SENATE BILL NO. 104 "An Act relating to the duties of the state Board of Education and Early Development; and relating to school curriculum." 9:39:04 AM Co-Chair MacKinnon informed the committee that the Committee Substitute (CS) for SB 104(FIN) was moved from committee on April 14, 2017. The committee would be rescinding its action in moving the bill out of committee and would then adopt a new CS. Vice-Chair Bishop MOVED to RESCIND the action of the committee to report CSSB 104(FIN) from committee on April 14, 2017. There being NO OBJECTION, the bill was before the committee for consideration. Vice-Chair Bishop MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee substitute for SB 104, Work Draft 30-LS0786\N (Glover, 2/21/18). Co-Chair MacKinnon OBEJCTED for discussion. Co-Chair MacKinnon spoke to the CS. She stated that the committee had been working with the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) and school districts to improve student success and test scores. The state continued to have challenges in competing both at the national and global level. Over the course of the previous summer, the department "undertook Alaska's Education Challenge." She explained that the reason she wanted to take a "second look" at the legislation was to examine the best recommendations to improve student outcomes. In consultation with the department and the commissioner, the bill requested what she considered was possible to achieve. She announced that the bill would enable the state to do better with the investments the state made versus doing more with less. The bill provided improved access to the best curriculum in the United States (US) and the world and empowered the state Board of Education to adopt the best curriculum and offer flexibility to local school districts with enough time to adopt and review the curriculum. 9:43:42 AM BRITTANY HARTMANN, STAFF, SENATOR ANNA MACKINNON, spoke to the CS. She explained that SB 104 allowed DEED, in consultation with school districts, to find the best curriculum for English/Language Arts and Math from around the world in three tiers; tier 1 was the highest quality. Once reviewed and approved by the state Board of Education, the curriculum will be tested as part of a pilot program in five districts (2 rural and 2 urban) around Alaska for two years to determine its effectiveness. The districts chosen for the pilot program would receive the curriculum paid for by the state, not exceeding 150 times the school formula's average daily membership (ADM) or $10 million. She elucidated that if the new curriculum improves student outcomes, school districts, if they so choose, would be granted 3 school years to request the curriculum and funding would be distributed in the order of requests in addition to one-time funding of 150 times the districts ADM not to exceed $6.7 million per year. 9:44:44 AM Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered. 9:45:35 AM MICHAEL JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, expressed his excitement over the bill. He declared that the legislation was "well-conceived and informed by the challenges of the past," recognized current realities, and shared a vision for the future. The best practices were discovered through participation in the Alaska Education Challenge. He stated that the legislation used curriculum as a lever for support and a lever for improvement. He stated that the department was looking forward to the positive impact the bill would have on students. Senator Stevens referenced a provision that extended the requirement for curriculum review from every 6 years to every 10 years. He asked for the rationale. Commissioner Johnson replied that the rationale had multiple factors. He explained that the requirement did not prevent adopting or reviewing a curriculum in a shorter time frame. He noted that many curricula had digital components and the content was frequently updated. The content of some subjects such as math did not change dramatically over time and the 10 year time period created efficiencies. 9:49:11 AM Senator Olson referenced Senator Stevens' point, and wondered if rapid technology advancements changed more frequently than a period of 10 years, which might lower test scores. Commissioner Johnson agreed that much would change over a ten-year time frame. He thought that in terms of purchasing a curriculum it was important to be mindful of the risk of too many changes in too short of a time frame. He thought the argument could be made that the bill's time frame provided stability for a curriculum that addressed student's needs. 9:51:08 AM Ms. Hartmann addressed a Sectional Analysis for CSSB 104 (version N) (copy on file): Section 1 AS 14.07.030: The Department may not require a school district to review their curriculum more than once in a 10-year period. Section 2 AS 14.07.180: (a) The Board of Education must establish standards and a procedure for the review, ranking, and approval of math and English language arts curricula for school districts to use in each grade level. (b) The Department shall review math and English language arts curricula from Alaska, other states, and other countries. The department has until July 1, 2019 to identify the three best curricula in these subjects for each grade level and the best practices for teaching each subject. (c) The Board of Education shall approve curricula currently being used by the five best performing schools (two urban schools and three rural schools) according to the scores of the 2018 Performance Evaluation for Alaska's Schools assessments (PEAKS). (d) The Department may submit the curricula that they find to be the best (under section b), to the Board of Education for approval, if the Department deems the curricula appropriate, aligned with education standards, and results in improved academic achievement for students. (e) The Board may approve of the curricula submitted by the Department (under section d) as long as it is consistent with the standards established by the Board of education under (a) of this section. The Department shall rank the approved curricula in 3 tiers. Tier 1 is the curricula that the Department ranks the highest for each grade level. (f) The Department shall conduct a two-year pilot program beginning in the 2019 school year to test the appropriateness and effectiveness of the tier 1 curricula approved. The Department shall select 5 school districts to participate in the pilot program (at least 2 rural schools and 2 urban schools) and those districts will be given no more than a combined total of $10 million to purchase and implement the curricula. (g) If the Department deems the curricula appropriate and effective, the Department shall make the curricula and one-time incentive payments available to all school districts starting in school year 2021 and ending in the school year of 2023. If a school district chooses Tier 1, they will receive a one-time appropriation. This appropriation is available for all districts and shall not exceed a combined total of $6,700,000 for all districts that apply each year. This incentive payment will be available for 3 years, however districts will only receive a one-time payment. The Department shall award incentive payments in the order of which the request is received. The incentive payment will not exceed 150xADM. Ms. Hartmann delineated that the $30 million fiscal note was predicated on the number of students statewide, roughly 129 thousand and multiplied that by 150 divided over 5 years. 9:54:58 AM Ms. Hartmann continued to address the Sectional Analysis: (h) The Department shall publish all curriculum currently used by all school districts, on the Department's website. Included in that curriculum will be the 3 tiers of the English language arts and math curriculum adopted. ` (i) The Department shall submit an electronic report to the legislature providing information on the curricula that each school district has adopted. (j) All payments for the pilot program and curricula adoption are subject to appropriation. This section provides the definitions for "rural", "school district" and "urban". Sections 3-5 AS 14.08.111, AS 14.14.090, and AS 14.16.020: Conforming language requiring school boards to review all textbooks and instructional materials at least once every 10 years. Section 6 AS 14.07.180(f), 14.07.180(g), 14.07.180(j): Repeals the pilot program and the one-time incentive payments on July 1, 2024. Sec. 7 4 AAC 05.080(e): Annuls the regulatory requirement of a local school board having to evaluate their curriculum every 6 years. 9:57:01 AM Co-Chair Hoffman addressed Section 2(h), which pertained to publishing all curriculum currently used by all school districts. He asked whether the requirement included the curriculum developed because of the bill. Ms. Hartmann answered in the affirmative. She stated that all three tiers established through the legislation would be published online. Co-Chair MacKinnon interjected that the goal was to provide an incentive program of best practices. She found that the larger school districts were agreeing on a set of criteria that already existed. However, in the smaller districts it was more difficult to find the time or expertise to engage in the same process as the larger districts. She thought there was a disadvantage for smaller districts. She observed that sometimes salespersons from other states offered Alaska's smaller districts curriculum that was not supportable in a rural area. She emphasized that the bill would not impose a curriculum that did not fit into a local community. Rather the bill attempted to empower the state school board to help find curriculum that works in rural school districts and all districts as well. She thought curriculum was a foundational tool and hoped an empowered statewide school board that was provided resources could find the best practices, work with school districts, and utilize a pilot program to discover curriculum that worked. She reiterated that her hope was the statewide school board could identify a curriculum that offered Alaskan students an opportunity to compete globally. 10:01:50 AM Senator von Imhof clarified that there was a difference between curriculum and state standards. She understood that the program was volunteer and did not impede on local control. Co-Chair MacKinnon added that it was her hope that the bill would provide school districts the opportunity to use something vetted by the state school board and not be subject to the 6 year review process Senator Stevens thought the bill was forward-looking. He had concerns. He commented on staff reductions at the department and wondered how it would achieve the goals of the bill. Co-Chair MacKinnon clarified that there would be a forthcoming fiscal note with three positions that were previously removed from the department, however the new job duties would be different in support of reading, writing, and math. 10:05:03 AM Senator Micciche added that there would be "fairly significant contract dollars for some of the curriculum evaluation." Co-Chair MacKinnon indicated that the bill would need to have the support of the full legislature to move forward. The goal was to reduce the costs to school districts and improve educational outcomes. She added that the fiscal note would be scrutinized but if adequate funding was not provided the goals would not be met. Senator Stevens thought education was a unifying issue and applauded Co-Chair MacKinnon's efforts. Co-Chair MacKinnon affirmed that the committee would continue to work with the department on the bill and fiscal note. She reported that Senator von Imhof wanted to ensure that the curriculum chosen by the state school board met the Alaska Standards, which was currently the board's responsibility. Ms. Hartmann mentioned three other benefits of the bill. The bill would save school districts time and money through the extension of the curriculum review and paying for the curriculum, which freed up funding for other needs. The bill allowed for collaboration among school districts in both teacher training and professional development. Senator von Imhof thought the Division of Student and School Achievement under DEED whose core mission was "to provide academic standards, academic assessments and accountability and assist schools by providing programs technical onsite and distance delivery support" would likely be affected by the bill. She noted that the division had a total of 41 staff, twelve positions were Education Specialist II, which were the positions that would be added by the bill. She thought it was important to take advantage of all the state's resources. She maintained that the bill's goals needed accountability, data collection, and collaboration between districts. She mentioned that some school districts used Power School software that was a platform for student information. She wondered if in addition to working with curriculum, the bill would address software to allow districts to communicate with each other. 10:09:15 AM Vice-Chair Bishop voiced that besides the collaboration across school districts, he hoped the university would collaborate with the school board to ensure the curriculum was sufficient to carry the student into post-secondary education. Co-Chair Hoffman agreed with Senator Stevens remarks. He thanked Co-Chair MacKinnon for taking leadership on the issue. He acknowledged that the topic of education solutions had been discussed for some time and believed the bill was a good approach. Co-Chair MacKinnon reiterated that the legislation was a committee bill and appreciated members' work on the issue. She informed the committee that there was not currently an updated fiscal note for the CS. Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed the agenda for the following day.