CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 104(2d FIN) "An Act relating to the duties of the Department of Education and Early Development; relating to the duties of the state Board of Education and Early Development; relating to school curricula; and relating to a system for managing student information and records related to individualized education programs for children with disabilities." 3:24:13 PM MICHAEL JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, spoke in support of the bill. The bill benefited school districts. Some school districts would benefit financially from the legislation. The department was appreciative because it benefited all schools in the state by providing educators additional information about what was working and being used at other schools around the state. It provided the department the ability to collect information and publish it on the department's website. Commissioner Johnson continued that the department was particularly appreciative of the bill for the information it provided parents and policy makers. It reported what curriculum was being used and invited parents to be a part of the process in understanding what was being used for their students and schools. Mostly, the department was appreciative that the bill did something great for students. He suggested that by providing all of the other people in the system the resources and information, decisions would be made to benefit students in the classroom. The department was appreciative of the bill and the conversation that took place around it. He was hopeful that the department would be able to apply it for the benefit of students in the state. Co-Chair Foster invited the bill sponsor to the table. 3:26:49 PM SENATOR ANNA MCKINNON, SPONSOR, introduced the bill that was an attempt to improve educational outcomes for students. It was not mandatory for districts to participate. However, it allowed the Department of Education and Early Development to see if they were ready to move forward in a process. Senator MacKinnon continued that the bill would make a pilot program available for up to 5 schools. Hopefully those schools would be able to participate in each curriculum in the effort to improve math and language arts - basic skills that all students needed to be successful in elementary school, middle school, college, and life beyond. She explained that the 3-year pilot program would be constructed on the ability to be able to go forward and look at the change. Through the first year of the program, DEED would work with districts and teachers proficient in these skills to look around the world, inside America, and inside Alaska to see if the state had best practices in place and whether students could achieve outcomes consistent with the current standards. She admitted that the standards could change and that the bill did not address the standards in place. The bill stipulated that whatever curricula moved forward should meet Alaska State standards. Senator MacKinnon continued to detail the bill. The legislation would require school districts to put their curriculum on DEED's website so that parents would have an opportunity to understand and engage in a student's education and opportunities to support that student in individual schools. She emphasized that it was the only mandate in the bill. Senator MacKinnon relayed that the bill also updated and would support schools that wanted to improve communication for individual education performance plans. She offered that she could go into extensive detail about the paperwork required to communicate an individual education plan. As she recalled there was a minimum of 27 pages and sometimes up to 3, 5, or 15 people that needed to come together to sign off on all of the paperwork for an individual student. She would leave it up to her staff to explain further. Senator MacKinnon offered that the bill created a new fund called the "Curriculum and Best Practices Fund." It was charged with $30 million. The money would not be extended in a huge part in year 1. It was an up to amount of $10 million in year 1, year 2, and year 3 of the pilot program as the program went forward. She indicated that depending on the schools and their readiness or willingness to engage in the incentivized curricula, the fund would offset or help individual schools, the number would be expended for the remaining 3 years in different segments. Senator MacKinnon did not anticipate spending the entire $30 million. As she understood, the Anchorage School District recently reviewed some of its curricula. It was her estimation that they would not redo their curricula. She highlighted another change in the bill which had to do with length of time. Legislators had tried to find ways to deploy and streamline processes for educators. They were working hard and doing a good job in many areas around the state. However, some students were struggling. She argued that curricula were the foundation of trying to provide a stepping stone to create consistency and support from DEED. Senator MacKinnon continued that Alaska's constitution guaranteed local self-determination. The reason why there was a pilot program was to try to bring people together, specifically Alaska's Board of Education to agree on what was best to achieve something for students that they could align with and succeed with in their future. There was a process outlined in the bill where the department worked with school districts across the state in forming and finding the curricula that might be available and then incentivizing its use should districts choose to do so on a voluntary basis. As she understood, specifically in math, Alaska's largest districts were circling around similar curricula. Sometimes the same process was not available to smaller schools. She elaborated that depending on school size, a school might have different levels of expertise in individual subjects in smaller school districts. Although the curricula review was extended from 6 years to 10 in the bill, the state school board would be required to review curricula for math and language arts every 5 years to ensure that the core portion of learning was looked at all of the time. She was available for questions. 3:32:50 PM BRITTANY HUTCHINSON, STAFF, SENATOR ANNA MCKINNON, was available to present the sectional analysis, if it was the will of the committee. Co-Chair Foster did not think the committee needed a review of the sectional analysis. He reviewed a list of available testifiers. He asked the senator if she wanted to continue or if she wanted to wait. Senator MacKinnon thought that the will of the legislature was for the co-chairmen to meet and to try to solve and find a path forward on the budget. She was happy to wait for questions until after the public hearing. Ms. Hartman could stay to answer questions. She was aware of the huge fiscal note associated with the bill. She assured members that the money was saved rather than spent. She explained the reason the number was so high was because of the ADM at $150 per student. Everyone had the ability to participate. However, for the pilot program only a maximum of 5 schools would be allowed to participate - 1 rural and 1 urban. She recollected that Anchorage had already done a rewrite. Co-Chair Foster indicated the committee would bring the bill up the following day, rather than being in a rush. 3:35:38 PM AT EASE 3:36:10 PM RECONVENED Co-Chair Foster would pass the gavel to Vice-Chair Gara. Vice-Chair Gara OPENED public testimony. 3:37:10 PM DR. DEENA BISHOP, ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in support of SB 104. She relayed that curriculum was a foundational piece of quality instruction. She understood education took resources and education made a difference. The bill would provide a means for all districts to access and guarantee them viable curriculum. State approved curricula was a standard found in many states allowing for the expertise and resources to be shared by the largest and smallest communities. She thought the bill was exactly what districts should be asking from the state in support of its schools in partnership with DEED. She Reported that Anchorage School District supported the bill. Representative Wilson asked when the Anchorage school system last updated its English and math curricula. Dr. Bishop responded that the district had its first adoption of its K-12 literacy program. The district had gone through a process in the prior year to adopt an evidence-based reading curriculum. The district updated its math curriculum 5 years ago. The district was not looking to change curricula. The school district was using data to demonstrate the area for which it needed to find growth. Representative Wilson asked about the process of reviewing the district's curriculum. Dr. Bishop responded that the district had conducted the process in small units due to budget constraints. The district had looked at elementary K-2, which had new curriculum, instruction, and assessments. In the following year the district would be rolling out 3-5. She elaborated that professional development and preparation were required in the rolling out of new curriculum. Vice-Chair Gara indicated there were no other testifiers online. 3:40:49 PM Representative Ortiz asked Dr. Bishop about science curriculum being reviewed. He wondered if things changed more rapidly than every 10 years. Dr. Bishop explained that the school district used its data. For instance, the district's math data was enough to be reviewed. The district had reviewed its data and found that what was happening in its classrooms currently was not meeting its goals in some areas. The district was choosing to reinvest in some areas. In other areas, in a 6-year continuous cycle, the district felt confident. The district was focusing its energy on where the need existed. She hoped that leadership around the state and individual districts would do the same. The legislation would allow for the expertise to be statewide so that for smaller districts that did not have the means could engage in the process. Anchorage School District's science was addressed every year. The district was working through science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). She elaborated about curriculum reviews and looking at the impact in student learning and whether outcomes were where they were expected to be. If they were not, the school district would look at what was happening in the schools from day-to-day. The school district wanted to ensure the success of its students when they left the district. Vice-Chair Gara thanked Dr. Bishop for her testimony. 3:44:33 PM Vice-Chair Gara CLOSED public testimony. Vice-Chair Gara reported that amendments were due by Friday, April 20, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. [The meeting was recessed to the call of the chair but never reconvened.]