Legislature(2023 - 2024)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
01/24/2024 03:30 PM 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 | |
| SB192 | |
| Presentation: Alaska Native Language Literacy Update | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 192 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 192-SCREENING/READING INTERVENTION K-3
3:31:21 PM
CHAIR TOBIN announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 192"
An Act relating to screening reading deficiencies and providing
reading intervention services to public school students enrolled
in grades kindergarten through three."
This is the first hearing of SB 192.
3:32:05 PM
DEENA BISHOP, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED), Anchorage, Alaska, introduced SB 192 on
behalf of the administration:
I want to share that the [Alaska] Reads Act
requirement for screening assessments is paramount to
student learning, as curriculum-based measurements
provide information about the knowledge and skill base
of the student. They're important for determining the
most appropriate starting point for instruction, for
planning instructional groups, and for readjusting
instruction. These data are truly invaluable for
making good curriculum decisions. The data identify
those students who need intervention and the essential
reading skills to meet reading proficiency by third
grade, along with identifying those who show
characteristics of dyslexia.
The original language in the bill only required
students in K-3 in the fall to test that they met
proficiency. However, this bill proposes an amendment
to have students assessed three times a year, as per
best practices. The data help teachers, staff, and
leadership determine if the core curriculum is working
for students and if any necessary changes are needed.
As curriculum-based measures and those benchmarks are
dynamic throughout the year, meaning that the goalpost
gets higher as students learn, it is necessary to know
if students who meet the fall expectations continue to
meet those in the winter and the spring. Again, the
bar gets higher for each testing window as the
expectations for knowledge and skills in our students
increase throughout the year.
Finally, these data allow you to look at the student
relative to his or her peers in a classroom, school,
state, and, of course, around the nation. They're very
user-friendly and easy to report to parents, showing
progress or perhaps the need for intervention.
Additionally, we propose a change to the progression
decision for teachers to utilize the data at the end
of the year. While teachers may have a view of many
students' progress 45 days out from the end of the
year, it was requested to utilize the end-of-the-year
data in discussions about retention, especially for
those students who are right on the bubble of
proficiency progress. So, it doesn't disallow the use
for 45 days but gives you additional time to make
those very important and weighty decisions in
discussions with parents.
Through the feedback from school districts and
teachers over the last year, we propose these changes.
3:35:12 PM
DEBORAH RIDDLE, Operations Manager, Division of Innovation and
Education Excellence, Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED), Juneau, Alaska, provided the sectional
analysis for SB 192:
[Original punctuation provided.]
SB 192 Screening/Reading Intervention K-3
Sectional Analysis
"An Act relating to screening reading deficiencies and
providing reading intervention services to public
school students enrolled in grades kindergarten
through three."
Section 1:
Amends AS 14.30.760 Statewide screening and support
paragraph (a) by removing language that only required
students in grades K-3 to take the statewide literacy
screener once in the fall if they met the proficiency
benchmark on the first try. By having all students
take the screener three times a year educators and
parents can track progress throughout the year. It
also allows for progress monitoring to inform
additional instruction to increase reading skills
beyond just proficiency.
Section 2:
Amends AS 14.30.765 Reading intervention services and
strategies; progression paragraph (f) by adjusting the
date of the meeting between parents, the teacher, and
other pertinent district staff to discuss whether a
third-grade student is ready for grade four. The
adjustment is from 45 days from the end of the school
year to 15 days. By changing this timeframe, data from
the third administration of the statewide literacy
screener can be used in the conversation. This
additional information allows the parents to make a
more informed decision regarding their child's
education and better reflects the overall learning
levels of students at the end of the grade level.
3:36:07 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked for an explanation of parental involvement
knowing retaining students is possible.
3:36:34 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP replied that if a student is far below
proficiency or below proficiency, an Individual Reading
Improvement Plane (IRIP) is made. Teachers are required by law
to have a discussion with parents each time students take an
assessment. The beginning, middle, and end of the year
assessments provide data points for teachers to use in creating
instructional groups and monitor progress.
3:37:39 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked if parents are given feedback and
instruction on how to help their child at least three times a
year before their child reaches 4th grade.
3:37:54 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP replied absolutely. The meeting comes with
discussion in the IRIP to share what the school will do for the
student, as well as ideas for parents. Checks and balances along
with communication is what DEED desires. IRIPs are time
consuming but powerful tools for opening teacher-parent-student
dialog.
3:38:33 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked about the 15-day timeline. He stated during
the legislative session it was difficult for teachers to contact
him. He opined that 15 days before the end of the school year is
a short window of time to contact busy parents.
3:39:43 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP replied that she would understand parents
having concern about the 15-day timeline if it were the only
conversation that occurred. However, she emphasized that if a
student is significantly behind, discussions about retention are
ongoing throughout the year. These discussions are part of the
individualized reading plan (IRIP) process, which is mandatory
when students are far below the expected level. She noted that
conversations also occur at the beginning and middle of the
year, so parents are already aware of their child's status and
options.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP explained that while the 15-day notice might
seem short, it is not the only time parents are informed.
Teachers utilize data from various points in the year, including
the springtime data, to make decisions about retention. She
highlighted that teachers prefer to continue teaching and
updating parents using the most recent data, rather than relying
solely on mid-year assessments.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP acknowledged the concern but clarified that
the law requires multiple opportunities for discussions about
student progress and potential retention throughout the year,
not just within the 15-day period before the end of the year.
3:42:33 PM
SENATOR KIEHL replied that Commissioner Bishop's description of
the process is great and acknowledged it is the ideal scenario
everyone aims for. However, he noted that as he reads the
language in SB 192, it is based on the spring screening and is
unamended. He requested a follow-up from the Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED) to clarify how the
schedule will work based on the spring screening, as this is the
language currently proposed in the law.
3:43:09 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN asked if "days" are defined as school days or
calendar days.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP replied that although the law does not
define the term, she believes that "days" should be interpreted
as school days. She has had discussions with staff and thinks
educators should be provided with time during the school day to
have these discussions; "days" exclude weekends.
3:43:51 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN responded that 45 days aligns with the end of
the third quarter, approximately a month from now in Juneau
schools. He noted that 15 days would be about three weeks before
the end of the school year. He mentioned that in his experience,
retention conversations typically occur as Commissioner Bishop
described. However, he pointed out that retention is rarely
considered because studies show poor outcomes and significant
pressure from families against it.
SENATOR BJORKMAN asked how retention conversations currently
happen at the elementary level and how they might change if this
law were to go into effect.
3:45:28 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP replied that communication is key and noted
that progress reports are provided regularly, whether in high
school or elementary school. She explained that updates are
given quarterly to parents about students' progress in all
grades. According to the Alaska Reads Act, there is a mandatory
contract with parents called the individualized improvement
plan, detailing the additional services the school will provide
to children who fall below the expected mark and may not have
the necessary reading skills by third grade. These discussions
start in kindergarten, although the trigger for non-progression
is the transition from third to fourth grade.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP stated that students in the school system
have these conversations three times a year as part of the
individualized reading plan and through data reports generated
by the screener. The screener includes a parent newsletter that
shares student progress and additional support information. She
clarified that the requested change does not mean conversations
will only happen at the end of the year or within 15 days.
Instead, it ensures that the screener is used as one aspect in
determining retention.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP noted that teachers felt data from December
may not fully represent a child's progress by May or February.
They wanted to use end-of-year data to make more informed
decisions about retention and have discussions with parents if
they foresee a child may not need to stay back. She emphasized
that the current law requires these conversations to take place,
but they seek to use the most recent data for decision-making.
She acknowledged the difficulty of these conversations and
referenced research on the support and opposition to retention.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP also mentioned that if a parent chooses to
promote a child despite being significantly below the expected
level, the law mandates 20 hours of summer school as a
requirement for moving to the next grade level. She concluded by
reiterating that the schools are requesting to use end-of-year
data, not just winter data, to make informed retention
decisions, noting that the spring testing window finishes on May
1 or May 2.
3:49:05 PM
BJORKMAN asked if it is correct that DEED is discussing a
timeline requirement for an initial discussion to happen with a
parent about possible retention.
3:49:26 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP replied that is not correct. What they are
discussing is the final recommendation. She explained that
through the IRIP, which occurs three times a year for students
who are far below, the discussion about retention has already
happened. Parents are informed that retention may be a possible
outcome if students are not making progress.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP said the current request is to utilize the
spring data, which is the final data, to have a final discussion
15 school days before the end of the school year. The initial
discussion typically happens in September when the first IRIP is
designed and written with the student. Parents are given three
opportunities to engage through the official IRIPs, as well as
through additional progress monitoring. The IRIPs are mandated
by law, so this would be the third and final discussion.
3::38 PM
KATHY MOFFIT, Director, Division of Innovation and Education
Excellence, Department of Education and Early Development
(DEED), Anchorage, Alaska, shared that yesterday DEED received a
call from a principal who said the IRIP has stimulated the best
communication with parents that the school has seen. She
articulated that there were 22 IRIPs written at the beginning of
the year, and by the middle of the year, only four remained, as
the rest of the students had achieved a different level of
proficiency.
MS. MOFFIT emphasized that this does not mean teachers stop
monitoring progress. She also mentioned that ongoing
communication is required, which she believes is mandated ten
times throughout the year. She highlighted the power of the
Alaska Reads Act, emphasizing its focus on ongoing
communication. The principal noted that parents appreciate this
communication, are asking how they can help, and are actively
involved in their child's education, which is making a
difference.
3:51:47 PM
SENATOR TOBIN said that, as someone who worked closely on this
legislation, she wanted to provide context for why it was
written in its current form. Two sections were heavily discussed
with an education stakeholder group. She suggested
reconstituting this group before making any changes to the
legislation to ensure a transparent and robust public policy
approach. Key stakeholders included the National Education
Association (NEA), advocates for reading fluency and dyslexia,
and Commissioner Johnson, who was involved in dialogues with
Senator Begich.
CHAIR TOBIN emphasized the importance of elevating educator
discretion and minimizing classroom time spent on various
standardized assessments, which could reduce critical contact
hours. Regarding section one, she noted that the initial
assessment should allow educator discretion, but the chosen
assessment might not be fulfilling its intended purpose. She
suggested reviewing and potentially amending the process to
align with the original public record.
CHAIR TOBIN stated the second piece concerns the 45-day mark and
the need for parental involvement and engagement. Despite
sending multiple notifications, some parents might not engage in
the process. The 45-day letter serves as a crucial step to
prompt parental participation, stressing the importance of their
involvement to avoid difficult decisions. This timeframe also
allows for summer program engagement if necessary. She proposed
re-engaging stakeholders to collaboratively improve the
legislation and extended an invitation for their involvement.
3:54:02 PM
CHAIR TOBIN held SB 192 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| DEED Alaska Native Language Literacy Update 01.24.2024.pdf |
SEDC 1/24/2024 3:30:00 PM |
Reading |
| SB 192 Version A 01.18.2024.pdf |
SEDC 1/24/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 192 |
| SB 192 Sectional Analysis 01.18.24.pdf |
SEDC 1/24/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 192 |
| SB 192 Fiscal Note - EED-SSA 01.18.2024.pdf |
SEDC 1/24/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 192 |
| SB 192 Senate Education Hearing Request 1.18.2024.pdf |
SEDC 1/24/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 192 |