Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 106
04/07/2014 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HR9 | |
| SB195 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 195 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HR 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HR 9-DELAY IMPLEMENTATION OF ED STANDARDS
8:04:44 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE RESOLUTION NO. 9, Urging the commissioner of education and
early development and the state Board of Education and Early
Development to delay implementation of statewide education
standards. [Before the committee was Version U.]
8:04:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON, Alaska State Legislature,
testifying as prime sponsor of HR 9, asked to clarify that HR 9
does not delay [implementation of academic standards or other
changes in the classroom].
8:05:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HR 9, Version N, labeled 28-LS1224\N,
Bullard, 4/2/14, as the working document. There being no
objection, Version N was before the committee.
8:06:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON explained the process leading up to the
development of the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HR 9,
Version N. At the beginning of the school year, the [Task Force
on Sustainable Education (TFSE)] heard statewide concerns over
the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), teacher evaluations,
school grading under a star system, and new testing methods.
The Task Force [on Sustainable Education (TFSE)] heard testimony
that school districts weren't ready for testing and there is a
need to slow down to allow individual districts to comply with
the new requirements. Since then, the Alaska [academic]
standards have been put in place, and districts better
understand what teacher development and evaluation entails so
most districts have embraced the changes. However, many
districts recognize implementing these changes will take time.
She indicated that HR 9 is before the committee since the state
has signed the [Elementary and Secondary Education Act] waiver
so No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is no longer required. She
offered her belief that the state has tried to work within a
system that ultimately didn't work.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON explained that the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HR 9, Version N, will require a cost
evaluation to assess the costs to implement the necessary
changes. One of the main things the [NCLB] waiver changes is
testing, so questions have arisen as to whether sufficient
infrastructure exists for online testing in some districts.
Further, fiscal notes are limited to identifying costs to the
state but don't consider any costs to school districts or
municipalities. She referred to pages 2-3, to the resolved
sections of Version N, which recognize that the state can't
assess the total costs to implement the aforementioned changes.
The language in Version N would request the commissioner to
report back to the legislature on costs for curriculum
alignment, technological improvements, teacher preparation, and
new standard based assessment costs for each district. Further,
the resolved clauses would make it clear that the state is not
moving forward to adopt the CCSS initiative. She commented that
the initiative was pushed forward on a national level, but the
state declined to opt in. She acknowledged that the state's new
[academic] standards include some of the Common Core State
Standard (CCSS) language, but not 100 percent. One advantage of
the waiver is that it allows the state to make changes without
going back to the national consortium. She offered her belief
that if the state had adopted the CCSS, it would have meant
adopting the standards as a whole. Finally, the waiver also
means the state won't be part of a national data system, which
helps ensure the data system is one the state develops and
access is also limited to the state.
8:09:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to page 3, lines 1-5,
and his interest on how this might affect the WICHE [Western
Interstate Compact on Higher Education], noting he serves on
this commission. He asked whether any adverse impacts exist
between the initiatives that WICHE is involved in and this
language.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered no.
8:10:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested further clarification,
summarizing the language on page 3, lines 1-5, of Version N
which read," ... may not enter into or renew an agreement with
any organization, entity, group, or consortium that requires the
state to cede any measure of autonomy of control over state
education standards and assessments, including cut scores." He
mentioned that organizations like WICHE consist of agreements
between states. He questioned whether this language could
interfere with those agreements.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON replied that the state isn't ceding
autonomy or control over standards in the aforementioned
program. The state's expectation would be to provide an
opportunity to join programs. She assured members this would
have absolutely no effect since the state doesn't give up its
control.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for further clarification on this
issue from the commissioner to gain the department's
perspective.
CHAIR GATTIS acknowledged the question will be held.
8:12:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for any implications Version N has
on the NCLB waiver.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON responded that this resolution will not
have any effect on the NCLB waiver. The resolution requests the
department ensure the waiver request is serving the state's
expectations and to identify any associated costs. She
described the effects of NCLB and the intent to not follow a
similar path of problems. Identifying costs to districts will
be more beneficial to everyone, she said.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to page 1, lines 10-13, which
read:
WHEREAS, in May 2013, the United States Department of
Education granted to the Department of Education and
Early Development a flexibility waiver of specified
provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,
that amended the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, based in part on the college and career readiness
standards; and
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for further clarification on the
basis for her determination that it will not affect the NCLB
waiver.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON responded that the state has an
agreement on the NCLB waiver. This resolution does not say that
the state wants to "break it at all." She hoped that if the
state identified any issues, the state could renegotiate the
NCLB waiver, which some states have already done. She offered
an example of electronic testing applications to illustrate that
an instance could arise in which the state might not be able to
meet the testing in all districts so it would have to
renegotiate that portion of the waiver or be out of compliance.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for the timeline for negotiating
the NCLB waiver.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON related her understanding the state
could go back to address issues at any time; however, she urged
the importance of identifying issues early in order to avoid
costs to districts. She offered her belief that the state has
not sufficiently vetted these changes.
8:15:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON pointed out that throughout the
resolution requests the department to do things. She asked for
further clarification on the fiscal impact.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered that many costs were covered
in obtaining the waiver but deferred to the department to
answer.
8:16:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to page 2, lines 3-5, of Version
N which points out the lack of funding in districts to conduct
online testing. She asked whether the districts have asked for
a delay in the implementation of standards.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON explained that HR 9, Version N no
longer requests a delay and this whereas clause merely
highlights that compliance with online testing may be difficult
for many districts that don't have sufficient broadband access.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether requesting significant
evaluation prior to doing something represents a delay.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered absolutely not; that the
[academic] standards exist, the curriculum is being purchased
and [student] testing will begin next year. She cited the
importance of having a review to ensure compliance, to assess
associated costs to districts, and to confirm this is the
correct path for the state to take.
8:19:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether the House Finance
Committee has reviewed this to ensure that the department has
the funding necessary for compliance.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON assumed most of the information is
available since the department wouldn't have sought a waiver
from NCLB unless the EED understood the costs.
8:20:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON expressed concern about requesting
action from the Department of Education and Early Development
(EED) without ensuring that districts, especially rural
districts have adequate funding.
CHAIR GATTIS responded that is the purpose of the resolution.
8:22:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for further clarification on the
waiver.
8:23:16 AM
COMMISSIONER MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Department of Education
and Early Development (EED), explained that the No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) program required specific proficiency achievements
and as a result many schools were erroneously deemed as failures
for not making adequate progress even though 90 percent of the
students in a school met the proficiency. The Congress needed
to make changes to address this, but in the meantime U.S.
Secretary Duncan offered waivers to states from the most onerous
parts of NCLB, away from the adequate yearly progress (AYP) and
the necessity that specific proficiency achievements are at 100
percent. Alaska developed its academic standards a year before
the waiver was issued. An assessment is required, which makes
sense, he said. This has helped the state move away from AYP
and to an accountability system called the Alaska School
Performance Index (ASPI). He said the ASPI is the five-star
system, which more fairly assesses and reflects what is
happening in our schools. In addition, the department needed to
make a component of teacher evaluations tied to student
learning. The state was working on three of four components and
the state was very willing to shift from AYP to the ASPI
accountability. He recapped that the waiver is from parts of
NCLB, but does not affect standards.
8:25:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to the second point, the
assessment and asked whether he meant assessing the standards or
assessing by using the new standards.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that it is to assess the students
on the new academic standards.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether these standards can be used
for assessment purposes.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that is correct; but even if it
hadn't been a requirement, the state has a responsibility to
ensure that the state is assessing what teachers are teaching.
8:26:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND recalled there are four components to
the waiver from NCLB. She asked for further clarification on
the four components.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that the four components that
needed to be assessed in the waiver are the need for rigorous
standards, assessments of students based on the standards, a
separate accountability system, and commitment to tie teacher
evaluations partially to student learning.
8:27:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked for the legal obligations to the
state regarding the NCLB waiver and if any federal funding is
tied to the waiver.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that there isn't a threat of losing
federal dollars under the NCLB waiver, but the state made a
commitment to follow through on the components. Certainly, the
U.S. EED could revoke the waiver and the state would be back
under NCLB and develop strategies to address schools that were
deemed as failures. He questioned whether the obligations would
be considered legal obligations, but acknowledged the state has
a responsibility to maintain its waiver.
CHAIR GATTIS remarked that NCLB was not working for Alaska.
8:28:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether HR 9 poses any threat to
the timeline to evaluate the CCR [college career readiness]
assessments.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that he initially had concerns
when a delay was suggested; however, he did not think that the
current version of HR 9, Version N, would cause problems with
the waiver since they urge the department to provide information
without setting up specific timelines.
8:29:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON pointed out that some areas of the
state do not have broadband capabilities for compliance with
online testing. She asked whether he has requested additional
funding for broadband or any other solution. In response to a
question, she assumed the department knew some districts did not
have adequate technology. She asked whether any additional
funding was requested.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY acknowledged the importance of broadband
although he noted the EED doesn't have expertise in this
technology; however, the department has partnered with the
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development and the
Broadband Task Force on this. He pointed out that the
department is the consumer in terms of broadband bandwidth.
8:31:45 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked whether the department has an assessment
program that requires students to use online testing.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered no. However, he elaborated that it
is timely to look at using 21st Century tools to the greatest
extent possible, which would be to use Internet-based testing.
The next best tool would be to use caching, which is also
computer-based, but that process allows the test to be housed
locally and accessed using the local server instead of the
Internet. Finally, in areas of the state that lack these
technology capabilities, the department will continue to use
paper and pencil testing. He recapped that the department will
use the best tools possible to measure students. It may take
time to get all students using computers, he said.
8:33:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked how close the department is to
accomplishing these technological changes.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that a technology readiness survey
has been completed and 80 percent of the schools are able to
comply. He estimated 95 percent of the students will be served,
he said. The testing window can be expanded to embrace the
modes being employed, he said.
8:35:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether it is possible to test
students using paper and pencil.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered absolutely, noting that the request
for proposals (RFPs) requires all three options be available in
order for a bid to be considered responsive. He maintained that
the department and its testing vendor are fully prepared to give
the test in the three aforementioned modalities.
8:35:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for further clarification on whether
it matters if this is a resolution versus a bill and if HR 9
[Version N] asks the department to do anything that it is not
currently doing.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY referred to the resolve clauses beginning on
page 2, line 10, of Version N, and responded that the department
has verified the college and career readiness standards.
Referring to page 2, line 16, he said the EED can provide the
specific information to ensure the national benchmarks for
college.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked how the requests in the resolve
clauses will be handled if these aren't already being addressed.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY agreed there are differences between a bill
and a resolution; however, he also understands the intent of
this body. He assured members he would not "snub his nose at
any urging from this body" and would do his best to address
them. He acknowledged he would have been challenged to delay
the implementation as required under the original version of the
resolution. He agreed that calculating some of the costs
involved in the resolve clause to determine the costs for each
district will be challenging. He acknowledged that the EED's
regulations require the district to review its curriculum every
six years so a cycle of review and shifting curriculum should
exist. [Referring to page 2, line 25], he pointed out it would
be helpful to further understand what would be included in
"calculate the related costs" since he was unsure how far to go.
He pointed out that it will take the department significant
effort to determine costs for each district and if it is to
provide districts with funding, it is worthwhile, but not if it
"will lay fallow" without having any meaning.
8:39:21 AM
CHAIR GATTIS related her understanding that the resolution is to
not impose another unfunded mandate to districts. She viewed HR
9 [Version N] as a suggestion, noted the department's intention,
and thought of it as "a working relationship."
8:40:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 2, lines 27-31 of Version
N, which read:
FURTHER RESOLVED by the House of Representatives that
neither the Department of Education and Early
Development nor the state Board of Education and Early
Development shall expend any money to implement the
set of educational curriculum standards for grades
kindergarten through 12 established by the Common Core
State Standards Initiative; and be it
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for further clarification on whether
this means no money can be spent on the three largest districts
of the state that adopted the CCSS through their local school
boards or if the districts in question have retracted the
adoption of the CCSS and are using the Alaska [academic]
standards that were subsequently developed.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that the department could not
provide training for districts that have taken up the common
core standards prior to the state adopting the modified
[academic] standards.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for an explanation of how this
resolve will affect the department and the districts that have
adopted the CCSS, such as the Anchorage School District. He
further asked which districts adopted the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS).
COMMISSIONER HANLEY identified several districts, including
Anchorage, Juneau, and Copper River.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for further clarification on how the
department's interaction will be with respect to implementation
of academic educational standards.
8:42:36 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked whether the aforementioned districts will be
treated differently.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that from the educational support
aspect, there will be no difference, but for specific support
regarding the [academic] standards. He suggested that the
department will likely point out the differences and strategies
for districts. He suggested that helping districts understand
how the individual curriculum aligns with the [academic]
standards will be beneficial. He confirmed the department could
support districts in the same way, recognizing the differences,
and focusing on them.
8:43:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 3, lines 3-4 of Version N
which read," ... may not enter into or renew an agreement with
any organization, entity, group, or consortium that requires the
state to cede any measure of autonomy or control over state
education standards and assessments, including cut scores." He
asked whether are there any agreements or compacts that would
not be allowed to be renewed under this language. He referred
to his earlier concern with the WICHE program.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY noted that the state is involved in several
consortiums, such as the English Language Learners (ELL).
However, the [academic] standards are already in place and the
state has full autonomy to change them as it sees fit. Surely
the ELL consortium has nothing to do with controlling standards,
he said. He did not believe any of the consortiums would ever
cede any measure of autonomy or control over state education
standards and assessments.
8:45:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD acknowledged she has struggled with the
initiative and has received letters that confirm her skepticism.
She pointed out a myriad of issues with the CCSS, including
language barriers, literacy issues, classroom size issues,
limited resources in the classrooms, and a lack of vocational
technology in many schools. She indicated that the state needs
to encourage parental involvement. She questioned whether the
standards are the issue and asked for assurances that these
standards are globally competitive, will encourage morale, and
result in better outcomes. She specifically asked whether
students will be more ready for the job market.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that the idea that the standards
will help children be more prepared is, first, a comparison of
where the state was with the old standards, and second, with the
review of the new standards. Most states adopted the CCSS, but
this state has not. The department had Diane Hirschberg from
the University of Alaska compare Alaska's new standards to the
university professors and career and technical instructors. He
said he is confident that these standards will aim students on
the trajectory to prepare them for college or technical
training. He questioned whether morale and obtaining jobs are
necessarily the expectation of a set of standards. Instead, it
outlines what should be learned by certain grade levels.
8:47:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD clarified she is speaking to teacher
morale and parental involvement. She asked what percentage of
the Alaska academic standards align with the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS).
8:48:16 AM
SUSAN MCCAULEY, Director, Teaching and Learning Support,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), answered
that the analysis the department has shared is that in English
Language Arts, 42 percent of the 320 standards, or 133 specific
standards have some differences from the CCSS. While someone
may qualify some of the differences as grammatical, those
differences represent the work of nearly 300 Alaskan
stakeholders who went line-by-line through the standards and
determined what should be included or excluded. She related a
scenario to illustrate that Alaskan educators do not find the
changes as minor, technical, or grammatical changes. Instead it
means that the state is providing support to students in a way
that corollary Common Core State Standards would not. Further,
someone might consider additional words added as culturally
relevant reading material as being a technical or minor
adjustment; however, Alaskan educators who worked on the
standards did not find them to be technical or minor
adjustments. She concluded that 42 percent of Alaska's
standards have differences from the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS). In math, 49 percent of Alaska's standards are different
from the CCSS. Certainly, individuals can interpret whether
changes from the CCSS are considered grammatical, minor, or
substantive, but again, the Alaskan Standards reflect the work
of Alaska's educators who determined exactly and specifically
what should be included.
8:50:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether districts can purchase
CCSS aligned curriculum and more specifically, what choices are
available.
MS. MCCAULEY answered that the language in statute and
regulations gives the discretion to the local district. The
district would undertake a process not at all dissimilar to the
current purchase of the curriculum materials. She indicated
that the district needs to ensure an alignment between the
resources and the standards, sometimes described as a
"crosswalk" between the materials and the standards. She said
if a set of CCSS materials that through a "crosswalk" is
determined to adequately cover Alaska's standards, the district
can use the materials. However, if a set of materials is not
purported to be CCSS aligned materials and has adequate matching
to Alaska's [academic] standards the district could also use
those materials. Districts can use materials that adequately
align to the Alaska English, Language Arts, and Math standards.
8:51:46 AM
CHAIR GATTIS related her understanding that the department does
not get involved in authorizing curricula, but rather those
decisions are made at the district level. Thus, each district
might adopt specific curriculum that doesn't align with the new
state standards.
MS. MCCAULEY agreed that it is possible; however, the department
provides professional development to district in the processes
to ensure an alignment between Alaska's standards and the
curriculum materials the district purchase. She maintained it
is a local decision since resources are adopted by local boards.
CHAIR GATTIS stated that the local district makes the choice
regarding specific curriculum and the department gives advices,
but does not provide approval or denial.
MS. MCCAULEY agreed.
8:53:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD indicated that if the state standard is
changed, the curriculum may not be aligned to it and therefore
the assessment may not be aligned although teachers will be
evaluated. She said a circle exists for curriculum and
evaluation/assessment. She questioned whether the districts
have any freedom. Once the [academic] standards are in place,
and the school's curriculum is purchased, assessments are done,
and evaluations can impact the teachers. She related that
numerous states are trying to stop the [CCSS] initiative. She
recalled the commissioner saying the state has a responsibility
with the [NCLB] waiver, but there isn't any associated funding.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY agreed the state has a responsibility with
the [NCLB] waiver; however, the [academic] standards are not
driven by the waiver. The state's standards have allowed the
state to obtain the waiver. The state could give up the waiver
and still have good [academic] standards, he said.
8:55:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to page 2, line 20 and asked how
the state would "maintain state sovereignty."
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that even without HR 9 [Version
N], he has a moral obligation to not give up state sovereignty.
He couldn't envision a situation that would cause him to make a
decision to sacrifice state sovereignty. He offered his belief
that this language came about when the state joined "Smarter
Balance" as an advisory state and some people expressed concern.
The state stepped away from "Smarter Balance"; still, it never
gave anything up.
8:56:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether the commissioner will have
to exercise that judgment with Common Core State Standards
{CCSS).
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that it has raised questions for
some, but not for him. One of the primary reasons that Alaska
was one of four states that didn't adopt the CCSS was it
required states to fully adopt the standards. Although some
standards are good, such as children should know their alphabet
in kindergarten, it imposed rules limiting what states could do.
The department wanted the ability to make ongoing changes and
not allow someone else to set Alaska's [academic] standards. In
further response to a question, he agreed the department wanted
to avoid that threat.
8:58:22 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked whether the phrase "college and career
readiness" takes on a specific meaning in the waiver.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that the phrase has been used and
predates the CCSS. The statutes require the state to ensure
that students are prepared to be successful in education and
work, which essentially outlines the goals for education.
CHAIR GATTIS related her understanding that "college and career
readiness" doesn't relate to Common Core State Standards (CCSS).
9:00:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether Alaska's academic
standards are sufficiently different from the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS).
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that the basic guidelines for the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) required 100 percent
adoption. Therefore, changing one line meant that the state
wouldn't adopt the CCSS. The EED's goal hasn't been to create
academic standards that are sufficiently different, but to adopt
standards that are rigorous and comparable so Alaskan students
can compete with other students and possess the same skill set
as other U.S. students when they leave high school. He
acknowledged the committee could walk line by line through the
state's academic standards, but any changes in the [academic]
standards, such as adding "with scaffolding and support" doesn't
change the expectation, but it does change how the state
achieves the standard. It changes measurement since the
districts will provide students with additional support, but the
target is the same.
9:01:50 AM
MS. MCCAULEY added that the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that
states who adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) signed
restricted and limited any changes to the standards, but also
allowed states to add up to 15 percent in additional standards.
From the department's perspective of owning the academic
standards, those types of rules and restrictions were not
palatable to Alaska. The state wanted to have the capability
and flexibility to make changes to the academic standards
through the local processes in statutes and regulation without
restrictions from an outside entity.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether student scores on national
tests reflect well on the academic standards the state has
adopted, the Alaska [academic] standards, or if the state will
continue to hear criticism that Alaskan students cannot compete
on a national level.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY emphasized that it critical that Alaska
standards not be less rigorous or expected less of students. He
related that the state participates in the NAEP [National
Assessment of Educational Progress], and he anticipates students
will be able to compete at an even higher level and achieve
higher scores than at present.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND related her understanding that the
Alaska academic standards are more rigorous than the Common Core
State Standards (CCSS).
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered yes; in terms of rigor, the Alaska
[academic] standards are equal or greater.
9:04:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 3, line 3 of HR 9
[Version N], and asked whether any compacts or consortiums or
existing entities be affected.
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director, Postsecondary Education
Commission, Department of Education and Early Development (EED),
indicated that the context of the resolution speaks to K-12
standards. The state participates in the Western Interstate
Commission on Higher Education (WICHE), which is a statutory
compact that does not pertain to K-12 standards and is not
periodically renewed. The state could repeal its membership in
WICHE; however, one interstate agreement that the state has been
considering is the state authorization reciprocity agreement,
which is a multi-state effort to apply uniform rules of
operation for distance delivered programs. Although she noted
she is not an attorney, she offered her belief that it would not
apply to the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (SARA)
for distance delivered postsecondary programs.
9:06:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON again referred to page 3, line 3 of
Version N. He asked whether the sponsor agrees with Ms. Barrans
that the distance delivery of standards or curriculum for
education would not fall under the further resolved clause.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered that she agrees with Ms.
Barrans.
9:07:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HR 9, Version N, labeled 28-LS1224\N,
Bullard, 4/2/14, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND objected.
9:08:14 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Seaton, LeDoux,
Saddler, Reinbold, and Gattis voted in favor of reporting the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HR 9, Version N, out of
committee. Representatives Drummond voted against it.
Therefore, the CSHR 9(EDC) was reported out of the House
Education Standing Committee by a vote of 5-1.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|