SENATE BILL NO. 104 "An Act relating to the duties of the state Board of Education and Early Development; and relating to school curriculum." 9:46:35 AM Co-Chair MacKinnon relayed the bill was returned to the committee on February 22, 2018. Over the interim, the Department of Education and Early Development went through a process that engaged community members from across the state on the Alaska Challenge. The Senate Finance Committee called the bill back to committee to have an opportunity to work with the commissioner of education, the department, and other stakeholders to try to provide something beneficial in the form of education - the foundation of education being curriculum. She invited her staff to the table. Vice-Chair Bishop MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee substitute for SB 104, Work Draft 30-LS0786\Y (Laffen, 3/27/18). Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for discussion. BRITTANY HARTMANN, STAFF, SENATOR ANNA MACKINNON, discussed the committee substitute for SB 104. The bill ultimately sought to improve educational outcomes for Alaska students by providing them access to the best curriculum available. The committee substitute was the result of more than a year's worth of work in close collaboration with all relevant stakeholders including teachers, state school board members, DEED, superintendents, education associations, and more. There were multiple ways to improve educational outcomes. After doing much research, curriculum was found to be one of the best ways to achieve improved outcomes. In the CS before the committee, the sponsor believed it contained an excellent pathway to achieve the goal of improved outcomes. She read from the sectional analysis and the explanation of changes (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 14.07.165: NEW: The State Board of Education shall review the math and English Language Arts curricula used throughout the state, every 5 years, to ensure the curricula is still effective and is using best practices. Section 3 AS 14.07: NOTE: This was section 2 in Version N NOTE: * are sections that are repealed on July 1, 2025. Section 3 requires the State Board of Education and the Department of Education and Early Development to work together to find, review, and test the best available curricula and the best practices for instruction of those math and English/Language Arts curricula. The department may provide incentive payments to school districts that choose to implement the incentivized curricula and best practices. Specifically: (a) The Board will establish the standards and procedure to review, rank, and approve curricula for school districts to use in each grade level. (b) and (c) AMENDED: The Department will review curricula from Alaska, other states, and other countries and identify the best curricula for each grade level and the best practices for teaching each subject by July 1, 2019. If the identified curricula and best practices meets certain requirements, the department will submit them for review by the board. The requirements are: appropriate, compliance with non- discrimination standards in state law, aligned with state standards, and result in improved academic achievement. NOTE: Section 2(c) in Version N was deleted. (d) The Board may approve of the curricula submitted by the department. If they do so, the Department will then categorize the two curricula as "incentivized" curricula and "designated effective" curricula. The incentivized curricula will be the best available and will be the curricula used in the pilot program. The designated effective curricula are curricula that the department finds appropriate and effective. (e) *AMENDED: Establishes the three-year pilot program, starting in the 2019-2020 school year, to test the appropriateness and effectiveness of the "incentivized" curricula. Schools can apply to be in the pilot program and will be reviewed and approved of by the Department based on capacity and readiness. The Department shall select five schools, from those that apply, to receive incentive payments to assist with the purchase and implementation of the curricula and best practices. The Department must select districts and their curricula as follows, in order to get a comprehensive view of the best curriculum for all Alaska: a. Urban District math b. Rural District math c. Urban District English Language Arts d. Rural District - English Language Arts e. Urban or Rural District math or English Language Arts The total cost of the three-year pilot program cannot exceed $10,000,000. (f) *AMENDED: If the pilot program shows that adoption of the incentive curricula is appropriate and effective, the department may make available to all districts the curricula and one-time incentive payments starting in the school year beginning in 2022 and ending in the school year that begins in 2024. (g) *Incentive payments are limited to a school district's ADM multiplied by 150 and are subject to availability of funding in (h). In order to get an incentive payment, a district must be ready and have the capacity to implement the incentivized curricula and have not previously used the curricula. (h) *Limits the funding available to school districts that adopt the incentivized curriculum, for years 4-6, to $20,000,000, plus any unexpended money available under (e)(4). (i) The Department shall publish all curriculum used by all school districts, on the Department's website. The incentivized curricula and the designated effective curricula, identified by the Board, will also be published on the website. (j) *AMENDED: The Department shall submit an electronic report to the legislature providing information on the pilot program and the curricula that each school district adopts. 9:53:02 AM NOTE: The report requirement was changed to include information on the pilot program (k) NEW: Requires school districts to submit the relevant information to the department that is needed for the department to carry out its duties under this section. (l) *All payments for the pilot program and curricula are subject to appropriation. If insufficient funding is available to distribute payments to all school districts that request funding in a year, the department may distribute payments to the remaining school districts the following school year. (m)*NEW: If the applications for participation in the pilot program are insufficient to meet the requirements under (e) of this section, the department may select five school districts from those that apply, taking into consideration geographical diversity. (n) NEW: Provides for the continuation of incentive payments after the pilot program ends. Incentive payments may go to school districts that use curricula reviewed and approved by the Board under AS 14.07.165(c). (o) Defines "rural," "school district," "school district's ADM" and "urban" NEW: AS 14.08.182 Establishes the curriculum improvement and best practices fund, which consists of an initial $30,000,000 to fund the first six years of the curricula incentive program. The funds can be spent without further appropriation and do not lapse. Section 4 AS 14.08.111: Conforming language requiring a regional school board to review all textbooks and instructional materials at least once every 10 years. Section 5 AS 14.14.090: Conforming language requiring a school board to review all textbooks and instructional materials at least once every 10 years. Section 6 AS 14.16.020: Conforming language requiring management of state boarding schools to review all textbooks and instructional materials at least once every 10 years. Section 7 AS 14.30.285: NEW: The department shall make available to school districts an electronic system for managing student information and tracking records relating to individualized education programs for children with disabilities. Section 8 Repeals: Repeals sub-sections (e), (f). (g), (h), (j), (l), and (m) in AS 14.07.180 that pertain to the pilot program, it's incentive payments, and it's reporting requirements. NOTE: This was previously Section 6 in Version N Sec. 9 4 AAC 05.080(e): Annuls the regulatory requirement of a local school board having to evaluate their curriculum every 6 years. NOTE: This was previously Section 7 in Version N Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Co-Chair MacKinnon invited department staff to comment on whether the department was supportive or neutral on the CS and to review the fiscal note. MARCY HERMAN, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, was available for questions. The commissioner had appeared before the committee and spoken about the bill. She relayed that the department had worked for about a year on Alaska's Education Challenge and since January working on the bill with Co-Chair MacKinnon and her staff. She relayed that Commissioner Johnson believed that curriculum was one of the levers that the department had not pulled in increasing student achievement. She noted that the legislation was a way to incentivize school districts to take a look a curriculum that the department and board would put forward and to use the $150 per ADM to purchase curriculum and materials necessary to improve student achievement. She added that under Alaska's Education Challenge, there were 30 to 40 stakeholders meeting presently. She deferred to Mr. Prussing and would review the fiscal note after his statement. 9:57:23 AM Senator von Imhof asked Ms. Herman to briefly describe Alaska's Education Challenge. Ms. Herman stated that Alaska's Education Challenge was an 11-month effort to consider how to make education better in the state. She discussed Alaska's poor performance for 4th and 8th grade reading and math. She continued that it was Commissioner Johnson's and Governor Walker's idea to get the pulse of the state on the best way to go about improving education for Alaska's students. Alaska's Education Challenge came up with three guiding principles: safety and wellbeing, responsible learning, and family community tribal compacting. The group put forward 13 recommendations under the guiding principles. She reported that the department was working with stakeholders and a pier organization for state chief school officers to determine the department's capacity to take on some of the work and how the department could work best with its stakeholders and partners statewide. Senator von Imhof referenced the passage of Alaska State Standards in 2012. She wondered about Ms. Herman's statement that curriculum had not been one of the levers the department had pulled. She was incredulous that curriculum had not been addressed and hoped the department could explain the reason it had not been addressed. She mentioned having been on her school board when the standards were passed. She conveyed that immediately following the passage of the standards in 2012, the board reviewed its curriculum. She wanted the department to state, for the record, why it did not address curriculum until now. PAUL PRUSSING, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF STUDENT LEARNING, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, relayed that in state statute the legislature gave its authority to the local district. Therefore, the department did not have the authority to mandate what text books or curriculum were used. The bill provided a framework for districts to look at their curriculum which alleviated some of the work districts would otherwise have to do to adopt a curriculum. However, it did not mandate the curriculum. He believed the intent of the statute was that authority was given to the local boards. He reported that the state had had programs in the past, such as Reading First (part of the No Child Left Behind Act), where grants were given to districts that adopted specific reading programs with a goal of assuring that all kids were proficient by the end of third grade. The grant program ended but showed some effective results. The department had pulled the lever slightly but not to such an extent as reflected in the legislation. He believed it was a good step forward. 10:01:29 AM Senator von Imhof appreciated that the department did not have the authority to mandate certain curriculum or textbooks. She commented that when the department passed state standards but failed to show leadership, mandated or unmandated, of any type of aid to the 53 districts that had a wide variety of financial support and struggles was like feeding them to the wolves. She thought the department should have helped by creating a curriculum available (not mandated) to the districts. She asserted that it should have happened 5 years prior. She thanked the sponsor for bringing the legislation forward. Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that she had tried to advance the notion of the bill for the previous 6 years. She had sent a letter to the state schoolboard asking for their recommendations on curriculum. She had also been frustrated believing that the department and the state school board should have been supporting districts to a greater degree. She opined that Alaska's students were taking the brunt of the state's failure to provide for their education. She referenced constrained budgets in the past and emphasized that the bill before the committee had been a collaborative effort with DEED. She appreciated everything the department had done to support the current idea. The bill was a Senate Finance Committee proposal to provide a foundation for school districts and teachers to have support to provide best outcomes for students. 10:04:21 AM Co-Chair Hoffman remarked that in defense of the administration he went back in history to understand why the committee was addressing the issue today. He recalled that prior to SB 35 [Legislation passed during one of the terms of Mr. John Sackett: House of Representatives (1967- 1970) and Senate 1973-1986], the state used to operate under the state operating school system (SOS). He explained that the SOS was where the state dictated to school districts what needed to be done and what criteria needed to be accomplished. Senator Sackett introduced SB 35 that set up the current system giving independence to school districts to have them decide what they felt needed to be done. He was not saying that the system was perfect, but from his experience, the decisions regarding education and the direction for students was best decided by school boards that were elected independently of the legislature. Co-Chair Hoffman indicated school districts had the mandate to present their case about what needed to be done in their districts. It might differ from what might happen in Tuntutuliak versus in Anchorage or in Juneau. He firmly believed districts needed to make the decisions around curricula and direction of education. He suggested that it might be appropriate to consider provisions as presented in SB 104 on a demonstration project to move forward. He did not want to criticize the department for its position because past legislators had passed laws that were before the committee today. 10:07:02 AM Senator Stevens had served on his local school board and relayed the difficulty of establishing a curriculum and the cost associated with curriculum, the key to a fine education for Alaska's students. He was pleased to see the legislation but had a couple of concerns. First, he wanted to confirm that the districts supported the legislation. He also expressed concern about how the department, having been reduced significantly, would supervise the bill. He wondered if additional staff was planned. Instructing the department to implement the law without additional personnel would be akin to throwing the department to the wolves and a great concern to him. Mr. Prussing stated that when he reviewed the fiscal note he had added 3 additional staff; 2 content education specialists and 1 associate to help drive the work and keep things going. He had been with the department for 18 years and had seen many personnel reductions. Some of the 20 or more positions that had been cut were content specialists that drove curriculum work. When adopting standards in the past, the department had created a 3-step process: an awareness process, a transitional stage, and an implementation stage. The department had focused its efforts in helping districts align their curriculums to the new standards. The department also worked with districts on measuring students' success with the curriculum. The Performance Evaluation for Alaska's Schools (PEAKS) Assessment measured only a thin layer. The department had assisted districts with a formative assessment process. Most districts had adopted the Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) test which was given 3 times per year. It provided a benchmark for teachers to see the movement of students through the curriculum. He stressed the importance of having 2 additional content specialists. In the past, the department had had 2 content specialists that had done the majority of the work and had had a great impact on education. Senator Stevens believed the legislation moved the state forward in curriculum development. He did not think it took away local control, as it gave the districts the option of choosing whether to participate. Mr. Prussing agreed and added that it would be important for districts to assist the department in selecting the curriculum. 10:10:25 AM Senator Olson referenced his schooling through the Bureau of Indian Affairs System in Golovin, Alaska, and his experience watching the implementation of the SOS program. At the time, Golovin was hesitant to participate in the SOS Program. He applauded Senator Sackett's efforts to ensure local control because it allowed for buy-in from people who were very concerned about their children's academic performance. He shared Senator Stevens' concern regarding local control. Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that self-determination, as stated in the constitution, was one of her team's primary motivators in choosing the course of action outlined in the bill. School districts had appeared before the legislature multiple times stating that the lack of inflation proofing the base student allocation or removing energy subsidies, which at one time the state provided through $150 per barrel oil, created challenges. Her team struggled with what to do in a centralized way to provide benefits to communities, especially to the smaller rural communities. It was her understanding that many of the larger school districts were circling around particular curricula in math and language arts and they were starting to line up in finding the best means for student achievement. There were certain smaller community school districts that had less opportunities than the larger school districts to explore curriculum. For this reason, she pursued finding curriculum as a basis. She was trying to find a way of incentivizing a rigorous process for the state school board and to provide parents with electronic access of the curriculum being used across the state. She wanted parents to see what urban areas in the state might be doing differently than their own district and why. She thought collaboration was necessary, hence the reason for her introducing SB 104. Co-Chair MacKinnon continued to discuss the bill. The bill offered a product electronically that all districts and parents could see of incentivized or designated curricula that met Alaska state standards. School boards could move into the designated standards and adopt the state curricula without that same vigor that might be invested in the review and adoption process. Parents, teachers, and administrators would be able to see what everyone was doing, to see test results, and to ask questions. She noted that some of the smaller school districts were doing tremendously well for their students, some of whom had scores that exceeded some of the urban schools. The bill before the committee offered collaboration with all parties. Co-Chair MacKinnon appreciated consideration of the bill. She wanted to hold the bill until the following Tuesday and encouraged members to contact their local school districts. She stated that there was a large fiscal note of $30 million. She estimated that achievable outcomes would be necessary to pass the bill from committee. 10:16:57 AM Senator von Imhof thought there might be some confusion between standards and curricula. She also mentioned the need for determining the materials that would be used with the curricula and thought they would be decided on at the local district level. She noted that there were districts in Western Alaska that used local flora and fauna in curriculum. She drew attention to documents "Parent Roadmap: Supporting Your Child in Grade Five - Mathematics," and "Parent Roadmap: Supporting Your Child in Grade Three - English Language Arts," (copy on file). Senator interjected that the document Senator von Imhof was referring to was available online. Senator von Imhof continued that the Anchorage School District created the document. She hoped the State of Alaska would generate a similar document at some point. She referred to page 4 of the handout, which showed one of the standards for 5th graders in math. Students had to understand how to divide objects into equal shares preparing students for the division of fractions. Page 3 listed curricula of 3 or 4 things a teacher needed to do throughout the year. She posed the question about which textbooks and workbooks should be used. She asserted that such things were part of local control. She talked about being on the local school board when the standards were changed. She relayed that the process was expensive, long, and tedious. She was hoping to see the state do something similar to the example she provided. Local control was and would always be available in how the individual teacher taught concepts. She also hoped that the department would take advantage of the resources of the Anchorage School District. 10:20:44 AM Co-Chair MacKinnon referenced another component to the bill pertaining to Individual Education Plans (IEP)s. Her team had brought the idea forward. The section on recording electronic data so that parents could review it came from the Alaska Challenge and the department suggesting the information should be shared in order to support local control. She invited Senator von Imhof to speak to the IEP. Senator von Imhof informed the committee that an IEP was available to any student in Alaska whose collective teachers including special education teachers, general teachers, and parents felt it was necessary to provide extra special supports for a student. Creating and IEP was time consuming and extensive and was created in collaboration with care givers, teachers, and parents. If a child or family moved from one district to another, often times the child's IEP was not transferable electronically. It had to either be copied and mailed or faxed one page at a time. Some of the smaller districts only had 10 megabytes of capacity. The worst case would be for the new district to have to do a completely new IEP. One of the recommendations that came out of the DEED performance review in 2016 was to suggest that all districts around the state went to one standard software for IEPs paid for by the state. Districts would be alleviated from paying for the software. She thought the idea made good sense. Many districts agreed with the idea of having a standard software. When a child moved from Bethel to Anchorage the IEP could be sent electronically keeping the transition much simpler and less disruptive. 10:23:34 AM Vice-Chair Bishop referenced his experience as a legislator and working for previous administrations. He spoke to the need for continuity. He mentioned seeing 3 different administrations and 3 different evaluation tests. He did not want to see the goal post moved for kids. He advocated choosing a lane and staying in that lane. He acknowledged the challenges of educating children. He relayed his personal experience as a child moving from one school district to the next. He brought up the subject of outcomes. He hoped that education was preparing children to enter the workforce and to be a benefit to society rather than a burden. He wondered how to measure success. In his experience as the Commissioner of Department of Labor and Workforce Development his department worked with DEED to put a process in place to track an individual after high school. He reemphasized the need for consistency for the sake of kids. Co-Chair MacKinnon supported Vice-Chair Bishop's comments. She thought everyone had different abilities. Some people blossomed outside of school and perseverance was what was needed to continue in the world. She wanted a good foundation for Alaska. Math and English were the areas of focus in the bill. 10:26:40 AM Senator Stevens agreed with Vice-Chair Bishop. He added that the goal of education at the beginning of the country was to create citizens of the state and country. Co-Chair MacKinnon stated she wanted to bring the bill back up early in the following week to move the bill along. She emphasized she wanted the fiscal note prior to moving the bill out of committee. Ms. Herman appreciated the passion for education as expressed by the committee. The department would finalize the fiscal note and submit it to the committee for consideration. Mr. Prussing thanked the committee for its hard work on the bill. He addressed Vice-Chair Bishop's comments. He relayed that the department was working with Career and Technical Education (CTE) through the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act in getting CTE teachers trained to teach math within the CTE program. Vice-Chair Bishop remarked that he could spend another 30 minutes talking on the subject in a positive way. Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if Ms. Hartmann could address Senator Olson's question regarding who her team had reached out to. Ms. Hartmann recalled that when the bill was first heard in committee the previous April there was no opposition from school districts. Recently, the team had reached out to the Lower Kuskokwim School District, the Yukon-Koyukuk School District, the Anchorage School District, and the Fairbanks School District. She had heard back from all of them and would be happy to share their information with everyone. She had also heard back from the Board of Education's members, local school district board members, rural and urban superintendents, and the Alaska Council of School Administrators who were reviewing the CS. She reported getting good word back. Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if it was positive feedback versus concerns on the bill. Ms. Hartmann responded, "yes." Senator Micciche expressed interest in hearing feedback from stakeholders mentioned by Ms. Hartmann. He would be reaching out to his local district. Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that her office had reached out to his school district to testify. They were not available but had reviewed the bill. Senator Stevens addressed the issue of IEPs, and his desire to learn more. He suspected that some districts might be concerned about receiving IEPs that were different from their own. SB 104 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration. Co-Chair MacKinnon relayed that the committee had not scheduled a meeting for the following day. She reviewed the agenda for Monday's meeting.