►
From YouTube: Senate Standing Committee on Education (1/13/22)
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Welcome
to
the
second
meeting
of
the
senate
standing
community
education
like
to
welcome
everyone
this
morning
before
we
do
begin,
we
have
one
of
our
our
members
of
the
committee
alice
forgie
kerr,
whose
brother
larry
forge
passed
away
through
the
evening,
and
so
we
would
just
like
to
take
a
moment
of
silence.
Both
sides
of
the
aisle
republican
democrat
know
how
much
of
a
legend
larry
fergie
was
in
kentucky
politics
and
for
our
friend
alice
forger
who's
going
through
some
difficult
times
right
now.
C
A
Here,
thank
you
so
much
we
do
have
a
quorum,
but
dually
constituted
to
do
business
this
morning.
I
would
ask
all
members
and
those
in
the
audience
this
morning,
if
you
do
have
a
cell
phone,
please
turn
that
to
silence
or
vibrate.
So
there's
no
disruptions
during
the
meeting
time.
Any
members
have
any
introductions
this
morning
of
any
special
guest
with
us,
seeing
none.
We
do
have
one
bill
on
the
agenda
for
today
for
consideration.
A
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I'm
senator
steve
west
27th
district.
D
D
D
The
read
to
achieve
program
is
a
great
program.
The
teachers
in
the
program
do
great
work.
However,
there's
not
enough
read
to
achieve
teachers
to
go
around
so
once
representative
tifton
myself
realized
that
we
were
working
on
on
the
same
initiative.
We
joined
forces
we
reached
out
to
kde
and
others,
and
we
have
been
working
on
this
bill.
Approximately
three
to
four
years.
D
D
D
D
This
bill
passed
this
committee
last
year.
This
bill
before
you
today
is
a
different
version
of
that
bill.
There
has
there
has
been
significant
changes,
so
if,
last
year
you
had
a
problem
with
how
the
bill
affected
the
rta
program,
then
you
should
be
more
than
pleased
with
this
version.
D
We've
made
significant
changes:
last
year's
version,
repurposed
15
million
dollars
of
rta
funds
and
reallocated
those
funds
to
into
the
coaching
model,
and
it
was
my
hope
to
add
three
to
six
million
to
that
number
in
general
funds
to
get
that
investment
up
to
18
to
21
million
this
bill.
Let
me
be
clear:
this
bill
does
not
touch
the
15
million
dollars
that
is
currently
allocated
to
rta.
D
That
program
stays
in
place
and
this
bill
does
not
touch
that
money
and
and
affects
affects
the
rta
program
very
little.
This
program,
this
would
be
the
read
to
succeed
program,
would
be
a
separate
standalone
program
from
rta.
It
would
be
based
on
the
mississippi
coaching
model,
which
has
been
tremendously
successful.
D
D
You
have
in
your
pack
as
a
fiscal
note
after
implementation
a
couple
years
from
now,
it
would
cost
the
state
approximately
15
million
dollars
per
year.
That's
a
30
million
dollar
investment
in
the
biennium,
and
but
that
would
totally
depend
on
the
number
of
coaches
that
are
able
to
be
hired
in
the
next
two
years
and
it
totally
depends
on
the
coaching
numbers,
so
that
number
could
be
lower
based
on
the
number,
how
successful
and
how?
How
well
kde
is
able
to
attract
coaches.
D
There
is
another
possibility,
I'll
let
I'll
put
mickey
on
the
hot
seat
for
this
question,
but
there's
possibility
that
kde
would
be
avail
itself
of
providing
10
million
dollars
in
arpa
funds
the
first
year
in
this
space,
so
that
would
save
the
general
fund
10
million
dollars,
and
we
could
get
the
program
up
and
running.
D
This
bill
is
a
standalone
program,
its
own
program.
It's
a
coaching
model
separate
from
rta
in
this
bill.
The
steering
committee
that
advises
kde
on
early
literacy
is
changed.
The
makeup
of
that
committee
has
changed.
The
reason
we
had
to
change.
That
is.
The
steering
committee
will
now
cover
both
programs.
D
So
in
the
past
it
was
covering
rta
and
now
it
would
be
covering
both
rta
and
read,
to
succeed
and
if
you're
concerned
about
rta,
it's
really
better
for
rta,
because,
instead
of
having
the
possibility
of
four
rta
teachers
on
the
steering
committee,
this
bill
specifically
adds
an
rta
teacher
and
early
interventionists
and
adds
early
intervention
language
into
the
teacher
portion
which,
theoretically,
under
the
current
situation,
you
could
have
zero
rta
teachers
on
the
steering
committee.
Under
my
bill,
you
could
theoretically
have
five
rta
teachers
on
the
steering
committee
in
this.
D
The
purpose
of
the
change
to
the
steering
committee
is
to
get
more
boots
on
the
ground
information
to
kde,
so
the
steering
committee
would
be
made
up
more
of
more
teachers,
interventionists
and
others
who
are
in
the
school
system
every
day
working
on
this
issue,
and
I
look
at
it.
The
analogy
that
I
came
up
with
was,
if
you're,
if
you're
a
general
in
battle
and
you
need
intelligence,
you
don't
ask
another
general.
What's
going
on,
you
want
to
get
information
from
the
front
line
soldiers.
D
F
All
right,
thank
you,
thank
you
chairwise
and
want
to
thank
vice
chair
west
as
well
and
members
of
the
committee
today.
I
am
very
happy
to
be
here
to
discuss
senate
bill
9
the
read
to
succeed,
act
and
I'd
like
to
begin
by
addressing
why
early
literacy
should
be
a
focus,
and
I
typically
acknowledge
that
I
don't
like
to
have
a
deficit
mindset,
but
we
cannot
allow
ourselves
to
become
numb
to
this
data.
F
I
know
that
it
is
data
that
you
have
seen
in
previous
sessions,
but
behind
the
numbers
there
are
students
in
kentucky
classrooms,
so
there's
a
very
real
human
aspect
to
this,
and
I
think
there
should
be
an
urgency
that
we
all
have
to
address.
Student
need
great
student
need
and
the
data
is
alarming,
but
we
also
know
that
this
need
for
accelerated
learning
in
reading
has
been
compounded
by
the
coven
19
pandemic.
So
what
you're?
Looking
at
on
this
slide?
F
And
while
there
is
an
academic
aspect
to
that,
there's
also
a
very
real
human
aspect
to
this,
because
that
impacts
their
long-term
success
and
research
indicates
that
students
not
reading
proficiently
by
the
end
of
third
grade
are
four
times
more
likely
to
not
finish
high
school.
So
there
truly
is
not
only
an
educational
imperative
to
this,
but
but
I
believe-
and
we
would
argue
that
there
is
a
moral
imperative
to
this
issue
as
well
on
the
next
slide.
F
So
kentucky
is
one
of
17
states
that
had
a
score
decrease
between
2017
and
2019
and,
as
senator
west
mentioned,
there's
one
state
who
showed
growth
and
made
score
increases
during
that
time
period,
and
that
is
mississippi
and
again
the
read
to
succeed,
act
models.
Some
of
the
statewide
supports
that
we
see
evident
in
mississippi,
and
the
other
thing
I
would
like
to
mention
is
that
you
know
the
mississippi
legislature
invested
a
significant
amount
of
funds
into
the
statewide
professional
learning
and
that
job-embedded
coaching
model
that
you
see
reflected
in
senator
west's
bill.
F
And
the
act
takes
many
comprehensive
actions
to
improve
early
literacy
outcomes
from
the
very
beginning.
So
it
is
a
first
step
in
really
increasing
the
student
outcomes
across
our
state
for
our
youngest
readers
and
to
to
senator
west
point.
If
you
look
at
that
first
bullet,
it
maintains
the
read
to
achieve
grant,
so
it
allows
for
the
read
to
achieve
grant
to
be
fully
funded.
F
No
funding
is
reprioritized
or
repurposed.
Within
this
bill
and
again
historically,
the
grant
has
served
approximately
five
percent
of
kentucky's
200
000
k-3
students.
So
that's
about
10
000
students
on
average
per
year
and
according
to
the
uk
evaluation
center's
report,
the
rta
annual
reports
that
come
out
each
year,
rta
interventionist
reports
serving
33
to
46
k-3
students
per
year,
and
these
one-on-one
and
small
group
interventions
are
critical.
F
They
are
critical
for
those
students
needing
the
most
intensive
interventions,
but
the
goal
of
senate
bill
9
is
to
expand
the
support
provided
in
combination
with
the
read
to
achieve
grant
to
target
100
of
k-3
students
who
will
be
receiving
tier
1
instruction
so
rta.
The
grant
focuses
on
a
very
specific
student
population
13
to
20
of
students
who
are
receiving
both
tier
3
and
tier
two
interventions.
F
F
This
is
not
enough
to
address
the
50
percent
of
third
grade
students
who
are
routinely
scoring
below
proficient
on
the
grade
3
reading
assessment,
thus
the
bill
utilizes
both
rta
in
its
current
form,
but
also
targets,
more
students
and
more
teachers
and
more
comprehensive
actions
and
those
comprehensive
actions
fall
into
the
remaining
categories.
You
see
on
the
slide
early
intervention
and
instruction
reading
improvement
plans
for
students,
family
and
community
engagement
and
teacher
certification.
F
Section
2
amends
krs
158.305,
and
this
is
the
existing
response
to
intervention
statute,
and
we
know
that
this
process
is
already
in
place
in
varying
degrees
throughout
the
state
and
the
amended
language
serves
to
clarify
the
process
for
developing
and
overseeing
the
progress
of
an
individual
student
reading
improvement
plan.
It
also
establishes
the
selection
of
and
training
on,
the
administration
and
use
of
universal
screeners
in
diagnostic
assessments,
and
these
are
not
additional
tests
that
are
woven
within
the
bill.
F
These
are
existing
practices
and
it
allows
us
the
opportunity
to
provide
further
guidance
and
support
to
schools
and
districts
around
this
particular
area,
and
then,
lastly,
it
engages
parents
and
families
early
and
often
in
the
discussion,
to
promote
student
success
and
to
ensure
that
parents
are
and
families
are
involved
in
the
decision
making.
It
also
provides
information
to
families
to
promote
literacy
at
home.
F
Section
three
is
a
new
section
of
chapter
of
kr
of
krs
164,
and
it
requires
educator
preparation,
programs
for
disciplinary,
early
childhood
education
or
elementary
education
to
include
evidence-based
reading,
instructional
programming
and
assessment
processes
and
programs,
and
the
intent
here
is
to
provide
more
comprehensive
instruction
around
those
five
key
areas
that
I
mentioned
earlier.
So
phonemic
awareness,
phonics,
fluency
vocabulary
and
comprehension.
F
It
also
requires
epsb
to
maintain
a
list
of
approved
reading
teacher
preparation
tests
to
evaluate
reading
instruction
knowledge
and
skills
and
teacher
candidates
must
successfully
pass
an
approved
reading
instruction
test
section.
4
amends
krs
158.840
and
requires
the
council
on
post-secondary
education
to
submit
a
report,
summarizing
teacher
preparation
program
alignment
to
the
instructional
requirements
that
I've
mentioned
in
section
three.
It
also
requires
cpe
to
report
program
data
to
an
external
evaluator
for
analysis
of
progress.
F
F
F
E
It
is
an
absolute
must-have
for
our
students
and
young
adults
to
be
successful
as
they
move
into
adulthood
and
into
their
careers,
and
the
thing
that
I
think
is
most
beneficial
that
I
see
is
even
leading
the
continuum,
the
commonwealth,
education
continuum.
As
we
talk
about
a
p20
pipeline
and
increasing
our
education
pipeline.
This
is
a
must,
and
this
has
been
something
we've
discussed.
E
I
think,
the
impact
of
rta,
and
I
can
say
that
from
having
lots
of
years
at
kde
and
working
with
those
folks
and
being
an
elementary
principal
and
seeing
what
rta
can
do.
But
they
cannot
make
magic
if
solid
instruction
is
going
on
every
single
day
in
the
classroom
for
every
child.
So
thank
you
for
your
time.
D
A
Senator
west,
thank
you
for
the
bill,
thanks
for
all
your
collaboration
and
your
work
on
this,
as
well
as
your
colleague
in
the
house,
representative,
tipton
who's
worked
with
you
side
by
side.
I
know
we've
been
in
a
lot
of
meetings
on
this.
You've
been
in
meetings
with
other
colleagues
on
this
committee
as
well
as
in
the
house.
I
want
to
thank
also
the
two
presenters
that
are
here
for
all
the
work
you've
done
and
all
the
other
shareholders
and
stakeholders
that
have
been
a
part
of
this
bill.
A
I'm
supportive
of
the
bill-
and
I
know
you've,
said
this
already
on
the
record,
and
I
know
it's
been
commented
about
the
read
to
achieve
grant
mickey.
I
think
you
had
in
the
slide
with
section
5
that
they
were
fully
funded.
D
Absolutely
there's
nothing
in
here
that
does
that
nothing
whatsoever
and
I'll
go
one
step
further
to
say,
if
you're,
if
you're
concerned
about
early
literacy
in
this
state,
what
this
bill
would
do
if
fully
funded
is
you
would
move
instead
of
having
15
million
dollars
in
this
space?
You
would
eventually
have
45
million
dollars
in
this
space.
A
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
definitely
want
to
commend
senator
west
and
representative
tipton
for
being
so
tenacious
on
this
bill.
I
also
was
at
sreb
and
continued
to
be
a
member
of
that
and
participate.
G
I
believe
that
they're
one
of
the
best
that
is
out
there
to
see
what
other
states
are
doing
and
the
successes
they
have
and
I
have
to
say
a
lot
of
people
may
not
know,
but
I
was
born
in
mississippi
and
still
have
a
lot
of
family
there.
My
oldest
son,
there
farms
next
to
our
family
farm
on
my
mother's
side,
down
there
and
some
are
regular
in
seeing
what's
going
on
in
state
of
mississippi
and
to
see
what
they
had
done
in
their
reading
program.
G
G
That's
because
that
they
were
teaching
and
training
their
teachers
coming
through
college,
how
to
teach
reading
to
their
students
at
all
levels
and
and
that
my
friends,
I
think,
has
made
a
credible
difference
and
I
love
the
coaching
aspect
also
established
for
teachers
that
are
already
there,
because
you're
going
to
be
having
all
teachers
really
bringing
them
up
to
speed.
But
I
think
it's
going
to
take
a
couple
of
years
for
us
to
really
start
see
the
successes.
G
G
D
Comment,
thank
you
senator
wilson.
For
those
words,
it's
important
to
point
out
this
bill
is
not
a
quick
fix
either.
I
mean
it'll
take
two
years
to
set
this
up,
and
hopefully
we
will
see
some
improved
results
year.
Three,
four
five,
you
know
so
it'll
take
a
little
time.
A
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
central
west.
Thank
you
for
your
work
on
this
bill.
We've
had
a
lot
of
conversations
about
this
and
and
the
concerns
that
to
make
sure
that
read
to
achieve
and
read
to
succeed
could
coexist
in
the
same
space
and
and
that
there's
room
for
both
of
them.
You
know
one
of
my
goals
is
for
the
reed
to
achieve
to
make
sure
it
survives
and
thrives.
H
But,
as
you
said
earlier,
it's
only
five
percent
of
the
kids.
So
if
we're
going
to
get
to
that
that
place
where
all
children
can
read
by
the
third
grade
at
grade
level,
we
had
to
do
something
else,
and
I
know
that,
and
one
of
one
of
the
things
I
was
glad
to
see
is
as
we
you
know,
you're
concerned
about
whether
or
not
what
this
bill
does
to
read.
To
read.
H
To
achieve
the
fiscal
note
which
the
you
know,
the
staff
looks
at
that
and
the
non-person
they
just
tell
you
like
it
is
in
the
fiscal
note.
They
don't
pull
any
punches
and
it's
good
to
see
in
there.
The
measure
does
not
repurpose
or
re-prioritize
rta
grant
and
it
will
continue.
That's
what
it
says
in
the
fiscal
note,
but
I
do
have
a
question
for
you,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you.
I
expected
that
you
would
yeah
page
page,
paragraph
c.
We
strike
that
and
it's
talking
about
the
grant.
H
So
can
you
explain,
I
guess
help
me
feel
more
at
ease
with
that.
With
that
paragraph
c,
that's
that's
struck
on
page
22.
D
Yeah
this
mickey
can
comment
further,
but
what
I
think
this
does
is
like
I
said
before
that
it
we
had
to
change
the
steering
committee
because
it
includes
both
read
to
achieve
and
read
to
succeed
the
other
option.
The
other
way
we
could
have
done,
that
is
to
have
two
separate
steering
committees,
but
in
the
interest
of
keeping
bureaucracy
low.
D
We
we
kept
it
at
one,
but
I
think
it
has
to
do
with
that
change
to
the
steering
committee
that
that
they're
they're
no
longer
recommending
approval
of
the
grant
applications
based
on
those
provisions.
But
if
mickey
could
chime
in.
F
Sure
I'd
be
happy
to
add
a
little
bit
to
that
senator
higdon,
the
way
that
it
currently
functions.
So
when
the
steering
committee
meets
together
after
we
have
gone
through
the
external
evaluation
to
select
the
applicants
that
comes
before
the
committee
and
they
approve
the
the
applicants
so
it
the
reality
is,
is
that
that
was
struck.
It's
a
little
bit
of
a
redundancy,
because
the
committee
would
never
say
no
that
you
have
gone
through
the
full
evaluation
process.
F
D
You
know
if
I
could
go
further
mickey
there
if
you
look
on
page
20,
where
it
sets
up
the
steering
committee.
Currently,
the
steering
committee
is
an
advisory
committee.
D
Okay,
it
doesn't
change
that
it's
the
language
is
not
changed,
it's
still
an
advisory
committee,
so
is
it
safe
to
say
that
none
none
of
that
changes
absolutely.
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
If,
if
I
could
during
miss
ray's
presentation
you
put
up
or
somebody
put
up
a
statistic,
a
chart
about
our
performance
level
over
the
last
couple
of
years,
k,
prep,
yeah
and
I
think
it
was
at
50
now
I
just
turned
16,
that's
way
too
small
for
me,
I'm
sorry
yeah
there.
It
is
in
doing
this
and
where
you
are
having
the
success
in
2019,
that's
52.7
percent.
I
F
I
would
like
to
add
one
thing:
senator
cyrus,
so
it's
part
of
the
rta
annual
report
and
the
work
that's
done
with
the
uk
evaluation
center
for
read
to
achieve.
Specifically,
they
have
identified
high
performing
schools
so
what
they
would
denote
as
outliers,
so
those
that
are
drastically
performing
higher
than
the
others,
and
the
interesting
thing
is
that
those
districts
are
making
choices
beyond
what
is
afforded
in
the
grant
to
do
the
very
things
that
you
will
find
in
in
the
bill.
F
So
they
are
looking
for
other
professional
learning
opportunities
beyond
what
is
afforded
via
the
grant.
They
have
the
coaches,
typically
that
are
functioning
within
their
school
buildings,
so
we
actually
used
what
we
had
seen
via
those
evaluation
reports
to
inform
much
of
our
decision
making
moving
forward
for
both
the
read
to
achieve
grant
and
also
to
advise
senator
west.
Regarding
the
bill.
I
I
I
want
to
just
comment
on
the
sreb.
It's
again,
I
guess
my
age
again
shows
I
was
on
the
sreb
and
there's
actually
three
appointing
authorities
to
the
sreb
from
kentucky
speaker
of
the
house
gets
the
point,
president
of
the
senate
and
the
governor,
and
I
was
actually
governor
patton's
appointee
as
a
republican
senator
the
sreb
24
years
ago.
I
So
I'm
very
familiar,
and
I
appreciate
the
work
and
anybody
who
has
not
been
on
sreb,
and
I
appreciate
the
people
who
I
have
appointed
to
be
on
sreb.
That
is
a
really
quality
group
and
I'm
very
familiar
with
this,
because
I
think
jack
westwood
and
bernie
mcgahey.
We
were
the
ones
that
kind
of
came
back
with
rta
many
many
years
ago
about
how
the
success
of
reading
at
a
fourth
grade
level
at
the
time
you
finish.
Fourth
grade-
was
something
that
was
critical.
I
I
So
this
gives
an
emphasis
on
how
critical
this
is,
and
so
we
continue
need
to
evaluate
and
re-evaluate
what
we
do
to
make
sure
we're
attaining
this.
At
the
fourth
grade
level
and
as
we
have
sat
here,
my
expectations
are
going
to
be
pretty
high
about
this,
because
I've
actually
been
texting
with
a
gentleman
who
said
after
the
passage
of
the
bill,
they
were
at
a
64
percent
at
level
reading
rate
and
after
three
years
they
went
to
92
percent
by
just
increasing
the
expectation
with
minimal
investment,
and
who
is
this
individual?
D
It's
important
to
point
out
that
these
numbers,
2015
to
2019,
show
a
plateau
or
a
decline
in
kentucky
the
the
number
that's
missing
is
2020
coveted.
We
don't.
Even
we
don't
even
include
the
coven
numbers,
which
I
suspect
should
be
horrendous,
and
I
bring
that
up
to
also
include
if
you're
concerned,
about
achievement
gaps.
D
This
is
the
best
way,
in
my
opinion,
to
attack
achievement
gaps
and
I'm
assuming
that
coven
numbers
will
be
bad
and
this
I
really
feel
this
is
the
best
way
we
can
attack
the
achievement
gaps
and
get
those
numbers
up.
J
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
I
must
say
that
this
is
a
critical
focus.
There's
no
question
about
that.
The
research
and
observations
over
the
years
have
been
that
this
has
been
a
critical
area
in
the
reading.
J
If
it's
not
accomplished
by
the
third
grade
level,
you
it's
a
struggle
from
there
on
and
ends,
often
in
very
negative
consequences.
J
So
I
want
to
thank
you
senator
west,
for
the
focus
and
following
through
also
my
observation
is
this
bill
is
better
than
the
last
one,
which
gives
me
more
of
an
inclination
to
support
it.
J
J
D
J
The
other
thing
I
just
want
to
understand:
could
you
elaborate
just
a
little
bit
on
the
universal
screening
piece,
I'd
like
to
understand
that
what
I'm
interpreting
this,
as
is
that
each
individual
child
will
be
assessed
in
some
way
to
determine
where
they
are
so
that
they
can
have.
I
guess
an
individualized
approach
to
their
circumstances.
Is
that
correct?
Yes,.
D
F
Absolutely
so
in
again
this
these
universal
screenings
are
already
happening,
and
what
this
does?
It
puts
more
of
a
timeline
on
when
those
must
occur,
so
that
schools
can
take
action
to
develop
the
individual
reading
plan,
so
they
would
have
the
universal
screener
that
would
be
all
students
being
tested.
There
would
be
diagnostic
assessments
for
those
individual
students
to
determine
more
specialized
instruction
or
intervention
that
would
be
needed
for
those
students,
and
then
the
team
would
come
together
to
develop
that
reading
plan
based
on
the
specific
needs
of
the
individual
student.
A
J
The
there
are
two
areas
that
I
do
have
some
questions
about,
or
perhaps
you
can
help
me
with
the
training
aspect:
there's
a
ton
of
training
requirements
now
on
the
ground
for
those
who
would
have
to
carry
this
out,
and
I
noticed
that
historically,
we
keep
adding
things
on,
but
I'm
not
sure
there's
a
relief
valve
on
the
other
side
or
whether
it
should
be.
I
really
don't
know
so.
I'm
just
concerned,
I
shouldn't
say:
concern:
I'm
I'm
wondering
about
this
training
piece,
this
additional
training
piece.
How?
J
F
Go
ahead
well,
so
one
thing
that
I
do
want
to
point
out,
so
the
schools
could
make
local
schools
would
make
decisions
on
whether
or
not
at
the
beginning
they're
going
to
opt
into
the
additional
professional
learning
requirements.
So
they
could
consider
that
in
their
total
24
hours
for
those
k-3
teachers
or
k-5
teachers,
if
they
so
choose
and
then
they'll
have
local
flexibility
determine
how
to
implement
those
additional
hours.
F
So
it
would
also
be
a
matter
of
choice
on
the
teacher's
part,
so
they
would
have
to
evaluate
where
they
are
their
time
and
space
and
capacity,
and
we
think
that
as
more
and
more
teachers
are
able
to
participate
in
the
professional
learning
supports,
it
will
cause
other
teachers
to
also
want
to
participate
because
of
just
the
word
that
would
spread
within
a
school
building
within
a
grade
level
team
within
a
plc
to
support
students
in
classrooms
with
diverse
needs.
So.
F
It
would
not
be
the
professional
learning
piece
would
be
an
opportunity,
that's
available
for
teachers
to
apply
to
participate
because
it
has
to
be
released
in
phases
and
that's
part
of
the
onboarding.
F
F
J
J
D
J
J
How
does
that
apply,
and
the
reason
I
raise
the
question
is
because
standardized
testing
that's
used
to
evaluate
students,
there's
a
controversy,
in
fact,
an
observation
that
it
really
does
not
necessarily
it's
important,
but
it
does
not
necessarily
in
and
of
itself
give
an
assessment.
That's
accurate
as
it
relates
to
an
individual
child's
accomplishments,
are
their
ability
to
understand,
etc,
etc.
J
D
Mickey,
if
you
could
explain
the
how
it
doesn't
expand
by
that
much
you
know
current
testing
requirements.
F
And
that's
absolutely
right,
so
there
really.
There
are
no
additional
tests
that
are
incorporated
into
senate
bill
9
for
students
for
k-3
students.
What
this
will
do,
though,
it
will
ensure,
coupled
with
the
intervention,
support,
that's
happening
via
the
rta
grant,
that
very
intensive
intervention
support,
that's
occurring
with
those
students,
and
it
will
impact
tier
one
instruction,
so
the
actual
instructional
process
of
the
teacher
versus
creating
different
tests
that
will
be
utilized
as
measures.
F
It's
more
about
equipping
the
teacher
to
address
the
differing
needs
of
the
students
within
the
classroom
and
that
would
that
would
incorporate
be
incorporated
into
formative,
assessments,
classroom,
embedded
assessments
and
supports
for
those
students.
But
it's
not
adding
additional
k-prep
assessments.
If
that
answers
the
question.
J
I
I
think
it
gives
me
an
idea
I'll
look
further,
senator
west.
Thank
you
again
for
the
legislation
and,
mr
chairman,
thank
you
for
your
indulgence.
C
E
There
have
been
other
states
who
have
tried
things.
I
know
that
arizona
actually
had
a
private
entity
try
to
take
this
on
to
do
a
reading
initiative
because
they
saw
the
need
for
it,
but
no
one
else
has
had
an
intensive
long
term,
as
senator
wilson
had
said,
commitment
to
the
process
of
professional
learning.
A
lot
of
states,
though,
are
starting
to
get.
E
Legislation
passed
around
this
alabama
is
the
most
recent
one
that
I
think
actually
got
it
passed
and
you
will
notice
if
you
look
up
carrie
wright,
who
is
the
commissioner
what
they
call
the
superintendent
of
mississippi?
I
think
she
has
talked
to
over
25
or
30
states
who
are
very
interested
in
their
growth
and
how
they're
doing
that,
because
colorado
massachusetts,
even
who
are
very
high
performers,
want
to
know
how
they're
maintaining
the
consistent
growth,
because
they
haven't
really
embraced
the
systems
approach
to
ongoing
professional
learning
and
coaching
for
their
teachers.
So
it's
it's!
E
It
is
kind
of
out
there
on
its
own,
but
you're
going
to
see
a
lot
of
legislation,
that's
being
mimicked
and
with
their
own
personal
touches,
and
I
can
even
get
that
information
to
mickey
and
she-
and
I've
talked
a
lot
about
that.
Just
looking
at
different
approaches,
but
specific
states
for
you
to
see,
but
no
one
really
has
passed.
Anything
and
implemented
like
mississippi,
has
done
for
literacy,
okay,.
C
Thank
you.
My
second
question
relates
more
to
the
funding
part
of
this,
and
I
know
that
we're
not
in
the
appropriations
and
revenue
committee
we're
in
the
education
committee,
but
I
think
you
know
it
all
ends
up
tying
together.
C
So
you
know
the
read
to
achieve
grant
process
right
now
is
is
a
allocation
and
it's
a
grant
and
this
money
is
going
to
be
another
budget
line
item
it
sounds
like,
and
hopefully
you
know
we're
going
to
calculate
the
cost
of
the
program
and
that's
going
to
be
the
cost
of
it,
but
most
other
educational
funding.
It
seems
like
to
me
goes
through
what
we
call
seek
and
and
when
we're
looking
at
how
much
we
need.
Is
there
a
reason
why
we
have
all
this
stuff
line
items
instead
of?
C
Let's
say
you
know
calculate
I
mean
I
know
if
you've
got
you
know
an
iep
student
they're
going
to
get
so
much
I
mean
seek
formula
is
complicated,
but
can
there
not
be
one
more
piece
of
the
seek
form?
Let's
say
how
many
tier
one
students
do
you
have
how
many
tier
two
students
do
you
have
and
and
this
work
in
that
way,.
D
We
have
seek
that's
true
and
that
flows
down
to
the
local
districts,
but
there
there
are
many
other
line
items
that
go
directly
to
kde
for
specific
things.
So
this
would
be
another
another
one
of
those
item
line
items,
and
so
the
purpose
of
it
being
a
separate
line.
Item
and
separate
is
that
so
the
money
we
we
know
where
it's
going,
we
can
keep
track
of
it.
We
even
have
something
in
the
bill.
D
We
have
third
party
analysis
of
performance,
so
kde
is
checking
on
the
schools
and
somebody
else
in
here
is
checking
on
kde
to
make
sure
that
that
it's
being
spent
appropriately.
So
that's
that's
why
we
did
it
that
way.
C
I
guess
maybe,
besides
the
actual
cost
and
how
we're
doing
it
is,
are
we
calculating
how
many
tier
two
and
three
students
we
have
and
how
many
tier
one
students
we
have?
Is
that
how
we've
gotten
to
be
able
to
come
up
with
these
calculations
as
far
as
how
much
we
need
now
and
how
much
we
need
for
future
years?
I'm
just
wondering
you
know
if
you
have
an
influx
of
students,
you
know
at
some
point
this
thing's
going
to
need
to
be
flexible
on
how
much
we're
going
to
need
per
kid.
Essentially.
D
I'll
I'll
jump
jump
into
this
a
little
bit
and
then
let
mickey
comment,
but
I'm
on
appropriations
and
revenue.
So
that
fiscal
note
is
based
on
year
three
year,
three
and
four,
so
mickey
katie.
If
this
passes-
and
if
we
get
funding
in
the
buy
in
this
biennium,
they
will
be
attempting
to
set
this
program
up
over
two
years
and
that
that
ask
in
year
three
could
change,
and
it's
probably
going
to
be
totally
based
on
the
number
of
coaches
that
they
have
in
the
size
of
the
program
at
that
time.
D
C
Oh
wait,
thank
you
and
then
my
final
comments.
As
I'm
listening
to
all
of
this,
and
I
remember
last
year
I
kind
of
jumped
right.
I
think
this
is
one
of
the
very
first
bills,
as
I
recall
getting
thrown
at
me.
You
know
first
second,
one
of
the
early
education
committee
meetings
and
I
was
like
okay,
I'm
not
sure
I
totally
got
this
and
I
I
dug
in
right.
After
as
we
were
having
our
floor
debate,
it
seemed
like
to
me
all:
the
senators
were
either
they
were,
it
was
either
read.
C
C
I
didn't
see
why
they
need
to
be
mutually
exclusive
and
I'm
very
happy
to
see
the
progress
this
year
in
basically
everything
that
I
was
thinking
as
this
thing
was
developing,
so
I
started
researching
digging
into
it
more
this
past
year
and
learning
not
nearly
enough
yet
but
getting
there
and
and
as
I've
kind
of
figured
out,
we
have
why.
C
K
K
Rta
is
deeply
embedded
throughout
my
district.
That's
my
concern
about
it.
I
remember
vividly
the
floor
discussion
we
had
last
year
and
a
particular
change
between
center
neal
and
myself
about
how
this
operates.
We've
got
to
get
beyond
the
importance
of
of
this.
It's
universal.
We
all
know
we
have
to
do
this,
but
it's
how
we
get
there
and.
B
K
Use
the
description
last
year
on
the
senate
floor
when
we
were
talking
that
okay,
we
have
our
ta
that's
performing
at
this
level,
but
we've
got
a
whole
group
of
kids
are
at
this
level
and
what
it
appeared
to
be
at
that
time
is
we're
going
to
take
funding
from
this
group
to
give
to
this
group
we're
going
to
bring
these
folks
up
here,
but
the
folks
are
going
to
come
down
here
and
I
thought
we
left
with
the
strong
understanding.
We
would
not
touch
rta.
K
It's
going
to
be
separate
and
distinct.
We're
going
to
leave
it
alone
like
it
is,
but
last
fall,
kde
changed.
The
guidelines
changed
the
percentage
of
match
that
created
havoc
throughout
my
district,
that
those
positions
probably
would
not
exist
any
longer,
principally
because
they
didn't
have
the
funds
for
the
match,
and
I
was
diametrically
opposed
to
what
we
had
talked
about
in
the
senate.
I
think
part
of
the
same
discussion
in
the
house,
so
my
concern
is
not
so
much
what
your
bill
does
is
what
it
possibly
doesn't.
K
D
This
bill
does
not
change
the
existing
framework
as
it
pertains
to
kde
and
rta.
It's
the
same,
it's
the
same
as
it
was
last
year,
the
same
as
the
year
before
this
does
not
affect
that.
In
any
way,
the
only
you
could
argue
that
the
steering
committee
changes
we've
talked
about
that,
so
that
does
change,
but
that
that
working
back
and
forth
with
kde
doesn't
change.
D
People
have
proposed
rta
so
successful.
Why
don't
we
just
put
this
money
in
rta
and
get
there
that
way?
Well,
it's
because
of
the
only
two
as
a
farmer
that
there's
two
things
that
hold
me
back
on
the
farm
time
and
money.
There's
the
main
two
things
hold
me
back
to
get
the
same
result
to
cover
those
200,
000,
kids
with
rta.
D
You
only
have
to
come
up
with
300
million
dollars,
so
this
this
is
a
way
we
can
fill
that
gap.
We
can
put
30
million
in
that
space
and
hopefully
reach
the
200
000
kids
rather
than
through
the
rta
model,
but
we've
done
everything
we
can
possibly
do
to
not
affect
rta
with
this
bill,
and
I
can't
say
anything
more
than
that
really.
K
D
I
can't
speak
for
kyle.
Let
me
speak
for
katie.
F
F
We
did
consider
how
we
could
be
knowing
that
this
is
not
an
assurance
that
we
would
not
have
additional
funding
to
potentially
be
able
to
promote
support
beyond
the
professional
learning
supports
that
are
provided
in
in
the
rta
grant.
We
considered
how
we
could
allow
flexibility
and
better
align
to
statute.
So
when
we
were
looking
at
the
the
revision
to
the
request
for
application,
we
adamantly
believed
we
were
aligning
to
the
intent
of
the
statute.
We
were
still
allowing
for
the
salary
to
go
to
the
interventionist.
F
We
support
intervention.
We
support
one-on-one
instruction.
We
support
small
group
instruction,
but
to
your
point
we
did
hear
we
did
hear
from
the
field.
We
made
an
amendment
to
the
rfa
and
ensured
that
there
are
no
funding
allocation.
So
in
the
past,
schools
typically
use
the
entire
amount
for
salary
of
funding
that
interventionist
and
we
we
were
hoping
that
they
would
be
able
to
utilize
local
funds
to
still
allow
for
partial
use
of
the
base
funds.
F
Partial
use
of
the
base
funds
for
the
salary
of
that
interventionist
with
local
funds
and
then
provide
other
supports
to
additional
interventionists
and
teachers
who
were
teaching
students
to
read
utilizing
some
of
the
other
funding
base.
But
again
we
I
feel
that
we
were
responsive
as
an
agency
to
the
public
to
those
concerns
that
were
expressed
and-
and
now
it
has.
It
has
gone
back
to
allowing
for
flexibility
in
the
local
schools
to
utilize,
both
the
base
and
the
matching
funds,
as
they
see
fit.
F
I
think,
because
we
have
a
responsibility
as
a
service
agency
to
the
educators
in
our
state
to
hear
their
voices,
and
while
we
were
moving,
we
were
making
decisions
based
on
the
data.
We
also
have
a
responsibility
to
respond
to
their
need
and
when
we
overwhelmingly
heard
their
need,
we
felt
we
needed
to
make
the
adjustment.
K
Well
again,
that
need
hasn't
changed
and
again
if
we
leave
our
ta
alone,
I'm
fine
with
it.
But
again
I
don't
think
there's
anything
in
this
bill
and
maybe
it
doesn't
need
to
be
there
center
west.
Maybe
we
need
a
separate
bill
to
provide
that
level
of
commitment
and
protection
to
those
funds.
So
I
appreciate
your
testimony
appreciate
your
time.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
A
And
senator
meredith
to
your
concern,
a
house
bill
has
been
filed
to
do
exactly
what
you're
asking
to
do.
I'm
happy
to
talk
to
you
offline
after
the
meeting
with
more
details
of
a
house
bill
that
does
what
you're
wanting
to
do.
We
have
one
more
member
I
have
with
questions
we
have
about
20
minutes
or
we
will
lose
members
from
this
committee.
Senator
denise
harper
angel.
B
F
Well,
we
would
encourage
them
to
join
together
as
a
plc
group
as
a
freshman
learning
community
as
a
grade
level
team.
But
if
there
is
one
teacher
who
would
like
to
have
the
professional
learning
support,
we
would
encourage
them
to
apply
for
sustainability
and
for
administrator
support.
It
would
be
most
effective
within
a
team
of
teachers,
but
I
would
never
want
a
teacher
who
is
interested
in
having
a
professional
learning
opportunity
to
not
be
able
to
do
so
if
that's
not
a
full
school
building
participating
in
that
professional
learning.
F
B
D
This
bill
helps
provide
that
with
early
literacy,
it's
it's
free
and
as
far
as
the
school
schools
are
going
to
want
to
do
this,
this
is
additional
helps.
This
is
additional.
This
is
high
level
professional
development
high
level
coaching.
D
This
is
another
area
of
improvement
or
achievement
that
they
can
shoot
for
so,
for
instance,
once
the
coaching
model
set
up
and
you
hire
these
coaches,
these
coaches
are
probably
going
to
be
making
a
higher
salary
than
an
existing
rank
and
file
teacher
would
so
it'll
give
them
another
goal.
Maybe
if
they
one
day
want
to
become
a
coach
and
that's
another,
so
we
can
keep
putting
an
incentive
in
for
teachers
to
improve
and
and
expand
their
professional
development.
Professional
lives
really.
L
I
have
to
tell
you
that
I'm
conflicted
on
this,
because
I
I
do
know
how
hard
you
and
representative
worked
on
this
bill
and-
and
I
do
know
both
your
passion
for
education.
I've
worked
with
you
personally
and
both
of
you
all
are
a
good
man,
but
statutory
language
means
something.
It's
really
important
and
my
questions
in
reading
this
bill
go
along
the
lines
of
senator
higdons.
L
I
find
the
statutory
language
conflicting
here
and
that's
why
I'm
really
struggling
with
my
support
in
this
bill
and
I'll
give
you
an
example.
Okay,
first
of
all,
on
section
five
of
this
bill
sub
paragraph
two
page
17,
beginning
with
line
22.,
let
me
know
when
you're
there.
L
I'm
there
okay
paragraph
two
reads:
the
current
law
says
the
reading
diagnostic
invention
fund
is
is
created,
creates
this
reading
and
diagnostic
intervention
fund.
These
grants
that
we
talked
about
to
help
teachers
and
library,
media
specialists
improve
the
skills
of
struggling
readers
in
the
primary
program.
That's
the
current
language!
Now
that's
the
law!
Now,
okay,
you
change
that
to
say
that
that
funds
created
to
help
struggling
leaders
in
kindergarten
through
grade
three
okay,
so
you
create
the
fine
okay,
but
then.
L
If
you
go
on
page
22,
section
6
of
section
6
lines,
22
and
23,
you
delete
the
fine
you,
you
delete
what
you
just
created.
L
Then
again,
as
senator
hicks,
so
appropriately
pointed
out
about
now
seems
like
a
half
an
hour
ago,
you
delete
the
grant
applications
under
section
six
on
page
22
lines
10
through
12.
D
Senator
thomas,
we
lost
you
on
page
22.,
page
22,.
L
L
Point:
okay,
page
22
begin
on
line
10.
L
L
Then
again,
wasn't
picked
up
with
me
on
page
23..
Now
we're
in
section
7
sub
paragraph
b.
L
D
It's
it
now
says
evidence-based,
comprehensive
reading
instruction
and
the
reason
we
had
to
do
that
is
that
that
steering
committee
now
includes
both
the
rta
and
the
regis
succeed
program,
so
that
that
steering
committee-
if
we
left
it
the
same,
then
they
cannot
provide
advice
on
the
read
to
succeed
program.
But
this
this
is
just
providing
advice
about
the
program.
It's
not
in
any
way
eliminating
the
program.
L
L
D
What
we've
done
is
is,
rather
than
have
the
reading
diagnostic
and
intervention
grant
steering
committee
handle
just
the
rta.
It
is
now
responsible
for
handling
the
rta
and
the
read
to
succeed
program
and
we
add
language
to
say
universe.
It
also
includes
universal
screeners
ring
diagnostic
assessments
and
a
statewide
divest
professional
development
program
for
early
literacy,
so
that
committee
would
be
responsible
for
all
that.
It's
really
enhanced
responsibilities,
really.
Okay,.
E
And
also
in
section
seven,
it
is
referring
to
ccld's
responsibilities,
and
so
that
is
just
aligning
what
the
center,
how
they
support
the
committee
that
has
been
restructured
and
so
before
they
gave
specific
advice
on
the
grant
program
alone
and
because,
where
they've
expanded
this,
it
also
has
expanded
the
evidence-based
comprehension.
Research
are
reading
instruction
and
other
matters
relating
to
reading
to
expand
the
advice
that
ccld
provides
technical
service
to.
So
that's
where
that
section,
seven.
So
that's
actually
in
reference
to
ccld
and
how
they'll
provide
support
to
kde
in
the
committee.
A
B
Mr
chairman,
I'm
going
to
vote
yes
today
so
that
we
can
move
the
bill
forward.
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
good
language
in
it.
I
just
want
to
become
a
little
more
clear
that
there's
not
an
additional
burden
on
our
teachers,
that
it's
not
another
onerous
burden,
state
mandate
that
we're
applying
and
that
there
can
be
no
retribution
against
a
teacher
that
doesn't
want
to
opt
into
the
program,
and
maybe
we
can
talk
offline
on
on
those
issues.
H
Explain
my
I
vote.
Please
proceed.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
vote
on
and
this
is
too
important
not
to
not
to
succeed
and
but
still
have
some
questions.
We
can
have
some
offline
conversations
and
and
try
to
get
them
squared
away,
but
thank
you.
K
Certainly
understand
the
importance
of
bill
always
have
and
want
to
see
it
move
forward,
but
I
would
hope
we
could
have
some
conversation
about
the
issues
that
I've
discussed
and
the
pending
legislation
may
be
in
the
house,
and
I
certainly
want
to
observe
the
right
to
vote
no
on
the
senate
floor.
Thank
you.
G
J
Actually,
I
appreciate
the
focus
of
this.
I
appreciate
the
movement
from
the
focus
the
way
it
was
structured
last
year
to
how
it
is
down.
There
are
some
questions
that
are
outstanding.
I
asked
some
general
questions
of
which
you
responded
to
that
gave
me
some
comfort,
but,
like
others
on
this
particular
panel
and
other,
so
that
we'll
be
voting
on
this
on
the
floor.
Certainly
we'd
want
to
get
more
information,
more
clarity
on
some
of
these
issues,
but
thank
you
for
your
presentation.
Thank
you.
C
A
vote
yes,
and
I
am
interested,
though,
in
helping
support
other
of
these
little
cleanup
type
things
the
concerns
that
may
have
their
home
in
another
house
bill.
I
shared
those
same
concerns
and
was
thinking
myself.
Maybe
it
you
know
it
doesn't
really
belong
in
this
bill.
You
know
this
bill's
good
bill.
C
There
are
other
items
out
there
that
are
also
potentially
needed
in
kde
choosing
to
change
purpose
of
the
funds
we
might
get
spread
too
thinly.
If
we
have
this
other
program,
maybe
we
can
that'll
help
us.
You
know
enhance
all
of
these
efforts
and
make
sure
that
doesn't
end
up
getting
spread
too
thin
and
heavy
in
one
direction,
not
the
other,
and
then
also
I
do
have
concerns
sometimes
about
the
intricacies
of
the
language
and
what
senator
higdon
and
senator
thomas
were
just
bringing
up.
A
L
Senator
as
I
mentioned,
I
know
how
hard
you
and
rep
tipton
worked
on
this
and
you
you
are
right.
We
do
need
to
focus
on
literacy.
As
you
know,
I've
been
a
strong
advocate
for
for
for
universal
pre-k,
looks
like
we're
going
to
move
in
that
direction.
We
need
to
get
our
students
children
reading
early
because,
as
I've
said
many
many
times,
the
achievement
gap
begins
before
they
get
to
school.
Okay,
the
the
testing's
just
a
reflection
of
what
happened
before
they
got
to
school,
okay.
L
So
so
so
I
applaud
your
effort.
I
want
to
move
forward
on
this,
but
I
do
think
the
language
needs
to
be
cleaned
up,
because
it
is
conflicting
because
it
it
it
it
gives
on
one
hand
and
takes
away
on
the
other,
and
I
thought
I
would
never
say
this,
but
but
I
I
think
a
sentence
committee
substitute
is
really
in
order
here.
We
really
need
to
go
back
and
re,
look
at
the
language
and
clean
it
up
so
that
it's
consistent
throughout,
but
I
do
vote
I
at
the
present
time.