HOUSE BILL NO. 19 "An Act relating to instruction in a language other than English; and establishing limited language immersion teacher certificates." 2:21:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS, SPONSOR, explained that the bill related to teacher certification. He noted that identical legislation had been offered in the previous legislature. He added that some legislators may recall very similar legislation two legislatures back, which passed by a 40-0 vote. The bill would create a limited teacher's certificate for teachers in the field of immersion language education. He stated there were two sides to the topic. The first was world language education, which he believed people in Southcentral Alaska were very familiar with. He elaborated that the Anchorage School District (ASD) had a diverse, nationally leading program of immersion language education from Japanese to French to Russian. The second side of the utility of the limited certificate was Native language education. He highlighted a Yupik immersion language elementary school in Bethel. He relayed that in the Yukon Kuskokwim (YK) region there was substantial interest in starting other Native language immersion programs around the state. He added that the ASD recently launched a Yupik language immersion program as well. Representative Kreiss-Tomkins relayed that HB 19 spoke to many of the unique challenges associated with launching and maintaining immersion language programs. He added that the programs were nearly universally popular with parents, educators, school board members, and districts. He stressed it was very difficult within the current certification system to be able to recruit and certify teachers. The bill provided flexibility in the ability to recruit and certify fluent teachers in the languages. He relayed that districts were desperate for the solution proposed in the bill and had been asking for it for years. He hoped the legislature could act and deliver on the promise and demand from teachers and educators on immersion language education. Representative Josephson stated that the country had many lawfully admitted non-citizens who spoke Spanish, French, German, and Japanese, for example. He asked if the bill would allow them to obtain a teaching certificate that would enable them to teach math, science, history, and other topics. Representative Kreiss-Tompkins replied that it depended. He explained the answer was no if the person was teaching in the English language, while the answer was maybe if the person was teaching in their "target language" such as Yupik or Russian depending on the regulations promulgated by the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED), which were regulatory powers given to the agency in the legislation. He relayed it would be up to the state board and the Board of Education in order to promulgate whatever sideboards they saw fit in terms of what could be taught. He stated it was conceivable that the entities could see the option as appropriate and if so, the answer to Representative Josephson's question would be yes. 2:25:44 PM Representative Josephson believed there was a dearth of fluent indigenous language speakers for some languages in Alaska. He did not believe it was the case for the Yupik language. He shared that he had lived in the Yupik region for three years. He remarked that the committee had recently heard a bill from Representative Andi Story that existed partly because of the concern. He asked if it was currently difficult to find suitable candidates in Alaska to teach classical language programs such as Spanish, French, and German. He used his alma mater, West High in Anchorage as an example. Representative Kreiss-Tompkins answered that a Japanese class at West High would not fall under the category of a language immersion program and would fall outside the parameters of the bill. He could not speak to traditional foreign language classes, which were treated differently than immersion language programs. Co-Chair Merrick noted that Representative Wool had joined the meeting earlier. Representative LeBon provided a scenario where a high school offered traditional language courses such as Spanish, French, and German, in addition to a non- traditional language such as Chinese. He asked if the student taking Chinese as a substitution for the other languages would receive equal credit if the school district required a language credit for graduation. Representative Kreiss-Tompkins asked for a repeat of the question. Representative LeBon complied. He asked if an immersion language course would be considered an elective that was not part of the language requirements for graduation. For example, he asked if a student would still need to take Spanish to meet the language requirement for graduation. 2:29:30 PM Representative Kreiss-Tompkins provided context about immersion language programs. He explained that the programs typically started in elementary school in kindergarten. For example, first graders were in a mostly Japanese language environment and often tracked through middle school. He explained that immersion programs typically tapered off at the end of middle school when students were fully fluent in the target language (e.g., Russian, Japanese, Yupik). The elaborated that in high school there may be some maintenance of the language, but they were already fully fluent and were in a normal high school curriculum. He did not know what the ASD did when students entering high school were fully fluent in Japanese. He assumed that because of a student's completion of a Japanese program in their elementary and middle school years that their foreign language requirements were satisfied for graduation. Co-Chair Merrick shared that as a mother of a freshman at Chugiak High School, many of the kids from the Spanish immersion class attended the high school and she believed some of their required courses were taken in the foreign language. Representative LeBon shared that his daughter had been in a Japanese immersion program beginning in elementary school through middle school. He explained that her high school did not have Japanese and she had taken French to fulfill the graduation language requirement. He shared that she had received a university degree in Japanese studies. He was trying to ascertain whether students would receive credit towards the language requirement for graduation. Under a scenario where credit was received, he asked about the standard for proficiency required to earn the credit. He wanted the option available in schools for students to learn a language that may not traditionally be offered, but if the state was granting credit for a foreign language towards graduation, there had to be standards and proficiency met. 2:32:44 PM Representative Kreiss-Tompkins thought it was a decision made at the school district level how any given district chose to accord credit for completion of an immersion language program. Representative LeBon agreed that school boards measured and decided the question. He stated the easy answer for a school board was to provide the traditional language classes and make immersion an elective or after school program, not credited toward graduation. 2:33:47 PM Vice-Chair Ortiz thanked the bill sponsor for bringing the legislation forward. He spoke the effort to do what was possible to help preserve Alaska Native languages. He understood that the bill did not address the specific goal. He cited language in the sectional analysis (copy on file) stating that "a person may only receive a limited language immersion teaching certificate if they demonstrate instructional skills and subject matter expertise sufficient to assure the public that the person is competent as a teacher." He considered the language to mean that a person would have to prove they had the ability to be a teacher and that they could teach some of the different subject matter skills in the language. He asked where the proof would be shown in the process. He asked how it would take place. Representative Kreiss-Tompkins answered that the specifics would be promulgated by DEED. The bill provided directional guidance codified in statute for the agency to build out a regulatory structure. He thought it may be helpful to the committee to "game out" what certification contemplated by the bill would look like. He elaborated that if a teacher was identified to teach an immersion language program (e.g., a Tlingit language program in Juneau or Ketchikan or an Armenian program in Anchorage) the district would communicate they wanted the teacher, and the school board would have to affirmatively vote to sponsor certification of the teacher. He used Representative LeBon's former experience on the Fairbanks School Board as an example and explained that the board would have to vote to approve the teacher. He elaborated that approval would subsequently be required by the State Board of Education. He relayed there were many hoops and checks the process had to go through. Representative Kreiss-Tomkins expounded that throughout the process with the superintendent and school board sponsoring the application for licensure and the approval on the state level the questions on a person's instructional skills and subject matter expertise would be adjudicated at each of the levels along the way. He believed there would be ample review. He elaborated that if one of the reviewing entities along the way did not feel good about the licensure application, they would say no. He stated that how the standard would be adjudicated was a very relevant process. 2:38:01 PM Representative Wool asked how often the process would take place once approved. He asked if an application would be approved for a period of one year or longer. Representative Kreiss-Tompkins answered that the initial certificate would be valid for one year as shown on page 2, lines 17 and 18 of the bill. He stated there may be the option of extension or renewal; it would be up to DEED to determine the issue in regulation. Representative Wool believed there was currently a similar fast-track certification process for indigenous languages for non-certified teachers. Representative Kreiss-Tompkins agreed. He elaborated the specific teacher licensure was known as "type M" for indigenous language in a non-immersion format. He explained that the real focus of the bill was on immersion language programs where elementary and middle schoolers were fully immersed in all subjects in the target language. He relayed that the existing type M licensure section also included vocational and technical education. For example, if a person was a skilled welder and the district thought they would do well teaching classes, they could bring the person in to teach. He believed military, arts, and science or education existed under the type M section. 2:40:20 PM Representative Josephson referenced schools that were broadly considered to be extremely successful such as the Rilke [Schule German] School in Anchorage. He asked for verification that a student could graduate with a high school diploma from Rilke. Representative Kreiss-Tompkins believed Representative Josephson was accurate. Representative Josephson hoped the Rilke School offered physics and calculus. He asked how the school hired a German proficient person for the [teaching] positions. He asked if instructors had to prove they were proficient in math and science in addition to German. Representative Kreiss-Tompkins replied that it would be valuable to hear from the ASD director of the world language program who had been a strong advocate of the policy in the proposed and past legislation. He noted that the director had been through every travail and tribulation to try to keep the immersion language programs staffed. Additionally, staff and leadership at Fronteras [Spanish Immersion Charter School} in Wasilla had shared many anecdotes. He stated that education leaders trying to keep and expand the programs, mostly in response to demand from parents and students, were sometimes forced to resort to creative and non-ideal means to keep good teachers in the classroom. For example, there could be indefinite or long- term substitutes who had expertise in language and another subject as well. He added that schools often recruited from the countries in question for world language programs. For example, teachers were recruited from Columbia to teach Spanish programs but if there was not the time to get the teacher certificated, they may teach as a substitute. He noted his answer was a composite of anecdotes he had heard over the years. He stated that the situation was kind of a nightmare and the individuals involved could speak more authoritatively on the topic. 2:43:19 PM Representative Wool stated his understanding that as students progressed along their educational career that some classes in an immersion school such as physics, chemistry, and calculus may be taught in English. Representative Kreiss-Tompkins agreed. He recalled that most immersion programs began with a blend between the target language and English. He believed that as students got older and progressed through subsequent grade levels, the proportion of English relative to the target language increased. For example, as students entered middle school, an increasing portion of the day was in English versus the target language as fluency got closer to being achieved. He believed he recalled previous testimony on the legislation that in the immersion language programs, superintendents or principals try to get the fluent teachers to optimize or maximize for their fluency. He believed Russian fluent teachers typically were not teaching English in a Russian language immersion program because it was the value add to the program. Representative Wool recalled speaking to someone on his local school board after learning about the legislation. He relayed that the person had told him they were having difficulty finding a Spanish or French teacher. He noted that the legislation was for an immersion school. He believed there was a current shortage of language teachers in both immersion and non-immersion schools. He surmised the bill would not address the shortage. He asked for verification that a person from a foreign country who was teacher certified could not apply for a job as a Japanese teacher in a non-immersion school. He asked for verification that the bill only applied to immersion schools and not traditional high schools that may also need a foreign language teacher. Representative Kreiss-Tompkins replied that Representative Wool's statements were correct, broadly speaking. He highlighted that the title of the bill indicated that it focused on immersion programs. He did not expect the State Board of Education would approve someone to work as a normal Spanish language teacher at a non-immersion school [as a result of the legislation]. 2:48:01 PM Co-Chair Merrick moved to invited testimony. REID MADGANZ, SELF, KOTZEBUE (via teleconference), shared a personal story about his upbringing. He had been raised in Kotzebue after his parents moved from the Lower 48. He relayed that he had left the state to go to college and had returned five years later. He shared that he had worked as staff in the legislature upon his return. He had moved back to Kotzebue and was learning Inupiaq and felt very lucky to be among those who would help revitalize the language. He was talking with friends around the state about their experiences with the education system in the early stages of an effort to help schools better serve students, especially in rural Alaska. Mr. Madganz relayed that his statements represented his experience, particularly as a former student in Alaska's public schools and working on Native language revitalization. He spoke primarily from the rural Alaskan perspective. He read from prepared remarks: HB 19 directly addresses what I've come to understand as the most important barrier to greater academic success for rural Alaska students. That barrier is not the size of the school, it's not the inherent intelligence of our children, it's not whatever is going on in the community outside the school walls, it's relevance or more accurately, the lack of it. I was talking to a friend here in town earlier this winter, an elementary school teacher whose curriculum on transportation was instructing her to teach about subways. To teach elementary kids in Kotzebue who have almost certainly never seen a subway, some of whom may never see a subway. Meanwhile, if she wanted to teach them about snowmachines in her transportation unit, she would have had to draw on her own experience to build that lesson. Is it any wonder then that we see students lose interest in school, then lose interest in learning, then be seen as only one of the underwhelming statistics that we're all aware of when it comes to rural Alaska education? It's a process I saw repeated in classmate after classmate as I went through school here in Kotzebue. The goal of HB 19 is to change this dynamic by supporting the development of language immersion programs that will offer instruction directly relevant to the experience of rural Alaska students. We know from the experience of schools in our own state, like Ayaprun Elitnaurvik in Bethel, as well as schools in Hawaii, the Lower 48, and around the world, that well- crafted immersion programs offering curricula relevant to their community and students can raise academic achievement and success across the board in every subject for students of any race. So, what is the barrier to this vision? The biggest one is the lack of teachers. We have teachers with certifications from universities, we have teachers who are rooted in their communities and who know or are learning their language. We have very, very few that are both. So, for any school district a group of community members wanting to start an immersion school, the immediate challenge is how to staff it. The challenge is so daunting that most efforts never get off the ground or require to operate outside the public school system where they struggle to grow and sustain themselves due to funding constraints. HB 19 tackles this problem head on, offering a realistic and pragmatic path to start and maintain the sorts of immersion schools that have proven so successful here in Alaska and elsewhere. It recognizes that the best preparation for providing a relevant education to our students, especially when that education is delivered through a Native language, is a life in those students' communities, not necessarily a university teacher program in the Lower 48. HB 19 provides a path for school districts to get those teachers into our classrooms, those teachers most likely to kindle the fire of learning in our students within regulatory parameters established by the Department of Education and the State Board of Education. I want to end with a quick story. Kotzebue has an Inupiaq immersion school, a tribal school run by the local tribal government named Nikaitchuat Ilisagviat. It serves at various times a set of students from three years old to second grade. It's been in operation for 23 years and for the best of my knowledge has never had state certified teachers because to my knowledge there aren't any state certified teachers who can speak fluent Inupiaq in the Northwest Arctic Borough. The students that attend Nikaitchaut move to public school sometime between first and third grade. When they do, they lead their classes by example, examples of respect, behavior, and leadership. As they move through school, many former Nikaitchaut students often lead their classes in academic performance. This is a small sample, but it's a promise of what we can have more of and what HB 19 can help bring about on a broader scale. Thank you for your time today and I'm happy to answer any questions. 2:54:39 PM Co-Chair Merrick OPENED public testimony. NATASHA SINGH, GENERAL COUNSEL, TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE (via teleconference), testified in support of the legislation on behalf of the Tanana Chiefs Conference and the Alaska Regional Coalition, which included four Alaska Native regional nonprofits and one regional tribe including the Tanana Chiefs Conference, Kawerak, Inc., Maniilaq Association, Chugachmiut, and Central Council Tlingit-Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska representing 100 communities and 65,000 Alaskans. She relayed that language diversity in the state provided enrichment. She stated that world languages were great for the economy and indigenous languages held the sciences that developed in this land for over 20,000 years. She elaborated that Native languages are the basis of Native culture and identity. Ms. Singh furthered that teaching Native languages had proven to increase graduation rates and improve academic achievements. She stated that the bill provided a way to help elevate and preserve Alaska Native languages. She urged the committee to pass the bill. 2:57:10 PM NORM WOOTEN, DIRECTOR OF ADVOCACY, ASSOCIATION OF ALASKA SCHOOL BOARDS (via teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. He shared that the association had a number of resolutions supporting the preservation of indigenous languages and by extension, any language native to a culture. He communicated that he had hosted a number of foreign exchange students over the years, and he was almost embarrassed to say that native born Americans were almost last in being bilingual. He stated that in nearly every other country, bilingualism was a commonality. Mr. Wooten stated that regarding indigenous languages, the quickest way to eliminate a culture was to eliminate the language. He detailed that it had come close to occurring in Alaska in the recent past when many indigenous citizens were sent to boarding school and prohibited from speaking their language. He encouraged the committee to support the legislation and pass it from committee. He thanked the committee for the opportunity to testify. Co-Chair Merrick CLOSED public testimony. Representative Josephson addressed a question to Sondra Meredith with the Department of Education and Early Development. He referenced a letter of support from Deena Bishop, Superintendent of the Anchorage School District. He noted that at the end of page 1 of the letter she talked about DEED's program enrollment option. He understood the program to require candidates to enroll in a teacher education program at the same time they were teaching. Additionally, Ms. Bishop referred to "type W" limited certificates and noted they require teacher preparation programs. He asked if he should be concerned that everyone else still had to study education for 1.5 years, but the class of people addressed in the bill may not have to fulfill the same requirement. SONDRA MEREDITH, ADMINISTRATOR, TEACHER CERTIFICATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference), answered there were some examples in current statutes allowing for the situation under the type M certificate including language and culture, ROTC and military science, and vocational education. She explained that the aforementioned subjects had been longstanding allowances in statute. She elaborated that the individual districts had monitored the skills of the individuals under the certificates for a number of years to great success. She believed that while there were traditional pathways [to become a teacher], the certificate in the bill recognized there were other ways to gather the skills outside of the typical university experience. Representative Josephson referenced testimony by Mr. Madganz where he talked about education a person gathered through experience as opposed to teacher training in the classical sense. He had concern that critics of public schools could say that teachers are not bred, they are born. He asked if his concerns were merited. 3:03:18 PM Ms. Meredith believed everyone had the concerns. She thought districts had the concerns even with educators who had gone through the more traditional pathways. She explained that districts remedied the situations internally with induction programs, mentoring, and additional professional development opportunities for teachers. She believed that should a district utilize the particular type of certificate, just like with the type M currently being used, there would be additional supports put in place for educators that had been sponsored through the certificate. She advised that everyone should be concerned with making certain educators working with students possessed the needed skills. She relayed that the certificate in the legislation and the type M certificate recognized the skills could come to an individual in a number of different ways. Representative Josephson viewed instruction in indigenous language very differently than instruction in foreign languages. He noted much of it had to do with the history of indigenous peoples the United States. Vice-Chair Ortiz referenced Ms. Meredith's discussion of the similarities between the proposed new way a person could become a certified teacher and the current type M certificate process. He asked for verification that the intent of the bill was to gear people towards immersion instruction. He believed a person would have to speak the particular language fluently and would need to be able to teach complex mathematical and science subjects. He asked if there may be a difference between the type M certificate process and the new proposed process under HB 19. Ms. Meredith answered that it would always be a concern. She believed that like the type M certificate for vocational education, there were some very complex things being taught. She elaborated there was expertise in the districts that could determine whether the level of expertise was present in the individual being asked to provide instruction. She stated that the bill would recognize the ability of a district to evaluate the levels of skills in a non-traditional way. Vice-Chair Ortiz referenced language on page 1 of the bill specifying that a person may only receive a limited language immersion teacher certificate if they demonstrate instructional skills and subject matter expertise sufficient to assure the public that the person was competent as a teacher. He asked if DEED had a vision as to how the demonstration might take place prior to doing the teaching. He stated that theoretically a person would not be teaching prior to having a certificate. He reasoned that somehow instructional skills would have to be demonstrated to someone. He assumed the demonstration would be over a period of time versus a one-hour demonstration in front of a school board. 3:09:13 PM Ms. Meredith answered there had been some alternative route programs in Alaska that she had been involved in. She shared that part of the application process had included sample teaching lessons. She elaborated that much of the interviewing and taking references from other entities related to an individual's expertise, would fit into the assurance component. She expounded that potential additional experiences included working with students outside of the school system or possibly as a paraprofessional that had been observed by the district prior to making the request. Representative LeBon referenced the same sentence in the bill as Vice-Chair Ortiz regarding subject matter and expertise. He provided a scenario where a school district via a school board was recommending the certification for an immersion language instructor. He asked if DEED expected the school district would define whether the language offered would be considered a substitution for the traditional languages offered (e.g., Spanish, French, or German) and whether credit for graduation would be received. Ms. Meredith replied that the question asked by Representative LeBon was more related to the high school arena. She stated her understanding that most immersion programs tended to end around middle school; however, it would currently be up to the school district to determine whether an indigenous language course would apply towards graduation credit. Representative LeBon replied that the answer was what he expected. He remarked that his daughter's experience had been Japanese immersion in elementary and middle school. He elaborated that the language had not been offered in high school; therefore, she had taken French. 3:12:50 PM Representative Carpenter looked at page 2, Section (f) of the bill related to the extension or renewal of limited language immersion certificates. He remarked that two different paths were being provided, one for a non-Alaska Native language and one for Alaska Native language. He believed the bill addressed cumulative time spent under the certificate for non-Alaska Native languages limited to a total of five years. He stated his understanding that the Alaska Native language certificates may exceed five years. He asked if the bill addressed concerns about the quality of instruction when a traditional university degree or certificate was not required. He wondered if the bill provided a check and balance or review when a certificate was renewed. He saw that it was a requirement for non- Alaska Native languages, but he thought it was something that could potentially slip through the cracks [under the legislation]. Representative Kreiss-Tompkins clarified that the section referred to by Representative Carpenter was in a former committee substitute. The current version of the bill was the House Education Committee version I, which did not include Section (f) - the section had been removed in the previous committee by unanimous vote. Representative Carpenter confirmed that the committee was looking at version B of the legislation. Representative Kreiss-Tomkins shared that the only change in the updated bill version was the exclusion of Section (f). He relayed that the previous legislature did not include Section (f) in the original version of the bill. The section had been added to the bill in the House Labor and Commerce Committee in the last legislature. Representative Kreiss-Tomkins responded to Representative Carpenter's question. He explained the thought behind the previous inclusion of Section (f) was that it was perhaps a different set of circumstances for Alaska Native teachers and immersion programs, but for world language programs the continual renewal of a limited teacher certificate was not desired. He thought the situation was very unlikely to happen for a variety of reasons. He explained that the limited certificate was a significant pain to go through as it required numerous checks and hurdles. He elaborated that the process required being sponsored by the superintendent, school board, and the State Board of Education and was initially approved for one year only. He did not believe it was very bankable for a person to be hanging their livelihood on such a precarious certification process. He believed there was tremendous incentive for anyone certificated through the process to be working toward traditional certification. Representative Kreiss-Tomkins relayed that he was very supportive of trying to support immersion programs and the bill had been crafted from a pragmatic perspective with what could achieve stakeholder support and support from the legislature. He was concerned the bill would not go far enough in terms of the crisis facing Native language education. The bill reflected that policymaking was a pragmatic process. He elaborated there were myriad incentives, and he did not believe a teacher would be cycling through in that way. He referenced Ms. Meredith's testimony in addition to conversations he had with DEED over the years and did not believe DEED would encourage or countenance someone cycling through in the limited certificate program for world languages or otherwise. He believed there was significant agency desire to see teachers under traditional certification. 3:18:59 PM Representative Carpenter appreciated the answer. He asked about the timeframe in which the limited certificate would be evaluated for recertification. Representative Kreiss-Tompkins replied that the initial certificate was one year. He explained that a person got an audition or cameo and if it was a failure there was a guaranteed review that would occur within one year. The bill would leave it up to DEED to determine what extensions or recertifications would look like. He stated that part of the reasoning for the one-year certificate was to provide a quick follow up to evaluate how things were going. Co-Chair Merrick thanked the bill sponsor and relayed the bill would be considered again at a later date. HB 19 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration. 3:20:23 PM AT EASE 3:20:52 PM RECONVENED