04/06/2009 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB130 | |
| HB59 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 130 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 59 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
April 6, 2009
8:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz, Vice Chair
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Robert L. "Bob" Buch
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 130
"An Act relating to questionnaires and surveys administered in
the public schools."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 59
"An Act providing for the establishment of a statewide early
childhood education plan and guidelines."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 130
SHORT TITLE: STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRES AND SURVEYS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) WILSON
02/13/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/13/09 (H) EDC, HSS
04/06/09 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 59
SHORT TITLE: PRE-ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROGRAMS/PLANS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KAWASAKI, GARA, TUCK, PETERSEN
01/20/09 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/09
01/20/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/09 (H) EDC, FIN
04/06/09 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REBECCA ROONEY, Staff
to Representative Peggy Wilson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 130 on behalf of
Representative Wilson, prime sponsor.
STEVE WARREN
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 130.
EMILY NENON, Alaska Government Relations Director
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 130.
BRODY ANDERSON, Staff
to Representative Kawasaki
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Kawasaki, one
of the prime sponsors, reviewed the changes encompassed in CSHB
59, Version E.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT KAWASAKI
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as one of the prime sponsors of HB
59.
LENETTA COLBERT, Director
Open Arms Child Development Center;
Adjunct Professor, University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF);
Early Childhood Commission, Fairbanks Northstar Borough
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 59.
REVEREND PHILIP KUEHNERT, Pastor
Zion Lutheran Church;
Chair, Board of Directors, Open Arms Institute
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 59.
EDDY JEANS, Director
School Finance and Facilities Section
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 59, answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:01:55 AM
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:01 a.m. Representatives Seaton, Wilson,
Munoz, Keller, Gardner, and Buch were present at the call to
order.
HB 130-STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRES AND SURVEYS
8:02:28 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 130, "An Act relating to questionnaires and
surveys administered in the public schools."
8:02:40 AM
REBECCA ROONEY, Staff, Representative Peggy Wilson, Alaska State
Legislature, speaking on behalf of the sponsor, provided the
following testimony:
HB 130 will change the parental consent requirement of
anonymous surveys in schools from active to passive.
With passive consent we believe we get good
representative samples that can serve two very
important functions. First, they identify behaviors
in youth both positive and negative. It also helps
understand the effectiveness of the solutions to the
previously identified issues and behaviors.
This data helps policy makers, educators, program
planners, and parents to better understand important
health and social issues that affect young peoples'
chances of success.
Routine standardized surveys such as the national and
state Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), which is
conducted by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
track trends over time. They also help guide and
evaluate important health and prevention programs.
State and federal grant programs that rely on these
surveys include tobacco prevention and control,
obesity prevention, diabetes, heart disease, stroke,
safe and drug free schools, and other substance abuse
prevention programs, injury prevention, including both
from violence and suicide, HIV and STD prevention, and
more.
The current active consent for anonymous surveys over
burdens the school system and significantly increases
costs involved in conducting surveys. It is estimated
that over 80 percent of the parents who do not return
written permission for participation in surveys is not
because they do not want their child to take the
survey, but because of apathy, oversight, or student
error. This bill will change the current practice of
active permission to passive permission so that the
parent has the option to deny participation rather
than the requirement to provide written permission.
Many schools are unable to use the data they collect
because there are not enough participants. The
overall statewide response rate for YRBS for 2005 was
55 percent, which made it short of the 60 percent
required. The state was unable to use the data and
publish the report since the data would not be
representative of the high school population.
This bill will address the concerns about making sure
that parents understand the content of the surveys.
We have expanded the information the written
notification must include to provide parents with the
data they need to make an informed decision on whether
to opt out of the survey for their child. The
notification must include:
1. The date the survey will be administered.
2. A description of [the content] of the survey.
3. Sponsor of the survey.
4. Point of contact in the school district for
the survey.
5. Notice of the opportunity to review the
survey questions.
6. A description of how the survey will be
administered.
7. A description of how to opt out of that survey.
8. Notice of the opportunity for the student to
refuse to take the survey or to answer any of the
specific questions.
We urge you to move this bill from committee so that
we can gather this important data for the health of
our youth.
8:06:37 AM
CHAIR SEATON inquired as to why the language in Sections 1 and 2
isn't parallel.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON pointed out that the language on page 1,
line 7, of Section 1 says "This subsection does not apply to a
questionnaire or survey that is anonymous ...." The YRBS is an
anonymous survey.
CHAIR SEATON said he wanted to guard against any gaps that would
allow the survey to be performed by anyone else in the school
district if the survey is anonymous. He then related his intent
to hold the bill for action at a future hearing.
8:08:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if Chair Seaton's concern is that
the current language only allows an anonymous survey to be
administered by the school district or an employee of the school
district.
CHAIR SEATON agreed that is of concern. However, he added that
another concern is that Section 2 wouldn't apply if the
anonymous survey was administered by someone other than a school
district employee. He expressed the desire to be sure that
there isn't an unintended gap with the permission language in
Sections 1 and 2.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON surmised then that Chair Seaton is
referring to the language on page 1, lines 4-5, which says
"school district may not administer or permit administration"
whereas the language in Section 2 doesn't include the language
"or permit administration".
CHAIR SEATON said that is correct.
8:10:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER remarked that the language "or an
employee of a school district" on page 1, line 4, could be
omitted because it would be understood since the language
specifies that the school district is administering the survey.
MS. ROONEY said the sponsor would take the aforementioned
suggestion under advisement and discuss it with Legislative
Legal and Research Services.
8:11:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER expressed interest as to why it has been
difficult for school districts to obtain active consent. He
questioned whether parents are reticent to sign the permission
slips or are the parents not seen once a year.
MS. ROONEY, from studies she has read, relayed that about 78
percent of those who do not participate in studies that require
active permission do so due to apathy, oversight, or student
error. In further response to Representative Keller, Ms. Rooney
explained that schools try various methods to contact the
parent, including mailings, telephone calls, submissions, and
reward systems to encourage higher return rates of permission
slips. Ms. Rooney opined that it's very difficult and costly
for the school districts.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER presumed then that this bill will address
the parents who are not [attentive and responsive].
MS. ROONEY agreed, but reiterated that some of the non-
responsiveness is error.
8:14:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired as to the financial impact on the
school districts that don't have the survey information.
MS. ROONEY related her understanding that last year the
Anchorage School District spent $70,000 to receive the responses
to collect the data. She explained that since the survey is
administered [no matter the permission], it isn't until the
responses are in that the school district knows whether there
are enough to produce the report and be considered at the state
and national levels.
8:15:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if there are situations in which an
insufficient number of responses prevents the district from
receiving grant funding.
MS. ROONEY replied yes.
8:15:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that one can't assume that
parents who don't return surveys don't care.
MS. ROONEY noted her agreement, and added that biased sample
data may result when active permission is required. She
attributed the aforementioned to the responding parents who are
typically Caucasian, more educated, and more involved in their
student.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ mentioned that the lack of permission slips
can also be the fault of the teenager in terms of not providing
the information in a timely fashion.
8:17:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON added that the permission slip can also be
lost on its return to school. She then informed the committee
that last year this bill was amended in the House Judiciary
Standing Committee to ensure that parental rights were observed.
This bill still reflects those changes and allows for many means
by which the parents have the opportunity to understand and
respond to the survey. The written notice is still required,
she pointed out. Although some schools provide single notice
permission slips at the beginning of the year, the parent can
still specify that he/she wants to be notified of each instance
[requiring their permission] and the school would have to
comply.
8:19:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER inquired as to whether the sponsor has any
comments regarding the federal law that applies.
MS. ROONEY pointed out that the active permission requirement
was repealed after the federal government determined in 2003
that the data was skewed and there was a lack of participation.
Therefore, passive permission was allowed under No Child Left
Behind (NCLB).
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER, referring to the federal law,
characterized it to be somewhat like double talk.
8:21:33 AM
STEVE WARREN opined that the active consent requirement for
anonymous surveys makes it difficult to address some of the
dangerous, emerging trends. As a hunter he likened the
situation to a hunter who closes his eyes and shoots at a bear
he thinks he heard. Aiming the state's limited prevention funds
without much guidance as to the location of the target is
fiscally and morally not a good approach. Mr. Warren said that
when he talks with parents regarding huffing or ordering drugs
from the Internet, parents say it isn't a problem in Sitka.
However, the empty spray paint and glue containers in
neighborhood forts indicate the contrary. "We're limiting
ourselves to guessing if we deny ourselves this proven
technology for assessing what risks our kids really face," Mr.
Warren opined. All students need to be given the opportunity to
inform the authorities of the dangers they face in an anonymous
fashion. The students who are least likely to make it through
all the hoops with the consent forms are the very students that
should be heard from, he pointed out. He then stated that
posing some simple questions about whether a student is using
and what is being used isn't the problem; the real problem is
the lack of constraints put on the pushers of alcohol and
tobacco, which he characterized as a proven gateway to other
drugs. The surveys are drawn up in a sound means to determine
specific dangers faced by the students while protecting the
anonymity of the students surveyed. In conclusion, he opined
that it's important to pass HB 130.
8:25:17 AM
EMILY NENON, Alaska Government Relations Director, American
Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN), said that
although the ACS CAN doesn't receive any direct benefit from the
surveys, it's critical in helping the cancer society attain
information regarding where they should focus their efforts.
Furthermore, there needs to be a consistent way in which to
measure the work that the prevention dollars fund. Ms. Nenon
highlighted that this legislation won't fix everything as it's
not the only thing that needs to happen with the YRBS. There
are other efforts outside of the legislature to educate
classroom teachers as to why these surveys are important as well
as educate students as to how taking this survey benefits them.
Ms. Nenon acknowledged that the legislation before the committee
has went through a few iterations over the years and is at a
good point now.
8:28:20 AM
CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony and informed the committee
that HB 130 will be held for another hearing, and that any
proposed amendments should be provided to the chair and bill
sponsor prior to the next hearing.
8:29:44 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:29 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.
HB 59-PRE-ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROGRAMS/PLANS
8:30:46 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 59, "An Act providing for the establishment of a
statewide early childhood education plan and guidelines."
8:31:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to adopt CSHB 59, Version 26-
LS0329\E, Mischel, 3/9/09, as the working document.
8:31:13 AM
CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion and informed the committee
that the sectional analysis and fiscal note they were just
provided relates to Version E.
8:32:25 AM
BRODY ANDERSON, Staff, Representative Kawasaki, Alaska State
Legislature, informed the committee that the only change
encompassed in Version E is on page 4, lines 1-2. A committee
substitute was requested because there was concern regarding
whether the Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
would include other organizations, child care facilities, and
child care providers outside of Head Start in discussions of
guidelines. He pointed out that many child care facilities and
providers already have criteria that they are required by law to
follow in order to be licensed with the department. Therefore,
there is no desire to duplicate existing efforts.
8:34:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if the new language on page 4,
lines 1-2, would include programs such as Parents as Teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT KAWASAKI, Alaska State Legislature,
speaking as one of the prime sponsors, replied yes, and added
that the notion is to have inclusive legislation to include
early childhood education plans for facilities that are outside
regular school districts or Head Start programs.
8:35:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON related that in Wrangell there are several
different day care centers, some of which are babysitters while
others have trained employees who provide language development.
She asked if Version E would include [those programs with
trained employees who provide educational development].
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI replied yes, adding that the desire is
to have as inclusive a bill as possible. He clarified that
those facilities with specific educational purposes would be
included.
8:36:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER inquired as to whether this bill is
necessary, particularly since there is a Pre-Kindergarten (Pre-
K) plan statewide. He further inquired as to how this bill is
different.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI opined that this bill is necessary. He
reminded the committee that much of the discussion in the
legislature focuses on K-12 education and postsecondary
education. This bill adds a new section under the duties of the
department to include and devise a statewide early education
plan. The department has some policy notes and discussion on
the matter, but only about .1 percent of the department's budget
goes toward early education. Therefore, he said it's necessary
to have the language in statute to ensure the department views
it as a priority of the legislature.
8:37:59 AM
CHAIR SEATON removed his objection to the adoption of CSHB 59,
Version E. There being no further objection, Version E was
before the committee.
8:39:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired as to how the zero fiscal note
reconciles with the staff requirements of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI deferred this question and suggested
that EED would devise the plan and place it in policy, although
it's not currently funded.
8:40:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI then introduced HB 59, which he said is
more than just an education bill. He related that those who
received quality early education have had 29 percent higher high
school graduation rates and 20 percent higher college [entrance]
rates. Furthermore, those who received quality early education
can earn up to $140,000 additional income per capita per
individual, which can result in better employment. Furthermore,
those who receive quality early education could have a 70
percent lower incidence of crime. Also, those who receive
quality early education are less likely to be on welfare rolls
and the McDowell Group report relates a 25 percent decrease in
dependents.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI informed the committee that Alaska is 1
of 10 states that doesn't spend funds on early education and
Pre-Kindergarten, specifically. This bill would add Alaska to
the list of states that recognize the benefits of early
education and childhood development. He acknowledged that [the
legislature] has done fairly well with education the last few
years by increasing the base student allocation by $100 and
adding funds for special education and pupil transportation.
Furthermore, district cost factors have been added.
Representative Kawasaki opined that the legislature has done
well for K-12 education. In fact, the Fairbanks school district
experienced a budget increase of $6 million, which is the
largest it has received in nearly two decades.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI highlighted that the University of
Alaska system has remained strong as it's one of the best world
class institutions in the North. More specifically, the
university system has one of the best physics programs and is
one of the only land, sea, space, and air institutions in the
North. In fact, [the University of Alaska's physics program] is
a leader in global climate change. However, early education
funding is lacking. As mentioned earlier, all of the early
education funding together totals one-tenth of one percent of
the budget and most of those funds are federal funds. He
reminded the committee that Head Start is generally only
available to the poorest families as is the case with Child Care
Assistance. According to the Head Start Association, nearly 50
percent are waiting to attend Head Start due to the lack of
funding and state support.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI explained that the need to spend more on
Pre-K rather than on the K-12 or university level is because
funding pre-Kindergarten really does work. There is an
immediate and long-term benefit to funding pre-Kindergarten.
Critical development occurs in the early years as children are a
sponge during Pre-K. According to the National Institute for
Early Education students who have received quality early
education courses have experienced a 30 percent greater
vocabulary rates and 40 percent greater math rates. "Our
investment pays dividends; every $1 invested can return a
potential $7-$17," he informed the committee. He further
informed the committee that a study that tracked students who
are now 40-year-old adults from the time they entered a
preschool. Those students have, on average, earned 33 percent
more than those who didn't attend a state funded pre-
Kindergarten school. He then related that Best Beginnings and
school district data illustrates that those who begin school in
Kindergarten or First grade are unprepared. However, he
clarified that it's not a failure of young children to learn but
rather it's a failure of parents, the education system,
politicians, and society. This legislation, he opined, can move
[the education system and the state's young residents] toward
success.
8:47:06 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if the report date of January 2010 is a
reasonable timeframe in which EED can develop a plan. He
related his assumption that this educational plan will require
conferences with various stakeholders.
MR. ANDERSON related that EED already has the first draft of the
Alaska Education Plan, which includes early education criteria.
With regard to the actual implementation date, it has been
discussed with EED; the department didn't express a problem with
the date.
8:49:44 AM
MR. ANDERSON, in response to Chair Seaton, specified that the
language on page 4, lines 3-17, is already in statute. The
intent was to include early education as is accomplished with
the language on page 4, lines 18-20. He said he wasn't sure if
those additional duties are part of the contention or whether it
has to do with the things that have already been implemented
through Best Beginnings.
CHAIR SEATON is there is language other than on page 4, lines 5-
6, that has been pointed to as why this language is not
necessary because it's covered elsewhere. He asked if the
sponsor is aware of the existence language in existing statute
that specifies the department of school board should cover this.
8:53:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER recalled Representative Kawasaki relating
the many benefits of early education as specified in the 2006
McDowell Group report. However, he said that he couldn't find
any such documentation of those benefits in the 2006 McDowell
Group report. He requested a documented list of the benefits
specified in the sponsor's literature as well as information
gleaned from the national arena.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI said that he has volumes of information
supporting the premise that early education does have long-term
benefits, which he agreed to provide to the committee.
8:55:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ expressed interest in obtaining information
on the 10 states that do not provide funding for early
education, specifically information on the graduation rates and
benchmark test scores of the students in those 10 states.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI agreed to provide that information.
8:56:57 AM
LENETTA COLBERT, Director, Open Arms Child Development Center;
Adjunct Professor, University of Alaska Fairbanks; Early
Childhood Commission, Fairbanks Northstar Borough, noted that
she has worked in early childhood for about 35 years. She
related that the three accredited early childhood centers in
Alaska have met 460 standards, which exceeds state law.
Therefore, there are centers in place that are ready to go with
this program. With regard to questions about documenting the
studies presented, she offered to provide further information on
proven studies. She mentioned that the text she uses specifies
that early education saves $12.90 per every $1.00 spent. All
children can benefit from a good beginning, not just poverty
students, she opined. Although there is an image of early
childhood centers being babysitters, accredited centers have
curriculum for children six months of age and requires that
teachers provide weekly lesson plans that address
developmentally appropriate education. Furthermore, accredited
centers also perform assessments every three months to track
those children who need intervention. Ms. Colbert pointed out
that the Legislative Research Report number 06.026 includes
information on the High/Scope Perry Preschool Project and the
Abecedarian Early Childhood Intervention Project, which discuss
the savings resulting from early childhood education. She
highlighted the following from the Abecedarian Early Childhood
Intervention Project: "School districts saved more than $11,000
per child because participants are less likely to require
special or remedial education."
9:01:51 AM
CHAIR SEATON reviewed the committee packet and requested that
Ms. Colbert submit any additional information to the committee.
9:02:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked for further information concerning
the Perry Study.
MS. COLBERT explained that the High/Scope Perry Preschool
Project started about 43 years ago. The project followed a
group of children in a developmentally appropriate early
childhood program and tracked them in terms of various aspects,
such as enrollment in college, purchase of home, gainful
employment, and community involvement.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH, in response to Chair Seaton, pointed out
that the reference to the High/Scope Perry Preschool Project can
be found on pages 6-7 of the Legislative Research Report number
06.026.
9:04:34 AM
REVEREND PHILIP KUEHNERT, Pastor, Zion Lutheran Church; Chair,
Board of Directors, Open Arms Institute, informed the committee
that as chair of the Board of Directors for the Open Arms
Institute he travels to the Lower 48 frequently to visit the 59
Open Arms Centers in 12 states. Those visits make him aware of
the states that are involved and those states that aren't
involved in early childhood programs. Reverend Kuehnert
encouraged the committee to favorably consider this legislation.
Although he acknowledged the fiscal difficulties the legislature
faces, he indicated the need to sacrifice when it's in the best
interest of a child's long-term health and success in life. The
legislation, he opined, in part [addresses] the long-term health
and success of children. He suggested that HB 59 will get to
those families between the poverty-stricken and wealthy who
don't have the ability or opportunity to attend early childhood
education programs. Reverend Kuehnert encouraged the committee
to pass and fund this legislation.
9:07:22 AM
CHAIR SEATON requested that Reverend Kuehnert forward any
information regarding the Open Arms program, specifically the
number of students, staff, preparation, outcomes, as well as any
other pertinent information.
9:07:57 AM
CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony.
9:08:16 AM
EDDY JEANS, Director, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Department of Education and Early Development, explained that
the zero fiscal note reflects that the department already has
staff working on the development of a plan. He echoed Mr.
Anderson's earlier testimony that early education is part of the
department's education plan. The legislation requires that the
department provide a report of a proposed early childhood plan
in 2010, which he opined the department is well on its way to
achieving. He pointed out that the governor has requested $2
million for a pilot Pre-K program and EED has requested an
increase in the Head Start funding to total $800,000.
9:09:40 AM
MR. JEANS, in response to Chair Seaton, said that the report
date of January 15, 2010, is reasonable. As mentioned
previously, the department does not see one specific program as
addressing early childhood needs in the state, which is why the
governor and commissioner requested funding such that various
delivery models can be reviewed. One of the delivery models is
Head Start. In further response to Chair Seaton, Mr. Jeans
related his understanding that EED would provide a complete plan
and report that to the legislature. However, he expressed hope
that there is flexibility if the report isn't fully completed by
January 15, 2010.
9:11:59 AM
CHAIR SEATON then asked if there would be a difference in the
plan or report if the statutory language said the department
would report to the legislature "on the progress of the early
childhood education plan devised under this statute versus
report on the plan that [EED] basically adopted."
MR. JEANS remarked that inserting the term "progress" would be
appreciated as it would provide the department additional
flexibility.
9:12:53 AM
CHAIR SEATON inquired as to the location of the statutory
language that stipulates the department will perform early
childhood development.
MR. JEANS directed attention to the following language on page
2, lines 17-18, of Version E: "exercise general supervision
over pre-elementary schools that receive direct state or federal
funding". The aforementioned language doesn't direct the
department to develop such a program, it merely says that if
there is such a program, the department has general supervision
over it. However, the language on page 3, beginning on line 26
specifies that the department shall "devise a statewide early
childhood education plan", which provides the department with a
clear legislative directive to develop the early childhood plan
for the state.
9:14:12 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if the department opposes the incorporation
of this new direction.
MR. JEANS responded that the department is neutral on this bill.
He reiterated that the department is already headed in this
direction and this legislation will not hamper the department.
9:14:57 AM
MR. JEANS, regarding the language on page 3, lines 26-27, and
page 2, lines 17-19, relayed that currently under the
department's pilot Pre-K program, the department is considering
providing state supported Pre-K for four-year-olds. However, he
noted that the Head Start services both three- and four-year-
olds. As long as there's an understanding that some of the
multiple programs that are being considered to provide early
childhood services may include three-year-old children while
some may include four-year-old children, it should be fine, he
said.
9:16:00 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that the Parents as Teachers program
sometimes involves children that are below the age of three.
Therefore, he questioned whether [Version E] includes
restrictive language or does it allow the department to
incorporate programs that service children under the age of
four.
MR. JEANS explained that currently the Parents as Teachers
program is funded directly by the federal government to
nonprofits that provide the service. The funds don't flow
through EED and the department has no oversight over the Parents
as Teachers program. The Head Start program is different in
that EED does provide state support and if the additional
$800,000 that is being requested this year is obtained, the
department can have requirements attached to that funding. The
funding provided from the state allows the department to provide
oversight. If the will of the legislature is to have a state
funded Parents as Teachers program, this legislation would limit
it to three- and four-year-olds.
CHAIR SEATON remarked that he holds the same concern for the
department's pilot program, and therefore he expressed the need
to ensure that the legislation's language isn't limiting. To
that end, Chair Seaton requested that the department meet with
the sponsor to craft language such that it's allowable to
incorporate those voluntary programs that include children
younger than age three.
MR. JEANS agreed to do so.
9:18:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON highlighted that of the 38 states that
have preschool programs, half aren't adequately funded. Noting
that Alaska has already had some lawsuits, Representative Wilson
asked if the state will be set up for lawsuits by putting more
[early education language] into statute, particularly if funding
isn't available.
MR. JEANS said that once Pre-K is placed in statute, it becomes
a viable option for the state to help those schools that are
chronically underperforming. Therefore, it would likely create
a situation in which the courts would call for the state to
target its resources to those districts that are chronically
underperforming. He noted that Judge Gleason has said that Pre-
K should be considered as an option to help [underperforming]
districts. However, she has taken caution with regard to
whether the aforementioned is constitutionally mandated. This
would likely increase the state's exposure to lawsuit, he
opined.
9:20:36 AM
CHAIR SEATON surmised then that having language specifying that
the department "shall" have an education plan for students and
provide for coordination may then have a mandated requirement.
MR. JEANS opined that the program would still be considered
voluntary. However, if there was a situation in which limited
resources were available to support a Pre-K program, the courts
could mandate that the state target its resources to the lowest
performing communities.
9:21:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if this is already occurring.
MR. JEANS related that EED doesn't view early childhood programs
as a fix all for underperforming districts. However, some of
the underperforming districts already have Pre-K programs, and
therefore the quality of the program and its delivery make the
difference. The same is true for the Parents as Teachers and
Head Start programs.
9:22:47 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether this directive language provides the
department the ability to establish and improve early education
guidelines and programs that aren't working well.
MR. JEANS opined that once this is put into law it will fall
under EED's supervision. Currently, SB 285 is the vehicle for
the department to direct how chronically underperforming
districts spend their resources and make personnel decisions to
improve student achievement. Absent the aforementioned, the
department will provide very general supervision over the Pre-K
programs. Mr. Jeans then told the committee that the early
learning guidelines have already been developed in collaboration
with Department of Health and Social Services early childhood
providers and adopted by the Alaska State Board of Education
last year. Those guidelines are available on the department's
web site and there's an effort to distribute them to early
childhood providers.
9:24:34 AM
CHAIR SEATON inquired as to the difference the legislation will
make in terms of the department's ability to aid the
underperforming programs.
MR. JEANS informed the committee that the draft Request for
Proposals (RFP) for the pilot Pre-K already includes a
requirement for districts to specify how they will implement
early learning guidelines into their program. Again, the
department is already going in that direction, he stated. In
fact, EED already has staff that is providing training in the
early learning guidelines.
9:26:03 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if the department has any suggestions to
improve the bill other than the prior suggestion to identify
progress in the report [so that the legislature would receive a
report on the progress of the department's development of an
early childhood program].
MR. JEANS requested more time to work with the bill sponsor.
9:27:30 AM
CHAIR SEATON recalled that the only other issue is the age of
the child to which the plan would apply, on which Mr. Jeans will
work with the sponsor.
9:27:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked if Mr. Jeans foresaw any of the
department's issues that it will discuss with the sponsor to
require changes to the zero fiscal note.
MR. JEANS explained that the fiscal note from EED was in
response to the development of the early childhood plan. Once
the plan is developed and the timeline in place, there will be
an associated fiscal cost. However, it may be in line with what
the department's doing with its budget process.
9:28:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if there are stated goals from the
outset of the plan, the plan the department is already pursuing,
that lead to an ultimate outcome. More specifically, she
inquired as to the specific goals and whether they will be
stated.
MR. JEANS specified that the education plan is a very broad
statement of support for an early childhood program and that the
commissioner intends to bring early childhood providers together
to refine the structure of those programs or validate whether
existing programs are appropriate. The pilot program isn't
intended to be a brick-and-mortar addition to the school system
as the commissioner is interested in developing resource centers
in the schools where parents can talk with certified educators
and have resources for parental use. Mr. Jeans predicted that
the ultimate plan will include pieces from all the programs and
initiatives.
9:30:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON, referring to the last page of the
Legislative Research Report number 08.087, which says, "With the
current level of funding, Head Start serves just under half (48
percent) of the children in Alaska who are three to five year
olds ...." She related her understanding that the department
wants to double the amount [of funding], and inquired as to how
many children that would reach.
MR. JEANS clarified that the $800,000 the department has
requested doesn't cover the 50 percent of children who are on
the wait list. There are just over 1,000 students who are on
the wait list for Head Start. The $800,000 will address about
80 of those students. He reminded the committee that last year
the department requested funding that addressed 60 students on
the wait list for Head Start. Next year the department will
request funds to address about 80 more students. Mr. Jeans
explained that the Head Start program is different than what
most would envision as a Pre-K program because it provides full
wrap-around services, including medical, dental, counseling, and
instructional services. With the department's pilot program the
department hopes to have more collaboration with the programs
within the public school system, he related. For instance,
perhaps the public school could hire a certified teacher who
could provide literacy to the Head Start program.
9:33:03 AM
CHAIR SEATON recalled that the US Public Health Service Report
indicated that 88 percent of children under the age of six in
some communities in the state have to have full mouth
reconstructive surgery. Although the aforementioned is an
expensive major dental procedure, early health and education are
determinatives for the success of Alaskans.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that early childhood development
is just one of many areas in which the state needs to focus.
Another area requiring focus is domestic violence, particularly
given Alaska's high incidence of domestic violence.
Furthermore, the learning ability of children who experience
domestic violence is hampered.
[HB 59 was held.]
9:35:48 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:36 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 130 information.pdf |
HEDC 4/6/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/10/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 130 |
| HB 59 background I.pdf |
HEDC 4/6/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 59 |
| HB 59 workdraft version E and original version R.pdf |
HEDC 4/6/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 59 |
| HB 59 background II.pdf |
HEDC 4/6/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 59 |
| HB59-ESS-EED-4-2-09.pdf |
HEDC 4/6/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 59 |
| HB130-EED-ESS-4-3-09.pdf |
HEDC 4/6/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/10/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 130 |