Legislature(2019 - 2020)DAVIS 106
03/09/2020 08:00 AM House 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 | |
| HB153|| HB204 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 153 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 204 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 153-PRE-ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS/FUNDING
HB 204-PRE-K/ELEM ED PROGRAMS/FUNDING; READING
[Contains discussion of SB 6.]
8:04:05 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND announced that the only order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 153, "An Act relating to early education
programs provided by school districts; relating to funding for
early education programs; and relating to the duties of the
state Board of Education and Early Development" and HOUSE BILL
NO. 204, "An Act relating to early education programs provided
by school districts; relating to funding for early education
programs; relating to a department literacy program; relating to
a comprehensive reading policy; relating to the duties of the
state Board of Education and Early Development; and providing
for an effective date."
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND explained that she was the prime sponsor of HB
153, while HB 204 was sponsored by the governor. She said both
bills are versions of the Alaska Reads Act, which was also
introduced in SB 6, by Senator Begich, and through other
legislation proposed by the governor and heard by the Senate.
She expressed her hope that the committee would adopt a proposed
committee substitute, which was drafted to match CSSSSB 6(EDC),
which passed out of the Senate Education Standing Committee.
8:04:40 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute
(CS) for HB 153, Version 31-LS0928\U, Caouette, 3/4/20, as a
working document.
8:04:59 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND objected for the purposes of discussion. She
recalled her time spent working on the Alaska Task Force on
Reading Proficiency and Dyslexia which included the passage of
House Bill 64 [enacted during the Thirtieth Alaska State
Legislature]. She described the task force as consisting of
members of the public representing non-profits, school boards,
teachers, principals, parents, and students. She indicated that
aspects of [HB 153] were developed with input from the task
force. She further indicated that Social and Emotional Learning
(SEL) was considered to be of fundamental importance for
children to be able to read and succeed in life. She urged
support for voluntary pre-Kindergarten (pre-K) and evidence-
based reading programs. She offered that public testimony would
be important for consideration of the proposed legislation.
8:07:13 AM
SENATOR TOM BEGICH, Alaska State Legislature, lauded the
collaboration between both bodies in developing and proposing
legislation for reading and early education. He commented that
the committee substitute for HB 153 currently under
consideration is identical to the sponsor substitute for SB 6.
He offered background information that the original versions of
HB 153 and SB 6 were also identical and suggested that this was
demonstrative of the collaboration and research that had taken
place, including cultural relevance to many of the unique
considerations of early education in Alaska. He suggested that
while both bills had been in development in both bodies,
research revealed a strong link between reading and early
education. He referred to research that suggests that strong
reading programs offered to children who are not prepared to
learn are often not successful. He suggested that a strong pre-
K in the absence of a strong reading program also does not lead
to student success. He explained that the conclusion was drawn
that pre-K and reading should be conjunctively addressed in the
same legislation. He suggested that the Department of Education
& Early Development (DEED) has a constitutional obligation to
provide education, and that pre-K, reading, as well as DEEDs
role, are all addressed within the proposed legislation.
8:11:18 AM
SENATOR BEGICH added that following the development of the
language in the bill, he had expressed the intention that the
introduction of [HB 153] should be a starting point for
dialogue. He noted that eight separate hearings on [SSSB 6] had
taken place in the Senate Education Committee. He explained
that the hearing process added value by customizing the bill to
the unique needs of Alaska. He explained that he had had
interactions with superintendents, school board members,
educators, the Alaska Policy Forum, and the Alaska Education
Association, and each provided valuable feedback to achieve
language that enhanced [SSSB 6]. He stated that [CSSSSB 6(EDC)]
is being heard by the Senate Finance Committee and should be
passed out of committee to the full Senate. He expressed his
support for the hearing process and allowed that more work can
and should take place on the development of the language that
would best meet the needs for student success.
8:13:32 AM
SENATOR BEGICH emphasized that many changes had taken place to
the initial language of the bill that was heard by the Senate
Education Committee, and he reiterated that those changes are in
the proposed committee substitute for HB 153. He expressed his
endorsement of all of the changes and reemphasized that the
changes were collaborative. He asked the committee to be
prudent in examining the language to ensure passage of [HB 153].
8:15:07 AM
MICHAEL JOHNSON, Ed.D., Commissioner, Department of Education &
Early Development, testified in support of HB 153. He explained
that HB 153 is a product of years spent in collaboration to
ensure that every student is afforded the opportunity to learn
to read. He referred to DEEDs Alaskas Education Challenge
(AEC) goals, commitments, and priorities for student success,
which includes learning to read. He indicated that AEC garnered
over 18,000 responses to a survey and ideas generated by over
100 people among committees. He added that guided by three
commitments, of those ideas, 13 recommendations were further
construed into 5 measurable goals. One of the emergent goals is
to support all students to read at grade level by the end of
Third Grade. He shared with the committee a quote he indicated
explains the rationale of the necessity of a reading bill: The
students that do not read proficiently by the end of Third Grade
fall further and further behind. As their peers use reading
skills to acquire new skills, these students remain on square
one. He distinguished a critical juncture exists between the
Third and Fourth Grades, wherein students begin to read to
learn, as compared to learning to read.
8:18:24 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON referred to available data on the national
ranking of reading among Alaska students, and he postulated that
there exists a general consensus on the need for improvement.
He referred to data obtained through the Performance Evaluation
of Alaskas Schools (PEAKS) Assessment and noted that in the
course of evaluating students over three consecutive years, 73-
74 percent of students who are not proficient in reading remain
deficient in their subsequent school years. He suggested that
these students continue to experience deficiencies throughout
their academic careers or experience limited academic mobility.
He offered this as a basis of the importance of legislation for
reading in education. He referred to exiting data that show a
correlation between low reading skills and high dropout rates in
those schools and schools with high reading skills inversely
achieving higher graduation rates. He correlated limited
academic mobility and subsequent limited economic mobility for
students who do not achieve success in public education. He
summarized the three main components of the bill as: high
quality pre-K, a comprehensive reading policy focused on
intervention, and school improvement. He suggested that the
three components purposefully work [in synergy]. Commissioner
Johnson offered that all individuals who participate in a
childs education would realize benefit from the proposed bill,
including students, parents, teachers, principals,
superintendents, and legislators.
8:22:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed support for the ideas proposed in
the bill; however, he expressed his reticence of imposing top
down standards. He asked whether some schools or districts
have already implemented some of the [proposed strategies] and
whether schools would elect to implement these standards without
a mandate to do so.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON allowed that a mandate for children to
become proficient at reading at grade level by the Third Grade
is imposing a standard [where none exists].
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether the proposed legislation
imparts measurable goals and standards.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON expressed that reading is an area of
education that is well-understood. He explained that
observation and evidence- or science-based reading consists of
five components: phonemic awareness, words made up of sounds;
phonics, print representing sounds; fluency, or putting words
together to make sense; vocabulary, background to know what
words mean; and comprehension, putting it all together to
understand meaning. The proposed legislation would require
screeners to take into account those five aspects from
kindergarten through Third Grade in a progressive manner.
8:25:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether a particular test, such as the
PEAKS Assessment, exists to assess reading skills.
8:26:00 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON explained that the proposed bill allows for
multiple methods to measure proficiency. He suggested that the
diversity of testing would result in an intervention process
that is not punitive and allows for multiple screenings of
methods in different areas. He exemplified that by the end of
First Grade, readers should be able to read a certain number of
words per minute. Those that cannot are not on the trajectory
of reading proficiency.
8:27:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked for a brief explanation of the
three main components of the bill, specifically the
comprehensive K-3 reading policy and that of school
improvements.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON explained that the bill would prescribe
that the comprehensive reading policy maintain gains achieved,
especially for students who may be struggling, by the use of a
screener. He explained that screening for reading takes many
forms, including a verbal screening, and any deficiencies in any
of the five areas would result in a plan for intervention in
cooperation with the parent. He added that progress would be
tracked to ensure improvement.
8:29:25 AM
SENATOR BEGICH interjected that the K-3 reading policy had been
the most-revised portion of the bill due to factors referred to
during this hearing and considering local and cultural
relevance. He noted that in a previous version of the bill,
the assessments were too onerous according to extensive
stakeholder feedback. He suggested that the proposed committee
substitute would allow for a more individualized approach with
parental involvement.
8:30:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked for additional explanation of the
school improvements portion of the bill.
8:31:17 AM
SENATOR BEGICH explained that the Constitution of the State of
Alaska requires the state to support and maintain an education
system. He said that school boards and the Alaska State
Legislature partner with the DEED to meet that responsibility.
He referred to the Moore, et al. v. State of Alaska case ("Moore
v. State"), in which the ruling provided very specific guidance
as to the roles and responsibilities in education and ruled that
the state had failed to meet that obligation at the lowest
performing schools in the state. He recalled having
participated in the litigation and, following the ruling, having
begun discussions with DEED to identify specific areas of
deficiency and propose solutions. He explained an experimental
intervention in 2018 where low performing schools were contacted
on site with intensive intervention to enhance capacity at the
school and coordinate with the community and school, which he
predicted would be met with success. He explained that the
proposed bill would provide a contractual agreement vehicle for
support of a low-performing school using federal funds in
addition to the Base Student Allocation (BSA). He explained
that this program is intentionally constrained to only 10
schools so that progress and efficacy can be measured and
scrutinized. He lauded this pilot program as a highlight of the
proposed bill.
8:34:36 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON lauded the three components of the bill as
its strength. He stated that years of collaboration had led to
the development of the proposed legislation, and the
interventions proposed in the bill are collaborative in nature
through a memorandum of agreement (MOA) rather than an
imposition by DEED. He explained that the intent of the bill is
to increase literacy rates which are not necessarily in English
as a first language. He indicated that learning an indigenous
or foreign language first aids students in becoming more
proficient in reading.
8:36:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked what the role of individuals
deployed on site for interventions should be and expressed her
concern as a representative of those in rural schools for the
problems faced, such as recruitment and retention and new
standards with limited resources for support. She asked for
additional information on the retention portions of the
legislation.
8:38:28 AM
SENATOR BEGICH recalled a previous joint hearing which included
a presentation by the Coalition for Education Equity, and
consented to provide that presentation to the committee. He
recalled that a survey conducted throughout the year, of rural
teachers on the matter of retention, indicated that teachers
were not connecting with their communities. He indicated that
this data point was a major consideration in the development of
the language pertinent to school improvement and teacher
retention. He explained that one aspect of the proposed
intervention through a MOA would be coordinated effort to
connect educators and the community. He shared his observation
that periodic visits by specialists had lacked consistency,
which led to failures litigated in Moore v. State. He suggested
that the DEED intervention was not successful and that a more
collaborative approach was deemed necessary.
8:40:51 AM
SENATOR BEGICH suggested the possibility exists of
misinformation regarding the [student] retention language
proposed in the bill. He emphasized that it is the purview of
individual districts to administer student retention policy. He
stated that the proposed legislation does not contain a
mandatory retention policy. He recalled that a suggestion had
been made to amend the proposed bill to include a mandatory
retention policy and it had failed by a vote of 5-1. He
indicated that the proposed retention language requires parental
and teacher involvement in the decision of whether to retain a
student. He suggested that mitigating considerations could
consist of whether English is the students first language and
whether a student has an identified learning disability. He
shared a personal anecdote of a family member who suffered from
a learning disability which challenged his school progression
and, while the student took an additional number of years to
complete high school, he was able to progress, graduate, and
attend a year of college. He exemplified this experience where
his family member was not retained during early schooling years
but later in his academic years, and early retention would not
have been in the best interest of this students education. He
clarified that while retention is an important consideration for
students who do not demonstrate proficiency, it should be the
final consideration after other interventions have been
exhausted and the proposed intervention plan is deemed
ineffective.
8:44:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked how the proposed bill would mandate
school accountability in achieving the desired student outcomes.
8:44:54 AM
SENATOR BEGICH stated that the bill contains reporting
requirements from districts to DEED with the intent of
evaluating efficacy. He suggested that the reporting
requirements would create an unprecedented exchange between
districts and DEED to evaluate programs and outcomes. He
suggested that existing reporting requirements for pre-K exist,
are effective for program evaluation and development, and have
led to increased student success. He added that standards and
reporting requirements may provide consistency for teachers,
with the hope that positive impacts on retention will follow.
He added that the bill also contains a series of robust but not
onerous reporting requirements from DEED to the legislature to
aid in increasing transparency and accountability.
8:47:46 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON added that public education in Alaska does
not have a comprehensive reading policy and there exists an
opportunity for the legislature to make a statement in statute
about the importance of reading. He purported that teaching
children to read is the fundamental purpose of public education.
He said the proposed legislation is an attempt at quality policy
development based on known factors for student success. He
proffered that many of the components of the bill are already in
practice by many districts, and the implementation of the bill
would ensure equal opportunity for all students to achieve
increased success regardless of school or district size.
8:50:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether districts would lose
funding should they not follow the proposed guidelines.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON answered that pre-K funding requires
program compliance prior to obtaining funding. He added that
the school improvement portion of the bill imposes
accountability through the MOA process.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked what the implications for a
district would be in the case of egregious noncompliance. She
stated her support for the bill.
8:51:37 AM
SENATOR BEGICH responded that noncompliance would certainly
result in loss of funding. He suggested that communities also
hold districts and their school boards publicly and politically
accountable. He explained that reporting requirements are
unequivocally precedent to districts receiving funding.
8:53:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recalled earlier testimony regarding the
changes that have taken place during the development of the
proposed legislation and asked whether DEED would concur with
all the changes on behalf of the administration.
8:54:30 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON explained that DEED has been fully engaged
in contemplating proposed changes and consensus does exits. He
added that should the bill pass, the development of regulations
and policy development should maintain this level of
collaboration.
8:55:27 AM
SENATOR BEGICH offered that the methodology of collaboration in
the development of the proposed legislation was unique, in that
the initial considerations were defined as common goals and not
competing or disparate goals. He suggested that this approach
enabled the advancement of goals rather than a series of
compromises. He added that by addressing the priority of
student outcome, continual improvement can and would take place.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON indicated that her district has in it
some Waldorf [Method] charter schools, and their reading
programs are delayed implementation. She asked how this type of
school would be affected by the proposed bill.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON expressed caution prior to speaking to the
impacts on any specific program in the absence of a review of
that program; however, he expressed that the impacts of a child
not learning to read are well-understood. He spoke in favor of
innovative approaches to reading programs with the caveat that
evidence is taken into consideration in the development of the
program[s].
8:58:09 AM
SENATOR BEGICH added that the pre-K component is not mandatory,
and students participate at the will of their parents. He drew
a parallel to the Waldorf [Method of delaying reading] and the
non-mandatory pre-K provisioned in public education as a similar
parental decision. He suggested that estimates suggest that 88
percent of districts would take advantage of the pre-K program,
as proposed. He stated that the design of public education
policy is such to allow parents to make the most informed
decisions on the path to success for their student.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON indicated her cursory understanding that
brain development for language and reading changes at or about
Third Grade age, and what are known ramifications that might
occur should a child of that age be retained.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON explained that the decision whether to
retain or promote a student is one of great consequence. He
referred to the proposed legislation providing for an Individual
Learning Plan as a tool to evaluate and inform decisions on
student retention. He noted that in several communities,
students will have the same teacher regardless of promotion or
retention, because teachers instruct multiple grade levels at
some schools. He suggested that retention of a struggling
student is not the important factor; the important factor is to
change the way the student receives instruction for a different
outcome. He noted that academic mobility is proven to hinge
upon student proficiency at about the Third Grade. He stated
that current policy does not regulate retention, and the
proposed bill compels an individualized approach with a variety
of interventions other than retention.
9:03:40 AM
SENATOR BEGICH noted his experience in dealing with brain
science in his career in juvenile justice and offered that the
majority of neurological brain development generally occurs
between the ages of two and ten. He suggested that the aspects
of the brain that are used during this developmental stage shape
the brain.
9:05:12 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND mentioned that the Anchorage School District
has had a Waldorf Method school and offered a point of
clarification that reading preparation does take place prior to
the Third Grade with success.
9:05:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK added that Anchorage School District Waldorf
Method schools serve students from pre-K to the Eighth Grade.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND referred to an Individual Learning Plan
currently in place based on student needs. She asked whether an
individual reading plan proposed in the bill is a new
undertaking and whether it would apply to some or to all
students.
9:06:38 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON noted that the existing provisioned Special
Education Individual Education Plan is a comprehensive and
lengthy document and process, whereas an Individual Reading
Plan, as proposed, would be less so. He noted that parents
participate in the development of the plan, and it would be a
new requirement for a student who is struggling to read. He
added that some districts are using these plans in practice. He
added that once the legislation was passed, the regulations for
the bill would codify the desired elements to include in plans
and the technology and progress-tracking methods to best
implement the plans.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked whether some existing funded or unfunded
mandates would be revised or eliminated should the bill pass.
She expressed her concern that new mandates may either
overburden or conflict with current mandates in place.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON referred to a previous version of the bill,
wherein reporting would have been required every two weeks, and
he noted that that had been revised to incorporate reporting on
an individualized basis.
9:09:31 AM
SENATOR BEGICH added that a previous version of the bill also
directed more than 70 hours of work with a student, which was
determined to be arbitrary. There were a number of burdensome
requirements which were eliminated or revised under the current
version of the bill.
9:10:47 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked for confirmation that the reporting
requirement through the Individual Reading Plan would be for
struggling readers, not necessarily every reader.
SENATOR BEGICH answered yes. He added that the process of
screening may appear to be onerous; however, the screening
process allows for tracking progress and growth targets.
9:11:43 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY suggested that Tier I programs in Alaska appear
to consist of some of the same measurements proposed under the
CS, and she asked whether the proposed legislation would
increase certainty and consistency in interventions.
9:13:21 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON answered that the pre-K portion of the bill
dictates standards based in evidence and would compel a school
to participate in the standards. He added that the K-3
standards would have the foundational standards upon which a
school would build. He added that a portion of the bill
requires evidence-based reading training to be obtained for
teacher recertification either through university level classes
or DEED training resources.
9:15:22 AM
SENATOR BEGICH added that the proposed bill allows DEED to
provide direct support to districts, an element that he
suggested was omitted by previous statute erroneously. He added
that the bill provides for additional screeners and expanded
training opportunities.
CO-CHAIR STORY suggested that the committee investigate what the
University of Alaska includes as part of its education program
reading training to ensure consistency prior to teachers
entering the workforce. She noted that professional development
has suffered in many districts due to budget cuts and has led to
a decline in reading scores. She expressed her concern that
teachers may need additional support for professional
development should this bill pass. She asked how teachers
coming into Alaska would be assessed to ensure that the
provision of three additional credits for those teachers would
be met.
9:19:08 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON offered that the committee would benefit
from testimony provided by a certification specialist. He drew
a distinction between the requirements for teachers who join the
workforce with any certification and those who have no
certification. He added that a teacher with no certification
would be required to demonstrate that qualifying program
requirements had been part of his/her training and education.
He agreed to provide additional information to the committee
subsequently.
CO-CHAIR STORY asked whether the bill includes a provision for
resourcing Head Start programs.
SENATOR BEGICH answered that there are no specific resources
specified in the proposed bill; however, it would require that
pre-K programs coordinate with Head Start in communities. He
expressed that consideration had been made to hold harmless Head
Start programs should the bill pass.
CO-CHAIR STORY asked whether the bill provided for collaboration
and information sharing between the state schools, DEED, and
Head Start programs.
9:22:10 AM
SENATOR BEGICH answered that the concerns voiced by Co-Chair
Story are the rationale for the collaboration language included
in the bill, which would foster community engagement in program
development. He added that the Kawerak region, near Unalakleet
and Nome, has a variety of pre-K programs, including Head Start.
He emphasized the importance of consistency in pre-K programs
and suggested that the proposed bill would impart that
consistency.
CO-CHAIR STORY asked how soon DEED would be prepared to aid
districts in implementing pre-K programs.
SENATOR BEGICH explained that the bill contains two proposed
paths to pre-K: the grants program over three years and an
alternate to the grant by which a school would be able to obtain
funding through the Base Student Allocation. He added that the
latter would be contingent on the timing of the bill becoming
law.
9:26:18 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND reminded the committee that additional
hearings to consider the sectional analysis and fiscal note
analysis were forthcoming.
9:26:52 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON stated his strong support for the three
main components of the bill, and he said work would begin
immediately to implement the law once the bill passed. He
explained that following passage, time consuming regulation
development would need to take place. He added that DEED has
been making preparations in anticipation of the bill passing.
9:28:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS expressed his support for the pre-K
portion of the bill. He expressed concern for teachers who may
have in excess of three-quarters of students not demonstrating
proficiency, and he asked how teachers should be expected to
provide Individualized Learning Plans (ILPs) for multiple
students with limited resources.
9:29:22 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON acknowledged the significance of the
question posed and that teachers are very busy. He suggested
the challenge brought about by the need for remedial
intervention would result in opportunities for teachers in the
future to experience increased proficiency among students. He
suggested that there may be common areas of deficiencies among
students that would allow for efficiencies in developing ILPs.
He acknowledged that parental communication requirements in
ILPs, while demanding, are a crucial component in increasing
proficiency among struggling students. He noted that the
parental communication requirements have been relaxed in the
proposed CS to allow flexibility but advised that it is an
important component to student success.
9:31:30 AM
SENATOR BEGICH suggested that quality teachers understand the
importance of ILPs and the added work as a means to student
success. He recalled testimony in multiple hearings from
educators expressing their concern about class sizes. He
allowed that the bill does not directly address class size;
however, reporting requirements may result in class size being
addressed in future policy development. He added that other
legislation addresses other problems in public education.
9:33:59 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON added that the largest education conference
in Alaska is hosted by the Alaska Council of School
Administrators and is attended by approximately one thousand
educators each year. He stated that the focus of the conference
is Response To Intervention (RTI) and is a resource that
supports the work of teachers in this area.
9:34:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS noted that funds designated for RTI in
the Fairbanks North Star Borough School District have been cut,
and teachers have assumed additional responsibilities to support
RTI. He acknowledged the importance of class size in the
context of the discussion. He asked whether the bill would
allow for individual schools to utilize the proposed voluntary
pre-K programs based on merit or would be restricted to
implementation at the district level.
SENATOR BEGICH explained that the districts are the applicant
for DEED pre-K programs on behalf of schools.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON stated his intention that all students in
Alaska should benefit from pre-K. He explained that districts
will be compelled to prioritize, and he said DEED may impose its
own priorities for districts and schools through its approval
process.
9:37:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked how prescriptive teaching standards
would be and whether teachers and schools would retain autonomy
in selecting methods they believe best meet the needs of
students.
9:38:35 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON explained that there are five essential
questions to ask regarding every student every day in the
classroom: What do we want them to know and do; how will we
teach them what we want them to know and do; how will we know if
they have learned it; what will we do if they dont learn it;
and what will we do if they already know it? He rhetorically
answered each of the questions, respectively: by effective
standards, by effective instruction, by effective assessments,
by effective interventions, and by effective enrichment and
advancement. He stated that following standards development,
professional teachers maintain discretion to select and
implement through available methodologies.
9:40:14 AM
SENATOR BEGICH postulated that in particular, new teachers would
benefit by having clear standards. He welcomed the question
posed by Representative Hopkins regarding the needs of
individual schools as compared to districts who may not elect to
participate in the voluntary pre-K program, and he recommended
further research to determine whether the program could be made
available for a particular school in need.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referred to the five questions asked of
every student every day and asked whether a specific assessment
is in place.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON emphasized that there are several tests in
place for measuring proficiency, including a portfolio of
assessments. He indicated that the variety of screening options
is intentional.
9:43:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK expressed his endorsement for the three main
principals proposed in the bill. He added that in the Moore v.
State ruling, it was determined that adding funding alone does
not address the shortcomings ruled in that case. He added that
effective program development is key to solving the problems
that were identified. He noted that the Alaska Performance
Scholarship Program was an example of effective education
policy, and he suggested that the proposed reading bill would
contribute to a more complete and effective education policy.
He lauded sections of the proposed bill, including professional
development in reading instruction, teacher certification, and
an opt-out contingency for students who demonstrate proficiency.
He complimented the apparent customization and flexibility
articulated in the proposed bill. He emphasized the importance
of the teacher retention working group. He suggested that
parental involvement is of utmost importance to a students
education.
9:46:52 AM
SENATOR BEGICH echoed Representative Tucks observation of the
ruling in Moore v. State instructing policy revision and
implementation. He noted that the University of Alaskas
education program is a vital training program and, while the
proposed bill does not compel the university to align its
education programs with the proposed legislation, a future
legislative endeavor could be instrumental in aligning the
universitys training and education to policy. He indicated
that the Moore v. State ruling contains guidance to that end.
9:48:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY, with regard to parental involvement,
asked how the proposed bill would accommodate children in
nontraditional family structures, such as foster children.
9:49:26 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON stated his belief that the entirety of the
bill is structured in service to students in nontraditional
family structures to become proficient in reading. He added
that the absence of parental involvement would still allow the
school to develop ILPs to aid struggling students.
9:50:48 AM
SENATOR BEGICH noted that the bill specifies parent or
guardian(s) and should include all family structures. He
recalled his experience in juvenile justice where he observed
Alaska Native children disproportionately adversely affected due
to the omission of nontraditional family structures. He agreed
to determine whether adequate definition exists for
guardian(s) to ensure that disproportionate negative impacts
due to nontraditional family structures may be fairly mitigated.
9:52:39 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND removed her objection to the motion to adopt
the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 153, Version 31-
LS0928\U, Caouette, 3/4/20, as a working document. There being
no further objection, Version U was before the committee.
9:52:50 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND indicated that she was setting aside HB 204;
[however, subsequent testimony makes comparisons between HB 153
and HB 204].
9:53:11 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
9:53:47 AM
LOKI TOBIN, Staff, Senator Tom Begich, Alaska State Legislature,
co-presented the sectional analysis on Version U for HB 153.
She referred to Section 1 of the sectional analysis included in
the committee packet, which defines HB 153 as the Alaska Reads
Act. She said Section 2 aligns with Section 1 of HB 204 and
amends Alaska statute to include an early education program
subject to DEED approval as part of elementary education.
9:55:38 AM
ERIN HARDIN, Legislative Liaison, Department of Education &
Early Development, co-presented the sectional analysis for
Version U of HB 153. She referred to Section 4 of the analysis,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 4
Amends AS 14.03.078(a) which directs DEED to include
information collected under AS 14.03.120, Parent as
Teachers, and AS 14.30-760 14.30.775, the Alaska
Reads Act, in their annual report to the legislature.
MS. HARDEN stated commitment on the part of DEED and the Alaska
Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS) to integrate
parents as teachers. She said Section 5 of the analysis
addresses a change in the date a child reaches eligibility age
to enter kindergarten from September 1 preceding the start of
the school year to June 1.
9:57:09 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY asked why June 1 was selected.
MS. TOBIN answered that the date was selected to ensure a
childs maturity to begin school.
MS. HARDIN pointed out that Section 6 pertains to age
eligibility for a child to enter an early education program.
She shared Section 7 of the sectional analysis, which read as
follows:
Section 7
Amends AS 14.03.120 by adding new subsection (h) which
establishes annual reporting requirements for school
districts regarding student performance metrics in
grades K-3. This includes data relating to class size,
the number and percentage of students in K-3 who are
proficient at grade-level skill reading, and number
and percentage of students who are retained from
advancing in grades K-3.
9:59:13 AM
MS. TOBIN explained that Section 8 of Version U pertains to
early education grants and the timeline for implementation of
the program, and the sectional analysis explaining Section 8
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 8
Creates AS 14.03.410 which codifies a statewide pre-K
program, providing a stair-step, three-year grant
program to provide training and assistance to school
districts in developing their local pre-K program.
Over six fiscal years, all school districts are
offered the opportunity to participate. AS 14.03.420
codifies the Parents As Teachers (PAT) program as a
program of the state within DEED, and specifies
criteria for PAT to demonstrate its efficacy in
supporting school districts with pre-K education.
10:00:36 AM
MS. TOBIN noted that Section 9 of Version U aligns with Section
5 of HB 204, and the sectional analysis of Section 9 read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 9
Amends AS 14.07.020(a) and directs DEED to supervise
all early education programs, approve those early
education programs established under AS 14.03.410.
This section also establishes a new reading program,
AS 14.07.065, and reading intervention programs of
participating schools, AS 14.30.770.
10:01:20 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND thanked Ms. Hardin and Ms. Tobin for beginning
the sectional analysis, which she said would be continued on
3/11/20.
[HB 153 and HB 204 were held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CS for HB 153 ver. U.pdf |
HEDC 3/9/2020 8:00:00 AM |
HB 153 |
| CSHB 153(EDC) DRAFT Fiscal Notes Package.pdf |
HEDC 3/9/2020 8:00:00 AM |
HB 153 |
| HB 153 v. U Sectional Analysis 3.5.2020.pdf |
HEDC 3/9/2020 8:00:00 AM |
HB 153 |
| HB 53 Additional Document AK Pre Elementary Research Compilation Summary 2.2017.pdf |
HEDC 3/9/2020 8:00:00 AM |
HB 53 |
| HB 153 v. U Sponsor Statement 3.5.2020.pdf |
HEDC 3/9/2020 8:00:00 AM |
HB 153 |
| HB 153 Additional Document Superintendents' Letter Advocating for Reading Initiative 12.11.2019.pdf |
HEDC 3/9/2020 8:00:00 AM |
HB 153 |
| HB 153 v. U Explanation of Changes 3.5.2020.pdf |
HEDC 3/9/2020 8:00:00 AM |
HB 153 |
| HB 153 Committee Packet 3.9.2020.pdf |
HEDC 3/9/2020 8:00:00 AM |
HB 153 |
| HB 153 Ver. A.pdf |
HEDC 3/9/2020 8:00:00 AM |
HB 153 |
| (H)EDC-DEED-Alaska Reads Act-3-9-2020.pdf |
HEDC 3/9/2020 8:00:00 AM |
HB 153 |