Legislature(2021 - 2022)DAVIS 106
05/11/2022 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 | |
| SB111 | |
| SB34 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 111 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 34 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 111-EARLY EDUCATION; READING INTERVENTION
8:13:02 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND announced that the first order of business
would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 111(FIN) am, "An Act relating to
the duties of the Department of Education and Early Development;
relating to public schools and school districts; 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 screening
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 the
definition of 'parent' in education statutes; relating to a
virtual education consortium; and providing for an effective
date."
8:13:28 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY moved to adopt the proposed House committee
substitute (HCS) for CSSB 111(EDC), Version 32-LS0485\F, Klein,
5/8/22, as a working document.
8:14:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX objected. He spoke to his objection,
expressing the opinion that it would be difficult to convince
the members of the House of Representatives to pass the proposed
HCS. He suggested that members would be more familiar with the
previous Senate version, CSSB 111(FIN) am, which accomplishes
one objection and would more likely pass.
8:14:48 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY urged the importance of sending the proposed HCS
to the House Finance Standing Committee. She speculated that
there would be a robust discussion, and all the pieces would be
reviewed. She stated that the proposed legislation would be
good for students and has components and resources to make a
change in reading education statewide.
8:15:39 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Zulkosky, Hopkins,
Story, and Drummond voted in favor of the motion to adopt the
proposed HCS for CSSB 111, Version 32-LS0485\F, Klein, 5/8/22,
as a working document. Representatives Cronk, Gillham, and Prax
voted against it. Therefore, by a vote of 4-3, Version F was
before the committee.
8:16:54 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:16 a.m. to 8:17 a.m.
8:17:53 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND entertained a motion.
8:18:11 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY moved to report HCS CSSB 111, Version 32-
LS0485\F, Klein, 5/8/22, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
8:18:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY objected. She spoke to her objection,
stating that she would not vote to pass HCS CSSB 111(EDC),
[Version F], from committee. She recognized she may be in the
minority on the vote but stated that she would like to put
concerns on the record for the public. She stated that the
committee had worked hard on the proposed legislation to make
[Version F] a good bill. The work included: adding protections
for Indigenous languages; boosting the base student allocation
funding; addressing teacher retention; removing onerous
statewide student progression mandates; and strengthening local
control [of education policy]. She thanked Co-Chairs Drummond
and Story for focusing on the issues that rural districts face
and the needs of all of Alaska students, in particular Alaska
Native students and immersion students.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY stated that she could support [Version
F] if it were in a vacuum. But, she said, "There is clear
daylight between the bill that I'm looking at now, and the bill
that passed the other body." After hearing discussions in the
hallways and the varied discussions in committee, she related
that she is not confident all of the positive changes would
survive in the end; instead, the final product would closely
resemble the Senate's version. She clarified that her stance is
not rooted in political achievement or gamesmanship, as she has
heard repeated concerns from constituents and other stakeholders
that the Senate's version would unintentionally disadvantage
small rural schools, Alaska Native students, and English
language learners. She stated that her concerns are rooted in
the protection of these groups, and the unintended consequences
of the legislation would disproportionately impact these groups,
relative to their peers. She stated that the Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED) already tracks the lowest
performing schools and districts in Alaska, the bulk of which
are schools in small areas where Alaska Native students are the
majority. She opined that, looking at the status quo of the
public education system and underachieving students, Alaska is
systematically failing the cultural needs of Alaska students in
classrooms across the state.
8:22:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY referenced committee testimony on the
Senate's version of the bill, which related that every school
district has retention policies. She argued that this is
factually incorrect. She pointed out that she has talked with
many school districts that do not enforce retention policies, as
they believe that retention is not in the best interest of
students. She indicated that both co-chairs have acknowledged
this on the record. She referenced testimony that conveyed the
Senate's version of the bill would not create screeners as a
high-stakes tests; however, she pointed out that this version of
the bill would create a standardized tool which determines
whether a student passes to the next grade level. She reasoned
that this is the definition of a high-stakes decision point.
She maintained that a high-stakes decision point in standardized
screening would not set up the cultural support to help students
achieve, particularly in her district. She voiced further
concerns that the implementation of the Senate's version of the
bill would be reminiscent of the No Child Left Behind Act. She
expressed the opinion that this policy had eradicated creativity
and multilingualism in classrooms, and the policy ultimately had
harmed the inspiration of students to feel a desire to learn.
She referenced the proponents of the science of reading
philosophy, who have argued that lower income schools have
succeeded under this type of legislation. She said, "I want to
be really clear that cultural needs are not synonymous with
poverty, and that is absolutely a perspective that needs to be
set aside."
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY voiced the concern that, relative to the
Senate's version, DEED would likely provide an English-speaking
reading specialist from an urban area to remedy low reading
scores in multilingual rural districts. She shared that she is
from one of the most rural and economically disadvantaged
regions in the entire United State, where homes lack running
water and reliable broadband. She stated that communities in
that region perpetually struggle to recruit and retain teachers.
She expressed her distrust that tests could solve the underlying
inequities or address the root causes of disparities in
educational achievement. She clarified that she does not have
the "luxury" to pass a potentially bad policy because she wants
"it off my plate." She stated that the effects of bad policy
for urban Alaska would be magnified in rural Alaska and could be
very detrimental to students and families in those regions.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY continued that [Version F] would
implement policies that would benefit rural students by
bolstering cultural structure for DEED and districts; but she
expressed doubt that this version of the bill would remain
intact by final passage. She recommended that committee members
consult bill sponsors at the front end of policy making, and at
that time it could be determined what actually works in the
diverse parts of the state. She recognized that, out of 60
members in the House, she has a limited ability to shape policy.
She stated that she is an Alaska Native woman educated in rural
Alaska, who thrived under the hard work of a single mom. From
this perspective, she expressed the obligation to voice deep
concern and discomfort on moving the proposed legislation. She
offered the hope that, if [Version F] were to advance, other
members would acknowledge the hard work to make sure the policy
would not disproportionately disadvantage Alaska Native students
and all rural students in the state.
8:26:36 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:26 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.
8:30:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK thanked Representative Zulkosky for the
comments. He stated that many good points had been made in
multiple discussions throughout the session. He stated that he
supported the original version of the bill but cannot support
this version.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY withdrew her objection.
8:30:41 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives, Hopkins, Story,
and Drummond voted in favor of the motion to move HCS CSSB 111,
Version 32-LS0485\F, Klein, 5/8/22, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
Representatives Gillham, Zulkosky, Prax, and Cronk voted against
it. Therefore, HCS CSSB 111(EDC) failed to move from the House
Education Standing Committee by a vote of 3-4.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|