Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
04/14/2021 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 | |
| *+ | SJR 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
April 14, 2021
9:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Roger Holland, Chair
Senator Gary Stevens, Vice Chair
Senator Shelley Hughes
Senator Tom Begich
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Peter Micciche
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
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."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 10
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska relating to in-person public education.
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 111
SHORT TITLE: EARLY EDUCATION; READING INTERVENTION
SPONSOR(s): EDUCATION
03/24/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/24/21 (S) EDC, FIN
03/26/21 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/26/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/26/21 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
03/29/21 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/29/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/29/21 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
03/31/21 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/31/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/31/21 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
04/07/21 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/07/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/09/21 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/09/21 (S) Heard & Held
04/09/21 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
04/10/21 (S) EDC AT 10:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/10/21 (S) Heard & Held
04/10/21 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
04/12/21 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/12/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/14/21 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
ED KING, Staff
Senator Roger Holland
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained the changes in the committee
substitute for SB 111.
NOAH KLEIN, Counsel
Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about the committee
substitute for SB 111.
TOM KLAAMEYER, President
NEA-Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke about the importance of early
childhood education and concerns about sunset provisions in SB
111.
NORM WOOTEN, Director of Advocacy
Association of Alaska School Boards
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 111.
ACTION NARRATIVE
9:03:03 AM
CHAIR ROGER HOLLAND called the Senate Education Standing
Committee meeting to order at 9:03 a.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Begich, Hughes, Stevens, and Chair Holland.
SB 111-EARLY EDUCATION; READING INTERVENTION
9:03:30 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 noted the committee substitute and solicited a
motion.
9:03:40 AM
SENATOR STEVENS moved to adopt the work draft committee
substitute (CS) for SB 111, work order 32-LS0485\O, as the
working document.
9:03:54 AM
CHAIR HOLLAND objected for purposes of discussion and asked Mr.
King to explain the changes in the committee substitute.
9:04:07 AM
ED KING, Staff, Senator Roger Holland, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, advised that there were substantial changes in
the draft before the committee.
Section 1: No changes.
Section 2: A new section to clarify ambiguity around day-
in-session requirements for under school age students,
which replaces "all other grades" with "grades four through
12" (page 2, line 10). Note: day-in-session requirements
for early education and kindergarten appear in section 20.
MR. KING said the phrase "all other grades" could have been
interpreted to include kindergarten and early elementary
considered grades and therefore subject to the five-hour
requirement. This addresses that ambiguity.
Section 3: No changes from previous section 2.
Section 4: No changes from previous section 3.
Section 5: On page 3, related to early reading information
for parents, version O inserts "culturally responsive"
(line 2) and changed the word "retention" to "progression"
(line 5).
SENATOR BEGICH noted that only two sections of the bill have the
plural "parents and guardians." Everywhere else it is singular.
He said he is waiting for a response from Legislative Legal and
acknowledges it may be a typo.
MR. KING replied that did come up in a conversation with the
drafter and he was available to respond to the question.
SENATOR BEGICH asked about the variation between singular and
plural references.
9:07:16 AM
NOAH KLEIN, Counsel, Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency,
Juneau, Alaska, said he did not change it because it is existing
law and he thought the chance of any ambiguity was slim.
However, the reference could be changed to the singular.
SENATOR BEGICH said he just wondered why it was not consistent.
MR. KING added that if the plural "students" was used, then the
plural was used for "parents" and "guardians."
SENATOR BEGICH said that makes sense.
MR. KING explained that because the repeals were expanded, some
new sections were needed for conforming purposes.
Section 6: A new reverting section to conform to the
2032 repeal of AS 14.30.765.
Section 7: Added an annual report for the parents-as-
teachers program (located on page 4, lines 25-28).
Section 8: A new reverting section to conform to the
2032 repeal of AS 14.30.760 14.30.775, which deletes
the reporting requirements for reading intervention
and parents as teachers.
Section 9: No changes from previous section 6.
Section 10: Amends AS 14.03.080(c), related to access
for under school age children, whereas section 7 of
version O amended AS 14.03.080(d) and added a new
subsection (g). This change allows school districts to
determine if a four- or five-year-old student should
be placed in an early education or kindergarten
program.
MR. KING said Section 10 is more substantial. In existing law,
subsection (c) exists as a way for the school districts to
approve under school-age children for kindergarten programs. The
school age is defined in statute as ages 6-18, so under school
age is four and five in this context. Adding early education
programs includes four-year-olds in the conversation about
under-school age children. Existing law, section (d), says five-
year-olds can go to kindergarten. Version W of SB 111 added
another subsection which said four- and five-year-olds could go
to early education. There was still ambiguity about when a child
would go to early education and when to kindergarten. The
committee substitute amends subsection (c) so that it is clear
that four- and five-year-old children can participate in either
early education programs or kindergarten at the discretion of
the district on which is more appropriate. Subsection (d) was
removed from law and subsection (g) was not added in version W
of SB 111. The two changes to subsection (c) make it clear that
the bill is talking about four- and five-year-olds and not
three-year-olds and younger. It also makes it clear that four-
year-olds in an early childhood program can continue when five
if they are not prepared to go to kindergarten.
MR. KING continued explaining the changes.
Section 11: New reverting section of the changes in
section 10 to align the sunset of all programs.
Section 12: This section has a 2032 effective date, to
bring back the language from the current AS
14.03.080(d) if the provisions revert to current
language. (d) is no longer necessary due to the
changes in subsection (c).
9:12:29 AM
SENATOR BEGICH said Sections 11 and 12 are connected because
they revert Section 10. Section 12 is "a child who is five years
of age on or before September 1 following the beginning of the
school year, and who is under school age, may enter a public
school kindergarten." He asked if after the sunset, this
precludes a four-year-old from attending kindergarten.
MR. KING suggested looking at these three sections together.
Section 12 reinserts current law, subsection (d), which is the
law today about five-year-olds entering kindergarten. If the
sunset provisions take effect, subsection (g) would now become
what is subsection (d). If all these sections in the bill were
to take effect, everything would return to the way it is today.
In so far as a four-year-old is currently not able to go to
kindergarten, that will be the law if the sunsets take effect.
It reverts to the law today.
SENATOR BEGICH said that under current law a four-year-old could
go to kindergarten. That is not the admission age, but they
could go to kindergarten. He asked if this would completely
remove that option.
MR. KING answered that if all sections were to take effect in
2032 with all the repeals, the law in 2032 will be identical to
law as it exists today. To the extent that a four-year-old can
go to school today, it will be the same.
SENATOR BEGICH said he was having trouble seeing that.
9:14:56 AM
SENATOR HUGHES said she was unsure at times if Mr. King was
saying "enable" or "unable." She thought there was a provision
where children who are four could be assessed to see if they are
ready for school, both now and in 2032, if this goes into
effect.
MR. KING replied that under current law, subsection (d), a child
of five can enter public school kindergarten. There is nothing
in existing law about a four-year-old. Subsection (c), as it
exists today under current law, says a district can allow any
under age child to enter whatever program the district approves.
If there is an interpretation that that includes four-year-olds
today, that same interpretation should apply in the future.
SENATOR HUGHES asked if SB 111 has a provision about an
assessment for a child.
MR. KING said that yes, AS 14.03.080(c) exists in current law.
The governing body of the school district can decide if a child
meets the minimum standard set by the board evidencing that the
child has the mental, physical, and emotional capacity to
perform satisfactorily for the educational program being
offered. That is existing law and that same law will exist in
the future. The fact that subsection (d) currently calls out a
five-year-old specifically may create ambiguity about whether a
four-year-old is able to attend a kindergarten program. Perhaps
Mr. Klein can answer that question. The point is that when all
of these subsections take effect, things go back to where they
are today. To the extent that a four-year-old can enter
kindergarten today, that should return. If the bill were to pass
with the language that is being changed, it specifically does
say that four- and five-year-olds are able to kindergarten if
that is the program the parents are applying for.
CHAIR HOLLAND said that should the repeals take effect, the law
returns to Section 10 without the parts in bold. That will allow
a child under school age to continue to be admitted as they have
in the past.
SENATOR BEGICH said that under current law, there is section
(d). This bill creates a Section 12, which recreates (d) and
(g), but it never deleted section (d) and that is where it got
confusing. AS 14.03.080(d) is the same language as in Section
12, but it is not being repealed.
MR. KING said the repeal of that law is in the back of the bill.
CHAIR HOLLAND asked Mr. Klein to weigh in.
SENATOR BEGICH advised that it is page 38, line 12, Section 40.
9:19:21 AM
MR. KLEIN said Section 40 repeals AS 14.03.080(d) and it comes
back as (g), only because that conforms to the drafting process.
When enacting a new subsection, even though it was the exact
same language, it is just reenacted as (g) and the revisor of
statute will reorder subsections if necessary. Section 12 of the
bill is identical to what is being repealed in Section 40 of the
bill.
SENATOR BEGICH said he understood.
SENATOR HUGHES said that last year her version of the bill had a
piece where DEED would have an assessment that a younger child
would have to pass in order to get in. Now a superintendent can
set the criteria and decide if child can get in. She asked if
there is a reason not to have an assessment to make sure a child
is ready.
MR. KING said that during the discussion of the drafting of
subsection (d) in the previous version of the bill, it seemed to
be recreating law that was already present in subsection (c) and
rather than have two statutes with similar but not identical
language, he felt that subsection (c) has that language about an
assessment of a child. Page 6, beginning on line 21, talks about
minimum standards.
CHAIR HOLLAND asked Senator Hughes if that was resolved.
SENATOR HUGHES replied that she sees minimum standards
prescribed by the board on page 6. She asked if that was a local
board or the State Board of Education.
MR. KING deferred to Mr. Klein.
MR. KLEIN answered that he will get back with the answer.
SENATOR BEGICH pointed out that both SB 8 and SB 42 had the
phrase that a school district may waive the requirement to the
subsection for a child who achieves a passing grade or score on
an assessment approved by the department. He said Mr. King is
suggesting that this section takes care of that, but he agrees
with Senator Hughes. He assumes that the board is the local
school district board, not the State Board of Education. It is a
relatively minor point that could be discussed offline.
SENATOR HUGHES said that could be a minor or a major policy call
because there might be a lack of consistency across school
boards about readiness. If legislators want children to be
successful in early literacy K-3, children coming from the same
starting point would be helpful. This allows too much
subjectivity. She would rather see it be the state board.
CHAIR HOLLAND said he made a note of that for possible amendment
for clarification.
9:24:55 AM
MR. KING continued with Section 13.
Section 13: Subparagraphs (E), (F) and (G) from
version W (page 5, lines 11-17) were deleted to
conform to the broader local control provided in
section 14 of version O. References to "retention"
were also replaced with "progression" (version O page
8, lines 3-6).
SENATOR BEGICH asked why the reading portfolio and the other
alternative screening options identified in SB 8 and SB 42 were
eliminated. They were alternative ways of meeting the criteria.
9:26:06 AM
MR. KING referred to page 28, lines 26-27 of version O,
subsection (e). Version W of SB 111 specifically said that the
standard for whether a child was ready for promotion was the
assessment or an alternative assessment, including a portfolio.
Some districts said that a hard line, high-stakes test, even
with the alternatives, may not meet the district needs or
standards for promotion. Subsection (e) allows districts to
develop a policy, which include a test and alternatives to the
test. The prescriptive language was removed and it is left to
districts to develop their policies. Therefore, there is no
reference to those alternative standards, which is why
subparagraphs in Section 13 have been removed.
9:27:09 AM
SENATOR HUGHES asked if that was a request from an education
group.
MR. KING replied the chair's office got feedback from Dr. Lisa
Parady [[Executive Director of the Alaska Council of School
Administrators] that other states with retention policies
usually have policies that are more expansive to measure whether
a child is ready to be promoted. The chair's office decided
districts could develop policy that could measure whether a
child does have the skills required to progress to the next
grade. He said he would expect that it relies heavily on the
assessment, but this allows more latitude to districts to
incorporate other measures besides just an assessment, so the
assessment is not quite as high stakes.
9:28:04 AM
CHAIR HOLLAND added that the concern that a single test for
advancement was high stakes, high pressure.
SENATOR HUGHES said that she doesn't see that because it allowed
a portfolio. That could be multiple things, including a child in
a reading group reading aloud and answering questions. It was
not that one pressure point. Like with [kindergarten] entrance,
this is leaving it wide open. One district may be equipping
students to move on to the next grade and another district may
not. Considering the school funding and accountability to
legislators, she would rather have a standard and go back to the
portfolio, which provides plenty of leeway and is not high
stakes and not high pressure. Now the policy could include
measures that are not related to learning objectives. She is
concerned that this has been left wide open when the committee
is trying to help students across the entire state. It is a
policy call for the committee and an important discussion to
have.
SENATOR BEGICH said he could go either way if the committee were
chose to go back to the old language in version W, page 5, lines
11-15. He said he was moved by the idea of having a consistent
standard across the state. That has a lot to do with
conversations he had with the commissioner and governor. He also
understands the school districts' desire for flexibility. He
would like to hear from Dr. Parady about why the changes are
needed, but he is leaning more toward Senator Hughes' position
and the language that was in version W regarding the portfolio
and alternative screenings.
CHAIR HOLLAND said he made a note on that.
MR. KING pointed out that there is existing law, AS 14.03.016,
which is not in the bill. That law effectively says that a
parent who doesn't want a child to take an assessment has the
right to opt out of the assessment. Even if an assessment is the
standard, there is no requirement that a test be taken.
CHAIR HOLLAND clarified that is because of existing law.
SENATOR HUGHES suggested the existing law may need to be
adjusted and perhaps refer to a portfolio instead of an
assessment. In that regard it is a particular, one-time test.
9:31:59 AM
At ease
9:34:14 AM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting said the committee will
probably revisit Section 13 to look at inserting portfolio.
SENATOR HUGHES said that her suggestion would be to consider
focusing on portfolio proficiency language rather than
assessment language.
MR. KING said there were changes throughout Section 14.
Section 14: This section correlates to section 10 of
version W, which establishes the early education
programs. A few changes were made to AS 14.03.410 as
follows:
• was collapsed into a single subsection.
• A $3M annual limit to grant funding was added to (b).
• (c) was changed from specific years of eligibility to
a broader grant programs subject to the funding limit
added under (b). There is also added language
requiring coordination with other early education
programs to be eligible.
• (d) was streamlined by moving the transition language
on page 6, lines 19-24 of version W to page 39, lines
22-25 of version O.
• (e)and (f) have conforming reference changes (page 9,
lines 7,8, and 19).
• In (h), the definition of "early education program"
has a format change without changing the meaning (page
9, lines 17-19).
• No changes were made to AS 14.03.420 (parents-as-
teachers).
SENATOR BEGICH said the Finance Committees are looking at what
amount of pre-K grants will be available for this year. The
number out of the other body is the current $3.2 million for the
ongoing grants the state has been doing and an additional $5
million. The [Senate] Finance Education Subcommittee has been
somewhere within that range. The number could exceed $3 million
and will be based on what is appropriated.
9:36:35 AM
CHAIR HOLLAND shared that his office received a request to
consider pushing the start date for the bill back one year and
so everything would cascade back, so he is not sure how that
would affect the funding levels available this year.
SENATOR BEGICH said it probably would not.
MR. KING said that if it is the committee's intent that these
grants replace the existing grants, then it would be advisable
for the Finance Committee to advise how to transition from one
program to the other.
MR. KING said another change in subsection (c) is about trying
to create efficiencies with existing Head Starts to address the
testimony about when a district already has a Head Start or
another program that meets the local need. If it is the
committee's intent, the language says that the department should
not issue a grant to a district where there isn't need for an
additional pre-K program. The intent is to create efficiencies
and not to compete with federal programs, so that the state does
not lose federal dollars or any other program.
9:38:10 AM
SENATOR BEGICH said it creates the mistaken impression of
equating universal, quality pre-K with either childcare or Head
Start programs. The bill notes that the program must exceed the
standards adopted by the board. He has asked Legislative Legal
to make sure it is not in any way weakening the intent of the
bill. He will have that legal opinion to share. He asked if Mr.
King, with the discussion of (b), was implying that it would
reduce the number of pre-K grants available from the current
$3.2 million to $3 million under this bill if it is done a year
later.
MR. KING said he intended to say that if it is the intent of the
legislature, this pre-K program would replace the other one. He
acknowledged there might be a need for language that indicates
that, along with how to transition from one program to the
other. The bill does not currently address that issue. If that
is the intent of the legislature, it is currently lacking, he
said.
9:39:29 AM
SENATOR BEGICH pointed out that if the committee kept the
language at $3 million and the intent was to replace the
existing pre-K grants, it would be a reduction in pre-K and not
any kind of increase, which he would not support.
CHAIR HOLLAND said that he believed that Senator Begich had
suggested that the transition would be something the Finance
Committee would cover and that committee would probably expand
it to $3.2 million to cover it with no gap.
SENATOR HUGHES said she understands that the committee does not
want to bump out any federal funds for Head Start, but as a mom,
she would want pre-K to meet these high standards. She asked if
a community does not have enough need to start a pre-K program
in addition to a Head Start, could the Head Start be given the
first option to serve the community if it meets the standards.
If the Head Start opted not to, the districts could have a pre-K
that meets the standards, which could threaten Head Start. But
the point is to have programs that meet these standards. The
committee heard that the local boards of Head Start have the
freedom and ability to set their own requirements. Those boards
could step up and have programs that meet the standards in SB
111. If they didn't, then they could be in a tough spot, but
that would be their choice. She asked if there is any way to
give Head Start first dibs.
9:41:47 AM
CHAIR HOLLAND reminded the committee that Head Start works
beyond the age group the committee is talking about for pre-K.
The evaluation would be if four- and five-year-olds are removed
from Head Start, would the remaining population be sufficient to
sustain a Head Start.
SENATOR HUGHES said she is only talking about the four- and
five-year olds in Head Start, not any three-year-olds.
CHAIR HOLLAND said that Head Start does start at six weeks, so
serves a much broader population than the pre-K program.
SENATOR BEGICH said he agrees with Senator Hughes. He is
interested in high-quality educational experiences for kids who
are then going into the K-12 system and so is Senator Hughes. He
is not inclined to accommodate entities that are not providing
that experience, but he recognizes the difference in the age
groups. Head Start could meet the standards for four- and five-
year-olds, not the prior ages. This language was intended to do
that by saying it won't be considered unless they meet this
standard. He thinks it did accommodate the question that Senator
Hughes asked of the Head Start director, which was whether Head
Start would be willing to apply a higher standard and then it
would become the pre-K program. The committee is not trying to
support a program, but the standards of quality pre-K.
9:44:14 AM
SENATOR HUGHES said her concern is that if a district wants a
pre-K program to meet the standard and if there is a Head Start
program in the community and the Head Start chooses to meet the
standard, and that is great. If they chose not to, she asked if
that would prevent the district from starting a high-standard,
pre-K program. She asked if the bill allows a district to do
that.
MR. KING replied that was the intent of the language. If the
standard is being met, then there is not sufficient need and the
grant should not be approved. However, if whatever program being
offered does not meet the standard, then there is indication of
need, and the district should be allowed to get a grant to
develop a high-quality program. That is his understanding of the
language that is written and that was the intent of the language
as the chair's office requested it.
9:45:20 AM
SENATOR BEGICH said he asked Legislative Legal that question.
MR. KING continued describing the changes.
Section 15: No changes to previous section 11.
Section 16: Has conforming changes to account for the
new 2032 repeal of AS 14.30.765. This section is the
combination of the previous sections 12 and 13 - now
that the repeal dates are aligned.
Section 17: No changes to the previous section 14.
Section 18: No changes to the previous section 15.
Section 19: Expands the reverting language on page 16,
lines 17-20 to account for the new repeal of AS
14.30.765 (reading intervention services).
Section 20: Changes were made to the board regulation
requirements for quality early education programs
under AS 14.07.165(a), including:
• (5)(A) was amended to better describe "federal
standards" and delete the reference to AS 14.03.040
(day-in-session requirements) [Page 17, lines 2-5 of
version O, page 17, lines 6-9 in version W].
• (5)(E) was added, which requires the board to develop
day-in-session requirements for early education (page
17, lines 24-25).
• (6) is a new paragraph to clarify day-in-session
requirements for kindergarten students (page 17, lines
26-27).
9:47:17 AM
MR. KING said Section 20 has two meaningful changes.
Subparagraph (A) in version W required the standards to meet
federal standards and the day-in-session requirements. To make
it clear that early education programs are not a grade and that
the board has discretion over creating regulations for those
day-in-session requirements, that requirement is created in
subparagraph (E) and is removed from subparagraph (A). The
federal standards that were not defined in version W are now
better defined in version O to indicate that the intent is that
the board look to the federal Head Start performance standards
and should the federal standards change with funding attached to
that, the board should also look to those federal standards.
CHAIR HOLLAND clarified, and Mr. King affirmed, that the board
here is the State Board of Education.
SENATOR BEGICH said he was still unsatisfied as to the quality
of the federal Head Start program guidelines. He does not think
they reach the standard, which is why he is so pleased to see
(b) and (c) in here. He recognizes why the bill had section (a)
in the first place, which was to protect Head Start, to make
sure that at the very basic levels it met federal requirements.
This clarifies that and makes it clearer that is the case. This
does not diminish the high-quality level. It is actually a
challenge to Head Start to meet that level of quality.
MR. KING said the new paragraph (6) in Section 20 requires the
board to develop standards for day-in-session for kindergarten,
which is lacking in current law.
MR. KING continued with Section 21.
Section 21: No changes to previous section 18.
Section 22: A new reverting section to account for the
2032 repeal of AS 14.30.800 (virtual education
consortium).
Section 23: Version O replaced the reference to "the
five components of evidenced-based reading instruction
identified by the National Reading Panel" with
"phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development,
reading fluency, oral language skills, and reading
comprehension" (page 19, lines 7-8).
Section 24: No changes to previous section 20.
Section 25: No changes to previous section 21.
Section 26: No changes to previous section 22.
Section 27: The carryforward sections 24 and 25 from
version W were collapsed and adjusted so that the
allowable balance immediately increases to 25% and
allows additional carryforward with approval (page 19,
line 30 through page 20, line 2).
Section 28: Replaces the previous section 26 with a
cleaner policy for approving carryforward balances
greater than 25% (page 20, lines 9-17).
MR. KING said there was considerable confusion about Section 27
in version W. Version O tries to clarify the process for
carryforward. Section 27 allows for an immediate effective date
so that school districts are able to carry up to 25 percent of
their operating funds into the next fiscal year, up from 10
percent now. It also provides a provision for situations when
districts have additional carryover funds, be it federal funds
or savings from operational efficiencies; there is a process for
the district to offer a plan to use those funds in a way that
DEED finds proper. Under current law, if those carryforward
funds exist, the state aid to that district would be diminished
by a like amount. Allowing a district to carryover additional
funds does come at an expense to the state, so DEED is
responsible for ensuring that the public funds are well used.
Section 28 is the explicit process for the department to approve
a plan brought to them.
MR. KING continued with Section 29.
Section 29: No changes to previous section 27.
Section 30: No changes to previous section 28.
Section 31: Added the $3M funding increase limit from
section 14 (page 21, lines 27-29).
MR. KING said the idea behind the change in Section 31 was to
address the situation of too many programs approved with not
enough funding available. This language was intended to give
more latitude, but the chair's office is in discussion with
Legislative Legal about an amendment to make the process
clearer.
SENATOR BEGICH said he will wait to see that.
Section 32: Changes the evidence-based reading
instruction requirements for preliminary teaching
certificates to match the requirements for regular
teaching certificates (page 22, lines 2-7 in version O
vs. page 21, lines 22-28 in version W).
MR. KING said the change for Section 32 brings consistency to
the language between regular and preliminary certificates, so
the language for regular certificates was inserted into the
reference to preliminary certificates. That way the language is
the same.
9:53:57 AM
SENATOR HUGHES said the committee had heard from Mississippi
that it requires testing [for initial certificates]. Legislators
would get pushback on this because it is major policy, but she
asked if changing "or" to "and" on page 22, line 4, would be
similar to what Mississippi is doing.
MR. KING answered that change indicates someone needs to conduct
the three components of coursework, training, and testing. He
said it is a policy call.
CHAIR HOLLAND said that does not necessarily match what
Mississippi is doing.
SENATOR HUGHES said that was her question, whether Mississippi
has training and testing requirements or just a testing
requirement.
MR. KING answered that he does not know.
9:54:46 AM
SENATOR HUGHES said she has mentioned that someone can take
however many credits without necessarily mastering a topic with
a C- or a D. Whether the state has a testing or GPA requirement
for that course, she is concerned about having a range of how
well prepared teachers are. She asked if the state will wait and
let the first group of students suffer or will the state say
right out of the gate teachers must receive a certain score in
the training. Her preference is to hold teachers to a high
standard. The students will be held to a high standard. The
teachers should be held to a high standard, and the university
programs for teachers, public, private, or from out of state
should also. Once Mississippi had a testing requirement [for
initial licensure], all of a sudden, the private and public
schools rose to the occasion. She would like the committee to
consider that. If the state has to do that in a few years, then
it is not doing the best for students in the beginning of the
program.
9:56:35 AM
CHAIR HOLLAND opined that the committee is doing better.
SENATOR HUGHES replied absolutely.
MR. KING continued describing the changes.
Section 33: New reverting section to ensure
consistency in repealing provisions.
Section 34: No changes to previous section 31.
Section 35: The reference to evidence-based reading
instruction in section 32 of version W was replaced
with the words "phonemic awareness, phonics,
vocabulary development, reading fluency, oral language
skills, and reading comprehension."
Section 36: This section correlates to section 33 of
version W, related to reading intervention. There are
several changes in version O, including:
• AS 14.30.760(a)(4) of version O is new language, which
requires data collection based on the source of early
education participation (page 24, line 26 through page
25, line 1).
• AS 14.30.760(b)(5) is added in version O to assure the
screenings are culturally responsive (page 25, line
5).
• AS 14.30.765(a)(10) was added to encourage more
parental engagement (page 26, lines 22- 24).
• AS 14.30.765(b)(7) was added to ensure the individual
reading plans are culturally responsive (page 27, line
12).
• AS 14.30.765(b)(8) was added to encourage more
parental engagement (page 27, lines 13- 15).
• AS 14.30.765(c)(7) was adjusted for K-2 students to
align with the changes in (d) (page 28, lines 3-5).
• AS 14.30.765(c)(10) was added to make mid-year
promotion a clear option if a student does not
progress (page 28, lines 12-13).
• AS 14.30.765(d) was adjusted to make the process
discussing delayed progression for K-2 students
clearer (page 28, lines 14-25).
• AS 14.30.765(e) was adjusted to give more local
control to fourth grade promotion policies (page 28,
lines 26-27 in version O vs. page 27, lines 14-22 in
version W).
• AS 14.30.765(f) was adjusted to focus on fourth grade
promotion (page 28, line 28 through page 29, line 12).
• AS 14.30.765(h) and (i) shifted responsibilities from
the school board to the superintendent (page 29, line
16 and page 30, lines 4-6).
• AS 14.30.765(j) was changed to provide a remedy
opportunity if a child is retained without the
parent's involvement (page 30, lines 9-20 in version O
vs. page 28, line 28 through page 29 line 10 in
version W).
• AS 14.30.765(l) in version O is new language to
account for the different promotion policies for K-2
students versus third grade and encourages mid-year
promotion as a plan (page 31, lines 10-13).
• AS 14.30.765(o) limits district initiated delayed
progression to one year (page 31, lines 23- 26).
• AS 14.30.770(a)(10) was expanded to require better
data tracking over time so that a well-informed
decision regarding continuing programs after 2032 can
be made (page 33, lines 23- 29).
• Throughout AS 14.30.765 and 14.30.770, references to
written communication were expanded to include oral
notification and references to the components of
evidence-based reading instruction were aligned with
the definition in AS 14.30.775(2).
• Sections 34 and 35 from version W were deleted.
9:57:30 AM
MR. KING explained that AS 14.30.760(a)(4) is an attempt to be
consistent with that robust reporting requirement that the
committee had discussed previously. This enters a data
collection point to have the information necessary to make a
good data analysis of the effectiveness of the program.
SENATOR BEGICH said he was the one who kept bringing up robust
reporting as opposed to sunsetting the bill. He was suggesting
the department develop the robust language. He still thinks that
is a good idea. He asked where the language came from.
MR. KING said this language came from Legislative Legal at his
request on behalf of the chair to ensure that there is enough
data to make a solid analysis for the final report that
evaluates the program.
9:58:43 AM
SENATOR BEGICH said he wants to know the department capacity for
reporting, which is why he suggested that the department provide
an idea of what the robust reporting could look like. He
requests that the department look at this language. He is
curious to get the department interpretation of robust and what
can be accommodated. The committee should figure out if they can
do the thing that the committee is asking them to do.
SENATOR HUGHES said that looking at the bottom of page 24,
legislators would want to know if the Head Start program a child
attended is opting to follow the standards. She heard from a
private preschool that is teaching phonemics. It would be
important to know whether a non-district pre-K program is
meeting the standards. Otherwise, it will not be meaningful
data.
CHAIR HOLLAND replied that gets to the point of what the
department thinks it can actually effectively collect because it
can be intrusive to cross examine parents when their children
enter kindergarten or first grade and then will that data be
carried forward. Senator Begich has a valid point about what can
be collected and documented.
SENATOR HUGHES said parents cannot be forced and they would just
mark something off. That parent probably will not know if Head
Start programs are following the high requirements. That would
have to be another step that would have to be researched as part
of the data, but it would be valuable to know and to make the
case for the standards being helpful.
10:02:09 AM
SENATOR BEGICH said the committee is asking the question of
whether these things are working. Everyone at this table has
said over and over that they want to be sure what they are doing
works. He asked how the department can measure what they have
done with the bill and whether it is effective. That will lead
to a robust accounting. The department has to answer that
question to the legislators' satisfaction and to parents' and
school districts' also. He welcomes what the department would
say. That is the tool the legislature needs. It needs to know
the impact of a reform.
SENATOR HUGHES said her concern is that the language address
whether the programs meet the state standards for early
literacy, so that is in the data.
10:03:35 AM
MR. KING suggested that the committee may want to consider
language that directs the department to work with the university
to adopt some standards about effective experimental design and
collect such information over time, so when the report is due,
the department has the data to do the analysis. The language
about reporting could be very prescriptive and get exactly the
wrong information. It could be good for whoever is going to do
the report to be involved from the beginning.
MR. KING said AS 14.30.765(d) is an adjustment to clarify the
difference in progression standards for K-2 vs. a third grader
progressing to fourth grade. If child is identified as having a
reading deficiency in the spring, parents must be involved in a
process to discuss whether the child should be promoted to the
next grade. Ultimately the parent is the one who decides whether
the child progresses or not.
SENATOR BEGICH observed that the language "or whether the
student has previously not progressed to the next grade" on
[page 28,] line 24 was one of the exceptions that is no longer
there. That was in SB 8 and SB 42. He knows it is mentioned
later on, but he asked why it is not here. All of the experts
agreed that that was a consideration, even in Mississippi it is
a provision.
MR. KING replied that it is created in a new subsection, which
was intended to address the specific circumstances when a
nonparent is making the decisions about progression. To be
consistent, it seemed it should be parental choice on whether a
child is retained a second time. The new language says if it is
the superintendent making the decision, a child cannot be
retained for a second time, but the parent can make that choice.
SENATOR BEGICH asked if Mr. King if he would be opposed to
having that language here, just to make it clear to a parent
that this provision is available. These bills are difficult for
the average person to read. That exception is not in (h). That
consistent standard around in country is not in subsection (h).
He wants to make sure parents know that is still an exception.
MR. KING said the language appears in subsection (o), but it
could be in subsection (h) to make it clearer.
SENATOR BEGICH said another option could be to say "exceptions
under (h) or (o) of this section." That is an easy solution to
the problem. To him it is just about clarity for the parent.
MR. KING said that subsection (f) is specific to promotion to
third grade and is a slightly higher bar.
10:11:27 AM
SENATOR HUGHES said the committee received some feedback last
year from the Anchorage School District that mentioned that if a
child is struggling, it is better for the child not to progress
from kindergarten to first grade rather than waiting until third
grade. The committee may want to consider that. It is easier for
the child if it is done earlier.
SENATOR BEGICH suggested that the testifier was Mark Johnson.
MR.KING said that subsections (h )and (i), in response to
recommendation from a testifier, shift the responsibility for a
progression decision to the superintendent rather than a school
board in the case of a good cause waiver request. Subsection (j)
is the remedy for when a parent does not attend a meeting about
delayed progression.
SENATOR BEGICH asked why the decisions moved from the school
boards to the superintendents.
MR. KING said testimony suggested that the school board was not
the best entity to make a decision. It would be better to
designate someone who knows the child and will make the decision
based on the specific circumstances of the child rather than the
board.
SENATOR HUGHES concurred. She said local boards in small
community have said it is tough when they all know each other.
On page 30, line 9, no guardian attends a meeting, she asked if
anything requires the district to make more than one attempt to
have a meeting.
MR. KING answered that is the intent of subsection (j).
SENATOR BEGICH described the phrase "for and intervention in
intensive reading intervention services" on lines 4 and 5 of
page 32 as awkward. He questioned what "and intervention in"
meant.
MR. KING deferred to Mr. Klein.
10:16:58 AM
MR. KLEIN said that the language can be removed if someone
submits an amendment request. In reference to an earlier
question from Senator Hughes about 14.03.080(c), it does refer
to the State Board.
SENATOR BEGICH said that he will approach the chair's office
about some language around the five participating schools. He is
not sure about how to construct that and may need to hear from
the commissioner on that.
MR. KING continued describing the changes.
Section 37: No changes from the previous section 36.
Section 38: Adds a definition of "culturally
responsive" (page 38, lines 2-5).
Section 39: No changes from the previous section 38.
10:18:47 AM
SENATOR BEGICH said he had a question about why lines 26-29 on
page 33 were added.
MR. KING replied that is related to the robustness of the
reporting requirement, to make sure the department had
sufficient data and that it was using that data to inform the
legislature on the progress of the programs.
10:19:10 AM
SENATOR BEGICH said he would like the department to consider
that in determining its report.
MR. KING continued describing the changes with Section 40.
Section 40: New repeal of AS 14.03.080(d), related to
under school age students, to conform to changes in AS
14.03.080(c) made in section 11 (page 38, line 12).
Section 41: The following were added to the 2032
sunset provision (page 38, lines 13-14):
• AS 14.03.120(h) (K-3 reading report)
• AS 14.20.020(l) (evidence-based reading instruction
training for regular teacher certificates)
• AS 14.30.760 (reading assessments)
• AS 14.30.765 (reading intervention services)
• AS 14.30.775 (reading intervention definitions)
• AS 14.30.800 (virtual education consortium)
The sunset on AS 14.30.770 (reading specialists) was
moved to 2032.
The sunset on AS 14.07.165(a)(5) was removed.
Section 42: No changes to the previous section 40.
Section 43: No changes to the previous section 41.
Section 44: No changes to the previous section 42.
Section 45: A new reporting requirement due the year
before the programs sunset so that a future
legislature can determine if the sunset provisions
should be allowed to take effect (page 39, lines3-19).
Section 46: A new subsection (b) was added to the
transition section, which moves the language from the
previous section 10 (page 6, lines 19-24 of version W.
Section 47: Aligns the sunset provisions to all occur
on June 30, 2032 (page 39, lines 26-31).
Section 48: Conforming changes from the previous
section 47.
SENATOR BEGICH said that if the start date of bill is moved by a
year, he would suggest that the sunset dates be moved a year.
CHAIR HOLLAND responded that everything cascades forward one
year. That is the plan. He removed his objection. There being no
further objection, version O was before the committee.
CHAIR HOLLAND called on invited testimony
10:21:33 AM
TOM KLAAMEYER, President, NEA-Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska, said he
was testifying on behalf of NEA-Alaska's almost 12,000 educators
across the state. All in the state want children to be
successful in school and in life. Alaska's students are a one-
of-a-kind tapestry of indigenous cultures, norms, and
traditions. In Anchorage, where he teaches, students come from
homes that speak over 100 languages. An All Alaska Pediatric
Partnership 2020 report states that 36 percent of young people
ages zero through eight live in poverty. Alaska has the highest
rates of child maltreatment in the nation. The state's ALCANLink
project shows that one-third of Alaskan children have a report
of maltreatment with the Office of Children's Services before
the age of eight. Only one-third of Alaskan children start
kindergarten ready. Low-income children are even less likely to
be well equipped to start their education. The state currently
invests only 1 percent of general funds in early childhood
education. Many Alaskan children arrive at school unprepared.
MR. KLAAMEYER said that legislators as policy makers have a
great challenge and he appreciates the urgency with which this
legislation is being brought forward in order to help Alaskan
children. His biggest concern with the legislation is about the
sunset provisions for early education funding and programs.
There have been massive responses to proposed cuts to education.
It is easy to say Alaska spends more per capita per student, but
the state does not compare to any other when talking about
making sure kids all over the state have what they need to
succeed. The distances, the climate, the high cost of energy,
transportation, and even food in many communities makes Alaska
truly unique. There are 1,000 fewer certificated teachers
working in Alaska than a decade ago. Years of flat funding,
further eroded by inflation have strained the system. There have
been multiple years of layoffs at the end of the year and then
districts had to scramble to rehire in fall. He has heard from
young teachers who are dismayed that their chosen career has
such volatility. This is important ultimately because increased
educator turnover have a deleterious effect on student learning.
This connects to the sunsets in the legislation.
10:27:44 AM
MR. KLAAMEYER said the committee has been responsive to educator
concerns and have worked to deal with the pink slip challenge,
but uncertainty remains. SB 111 as currently drafted sets up
another cyclical complication for educators and students,
exaggerating the uncertainty and instability that already
exists. Instead of long-term investments in proven early
childhood education, SB 111 ensures that education advocates
will have to be back in Juneau fighting the fight once again to
prove the programs' worth. The chair wants sideboards and
accountability. Educators appreciate that. Educators would be a
great source of feedback. Educators are grateful and want to
acknowledge subsection 10 of AS 14.30.77(o), which would provide
for an annual convening of educators, parents, and students to
review and provide commentary about the effectiveness of the
reading intervention. That would be more successful than sunset
clauses.
MR. KLAAMEYER said educators have a good sense of what students
need to succeed. What is true for Alaskan students today will be
true when the provisions are set to expire. Educators respect
the desire for accountability and feedback about how the
investments are performing, but children are not as easy as to
analyze. The ability to measure success is complex and varied.
Students are more than a test score. Standardized tests alone
cannot accurately capture the comprehension of students who are
learning English and preserving an indigenous language. Tests
cannot tell about the spark when students learn to love to read.
Tests are important, but Alaska kids should not lose the
opportunity for early childhood learning based on that
performance.
10:31:27 AM
MR. KLAAMEYER said that educators believe that rigorous review,
reporting and engagement with educators, school boards, and
local communities is the key to improving outcomes. This
legislation will make a difference. Students deserve a full
commitment from the adults in the room. Allowing this commitment
to expire save for the hope of intervention from a future
legislature does not reflect the seriousness of this issue and
seems like a hedge against its success. Instead, leave a legacy
in believing in young people by investing in their futures,
making sure that high-quality, prekindergarten education is a
permanent part of the school system. He thanked the committee
for their work on this legislation and their commitment to
students and engaging stakeholders in the process.
CHAIR HOLLAND said that he would prefer to look at the 10 years
of proposed increases in spending as opposed to the suggested
cut that sunset will create 10 years from now. He anticipates
that if he is fortunate enough to be in the legislature 10 years
from now, he will be pursuing the repeal of the sunset dates to
continue a successful program. Mr. Klaameyer spoke of flat
funding yet also noted that the state is among the highest in
spending per capita. It is hard to look at increasing funding
with the current budgetary restraints, but he appreciates Mr.
Klaameyer's words.
10:33:43 AM
NORM WOOTEN, Director of Advocacy, Association of Alaska School
Boards, Juneau, Alaska, said that he had been asked to also
speak on behalf Lisa Parady. He thanked the committee for its
willingness to listen to their concerns and to include so many
of them in the committee substitute. They have had a shared
goal, to create a bill that will benefit students and increase
student achievement. Many components in the committee substitute
are especially appreciated. They are not afraid of
accountability and the accountability provisions in SB 111 are
reasonable. The strong elements for professional development
will assist educators in meeting the needs of their students
across this great state. High, rigorous professional standards
that will prepare teachers for reading instruction and early
education will serve students well. The assurance that early
education programs are appropriate and utilize research-based
strategies will prepare those students well for successful
educational experience.
MR. WOOTEN said that they especially appreciate defining the
elements of evidence-based reading. The ability to read well is
the fundamental basis for a good education and SB 111 emphasizes
this. Provisions for timely, rapid interventions for students in
need of additional help are critical and addressed in the bill.
The emphasis on increasing parental engagement in the education
of their children, particularly in reading, is welcome. The
assistance of the department in those interventions will be
particularly helpful in smaller school districts.
MR. WOOTEN said teachers made a herculean effort during the
pandemic to deliver virtual instruction. Some form of hybrid
instruction, which includes virtual delivery, will likely
outlive the pandemic. Professional development for those who
deliver virtual instruction will only improve that instructional
model going forward. The influx of pandemic aid flowing into
school districts makes the increase in undesignated fund balance
carryover a necessary and welcome change. This will avoid the
use-it-or-lose-it mentality and allow districts to best use
those funds to serve the students. The addition of the
culturally responsive phrase in multiple locations retains local
control and ensures districts can serve their students in ways
acceptable to the communities in which they reside.
10:37:27 AM
MR. WOOTEN said that some things are concerning. They are
disappointed that funding for universal pre-K is not possible at
this time due to the fiscal cliff facing the state. Their hope
is that when the time for repeal arrives, the state will be in a
better fiscal situation and the results will show the success of
early education as has already been proven in several Alaskan
school districts. They would have liked to have seen pre-K
counts in the ADM not capped by an appropriation, but they are
grateful for what is in the bill. Section 7 of the reporting
requirement has a requirement to report the number of
administrators compared to the total number of students. They
are not opposed to this, but it is sometimes too easy to find
educational funding by reducing the number of administrators.
They provide the leadership necessary for student achievement.
His only request is not to think of them as expendable but as
part of a team working in concert with classroom teachers to
increase student achievement. While he is still concerned about
the repeals for so many of the programs in SB 111, making the
repeals consistent with one date has removed much of the
confusion from the original version. The committee substitute
has made SB 111 a much better bill. He appreciates the efforts
of all the committee members and Mr. King has been very
responsive.
SENATOR BEGICH thanked both testifiers and the chair and Mr.
King for working so diligently on the suggested changes. It is
much appreciated. It has made a much better bill.
10:40:03 AM
CHAIR HOLLAND held SB 111 in committee.
10:40:19 AM
CHAIR HOLLAND There being no further business to come before the
committee, Chair Holland adjourned the Senate Education Standing
Committee at 10:40 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CS for SB 111 version O.pdf |
SEDC 4/14/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 111 |
| SB 111 Explanation of Changes from version W to O.pdf |
SEDC 4/14/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 111 |
| SB 111 version O effective date matrix.pdf |
SEDC 4/14/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 111 |