HB 164-EARLY ED PROGRAMS; READING; VIRTUAL ED  8:09:06 AM CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 164, "An Act relating to early education programs provided by school districts; relating to school age eligibility; relating to early education programs; establishing a parents as teachers program; relating to the duties of the Department of Education and Early Development; relating to certification of teachers; establishing a reading intervention program for public school students enrolled in grades kindergarten through three; establishing a reading program in the Department of Education and Early Development; relating to a virtual education consortium; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee, adopted as a working document during the 4/23/21 House Education Standing Committee meeting, was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 164, Version 32- LS0731\I, Klein, 4/20/21 ("Version I").] 8:09:11 AM REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor, provided information on HB 164. He shared that President Joe Biden announced the American Families Plan, which would commit $1.8 billion over the next ten years for the federal government to partner with states in offering free, high-quality preschool. He said HB 164 would put Alaska in an ideal position to take advantage of federal investments in early education. 8:10:42 AM LOKI TOBIN, Staff, Senator Tom Begich, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of the Senate Education Standing Committee, sponsor of companion bill SB 111, presented the sectional analysis on the reading intervention sections of the committee substitute (CS) for HB 164, Version 32-LS0731\I, Klein, 4/20/21 ("Version I"), which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: (Page 2, line 29) Section 5: Amends AS 14.03.072 to require all districts to provide information regarding the importance of early reading and adult literacy to parents and guardians of students in grades K through 3. (Page 3, Line 11) Section 6: Repeals references to reading intervention services made in Section 5 on June 30, 2034. Reading intervention services, including culturally responsive individual reading plans, parent/guardian/family member notification, and evidence-based reading intervention strategies established under AS 14.30.765 are also repealed on June 30, 2034. (Page 3, line 23) Section 7: Amends AS 14.03.078 by directing DEED to include in their annual report to districts and the legislature information on the implementation process of the statewide reading intervention program established under AS 14.30.760- 14.30.775. Section 8 repeals this provision on June 30, 2034. 8:13:35 AM REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referred to the text of the proposed legislation, Section 5, subsection (a), paragraph (5), which was on page 3, lines 9-10, and read, "(5) a list of resources and  organizations that specialize in improving adult literacy." He pointed out that there have been discussions regarding how lists are put together and how the content of the lists are chosen, and he asked Ms. Tobin to go into detail about that process. MS. TOBIN replied that the referenced paragraph was added by Senator Micciche, and she deferred to the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED). 8:14:43 AM KAREN MELIN, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development, replied that DEED uses reliable, nationally- recognized websites and resources. REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether there exists a list of resources already. MS. MELIN replied that DEED already has a list, and that the department is always looking for new or better resources. 8:17:41 AM REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY thanked the bill sponsor for the inclusion of 'culturally responsive' language in bill, noting that culture is not necessarily correlated to geography. She asked whether there would be accommodations made in the Anchorage School District, for example, for students of the Yup'ik culture living in Dena'ina Elnena. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said he would be happy to work with Representative Zulkosky to address those questions. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND mentioned a map of indigenous languages across Alaska. 8:20:23 AM REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether all parents, at all levels of literacy, would receive information on adult literacy. MS. MELIN responded that the resources would need to be developed and refined for adult literacy. 8:21:16 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRAX noted the number of cultures represented in metro areas, and he wondered how the proposed legislation could work with respect to that representation. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND read from the proposed legislation, with reference to AS 14.06.010, on page 38, lines 25-27, which read as follows: (9) "culturally responsive" means showing respect for and recognition of the traditions, beliefs, languages, values, and practices of the local culture that has historically been present in the geographic area being served. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND stated that there is at least one school district that has a program of learning the indigenous language by immersion, and "that is their right and their privilege in this state, where we recognize indigenous languages as being of equal stature ... to English." For a community like Anchorage, she said, with hundreds of languages represented, there are options for indigenous languages. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated his intent to work with Representatives Zulkosky and Prax on incorporating the indigenous languages into HB 164. 8:24:37 AM MS. TOBIN resumed her presentation of the sectional analysis of Version I, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: (Page 7, starting on Line 18) Section 13: Creates a new section under AS 14.03.120 asking districts to report aggregate data to DEED on K-3rd grade reading program metrics, including student-teacher ratios, reading assessment performance, and retention metrics. (Page 10, starting on Line 31) The next six pages pertain to Sections 15 & 16: Amends AS 14.07.020 by authorizing DEED to provide direct support to school districts for the successful implementation of a K-3rd grade evidence-based reading program. Section 16 repeals this provision on June 30, 2034. 8:26:20 AM CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND noted that the analysis for Section 16 not in sequence. 8:26:52 AM REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referred to Section 7, subsection (a), paragraph 10, of the proposed legislation, on page 4, line 30, through page 5, line 2, which read as follows: (10) the effectiveness and participation rates of the  parents as teachers program established under AS  14.03.420, including measures of efficiency and  effectiveness that demonstrate the effects of the  program on school readiness.  REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked how school readiness and effectiveness of the program would be determined. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK deferred to Ms. Melin. 8:27:54 AM MS. MELIN said that, as far as ensuring children are meeting the five components of successful reading, the expectations would remain the same. REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether assessments for participants in the Parents as Teachers program would be compared to non-participants. MS.MELIN replied that the two groups wouldn't necessarily be compared, but that the students would be compared to the expectations set by the assessments. The Parents as Teachers program would help students be ready for the assessments, she said. REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said he doesn't understand how the effectiveness of the Parents as Teachers program would be measured or demonstrated. MS. MELIN responded that the effectiveness would be demonstrated through the assessment process; data would be collected from incoming students and would demonstrate the effectiveness of Parents as Teachers, preschool, and Head Start programs. 8:31:36 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY referred to Section 7, subsection (a), paragraph 8, subparagraph A, of the proposed legislation, on page 4, lines 15-18, which read as follows: (A) the number of certificated administrative  employees in each category employed by each school  district compared to the number of students enrolled  in the school district on October 1 of the previous  year;  REPRESENTATIVE STORY said, "I almost think it should say '... administrative employees and their role in each category  employed by ...' the school district." The expressed that she doesn't know whether instructional coaches, principals, or superintendents would be included as certificated administrative employees. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK directed the committee's attention to Section 9, subsection (d), of the proposed legislation, on page 6, lines 19-21, which read as follows: (d) In this section, "administrative employee" means an employee who does not provide direct classroom instruction for students as a regular part of the employee's job. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK noted the high rate of teacher turnover, and expressed the need to ensure that someone who is trained in the reading program will stay with the school district. He said the concern is that whoever has that certification actually performs the role in reading progression. REPRESENTATIVE STORY said she would appreciate identifying the positions. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND said the topic could be an amendment. 8:34:06 AM REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked whether there exists a section in the proposed legislation addressing teacher or reading specialist turnover. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK deferred to Ms. Melin. MS. MELIN agreed that turnover is a challenge for school districts. She discussed the possibility of DEED helping set up and facilitate training programs. 8:36:05 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked about the logistics of keeping certificated staff in smaller school districts. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK deferred to Ms. Melin. MS. MELIN said providing successful training is critical in supporting incoming teachers, regardless of location, which underscores the importance of providing training. She said DEED is committed to partnering with school districts to attract qualified educators. REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether there currently exists such a program within DEED. MS. MELIN replied that no program currently exists, but that such a program would be critical to the success of HB 164. 8:38:55 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY discussed the need to have local teachers and paraprofessionals trained as reading specialists. 8:39:56 AM MS. TOBIN resumed the sectional analysis, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: (Page 16, line 6) Section 18: Amends AS 14.07.050 to allow DEED the ability to purchase supplemental textbooks in support of evidence-based reading intervention strategies. For clarity, a district may request DEED purchase supplemental textbooks, and these textbooks are in addition to any materials a district already employs. Section 19 repeals this provision on June 30, 2034. (Page 19, starting on line 7) Section 23: Amends AS 14.07.180 by directing the state board of education to establish, in regulation, standards for evidence-based language art curricula for grades K-3. Please note that Commissioner Johnson has affirmed, on the record, his and the department's practice and continued commitment to engaging stakeholders when designing regulations. There are many sections that direct DEED and the state board to establish new regulations. This allows for stakeholder engagement, ensures a public comment period on any new regulations, and allows for nimbleness to respond to changing needs and dynamics. 8:42:13 AM REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked why sponsor did not include writing skills standards in the proposed legislation. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK offered to work on including assessments for writing skills. REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS expressed agreement. MS. TOBIN pointed out the five evidence-based reading components, established in 1960. 8:43:34 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked for clarification on the reading standards. MS. MELIN answered that DEED adopted language arts standards in 2012, which include a section of foundational skills in which the five components of reading are specifically addressed. 8:44:57 AM MS. TOBIN resumed the section analysis, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: (Page 22, line 13) Section 31 & (and on page 24, line 2) Section 34: Amends AS 14.20.015 to require out-of- state teachers moving to Alaska to have meet requirements established in regulation by DEED and the state board that shows the educators have a working understanding of evidence-based reading. Section 32 and 40 repeal these requirements for out-of-state teachers on June 30, 2034. (Page 24, Line 10) Section 35. Adds new section under AS 14.30, Article 15. Reading Intervention. (Page 24, line 15) Directs DEED to support school districts in adopting an evidence-based reading assessment tool to help kindergarten through 3rd-grade classroom teachers identify students struggling to learn to read. (Page 24, Line 26) Students will be assessed in the fall, and if a student is determined to be learning to read, the student will no longer be assessed that year. If a student is struggling to read, an individual reading improvement plan must be developed and implemented to help the student learn to read. Two more additional assessments will assist in ascertaining whether reading intervention strategies are working, provide clear insight into where a student may be struggling, and permit the department to provide additional, targeted support. 8:47:19 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether a school district would continue to use the assessment tool currently in use. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK deferred to Ms. Melin. MS. MELIN responded that the challenge is in the data gathering, because each tool delivers reports in a different manner. The power of collecting information would be in one universal tool that would allow direct comparisons. While different tools assess the same topics, she said, it would be difficult or impossible to gather meaningful data. REPRESENTATIVE STORY opined that it would be difficult and expensive for school districts to switch to a new assessment tool. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said the issue was recently addressed in a meeting with the Alaska Superintendents Association. He directed the committee's attention to Section 35, subsection (a), paragraph (5), on page 25, lines 15-21, of the proposed legislation, which read as follows: (5) establish a process that allows the commissioner to waive, upon request, use of the statewide screening or assessment tool required under this subsection by a school district if the school district has adopted an evidence-based reading screening or assessment tool and the screening or assessment tool is approved by the department; 8:51:34 AM REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY commented that the pedagogy of indigenous language learning does not align perfectly with English language learning. She asked how the assessment tools could work in indigenous language immersion environments. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND commented that language learning is easier when children are younger. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK responded that Representative Zulkosky's comment underscores the importance of data being reported by all school districts, so methods can be adapted. MS. MELIN explained that there are always benchmarks in the acquisition of language; helping children achieve English proficiency would help with other languages. REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked whether Ms. Melin was saying that grasping English phonics was the best way for a child to learn an indigenous language. MS. MELIN clarified that children acquire language more successfully when they are younger, compared to later in life. REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY repeated her concern about English language pedagogy with respect to indigenous language learning. She asked whether assessment requirements or tools would accommodate indigenous languages. MS. MELIN replied that any language acquisition process undertaken by a school district would be considered in any regulatory process. REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY stated that she would be interested in working with the sponsor to ensure statutory protections. 8:57:31 AM MS. TOBIN resumed the presentation of the sectional analysis, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: (Page 25) DEED is directed to provide training to school district staff in a reading assessment tool and train school district staff in evidence-based reading interventions. Districts are asked to identify which early education program a student attended (if attended) and report to the department reading proficiency. (Page 25) Districts may choose to adopt the reading assessment tool provided by DEED or use their own reading assessment tool if it is evidence-based and approved by DEED. In determining the type of reading assessment, DEED must consider the time it takes to administer the assessment, when assessment results may become available, how the assessment may be integrated into the classroom, recommendations from taskforces that studied reading deficiencies, and ensuring the assessment is culturally responsive. 8:58:46 AM [HB 164 was held over for further consideration]