fourth grade.
• AS 14.30.765(e) sets out the factors which determine
if a child is ready for promotion to the fourth grade.
• AS 14.30.765(f) establishes a parental waiver to allow
a student to advance to fourth grade without reading
at grade level and requires an additional 20 hours of
summer intervention services.
• AS 14.30.765(g) directs the department to develop a
recognition program for improving reading skills.
• AS 14.30.765(h) establishes good cause exemptions for
delaying promotion.
• AS 14.30.765(h) outlines the process for requesting a
good cause exemption (disability, prior intervention,
and ESL).
• AS 14.30.765(i) sets forth the process for requesting
a good cause exemption.
• AS 14.30.765(j) requires that a child's parents
receive written notification that their child did not
demonstrate sufficient reading proficiency for
promotion to fourth grade.
• AS 14.30.765(k) directs the district to provide
additional intervention for students that do not
promote or promote with a good cause or parental
waiver.
• AS 14.30.765(l) establishes a policy for mid-year
promotion.
• AS 14.30.765(m) requires that a student promoting mid-
year continue the individual reading improvement plan.
• AS 14.30.765(n) limits retention to one year.
• AS 14.30.765(o) provide a definition for reading
teacher.
• AS 14.30.770 directs the department to establish a
statewide reading program, including five reading
specialists to assist selected schools.
• AS 14.30.775 provides definitions.
MR. KING said (h) has not been discussed but he hopes it will be
a conversation for a later date. He has a note for the potential
amendment for (j).
Sec. 34 7/1/26 [Effective date] Is a future amendment to AS
14.30.765(c), related to fourth grade promotion previously
added under section 33, which changes the delayed promotion
from a "should" to a "must," which takes effect on July 1,
2026 (see section 44).
Sec. 35 7/1/26 [Effective date] Is a future amendment to AS
14.30.765(e), related to fourth grade promotion previously
added under section 33, which changes the delayed promotion
from a "should" to a "must," which takes effect on July 1,
2026 (see section 44).
Sec. 36 7/1/21 [Effective date] Adds a new section of law,
AS 14.30.800, which establishes a virtual education
consortium. This consortium allows districts to offer
virtual access to student courses and professional
development courses through a statewide system hosted by
the department of education. This section also creates a
reading specialist position to remotely assist districts to
improve reading instruction.
Sec. 37 7/1/21 [Effective date] Adds "early education
program" to the definition of "organization" in AS
47.17.290, which pertains to the Department of Health and
Social Services.
Sec. 38 6/30/32 [Effective date] Repeals the following:
• AS 14.03.410 (early education funding added in section
10 of this bill).
• AS 14.03.420 (Parents-as-Teachers program added in
section 10 of this bill)
• AS 14.07.165(a)(5) (regulations establishing standards
for early education programs added by section 17 of
this bill).
• AS 14.17.905(d) (prohibition on including early
education students with other state or federal
funding, added by section 29 of this bill).
MR. KING said AS 14.07.165(a)(5) may be something the committee
does not want repealed.
10:24:27 AM
Sec. 39 6/30/28 [Effective date] Repeals AS 14.30.770
(reading intervention specialists added under section 33 of
this bill).
Sec. 40 7/1/21 [Effective date] Sets a deadline for the
department of education to complete the set-up of the
virtual education consortium by July 1, 2023.
Sec. 41 7/1/21 [Effective date] Applicability language
related to the reading instruction requirement added by
section 32 of this bill, which allows teachers with
preexisting teaching certificates until July 1, 2023 to
meet the new requirements.
MR. KING said he made a note of the discussion about including
all programs in the report in Section 42.
Sec. 42 7/1/21 [Effective date] Requires a report from DEED
to the legislature on the effectiveness of the reading
specialists added in section 33 not later than January 1,
2028, which allows the legislature to consider extending
the positions before they sunset on June 30, 2028.
MR. KING said that Section 43 directs DEED to use 2019-2020 as
the base year because of COVID complications.
Sec. 43 7/1/21 [Effective date] Directs DEED to use the
2019-2020 school year as the base year for the FY22 Early
education grants.
Sec. 44 Provides an effective date of July 1, 2026 for
sections 7, 24, 25, 26, 34, and 35.
Sec. 45 Provides an effective date of June 30, 2028 for
sections 12, 16, and 39.
Sec. 46 Provides an effective date of June 30, 2032 for
sections 3, 13, 22, 28, and 38. Sec. 47 Provides an
effective date of July 1, 2021 for all other sections.
MR. KING said he provided a handout with a graphic
representation of the sunset provisions.
SENATOR BEGICH referenced on page 30, the section of new law
that would be AS 14.30.770, department reading program, which is
eventually repealed. He noted that the way it is written now,
school districts with low-performing schools would compete again
each year for the grant program. There is no surety. He opined
that is perhaps a flaw with the process. There could be a single
competitive period of time, so a program can have a few years to
have effect. Otherwise, it is a race to the bottom. He asked the
chair to take a second look at how the program is conducted
under that section to ensure that it doesn't end just being the
poorest-performing districts fighting it out with each other
over which one will eventually get the money each given year. It
is a single-year grant as opposed to the other versions of this
bill, which said school districts would compete for the money
and then have a certain number of years to get the program up
and running with the necessary support. This time-limited
approach is wrong and bound to fail. That is what reports and
data will show.
SENATOR HUGHES said Section 44 is the strong promotion policy,
Section 45 is the repeal date for the reading specialists, and
Section 46 is about pre-K.
MR. KING replied that sounds correct.
SENATOR HUGHES referred to page 28, lines 3-5, of the bill. She
recalled working on this in previous versions of the bill. This
is the interim period before the strong promotion policy kicks
in. It recognizes the teachers, schools, and districts that are
increasing the percentage of students proficient in reading. She
asked if that has a repeal date when the strong promotion policy
kicks in or does it stay on forever.
MR. KING responded that there is no repeal of that provision.
SENATOR HUGHES said she is fine with that, but when it was
developed it was to encourage schools to get programs up and
running in those first four years.
MR. KING said to address Senator Begich's point, DEED would
employ five reading specialists and deploy them to schools that
win the grants. It is not a financial grant, it is a person who
goes to a school to teach the teachers how to teach reading. It
is a teach-the-teacher type of program. The idea is that those
are not permanent employees of the schools whose applications
are accepted. These are temporary employees who teach the
teachers how to teach and, hopefully, be successful and move on
to other schools.
SENATOR BEGICH said that he wrote this provision of the bill
with the exception of "may apply to participate in the reading
program again in the following school year," lines 24 and 25.
That means that these folks are being asked to compete for that
resource. They will apply to DEED each year and he is suggesting
a longer term
than a year.
10:33:45 AM
CHAIR HOLLAND held SB 111 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 111 testimony - Bob Griffin with APF.pdf |
SEDC 3/31/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 111 |
| SB 111 Version W effective date graphic.pdf |
SEDC 3/31/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 111 |
| SB 111 Fed Funding Graph.pdf |
SEDC 3/31/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 111 |
| SB 111 Federal Head Start Regulations.pdf |
SEDC 3/31/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 111 |