Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205
01/28/2020 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 | |
| SB6 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 6-PRE-K/ELEM ED PROGRAMS/FUNDING; READING
8:59:54 AM
CHAIR STEVENS announced the consideration of SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE
FOR SENATE BILL NO. 6, "An Act relating to early education
programs provided by school districts; relating to funding for
early education programs; relating to the duties of the
Department of Education and Early Development; establishing a
reading intervention program for public school students enrolled
in grades kindergarten through three; establishing a literacy
program in the Department of Education and Early Development;
and providing for an effective date."
[SSSB 6, version 31-LS0159\S, known as the Alaska Reads Act, was
before the committee.]
He stated his intention was to focus on the five fiscal notes,
and hold the bill for further review. He asked the bill sponsor,
Senator Begich, for any comments.
9:00:42 AM
SENATOR BEGICH noted that at the last meeting the committee had
a lengthy review of the details in the bill. It has three major
components. One addresses early learning, one addresses the
science- and evidence-based reading component, and one provides
intensive intervention for the lower-performing schools. From
the research his office has done, the committee testimony, and
the work of Senator Hughes and Representative LeDoux and others,
he has learned that to have a successful reading program, kids
need to be prepared to read when they come to school. To have a
successful pre-K program, a strong reading program is needed to
reinforce the gains made in evidence-based prekindergarten. This
bill accomplishes both of those tasks. He, the governor, the
commissioner, and others have developed that concept and put
aside political differences to make this work for all kids in
Alaska. The sponsors and administration want to make sure all
kids have the opportunity to succeed. Today the committee will
get the cost of success. He is hoping that the committee comes
away with the idea that a price tag cannot be placed on it.
SENATOR BEGICH said there are pragmatic ways of addressing the
cost of the legislation, but in the end, if the state is able to
reduce the number of kids in special education and increase the
ability of students to move on to better opportunities by
providing those starting points for kids, the change will be
transformative for the state. There is no way to measure the
economic impact of that. He said the committee needs to hear
from the experts and from those who prepared the fiscal notes.
This will help flesh out the bill and answer some questions.
9:03:53 AM
MICHAEL JOHNSON, Ph.D., Commissioner, Department of Education
and Early Development (DEED), Juneau, Alaska, said part of what
makes this a great bill is that it reflects many discussions
from previous bills and brings them together to address reading
comprehensively. If the bill were only pre-K or only about
intervention it would not be as strong. The school improvement
piece is also critical because it tries to build capacity in
schools that have struggled for decades.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON said the cost of the bill is a worthy
investment if it is implemented effectively. It will make all
the other money spent on public education that much more
effective and meaningful in the lives of kids.
9:06:01 AM
HEIDI TESHNER, Director of Finance and Support Services,
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED), Juneau,
Alaska, noted the five fiscal notes for SB 6 and stated that she
would start with Fiscal Note 5, which addresses the foundation
program, OMB Component Number 141, and Fiscal Note 3, which is
for the fund capitalization, OMB component number 2804. These
two fiscal notes are what affect the addition of the four-year-
olds to the foundation formula. Fiscal Note 5 has no money tied
to it because this is a funding mechanism for this program. It
is a general fund transfer into the Public Education Fund, not
the foundation program, which is why it is a zero fiscal note.
MS. TESHNER said Fiscal Note 3 is where the committee starts
seeing the money needed to make the foundation program whole.
This fiscal note takes the total amount of projected state aid
and divides it by the total number of Average Daily Membership
(ADM) to come up with an average cost of ADM. The bill funds
students at one-half of that average, so $4,685 is the estimated
per student cost. As kids flow through the formula, districts
may receive more, depending on where the school is located. This
number is just for analysis of the school impact. Six cohorts
will go through the early education grant program. The first
cohort would transition into the foundation formula in FY 2024,
after the district finished the initial three-year grant. The
assumption is that all the programs will be approved, and the
students will transition into the funding formula.
MS. TESHNER said that starting in FY 2024, the foundation
program would increase by $1,724,100. This would increase to
$4,305,500 in FY 2025, and to $6,887,000 in 2026. By the time
all cohorts run through each of the three-year grants by FY 29,
the total increase to the foundation program is $17,217,400.
9:09:20 AM
MS. TESHNER continued with Fiscal Note 1, OMB Component Number
2912. It shows the cost of operating the early education grant
program, as well as providing the training and support to the
grantees. The estimate is three staff members to operate the
program and provide that training and support. There are two
education specialist positions and one education associate
reflected in the fiscal note. In addition to the salary and
benefits costs, there are department chargeback costs of $9,600
per person and a one-time charge of $5,000 per person for
supplies and equipment and a one-time cost of $6,000 for the
legal fees to implement the regulations tied to the early
education program. The total estimate for FY21 $401,900.
MS. TESHNER said that Fiscal Note 2, OMB Component Number 3028,
shows the cost for the pre-K program grants. The chart on Page 3
provides the breakdown of funding by fiscal year for the three-
year grant program. Table 1 shows that statewide, the number of
four-year-olds is about 10,000. The table estimates that
striving for a participation rate of 88 percent would be an
additional 3,675 students served by SB 6 [current district pre-K
number is 3,590 and the number for Head Start is 1,580]. Table 2
estimates how many students would flow through each grant year.
Participation in the grant program by 10 percent of the lowest-
performing school districts in Year 1 would be 368 students. The
cohort of students in the grant program for Year 2 and Year 3 is
estimated to be 551 students each year and then 735 students
each year for Years 4, 5, and 6 for a total of 3,675 students.
MS. TESHNER explained that Table 3 shows which cohort would flow
through the grant every year and the number of students every
year. Year 1 would just be Cohort 1, Year 2 would be Cohorts 1
and 2, and Year 3 would be Cohorts 1, 2, and 3. For Year 4,
Cohort 1 would transition to the foundation formula and Cohort 4
would start, joining Cohorts 2 and 3. The total estimated cost
for the three-year education grant year is $1,724,080 in Year 1,
and $4,305,515 in Year 2. Once all six cohorts move through the
three-year grant program, the estimated total is $51,652,125.
Table 4 reflects the numbers associated with coming up with the
foundation formula totals. Those are also reflected in the
fiscal analysis of those two fiscal notes. After all cohorts
have moved through, the increase to the foundational formula
would be $17,217,375 [the FY2029 cost of the pre-K students
being included in the foundation formula].
9:14:19 AM
MS. TESHNER said Fiscal Note 4, OMB Component Number 2796,
addresses the student school achievement costs associated with
the school improvement literacy program and the comprehensive
reading intervention program. The first program in the analysis
is the school improvement literacy program. Through this
program, DEED will provide direct support and intervention to
district and school literacy programs. In Year 1, up to 10 low-
performing districts would be served by a reading specialist
employed by DEED. Up to 20 schools would be served in the second
year and beyond. Depending on the size of the school and the
need, either one or two reading specialists would be assigned to
each school.
MS. TESHNER said DEED anticipates employing 10 to 20 specialists
in Year 1 and 20 to 40 in the subsequent years. For fiscal
analysis, the department maximized the number of positions in
Year 1 with five additional positions phased in annually over
the following four years. If DEED cannot hire all 20 staff in
Year 1, the out years will be adjusted based on how the program
is being implemented. The timing of the passage of the bill is
critical to help DEED hire staff as soon as possible in FY21, so
it can implement the program quickly and efficiently. In
addition to the salary and benefits costs reflected in the
fiscal note, the department chargebacks are $9,600 per person
and a one-time cost of $5,000 per person for supplies and
equipment, as well as $6,000 for legal services associated with
regulation changes.
MS. TESHNER said the final cost associated with the school
improvement literacy program is the purchase of supplemental
reading textbooks and materials for school districts in
connection with reading intervention services. The cost per
student when adopting a new reading curriculum is about $[250].
With approximately 10,000 students per grade, there are 40,000
students from kindergarten through third grade. In the present
fiscal year, FY20, 390 schools served K-3 students, which is an
average of 102 K-3 students per school. The costs associated
with supplemental reading textbooks would be $255,000 [for each
year of the literacy program, 10 schools X 102 K-3
students/school X $.25/student=$255.0].
9:17:35 AM
MS. TESHNER added that the comprehensive reading intervention
program is the next item reflected in Fiscal Note 3. DEED will
manage and operate the program and provide direct support and
training to all K-3 teachers on the use of statewide screening
or assessment tools. The staff needed for this is one education
administrator, two education specialists, and one education
associate. The staff will be required to participate in and
present at statewide professional development conferences, as
well as to provide direct support to district staff concerning
the statewide screening or assessment tool. For that, $3,000 is
needed for travel. In addition to salary and benefits, there are
the department chargebacks of $9,600 per person and a one-time
cost of $5,000 for supplies and equipment.
MS. TESHNER said the comprehensive reading intervention program
also requires the adoption and administration of a statewide
screening or assessment tool to identify the students in K-3
with reading deficiencies. With the 40,000 students in K-3, the
annual estimated cost for the tool is $320,000. The final costs
associated with this program are grants for one staff member per
district to attend a statewide training for the screening or
assessment tool. With 53 districts and an estimate cost of
$1,000 per staff member, the cost is $53,000. The overall
estimate is $4,221,700 in FY 21 to begin implementation for
those two programs.
9:19:37 AM
CHAIR STEVENS asked for the bottom line of costs for the entire
program.
MS. TESHNER answered that in Year 1 it is $6,347,700 and by FY26
it will be $24,606,000.
SENATOR BEGICH noted that he had some clarifying points because
the fiscal notes are complex and Fiscal Note 2 took three years
to develop. He stated, and Ms. Teshner affirmed, that the bottom
line number for the grants program is $50 million, but that is
spread out over nine years. In addition, the grants program is
more expensive than the cost of kids being counted as half of
the ADM. He pointed out, which Ms. Teshner affirmed, that the
impact of the foundation program is less than the cost of kids
being in the grants program because of the cost of developing
the grants program.
SENATOR BEGICH added, and Ms. Teshner agreed, that some
districts will be already qualified to roll [pre-K] kids into
the ADM, so that could potentially bring down the impact of the
fiscal note.
SENATOR BEGICH said the total estimated amount is the high end
of the fiscal note, with absolutely no one in the system and
with the need to bring everyone up to speed.
MS. TESHNER added that the maximum possible has to be estimated.
9:21:46 AM
SENATOR BEGICH responded that he is supportive of that. He noted
that one thing that cannot be measured is the savings of
potentially keeping kids out of such things as special education
and remedial education later on, as shown by state and national
data and research.
MS. TESHNER said absolutely. If students are caught early, they
will not be classified as intensive students. That would
definitely bring the cost of the foundation program down.
CHAIR STEVENS said he has heard that and would like
confirmation. He asked if many of the students in special
education are only there because of a lack of reading ability.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON replied it is probably true in some cases.
National studies show that sometimes students are placed in
special education because of a reading issue, not necessarily
because of a disability. That is not true in every case. If
students are reading proficiently by the end of third grade,
they are more likely to take dual credit courses and even
graduate early, further saving the system money.
SENATOR HUGHES asked for data showing the total amount other
states have saved in special education costs. She said she'd
also like to see the grand total for this bill for one year and
a number of years broken down into two buckets for pre-K and for
reading by the end of third grade.
MS. TESHNER said in Year 1, it is a $6.3 million increase. By
year 2026, it is a $24 million increase. From FY21 through FY26,
the total for those years alone is $91.5 million.
CHAIR STEVENS asked Senator Begich if the $50 million figure he
mentioned was for nine years of pre-K.
SENATOR BEGICH said student achievement, or the reading
component, the first year will be just over $4 million and the
pre-K component will be about $1.7 million. The pre-K component
maxes out in FY 26, when the largest number of districts will be
included, but by FY29 it is zero because the pre-K grants
program is gone then. That runs its course and it has a
termination date in the bill because every district will have
had the option to participate. The student and school
achievement component, the reading part of the act, continues.
It averages around $7 million a year. That is the additional
money necessary to keep the comprehensive reading program going.
9:26:49 AM
SENATOR HUGHES asked for confirmation that when the grant runs
out, the students are shifted to the ADM at the half rate and
the ADM will be increased by $17 million.
SENATOR BEGICH responded that at the end, the kids are rolled
into the ADM, which is less expensive than the grants program.
The grants program is more expensive because the state wants to
make sure that districts develop pre-K programs with the highest
levels of quality, similar to the ones the department currently
supports and funds. The governor said he supports early learning
and pre-K, but he did not want a number of different pre-K
programs with different standards or ones that aren't really
pre-K. Senator Begich said his response was that the
commissioner should have authority to determine what is a pre-K
program. Then those are rolled into ADM. The whole approach is
to provide integrity so that when kids start the reading
program, they can take full advantage of it and lock in the
gains made in pre-K.
SENATOR BEGICH asked Ms. Teshner if the fiscal notes reflect the
declining population of Alaska that the legislature has been
hearing about.
MS. TESHNER answered no.
SENATOR BEGICH said this is a substantial investment in kids,
but the cost is spread over nine years and there are mitigating
factors not reflected in the fiscal notes. Number one, the
population is getting older and shrinking. Number two, over
time, some of the districts will already include pre-K in the
ADM because they have programs that meet the criteria. That will
lower the grants outlay. Number three, with fewer students
needing remedial education, the impact on the foundation formula
will be less. The fiscal notes are large but the costs are
spread over time to provide the full impact of what the bill is
trying to do.
9:30:38 AM
SENATOR HUGHES said it would be helpful to have data from other
states showing how remedial and special education costs were
reduced, and data showing how costs might be reduced because of
population trends for Alaska. She expressed concern about the
size of the fiscal note and the idea that the state would spend
substantial amounts to teach kids to read by the end of third
grade when some schools are already doing that and all of them
should. This state has a $1.5 billion fiscal gap, so it
particularly important for the legislature to try to find
reductions.
SENATOR HUGHES noted that he said the pre-K grants will phase
out and the ADM will be a lower amount [than operating the
grants]. She asked if schools would incorporate these reading
interventions into what they do or if this would be an added
cost for the next 20, 30, and 40 years if this becomes law.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON replied the bill is a small percentage of
the $15 billion the state will spend on education in the next
ten years. As to whether the expense will be ongoing, he said
probably yes. The programs phase in over years and new students
will enter the system every year with needs that will be
addressed through these programs. In addition to reading, there
is an ongoing need to address frequent turnovers and the
resulting need for teacher training.
9:35:39 AM
CHAIR STEVENS asked if the department was taking on this
responsibility with just an additional three people and if that
was reasonable.
MS. TESHNER answered no. Three people would be added to the
department to coordinate the early learning grants, and an
additional 10 to 40 reading specialists would be employed by the
department to work in the schools.
CHAIR STEVENS asked if the 10 to 40 specialists would be
department employees.
MS. TESHNER answered yes, and there would be an additional four
staff for the reading intervention program. The intention is for
the education administrator to be the lead for the three
programs outlined in SB 6.
CHAIR STEVENS summarized, and Ms. Teshner affirmed, that there
would be seven staff members working in the department and 10 to
40 working in the districts.
9:37:09 AM
SENATOR COGHILL asked how many schools are in Alaska.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON answered 505 this year.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if the bill would target underperforming
schools.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON responded that the program starts by
targeting those schools.
SENATOR COGHILL asked how many schools are underperforming.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON offered to follow up with the number.
SENATOR COGHILL said that would help him decide whether he
agrees with this policy call. He commented on the retention
issue, particularly in rural schools, and questioned whether the
state could find that many reading specialists to hire.
9:39:24 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON replied there is a shortage of educators
across the nation, so the recruitment effort will need to be
aggressive and preferably sooner rather than later. Some expert
capacity exists within the state, but recruitment will also be
out of state. Regarding the cost, the department received a $21
million grant to build expertise and funding capacity and they
will look for other federal opportunities to support those
positions.
SENATOR COGHILL said he needed to understand the context of the
target but the commissioner could talk to him about that later.
He said some schools are doing well and he did not want to
disrespect that during this process.
CHAIR STEVENS said the meeting probably should have started by
talking about how bad things are. Certainly, there are schools
and districts doing well, but when Alaska is compared to the
rest of the nation, Alaska is particularly bad at reading. He
asked the commissioner to comment on that because it seems that
the state can only go up.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON replied that the National Assessment of
Education Progress (NAEP) is the one scientific assessment that
provides a true comparison across the 50 states. As
disappointing as it is, Alaska has ranked at the very bottom in
fourth grade reading proficiency in the last two NAEP
administrations. He acknowledged that Alaska does have kids who
are performing well, but the overall achievement gap is an
uncomfortable fact.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON said there is no reason Alaska kids should
not be at the top in the nation. This bill is a path to that
end.
9:44:02 AM
SENATOR COSTELLO said the effort and countless hours that have
gone into the challenge of bringing kids up to reading
proficiency should not go unrecognized. She mentioned her
constituents in particular, including families and teachers and
educators. She relayed the concern she's heard about having a
definition of a reading specialist to ensure that this is what
the state hires for these positions. She also asked what the
plan is if the state is unable to find enough reading
specialists and what that will do to the fiscal note in the
first and subsequent years.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON agreed that many Alaskans have been focused
on this issue for a long time. He said reading specialist and
several other elements will be defined in the regulatory process
that will include robust stakeholder input. He said in terms of
building capacity, DEED is already having conversations about
how to implement the professional development part of the bill
by partnering with other agencies. He mentioned the recent
Response to Intervention conference and meetings with SERRC to
align the comprehensive grant with the vision that every student
is reading by third grade.
9:48:44 AM
CHAIR STEVENS offered his understanding that reading specialists
are not necessarily new hires or outside people. They could be
current teachers with professional development.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON answered they're both. Some will hopefully
be recruited from within the system and some from the Lower 48.
If the bill passes, then a conversation will need to begin to
make sure that the university's teacher preparation programs and
reading specialist programs align with what the legislature has
said it wants through this reading bill.
9:49:39 AM
MS. TESHNER said regarding the rollover of funds if the
department cannot hire all the reading specialists or 368
students do not roll through the grant program the first year,
the department will adjust outyear requests to true up where the
department is with implementation of the programs.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked the commissioner if he said that the term
reading specialist will be defined through the regulatory
process, not legislation.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON replied, as the legislation was developed,
the conversations were that that it would be defined in
regulation, but it's up to the legislature to decide.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked if other states with reading specialist
legislation define that aspect in statute.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON offered to follow up with the answer.
9:51:14 AM
SENATOR BEGICH said Colorado and other states have a definition
for reading specialist and he was not opposed to putting most
definitions in the bill if necessary. To address Senator
Coghill's statement about honoring schools, he said if districts
have a working pre-K program, which many do, they can roll those
kids into the ADM without going through the three-year grants
process. That is a reward to those districts because it
acknowledges that they have already done the hard work.
SENATOR BEGICH disclosed that he runs a scholarship program that
funds students in teacher preparation programs but his efforts
on the bill would not benefit him or enhance his income.
SENATOR BEGICH said regarding fund issues, the legislature
cannot dedicate funds but it often designates them. He cited the
example of legislation related the raffle and a change in the
percent of market value (POMV) calculation for deposits into the
education trust fund that increased the state income, ostensibly
for education, by almost $10 million annually. The legislature
cannot dedicate that money to education, but the implication is
that there is an extra $10 million this year for education. He
also mentioned the proposed legislation for an education head
tax that can't specifically go to education but it would show
legislative intent if that bill were to pass. This is not
uncommon and is worth remembering as this bill goes through the
process.
9:55:05 AM
SENATOR HUGHES described the idea of training technicians to
provide medical services and questioned whether it was possible
to train technicians to deliver reading instruction. She also
asked if the $10 million the sponsor described would be per
year.
SENATOR BEGICH answered that the change in the deposits in the
trust fund now represent an additional $10 million annually, not
one-time money. He said he was guessing at the numbers, but Mr.
Partlow would be more accurate in his presentation about the
trust and the raffle.
SENATOR HUGHES asked the commissioner if he knew what percentage
of kindergarteners are not prepared when they enter school.
9:58:07 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON replied 69 percent, which is a significant
number. Teachers administer the Kindergarten Developmental
Profile, which has 13 categories, and 69 percent did not meet
the threshold of being prepared.
SENATOR HUGHES asked why the participation goal is 88 percent
and not 69 percent.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON deferred to Ms. Teshner to answer about the
participation rate. The department goal is to have every child
reading proficiently by the end of third grade.
MS. TESHNER said the department is striving to make sure every
student is reading proficiently. Last session Senator Begich
reported that some states have a participation rate around 70 to
77 percent. The department is striving high. It can look at
whether 70 percent is a better starting point.
SENATOR HUGHES said just as Senator Coghill has respect for
parents who are doing a good job, she has respect for parents
who are doing a good job. She said if the participation rate is
too high, perhaps there are kids being put in the program who
could be just as well or better served at home. If the state is
pushing every child in a public school by age 4, she is
resistant to that.
SENATOR BEGICH responded that the bill is based on the Oklahoma
bill from about 20 years ago. The participation goal represents
the number of kids who would potentially be enrolled in pre-K,
but the choice is up to parents. It is not a mandatory pre-K
program and parents who would choose not to participate are
absolutely respected. He said he heard that loud and clear in
2017 and made sure pre-K was a voluntary component, like
Oklahoma's. Some states with these laws have a significantly
lower participation rate. Oklahoma happens to be around 88
percent, so that seemed to be a fair target if all districts
were exposed. That percentage is about how many parents might
potentially enroll their kids in pre-K, not achievement. The
bill has other strong elements to strengthen the parents' voice,
just as he and the governor agreed.
10:01:54 AM
CHAIR STEVENS asked the commissioner whether the 10 to 40
reading specialists could be anything less than certificated
teachers.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON replied that could be defined in the bill
but the intent is that it is someone who is certified with a
degree that represents skill in reading. He noted that some the
education support professionals who work in schools now have
been highly trained. To the question about students being
prepared for kindergarten and participation in a pre-K program,
he said those are two separate things. He agreed with the
sponsor that families should have the choice of sending their
kids to pre-K. For budget purposes they estimate how many
students will participate, but that is different from how many
kids are prepared for kindergarten.
CHAIR STEVENS called Michael Partlow to the table.
10:04:31 AM
MICHAEL PARTLOW, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Finance Division,
Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, said he was not
prepared to speak in detail about the Public School Trust Fund
amount but he could speak generally about trends. He said recent
changes in the management of the fund has freed up more money
for annual appropriations out of the Public School Trust Fund.
Previously, earnings from the fund were placed in a separate
fund and only those could be appropriated. This limited
potential investment vehicles to things like bonds. That
averaged about $16 million over the last several years for
appropriations to the foundation formula payments that
essentially supplanted the UGF [unrestricted general funds]
payment.
MR. PARTLOW said starting in 2018, the fund was used to help
fund operations at Mt. Edgecumbe. That lowered the amount
available to the foundation but lowered the UGF obligation for
Mt. Edgecumbe. The new percent of market value (POMV) model
allows different types of investments which increased the money
available for sustainable appropriation from about $16 million
to $26 million. This year, the governor included a $29 million
appropriation out of that fund for the foundation. He said the
governor proposed funding Mt. Edgecumbe funded with UGF so the
Public School Trust Fund earnings would be appropriated go
towards foundation funding. The education raffle mentioned
earlier is a new source of funds. Unlike the Public School Trust
Fund that is used to supplant UGF, education raffle funding,
which now is budgeted at $488,000, is considered additional
money outside of the formula.
SENATOR BEGICH observed that after this year, he was hopeful
that the state would make a raffle announcement before filing
for PFDs begins.
10:08:21 AM
CHAIR STEVENS noted that Karen Melin, DEED Deputy Commissioner,
and Tamara Van Wyhe, Director of Innovation and Education
Excellence, were available online for any questions. He opened
public testimony.
10:09:09 AM
JUDY ELEDGE, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, said she has
been in education since 1981 in Alaska and in rural Alaska since
1997. She retired in 2003 and has worked off and on as a state
coach consulting with the lowest performing school districts, so
she is very aware of what the state needs and does not need. She
said she has not always been a proponent of preschool, but when
students come to school without the oral language needed for the
kindergarten curriculum, it is extremely difficult. If the bill
is implemented correctly, she supports it although cost will be
an issue for some. She mentioned retirees working in the
coaching program and pointed out that retired teachers may be a
valuable resource.
CHAIR STEVENS asked if retired teachers could serve as some of
the reading specialists.
MS. ELEDGE answered yes. Right now, the coaching program
consists mostly of retired teachers who work for the department
on contract with low-performing schools.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked how a low-performing school is defined.
MS. ELEDGE replied that is based on data from DEED on test
scores and other criteria. The federal government also has a lot
of the identifiers of low-performing schools.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked if this bill were enacted, how
legislators would know whether it is working and if it is
effective.
MS. ELEDGE replied that she would defer to the commissioner
because she has had an issue with how money is spent with
seemingly no accountability.
10:12:22 AM
SENATOR BEGICH reported that conversations with Ms. Eledge about
accountability have helped enhance the bill. He noted that
Senator Hughes raised the same questions in an earlier hearing.
He said the bill has a defined research component to track what
districts are doing and whether they are meeting benchmarks.
Further, the reporting requirement in the bill will help show
how the bill is being implemented. He said the governor,
commissioner, and he felt the research and accountability
components were critical parts of the bill.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON offered to follow up with a presentation on
DEED's accountability system if the committee was interested in
the elements. Accountability that is built into the bill
includes schools and districts reporting outcomes on the
Internet, that specialists are certified and that the definition
will be in regulation, and that reading specialists will report
to the department. Transparency is ensured with postings on
district and the department web sites.
MS. Eledge said it's exciting that the bill builds a strong
system of comprehensive support because that has been lacking.
She stated support for the commissioner and described the
excitement evident at a recent conference from states that have
received federal grants.
SENATOR HUGHES described Ms. Eledge as a miracle worker and said
she was pleased that she was going to be part of this process.
She clarified her earlier comment about technician/aide
certification saying that should be an option if the state has
trouble keeping certified teachers. She also asked if the bill
ties district reporting to their funding, and if some of the
coaches working on contract might be retired teachers, which
would not add costs to the retirement system.
10:17:26 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON answered that districts have to demonstrate
that they have a quality pre-K to fund those students through
the Base Student Allocation. For the foundation formula, there
is no mechanism in state law to withhold funding from a district
because of performance. No Child Left Behind had financial
implications for schools that were low performing for an
extended time. Most of that changed with ESSA, so there are no
financial penalties. Quality and success have to be demonstrated
to access some of the money for pre-K. For the school
improvement piece, access to the money is based on a memorandum
of agreement between the department and the school for certain
outcomes.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON said Ms. Teshner may be able to answer
whether the fiscal note represents a PCN [position control
number] or contract. He agrees that many retired teachers in the
state are able to add expertise and experience. He noted that
the legislature also passed a retire/rehire bill that could be
applicable.
CHAIR STEVENS observed that Table 2, 3-Year Early Education
Grant Cycle--District Eligibility, for Fiscal Note 2 indicates
that 2021 would include the lowest 10 percent of districts. He
asked if that is the right number.
10:19:59 AM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON asked if he was asking why the grant
program is phased in with different percentages of school
districts participating each year.
CHAIR STEVENS answered yes and asked for help understanding the
reasons for involving the different percentages.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON replied the bill recognizes that to ensure
quality, the recruitment, retention, and training needs to
happen by phasing the program in over a number of years.
CHAIR STEVENS restated that the commissioner thinks that is a
reasonable pace to make sure the state achieves the success it
wants.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON confirmed that he thought it reasonable and
added that it could be said to be ambitious given the challenges
the state has.
10:22:03 AM
1. CHAIR STEVENS said the committee will have further
opportunities for public testimony. After ascertaining that no
one else in the audience wanted to testify, he asked for any
comments from the committee.
SENATOR COSTELLO commented that the bill uses reading and
literacy throughout and almost interchangeably, but she'd never
had a parent say their child was having trouble with literacy.
Instead, parents just mention trouble with reading. She
providing definitions so the committee knows what is meant by
the word reading and what is meant by the term literacy.
10:23:22 AM
CHAIR STEVENS held SB 6 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 17_SSSB006_AK-Reads-Act_FiscalNote01_DEED_EarlyLearningCoord_23Jan2020.pdf |
SEDC 1/28/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 6 |
| 18_SSSB006_AK-Reads-Act_FiscalNote02_DEED_PreKGrants_23Jan2020.pdf |
SEDC 1/28/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 6 |
| 19_SSSB006_AK-Reads-Act_FiscalNote03_DEED_PublicEdFund_23Jan2020.pdf |
SEDC 1/28/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 6 |
| 20_SSSB006_AK-Reads-Act_FiscalNote04_DEED_StudentSchoolAchievment_23Jan2020.pdf |
SEDC 1/28/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 6 |
| 21_SSSB006_AK-Reads-Act_FiscalNote05_DEED_FoundationFormula_23Jan2020.pdf |
SEDC 1/28/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 6 |
| SSSB006_AK-Reads-Act_DEED-FollowUp_Misc_28Jan2020.pdf |
SEDC 1/28/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 6 |