ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE  HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE  May 17, 2021 8:08 a.m. DRAFT MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Harriet Drummond, Co-Chair Representative Andi Story, Co-Chair Representative Tiffany Zulkosky Representative Grier Hopkins Representative Mike Prax Representative Mike Cronk Representative Ronald Gillham MEMBERS ABSENT  All members present COMMITTEE CALENDAR  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." - HEARD & HELD PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION  BILL: HB 164 SHORT TITLE: EARLY ED PROGRAMS; READING; VIRTUAL ED SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TUCK 04/07/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 04/07/21 (H) EDC, FIN 04/21/21 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106 04/21/21 (H) 04/23/21 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106 04/23/21 (H) Heard & Held 04/23/21 (H) MINUTE(EDC) 04/26/21 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106 04/26/21 (H) Heard & Held 04/26/21 (H) MINUTE(EDC) 04/30/21 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106 04/30/21 (H) Heard & Held 04/30/21 (H) MINUTE(EDC) 05/03/21 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106 05/03/21 (H) Heard & Held 05/03/21 (H) MINUTE(EDC) 05/05/21 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106 05/05/21 (H) Heard & Held 05/05/21 (H) MINUTE(EDC) 05/06/21 (H) EDC AT 6:30 PM DAVIS 106 05/06/21 (H) Heard & Held 05/06/21 (H) MINUTE(EDC) 05/07/21 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106 05/07/21 (H) Heard & Held 05/07/21 (H) MINUTE(EDC) 05/08/21 (H) EDC AT 9:00 AM DAVIS 106 05/08/21 (H) Heard & Held 05/08/21 (H) MINUTE(EDC) 05/12/21 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106 05/12/21 (H) Heard & Held 05/12/21 (H) MINUTE(EDC) 05/14/21 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106 05/14/21 (H) Heard & Held 05/14/21 (H) MINUTE(EDC) 05/17/21 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106 WITNESS REGISTER HEIDI TESHNER, Director Finance and Support Services Division Department of Education and Early Development Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and answered questions during the hearing on HB 164. MIKE MASON, Staff Representative Chris Tuck Alaska State Legislature Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and answered questions during the hearing on HB 164. MARY HAKALA, Staff Representative Andi Story Alaska State Legislature Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information during the hearing on HB 164. LOKI TOBIN, Staff Senator Tom Begich Alaska State Legislature Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information during the hearing on HB 164 on behalf of the Senate Rules Standing Committee, sponsor of companion legislation SB 111. KAREN MELIN, Deputy Commissioner Department of Education and Early Development Anchorage, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information during the hearing on HB 164. SENATOR TOM BEGICH Alaska State Legislature Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information during the hearing on HB 164 on behalf of the Senate Rules Standing Committee, sponsor of companion legislation SB 111. ACTION NARRATIVE 8:08:21 AM CO-CHAIR HARRIET DRUMMOND called the House Education Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:08 a.m. Representatives Story, Cronk, Gillham, Hopkins, Prax, Zulkosky, and Drummond were present at the call to order. HB 164-EARLY ED PROGRAMS; READING; VIRTUAL ED  8:09:13 AM CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND announced that the only 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").] [A motion to adopt Amendment 27A, as amended, had been left pending at the end of the 5/14/21 House Education Standing Committee meeting.] 8:10:51 AM REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY discussed Amendment 27A, which read as follows: Page 22, line 13, through page 23, line 5: Delete all material. Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 39, line 10: Delete "sec. 36" Insert "sec. 34" Page 39, line 13: Delete "Section 34" Insert "Section 32" Page 39, line 14: Delete "sec. 34" Insert "sec. 32" Page 39, line 15: Delete "sec. 34" Insert "sec. 32" Page 39, line 18: Delete "sec. 34" Insert "sec. 32" Page 40, line 23: Delete "32, and 40" Insert "and 38" Page 40, line 25: Delete "sec. 46" Insert "sec. 44" REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY reminded committee members that Conceptual Amendment 1 had been adopted to Amendment 27A during the May 14, 2021, meeting of the House Education Standing Committee, to address standards for teachers entering Alaska from out of state versus local teachers. Amendment 27A, as amended, would delete additional requirements placed on teachers above and beyond current standards; the intention, she said, is to address the challenges small and rural schools have in finding qualified teachers. She then requested more time for consideration of Amendment 27A, as amended. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND stated Amendment 27A, as amended, would be left pending. 8:13:21 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to adopt Amendment 28, labeled 32- LS0731\I.38, Klein, 5/10/21, to HB 164, Version I, as amended, which read as follows: Page 23, line 6, through page 24, line 1: Delete all material. Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 39, line 10: Delete "sec. 36" Insert "sec. 35" Page 39, line 13: Delete "Section 34" Insert "Section 33" Page 39, line 14: Delete "sec. 34" Insert "sec. 33" Page 39, line 15: Delete "sec. 34" Insert "sec. 33" Page 39, line 18: Delete "sec. 34" Insert "sec. 33" Page 40, line 23: Delete "and 40" Insert "and 39" Page 40, line 25: Delete "sec. 46" Insert "sec. 45" 8:13:24 AM REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE STORY said Amendment 28 would delete the requirements for including a passing score to the criteria for evaluating teacher competency. 8:14:45 AM REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY removed her objection. 8:14:55 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRAX objected. He expressed the opinion that Amendment 28 is similar to Amendment 27A, as amended, and suggested considering the two amendments together later in the meeting. REPRESENTATIVE STORY said while everyone wants highly trained teachers, she doesn't see passing an assessment test as a "silver bullet" for reading intervention. 8:16:46 AM REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY stated her support for Amendment 28. 8:17:24 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRAX removed his objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 28 was adopted to HB 164, Version I, as amended. 8:17:50 AM REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS withdrew Amendment 29. 8:18:15 AM REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY moved Amendment 30, labeled 32- LS0731\I.28, Klein, 5/11/21, to HB 164, Version I, as amended, which read as follows: Page 24, following line 9: Insert a new bill section to read:  "* Sec. 35. AS 14.30 is amended by adding a new section to article 10 to read: Sec. 14.30.430. Alaska Native language immersion  programs. The department may collaborate with a school district to develop an Alaska Native language immersion program for students in grade kindergarten through grade three. The department may provide financial and technical support for a program. The department and district operating a program shall evaluate the program's success in increasing student literacy in both the Alaska Native language and English." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 39, line 10: Delete "sec. 36" Insert "sec. 37" Page 40, line 23: Delete "40" Insert "41" Page 40, line 25: Delete "46" Insert "47" 8:18:24 AM REPRESENTATIVE CRONK objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY said the purpose of Amendment 30 is to allow DEED to support local school districts in efforts to develop Alaska Native language immersion programs for students in grades kindergarten through three. She expressed that there is nothing more culturally relevant for many Alaskan students than being able to learn in their first language. 8:20:27 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRAX said he's not "familiar enough" with Alaska Native languages, and he expressed the understanding that there are some languages with very few remaining speakers. He wondered whether it's worthwhile to establish education in a language spoken by few people. 8:21:28 AM REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS noted that Alaska Native language programs that have been developed have had many speakers, and he noted that Amendment 30 would allow, not mandate, school district collaboration with DEED on Alaska Native language immersion programs. With respect to Representative Prax's comments about languages with only a few remaining speakers, he expressed that such a program may be the most important type of program to put forward under the amendment. He stated that he strongly supports Amendment 30 to promote and protect Alaska Native languages. 8:23:20 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed agreement with Representative Hopkins' sentiment on Amendment 30, and she noted that local school boards would be in charge of any programs. 8:24:12 AM REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY reminded the committee that Amendment 30 would not require school districts to establish language immersion programs, but would allow them to work with DEED to establish such programs. She stressed that Amendment 30 would require DEED to evaluate any language immersion program's success in increasing student literacy. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND reiterated that the amendment contains permissive language which doesn't require any school district, or DEED, to establish language immersion programs. She expressed welcoming the opportunity to learn of the successes of such programs. 8:26:57 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRAX said he understands the permissive language, and again invoked the possibility of creating a language immersion program for a "relative few" number of students, which could have a fiscal impact. He said "somebody" should be able to guess how much that would cost. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND referred the comments to Ms. Teshner. 8:28:19 AM HEIDI TESHNER, Director, Finance and Support Services Division, Department of Education and Early Development, said she does not have information available on possible program costs. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND said the Lower Kuskokwim School District has had an immersion program in places for decades, and the Anchorage School District has an Alaska Native charter school. She said there is not an "unlimited" number of languages to be addressed. 8:29:46 AM REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY added that she is concerned about promoting the perspective of supporting English language learning at the expense of indigenous language learning, or vice versa. She said the intent of Amendment 30 is to "expand the lens" under which literacy and language proficiency can be acquired. 8:30:55 AM REPRESENTATIVE CRONK removed his objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 30 was adopted to HB 164, Version I, as amended. 8:31:21 AM REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY moved Amendment 31, labeled 32- LS0731\I.59, Klein, 5/11/21, to HB 164, Version I, as amended, which read as follows: Page 24, line 2: Delete "a new subsection" Insert "new subsections" Page 24, following line 9: Insert a new subsection to read: "(m) Before teaching students in the state, a teacher certificated under this section shall complete training in racial equity, conscious and unconscious bias, teaching through an Alaska Native lens and using Alaska Native cultural standards, and trauma-informed and culturally relevant education." 8:31:27 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY said Amendment 31 would require teachers to complete training in areas related to culturally relevant education. She said school districts with primarily Alaska Native students often have educators from out of state. Understanding the history and culture of the Alaska Native community fosters a better relationship with students, and children do better when education reflects, and positively reinforces, their communities and values. REPRESENTATIVE STORY agreed with the intent of Amendment 31, and she said it's critical and helpful to understand conscious and unconscious biases. She mentioned the equal protection clause with regards to training required of nurses transferring to Alaska versus local nurses. 8:35:39 AM REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY said she would be happy to consider a conceptual or friendly amendment to remove the requirement that teachers receive the training before teaching. She pointed out that the proposed legislation currently contains no mention regarding how teachers should know what is culturally responsive or appropriate; absent Amendment 31, she said, there exists the intent to include culturally relevant education, but the question remains who makes that assessment. REPRESENTATIVE STORY invited Mr. Mason to comment on Amendment 31. 8:37:32 AM MIKE MASON, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State Legislature, noted that Amendment 31 would apply to Section 34 on page 24, which applies to teachers with Alaska teaching certificates. Referring to Section 31 on page 22, he discussed preliminary teaching certificates, which apply to teachers certified outside of Alaska. Therefore, he said, the language of Amendment 31 focuses on one demographic of teacher but not another, which is the impetus for the equal protection concern. He then said he doesn't know whether there would be a cost for such teacher training. REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY noted that the many adopted amendments will change the fiscal impact of the proposed legislation, and she maintained that the state should strive to accomplish ensuring that educators in the classroom can identify and connect with students. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND agreed, but she noted that Amendment 31 would not apply evenly to the different types of teaching certificates in Alaska. All teachers in Alaska need exposure to such training, she said. 8:40:50 AM REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS added that there is no way of predicting who would be conducting the training, and he suggested that any associated costs should not be borne by DEED. Regarding the concern for equal protection, he said, every type of teaching certificate in the state would be required to undergo the training as described in Amendment 31. 8:43:40 AM REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 31, which would remove the language in line 7 of the amendment that currently reads, "before teaching students in the state" and insert "that amended language on page 22 following line 23." REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked Representative Zulkosky to clarify the conceptual amendment. REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY clarified that the conceptual amendment would insert lines 7-10 of Amendment 31 to page 22, following line 23. This would address the equal protection concern, she said. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY explained that the intent behind the conceptual amendment to Amendment 31 is to address the structural issues of the underlying amendment. 8:45:37 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether the conceptual amendment would make Amendment 31 apply to all school districts and all teachers in the state. REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY deferred to Mr. Mason. 8:46:15 AM MR. MASON said, "I believe so." He expressed that equal protection issues could be fixed if the language in Amendment 31 was added to both sections. REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS pointed out that AS 14.20.015 applies only to recognition of certificates of teachers from outside Alaska, so without the conceptual amendment, only such teachers would be required to complete the training as proposed in Amendment 31. He noted requirements in statute for continuing education, which he expressed may be an appropriate location for Amendment 31. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND pointed out that the conceptual amendment would insert the language of Amendment 31 after line 23 on page 22, as well as after line 9 on page 24, which would add a new subsection. REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked for clarification on the conceptual amendment. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND explained: The conceptual amendment is to delete, on Amendment 31, line 7, the words "before teaching students in the state," ... so that Amendment 31 says, "a teacher certificated under this section shall complete training racial equity," ... and that amended paragraph, lines 7-10, will also be inserted on page 22, following line 23. REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS stated his agreement with the conceptual amendment. 8:49:23 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed her support for the conceptual amendment to Amendment 31. 8:50:31 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRAX said it seems the conceptual amendment would create a requirement for any certified teacher, not necessarily those teachers for grades 1-3. REPRESENTATIVE STORY commented that the conceptual amendment would be good policy for Alaska, as many classrooms already incorporate culturally relevant delivery of programs. 8:52:01 AM REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY expressed that proficiency gaps in Alaska Native students learning English should be addressed. She agreed that training similar to that described in Amendment 31 is already provided in many school districts in Alaska. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND commented that immersion in the Anchorage School District begins very early, and students are usually not admitted to such programs after first grade. She said Alaska Native children have been speaking an indigenous language since they learned to talk. 8:54:57 AM MR. MASON noted that the sections under discussion only apply to teachers of kindergarten through grade three (K-3), and the new standards would, as such, apply only to those teachers. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND suggested adopting the amendment. REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY reminded committee members that under discussion is the conceptual amendment to Amendment 31. 8:55:51 AM CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND removed her objection to the conceptual amendment. 8:56:01 AM REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM asked whether an adopted amendment can later be removed. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND replied that it's possible to rescind an action, and that her preference is to adopt as many amendments as possible, create the committee substitute to streamline the bill, and continue the discussion. REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM said he has issues with Amendment 31, but that he does not object. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND, seeing no further objection, stated that Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 31 was adopted. 8:57:20 AM REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY said she wants there to be a discussion with experts, and she noted that she is not an expert in K-3 early reading education, but she does know the challenges faced by school districts in her area of representation. She then told Representative Gillham that there is plenty of opportunity to alter the language of the bill. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND noted that there is still work to be done on HB 164. 8:59:02 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed understanding that the adopted amendment will be incorporated into a committee substitute. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND agreed. She explained that no amendments can be made during the interim, because the legislature is not officially in session; however, work can be done on the proposed legislation in the form of work sessions, discussions, and public or expert input. 9:00:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY reminded committee members that the DEED position for reading and district assessments in evidence based reading strategies was not removed from the budget. REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM objected to adopting Amendment 31, as amended, and he asked whether it could be held over until later in the day. REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY expressed reluctance at holding Amendment 31 until later. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND explained to Representative Gillham that adopted amendments can be addressed in the interim, and she expressed that it seems inefficient to have spent so much time discussing the amendment and its conceptual amendments without adopting it for future consideration. REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY interjected that she is willing to address any concerns Representative Gillham has. 9:03:25 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY removed her objection. 9:03:50 AM REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM objected to adopting Amendment 31, as amended. 9:04:05 AM REPRESENTATIVE CRONK opined that Amendment 31, as amended, does not belong in a reading bill. He suggested that training in racial equity, conscious and unconscious bias, and culturally relevant education is divisive, and he said he believes teachers should be embraced by the community and "taught" how to behave. He then discussed at length his views regarding how he grew up and how he believes teachers should be treated. 9:08:26 AM CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND reminded Representative Cronk that the conceptual amendment to Amendment 31 removed the requirement that such training take place before teaching students. She asked Representative Zulkosky to discuss arriving teachers who know very little about the communities in which they will teach. She commented that future discussions should reveal what communities are already doing to acclimate teachers to the local culture. REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY said the intention of Amendment 31, as amended, is to accomplish exactly what Representative Cronk described as far as embracing a teacher within a community. 9:11:35 AM REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM maintained objection. 9:11:45 AM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Zulkosky, Drummond, Story, and Hopkins voted in favor of Amendment 31, as amended. Representatives Cronk, Gillham, and Prax voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 31, as amended, was adopted by a vote of 4- 3. 9:12:40 AM The committee took an at-ease from 9:12 a.m. to 9:16 a.m. 9:16:11 AM REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt Amendment 32, labeled 32- LS0731\I.22, Klein, 5/10/21, to HB 164, Version I, as amended, which read as follows: Page 26, line 6: Delete "shall" Insert "may" Page 26, line 9: Delete "shall" Insert "may" Page 26, line 11: Delete "The intensive reading intervention" Insert "If the district elects to provide intensive reading intervention services, the" 9:16:21 AM CO-CHAIR STORY objected. REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS explained that Amendment 32 would change the text of clauses regarding the offering of reading intervention programs from "shall" to "may." He said one of the concerns of school districts is that the mandatory offering of reading intervention programs may not be what works best for the students of that district. He pointed out Amendment 32 is "fairly simple," and he said school districts that decide to implement a reading intervention program would still be able to do so. 9:21:36 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY said she would like to see the word "shall" remain in place, since early reading education is of vital importance and is the most important predictor of a student's success in school. She expressed disapproval of "blanket" retention, and said that it should be up to the parent to decide whether a student is retained. 9:24:05 AM REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked whether the intention behind Amendment 32 is related to the retention aspects of the proposed legislation. REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS replied yes. REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY proposed holding Amendment 32 until later in the meeting. REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS expressed his agreement. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND said Amendment 32 would be held until Amendment 62 is under discussion. 9:25:18 AM CO-CHAIR STORY moved to adopt Amendment 33, labeled 32- LS0731\I.39, Klein, 5/10/21, to HB 164, Version I, as amended, which read as follows: Page 26, line 4, following "responsive": Insert "and meets local needs" 9:25:43 AM REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE STORY said Amendment 33 would add verbiage relating to local control to the culturally responsive aspect of Section 35. REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY removed her objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 33 was adopted to HB 164, Version I, as amended. 9:26:40 AM The committee took an at-ease from 9:26 a.m. to 9:29 a.m. 9:29:48 AM CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND noted the impact of Amendment 62 on Amendments 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, and 40, and she said those amendments would be handled together after consideration of Amendment 62. 9:30:30 AM REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt Amendment 39, labeled 32- LS0731\I.16, Klein, 5/10/21, to HB 164, Version I, as amended, which read as follows: Page 8, line 7: Delete "AS 14.30.765(h)" Insert "AS 14.30.765(g)" Page 8, line 16: Delete "AS 14.30.765(h)" Insert "AS 14.30.765(g)" Page 28, line 25: Delete "(h)" Insert "(g)" Page 28, line 28: Delete "(h)" Insert "(g)" Page 29, line 9: Delete "(h)" Insert "(g)" Page 29, line 30: Delete "(h)" Insert "(g)" Page 30, line 5: Delete "(h)" Insert "(g)" Page 30, lines 8 - 10: Delete all material. Reletter the following subsections accordingly. Page 30, line 27 Delete "(h)" Insert "(g)" Page 30, line 30: Delete "(h)" Insert "(g)" Page 31, line 14: Delete "(h)" Insert "(g)" Page 31, line 18: Delete "(h)" Insert "(g)" Page 32, line 17: Delete "(l) or (m)" Insert "(k) or (l)" 9:30:34 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected. REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said Amendment 39 contains conforming language. REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked for clarification. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND explained that the second page of Amendment 39 proposes to delete lines 8-10 of page 30 of the proposed legislation. REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said page 30, lines 8-10, of HB 164, Version I, would address the fact that many teachers do not appreciate being recognized for achievements that may have been a bigger challenge for other districts. REPRESENTATIVE STORY said she doesn't disagree with the intent of Amendment 39 as described by Representative Hopkins, but that she doesn't understand the way the amendment is written. REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS directed Representative Story to page 26 of the proposed legislation, which is referred to on page 8. He said the amendment would renumber AS 14.30.765. REPRESENTATIVE STORY removed her objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 39 was adopted to HB 164, Version I, as amended. 9:36:50 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY withdrew Amendment 41. 9:37:19 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to adopt Amendment 42, labeled 32- LS0731\I.64, Klein, 5/11/21, to HB 164, Version I, as amended, which read as follows: Page 32, line 31: Delete "annually" Page 33, line 2: Delete "five" Insert "10" Delete "each year" Page 33, lines 2 - 5: Delete "A school participating in the reading program that remains in the lowest-performing 25 percent of schools as determined under AS 14.03.123 may apply to participate in the reading program again in the following school year." 9:37:35 AM CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE STORY said Amendment 42 is intended to expand support to more school districts. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked Representative Story to clarify the intent. REPRESENTATIVE STORY deferred to Ms. Hakala. 9:39:12 AM MARY HAKALA, Staff, Representative Andi Story, Alaska State Legislature, said the intent of Amendment 42 is to increase the number of schools able to participate in the reading program. 9:40:06 AM LOKI TOBIN, Staff, Senator Tom Begich, Alaska State Legislature, shared that Amendment 42 would revert the language contained in Version I back to the original language of HB 164, which would specify that up to 10 schools could participate in the DEED reading program. She said the program is intended to help schools that have students struggling with reading scores, so the amendment would remove the additional language on page 33, beginning on line 2, which indicates that a school district must reapply annually in order to participate in the program. She said the amendment would allow schools to work with DEED for a period determined by the school district instead of being time- limited by statute. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked whether DEED would simply select not more than 10 participating schools, and when the selection would happen. MS. TOBIN noted that the school selection process is described on page 34. She said once a school is selected, DEED would work with the school for a time determined by a cooperative agreement. She said DEED would have ability to select up to 10 additional school districts each year, instead of 10 schools for the entirety of the program. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND pointed out that Amendment 42 would remove the words pertaining to selecting additional schools "each year." 9:42:57 AM REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS expressed that Amendment 42 is "more or less" identical to Amendment 43, which is expand the number of schools from five to 10, as well as eliminate the application process. He shared his support for Amendment 42. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND removed her objection. Seeing no further objection, Amendment 42 was adopted to HB 164, Version I, as amended. 9:43:48 AM REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt Amendment 43, labeled 32- LS0731\I.17, Klein, 5/10/21, to HB 164, Version I, as amended, which read as follows: Page 32, line 29, through page 33, line 7: Delete all material and insert: "Sec. 14.30.770. Department reading program. (a) The department shall establish a reading program to provide direct support for and intervention in intensive reading intervention services annually in the lowest-performing schools serving students in grades kindergarten through three as determined under AS 14.03.123, selecting not more than 10 participating schools each year. A school may opt out of the reading program. If a school opts out of the reading program, the next lowest-performing school may participate in the program. A school participating in the reading program may, unless the school opts out, participate in the reading program again in the following school year. State funding provided to participating schools for implementation of the reading program is in addition to the amount of funding provided under AS 14.17. In conducting the program, the department shall" Page 33, lines 10 - 13: Delete all material and insert: "(2) provide the program to the 10 lowest- performing schools that have not opted out;" Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly. Page 33, line 14: Delete "school selected" Insert "participating school" Page 33, line 30: Delete "school selected" Insert "participating school" Page 33, line 31, through page 34, line 1: Delete "school selected" Insert "participating school" Page 34, line 23: Delete "selected to participate" Insert "participating" Page 35, lines 24 - 26: Delete "(1) a completed application from each school selected to participate in the reading program; and (2)" Page 35, line 27: Delete "school selected to participate" Insert "participating school" Page 40, line 4: Delete "14.30.770(a)(10)" Insert "14.30.770(a)(9)" 9:43:59 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS noted that Amendment 42 increased the number of schools in the reading program from five to 10. Amendment 43, he said, would eliminate the application program, with the 10 lowest-performing schools invited to join the reading program. Amendment 43 would also allow a school to decide whether to opt out of the reading program; if a school opts out, he said, the invitation would go to the next lowest- performing school. 9:46:05 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed that she was of the understanding that in Version I of the proposed legislation, school district application for the reading intervention program is optional. 9:46:51 AM KAREN MELIN, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development, shared that, from the perspective of DEED, school participation in the reading intervention program would be voluntary. 9:47:37 AM REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked whether Amendment 43 would maintain the voluntary nature of participation in the reading intervention program. MS. MELIN answered yes REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY expressed support for Amendment 43. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND noted that Amendment 42 removed the word "annually" from page 32, line 31. Amendment 43, she pointed out, leaves the word in. REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 43, which would remove the word "annually" from page 1, line 5, of Amendment 43. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted to Amendment 43. 9:50:10 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether this would affect page 2 of Amendment 43, which discusses application to the reading intervention program. She asked about the intent of DEED with regards to the application process. MS. MELIN said the author of the bill would have to speak to intent. REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether an extended invitation to the lowest performing schools to join the reading program would be "sufficient." MS. MELIN expressed that she is unsure of what the best approach would be. 9:52:26 AM REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS expressed appreciation for the support for Amendment 43. REPRESENTATIVE STORY requested an opinion on Amendment 43 from the bill's sponsor. 9:53:02 AM SENATOR TOM BEGICH, Alaska State Legislature, said there was no specific intent during discussions with the commissioner of DEED when the initial three concepts of the proposed legislation were conceived. He reminded committee members that the three concepts were early education, the reading program, and intensive support from DEED to districts with struggling schools. He clarified that the intention was that the legislature would determine the best process for realizing those three concepts, and he shared the opinion that Amendment 43 would not undermine or contradict the purpose of the proposed legislation, which in this discussion, is consistent departmental support to ensure schools have the needed tools. 9:56:12 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY removed her objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 43, as amended, was adopted to HB 164, Version I, as amended. 9:56:39 AM The committee took an at-ease from 9:56 a.m. to 9:58 a.m. 9:58:38 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved and asked unanimous consent for the House Standing Committee on Education to direct Legislative Legal Services to make technical and conforming changes in drafting a committee substitute, including all amendments adopted prior to the conclusion of the first session of the Thirty-Second Alaska State Legislature. 9:58:55 AM CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE STORY discussed the importance of compiling the amendments in a committee substitute. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND removed her objection. There being no further objection, the motion to direct Legislative Legal Services to compile the adopted amendments into a committee substitute was adopted. 10:00:39 AM [The House Education Standing Committee recessed at 10:00 a.m. to a call of the chair.] 4:04:01 PM CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND called the House Education Standing Committee back to order at 4:04 p.m. Representatives Zulkosky, Story, Hopkins, Gillham, and Drummond were present at the call to order. Representative Cronk arrived as the meeting was in progress. 4:04:58 PM The committee took an at-ease from 4:05 p.m. to 4:07 p.m. 4:07:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY moved to adopt Amendment 62, labeled 32- LS0731\I.30, Klein, 5/11/21, to HB 164, Version I, as amended, which read as follows: Page 8, lines 4 - 7: Delete all material. Reletter the following subparagraphs accordingly. Page 8, lines 13 - 16: Delete all material and insert: "(3) the performance on the statewide screening or assessment tool of students in a grade above grade three who did not progress to grade four or progressed to grade four based on a parent's or guardian's decision under AS 14.30.765(d)." Page 28, lines 20 - 28: Delete all material and insert: "(7) explain that if the student has a reading deficiency at the end of the school year, the parent may consider delaying the student's progression;" Renumber the following paragraph accordingly. Page 28, line 31, through page 29, line 11: Delete all material and insert: "(d) If it is determined, based on a statewide screening or assessment administered in the spring, that a student has a reading deficiency, the student's teacher and other pertinent district staff shall notify and attempt to meet with the student's parent or guardian to explain that the student will not be able to maintain adequate academic progress at the next grade level. School staff shall work with the parent or guardian to schedule a date, time, and place for the meeting, to be held not later than 45 days before the end of the school year. Following that meeting, the parent or guardian shall determine whether the student will progress to the next grade." Page 29, line 21, through page 30, line 7: Delete all material. Reletter the following subsections accordingly. Page 30, line 11, through page 32, line 21: Delete all material and insert: "(g) If no parent or guardian attends the meeting under (d) of this section, a superintendent or superintendent's designee shall decide whether a student will progress to the next grade. If the superintendent or superintendent's designee decides that the student will not progress to the next grade level, the district or school in which the student is enrolled shall provide immediate oral and written notification to the student's parent or guardian. The written notification must explain that the parent or guardian may reschedule the meeting provided under (d) of this section and that the parent or guardian may decide to progress the student during the meeting. (h) For a student who does not progress to the next grade, the district in which the student is enrolled shall (1) review the student's individual reading improvement plan; (2) provide intensive reading intervention services to improve the area of reading deficiency using effective instructional strategies to accelerate student progress; (3) provide additional services and support to improve the student's identified area of reading deficiency, including (A) a transitional instructional setting that is designed to produce learning gains; (B) supplemental tutoring offered by a person with specialized reading training; (C) increased time dedicated to the reading instruction methods described in (a)(3) - (5) of this section, including more extensive opportunities for guided practice, and error correction and feedback; (4) develop a plan for reading at home outlined in an agreement with the student's parent or guardian, including parent or guardian participation in training workshops and regular parent or guardian- guided home reading activities; (5) upon request by the student's parent or guardian, develop a plan for the student's mid-year progression. (i) A district shall, for the remainder of the academic year, and, if necessary, for additional school years, continue to implement an individual reading improvement plan for a student promoted mid- year under (h)(5) of this section." Reletter the following subsection accordingly. 4:07:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected for the purpose of discussion. 4:07:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 62. 4:07:20 PM CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY said the conceptual amendment would add "or guardian" after "parent" on page 1, line 15, of Amendment 62; it would delete the term "statewide" from page 1, line 21; if would delete page 2, line 14 through page 3, line 13; and it would insert: If no parent or guardian attends a meeting under (d) of this section, the student will progress to the next grade. The district or school in which the student is enrolled shall immediately provide oral and written notification to the student's parent or guardian, explaining that the parent or guardian may reschedule the meeting provided under (d) of this section. At the rescheduled meeting, the parent or guardian may decide to progress or retain the student. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND removed her objection for Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 62. 4:11:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected for the purpose of discussion. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND pointed out the motion to adopt the conceptual amendment was by the maker of the original amendment. 4:11:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY removed her objection. There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted to Amendment 62. 4:12:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY reviewed Amendment 62, as amended. She expressed concern regarding the retention language nestled within the mandatory portions of the bill, which would give a superintendent the authority to retain students regardless of the superintendent's relationship or knowledge of the student. She recalled testimony on the importance of making student progression or retention decisions in consultation with a parent or guardian, and she said Amendment 62, as amended, would remove mandatory retention determinations, and leave such decisions with the parents or guardians. She said retention has been shown to not be a good strategy for addressing achievement gaps, but that it's important to inform the state while protecting the ability of parents or guardians to decide whether to retain a student. 4:14:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS expressed approval of allowing parents or guardians to make the retention decision in consultation with the school district, and he said he would support Amendment 62, as amended. 4:15:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed the understanding that Amendment 62, as amended would align with current policy regarding retention decisions. She said, "We had been told ... that it is the policy now that, if the parent wanted to, that the student could be retained." 4:17:03 PM CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND shared her understanding that retention can punish a child for a lack of parental involvement or poor teaching, and she said children deserve as much leeway as possible without the threat of "flunking out." 4:18:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY withdrew her objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 62, as amended, was adopted to HB 164, Version I, as amended. 4:18:53 PM CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND expressed the understanding that the adoption of Amendment 62, as amended, has impacted Amendments 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, and 40, and she proposed a brief at-ease. 4:19:10 PM The committee took an at-ease from 4:19 p.m. to 4:26 p.m. 4:26:15 PM CO-CHAIR STORY moved to adopt Amendment 34, labeled 32- LS0731\I.40, Klein, 5/10/21, to HB 164, Version I, as amended, which read as follows: Page 27, line 21, following "services": Insert ", to the extent practicable," Page 29, line 3, following "guardian": Insert "as many times as practicable" Page 29, line 25, following "guardian": Insert "as many times as practicable" 4:26:28 PM CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE STORY said Amendment 34 would add "to the extent practicable," referring to the number of reading progress updates, and she said at least 10 updates is the goal. She then discussed the possibility of a conceptual amendment, due to lines 4-8 of Amendment 34 being affected by the adoption of Amendment 62, as amended. 4:27:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 34, which would delete lines 4-8 of Amendment 34. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 34 was adopted. 4:29:29 PM CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND withdrew her objection of Amendment 34, now amended. There being no further objection, Amendment 34, as amended, was adopted to HB 164, Version I, as amended. 4:29:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to adopt Amendment 35, labeled 32- LS0731\I.63, Klein, 5/11/21, to HB 164, Version I, as amended, which read as follows: Page 28, line 2: Delete "If at any time during the school year" Insert "If, during the school year," CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND announced that, there being no objection, Amendment 35 was adopted to HB 164, Version I, as amended. 4:30:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY withdrew Amendments 36, 37, and 38. 4:30:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS withdrew Amendment 40. 4:31:30 PM The committee took an at-ease from 4:31 p.m. to 4:32 p.m. 4:32:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt Amendment 32, labeled 32- LS0731\I.22, Klein, 5/10/21, to HB 164, Version I, as amended, which read as follows: Page 26, line 6: Delete "shall" Insert "may" Page 26, line 9: Delete "shall" Insert "may" Page 26, line 11: Delete "The intensive reading intervention" Insert "If the district elects to provide intensive reading intervention services, the" 4:32:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected. REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said Amendment 32 would allow school districts flexibility in implementing programs. He noted the possible lack of capacity for reporting requirements in certain school districts, and he expressed the importance of allowing school districts to do what's best for their students. 4:34:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY discussed reading standards and the importance of supporting children in meeting those standards. She then described certain aspects of Amendment 32 that need amending, including monitoring reading progress and incorporated daily, targeted small group reading interaction. 4:37:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY stated her support for Amendment 32. She agreed that communities and organizations in rural areas have fewer resources, and she expressed appreciation for local reassessment of intervention strategies. 4:39:59 PM MR. MASON noted the key components of this legislation: universal voluntary pre-k, DEED support for school districts, and a state policy on evidence-based reading intervention. He expressed that Amendment 32 would change the reading intervention driver "dramatically," by making it a voluntary program instead of requiring intervention. He said Amendment 32 would defeat the purpose of HB 164 and its companion legislation SB 111. 4:41:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS noted the experimental nature of the program, as evidenced by the high number of sunset dates in Version I. He said evidence has shown that early education works, but he expressed that there is no such evidence supporting the reading intervention program. He expressed that Amendment 32 would allow a "decent middle ground" and that he supports it. 4:42:56 PM CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND pointed out that DEED would provide training to school district staff in "explicit and systematic instruction and phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, development in reading fluency, oral language skills, and reading comprehension." She expressed not understanding how a school district could ignore a need, when the training to address the need would be provided. She said that, while she would like school districts to have local control, she's concerned that adopting Amendment 32 would allow school districts to not address students' needs. 4:44:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY pointed out that schools continue to instruct, even in the absence of requiring legislation, and there continue to be statewide efforts to close the achievement gaps. She discussed the possibility of having conversations during the interim with school districts on what could work best for smaller school districts, or those with other contributing factors to the achievement gap. She opined that Amendment 32 would be a step in the right direction. 4:47:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS shared his understanding that the passages regarding the statewide screening process, teacher training, other educator training, reporting requirements, and the option for districts to adopt their own statewide screening process and its implementation would remain in place. He said the intent of Amendment 32 is to not prohibit districts from being able to receive the DEED training, but to allow them the option for adopting the retention aspect of the proposed legislation. 4:48:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY shared her understanding that the retention aspect had been removed. She discussed the framework of what has been proven to work, the importance of local, place-based interventions, and the desire to make parents and communities comfortable. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND discussed the verbiage that specifies a school district "shall" provide an individual reading improvement plan for each student in grades kindergarten through three who is determined to have a reading deficiency based on the statewide screening assessment tool. She said, "I think it's pretty clear that this bill wants reading interventions to happen." 4:51:26 PM MR. MASON noted that Amendment 13 included support for reading improvement plans, and that the state would provide $1,000 for support for each student in grades kindergarten through three who is determined to have a reading deficiency. He suggested that changing the "shall" to "may" would call into question whether school districts would still be able to access that support, if the school district opts out of the reading intervention program. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND said she doesn't see where the stipend would reflect in the amendment under discussion. 4:52:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY maintained her objection. 4:52:41 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Cronk, Gillham, Hopkins, Zulkosky, and Drummond voted in favor of adopting Amendment 32 to HB 164, Version I, as amended. Representative Story voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 32 was adopted by a vote of 5-1. 4:54:00 PM The committee took an at-ease from 4:54 p.m. to 4:55 p.m. 4:55:17 PM [Amendment 44 was set aside.] 4:55:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt Amendment 45, labeled 32- LS0731\I.18, Klein, 5/10/21, to HB 164, Version I, as amended, which read as follows: Page 33, line 14, following "specialist": Insert "for a period of not less than one year, or until every student requiring intervention has progressed beyond the student's individual reading plan," Page 33, following line 16: Insert a new subparagraph to read: "(A) working directly with teachers and students to implement individual reading plans;" Reletter the following subparagraphs accordingly. Page 33, following line 26: Insert a new paragraph to read: "(5) employ and assign an additional reading intervention specialist at a school for every four classes in which at least 25 percent of students require reading intervention services;" Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly. Page 40, line 4: Delete "AS 14.30.770(a)(10)" Insert "AS 14.30.770(a)(11)" 4:55:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said Amendment 45 would create the position of reading specialist within DEED, and placing that specialist in a classroom that has least 25 percent of all students on an individual reading plan. He clarified that the reading specialist would be working specifically to implement the individual reading plans. He said the reading specialist would remain in the classroom for no less than one year or until every student requiring intervention has progressed beyond the student's individual reading plan. He noted that a fiscal note would likely be attached as a result of adopting Amendment 45. 4:58:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY removed her objection. 4:58:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE CRONK objected. 4:58:29 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Hopkins, Zulkosky, Drummond, and Story voted in favor of adopting Amendment 45 to HB 164, Version I, as amended. Representatives Cronk and Gillham voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 45 was adopted by a vote of 4-2. 4:59:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt Amendment 46, labeled 32- LS0731\I.19, Klein, 5/10/21, to HB 164, Version I, as amended, which read as follows: Page 33, line 31, following "additional": Insert "optional" 4:59:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said Amendment 46 would introduce the word "optional" with regards to additional reading materials. He said he wants to ensure that no reading materials would be forced onto any school district, and that the districts would be able to choose the material. 5:00:14 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY withdrew her objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 46 was adopted to HB 164, Version I, as amended. 5:00:30 PM The committee took an at-ease from 5:00 p.m. to 5:01. 5:01:00 PM The committee took a brief at-ease. 5:01:35 PM CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND announced that Amendment 47 would be rolled to the bottom. 5:02:08 PM The committee took an at-ease from 5:02 p.m. to 5:03 p.m. 5:03:06 PM CO-CHAIR STORY moved to adopt Amendment 48, labeled 32- LS0731\I.47, Klein, 5/10/21, to HB 164, Version I, as amended, which read as follows: Page 34, lines 18 - 22: Delete all material and insert: "(10) annually convene, either in person or electronically, a panel to review and provide commentary on the effectiveness of the reading intervention programs established under AS 14.30.760 - 14.30.775; the panel must include teachers of grades kindergarten through three, school administrators, and parents of students in grades kindergarten through three, who collectively represent the regions of the state and include stakeholders from indigenous language immersion programs, representatives from early education stakeholder groups, and researchers of best practices for improving literacy performance of indigenous students and students whose first language is not English." 5:03:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE CRONK objected. 5:03:20 PM MS. TOBIN reviewed Amendment 48, which would add regional representation, stakeholders from indigenous language immersion programs, representatives from early education groups, and researchers of best practices, among other additions. 5:04:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY expressed appreciation for Amendment 48. 5:05:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE CRONK removed his objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 48 was adopted to HB 164, Version I, as amended. [HB 164 was held over.] 5:06:17 PM The committee took a brief at-ease. 5:07:02 PM ADJOURNMENT  There being no further business before the committee, the House Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:07 p.m.