02/01/2012 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB256 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 256 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 145 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 1, 2012
8:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Dick, Chair
Representative Eric Feige
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Lance Pruitt, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 256
"An Act repealing provisions relating to the power and duties of
the Department of Education and Early Development to intervene
in a school district to improve instructional practices."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 145
"An Act establishing the parental choice scholarship program to
be administered by school districts for the purpose of paying
the cost of attending grades kindergarten through 12 at public
and private schools; and providing for an effective date."
- HELD OVER TO FEBRUARY 1, 2012, 3:00 PM MEETING
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 256
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL STATE INTERVENTION IN SCHOOLS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) DICK
01/17/12 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/6/12
01/17/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/17/12 (H) EDC, FIN
01/25/12 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
01/25/12 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/01/12 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE BOB HERRON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 256.
DIANE GEORGE, Assistant Superintendent
Yupiit School District (YSD)
Akiachak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 256.
HOWARD DIAMOND, Superintendent
Yupiit School District (YSD)
Akiachak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 256.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:07:38 AM
CHAIR ALAN DICK called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:07 a.m. Representatives Dick, P. Wilson,
Seaton, Cissna, Feige, and Kawasaki were present at the call to
order. [Please note that the chair mistakenly announced that
the day was January 27, 2012.]
HB 256-REPEAL STATE INTERVENTION IN SCHOOLS
8:08:04 AM
CHAIR DICK announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 256, "An Act repealing provisions relating to the
power and duties of the Department of Education and Early
Development to intervene in a school district to improve
instructional practices."
CHAIR DICK noted that today will be testimony by invitation
only. He then passed the gavel to Representative P. Wilson.
8:09:19 AM
CHAIR ALAN DICK, speaking as the prime sponsor of the HB 256,
offered his belief that there was "a discrepancy between what I
perceived should happen and what is happening;" therefore,
Senate Bill 285 should be repealed and he directed attention to
the handout titled "Reasons for Repealing SB 285." [Included in
members' packets]. He paraphrased the handout:
The previous [Senate Bill 285], the Department
[Department of Education and Early Development]
already had authority to intervene in underperforming
schools under NCLB [No Child Left Behind]. So,
[Senate Bill 285] gave more authority. Since, [Senate
Bill 285] was in response to the Moore case [Moore, et
al. v. State of Alaska], the Moore case is now been
settled and, ... the provisions are no longer
necessary. Under No Child Left Behind, every school
in the state will be out of compliance by 2014. This
means that every school will be on the path to
intervention. ... I believe, the department has not
worked collaboratively, and has violated the spirit
and intent of [Senate Bill 285]. ... In 2004, Citizens
for the Education[al] Advancement of Alaska's Children
filed suit against the State, that was the Moore case
recently settled. In 2008, as a response to the Moore
case legislation, [Senate Bill 285] addressed the
responsibility and role of the Department of Education
[and Early Development]. [Senate Bill 285] amended the
powers and duties of the department for improving
instructional practice in school districts. ...
During the discussion of the bill, there was a concern
that the department would use the interception of
school district funds as a very heavy hammer because
it's a simple approach. It's an easy thing to do.
There is a question as to why the department would
intervene in one district and not in another; it
seemed to be a subjective process ... The Director of
the Council of School Administrators, during the time,
during the conversation, considered a collaborative
approach with communities that are having difficulty
meeting [Adequate] Yearly Progress. Interestingly,
it's a department representative said it's the
legislature's responsibility to intervene when
districts are not making progress. As we know, Yupiit
School District scores have not improved since it has
been in Intervention. It's time for the legislature
once more to intervene in this process. ...
CHAIR DICK referred to minutes from the 2008 hearings on [Senate
Bill 285], and highlighted portions of minutes that relate the
concerns people held at that time. He read the following
portions of minutes:
Neil Slotnick, the Assistant Attorney General, said
the department is only asking for authority to use
district funds to hire contract personnel, no
intention to create more infrastructure, the idea is
to do what the judge said in directing additional
resources into the classroom. That's the point of
this authority that we're asking for.
Mr. Eddy Jeans responded the intent is to work
cooperatively through local school district
administrations to develop an improvement plan that
will lead to increased student achievement. There is
no intention to step into the local school and start
directing the principal on how to run his or her
school.
Mr. Carl Rose ... thought they would welcome the
assistance, but not the heavy-handed way this is being
done. Apparently, the perception at that time, that
there was a heavy handedness going on.
Chair [Gary] Stevens, said he appreciated they were
concerned but the real problem they're facing is that
there appears to be a must-have piece of legislation
that needs to be moved through the legislature in 45
days. It was a rush process to get this thing
through.
Again, Eddy Jeans said he didn't see this as the
department taking control, but rather the legislature
directing school districts to accept guidance and
direction from the Department of Education [and Early
Development]. We absolutely intend to work
collaboratively with the school district
administration, with the school board, with the
individual school principals, in implementing the
school improvement plan.
Senator [Gary] Stevens wanted to make sure that
everyone understood the intervention would not be a
hostile takeover, only the opportunity to offer help
and support to the school.
Senator [Kim] Elton remarked that the language of the
bill sounded like a takeover.
So, those are just selected excerpts from the minutes
that I've been through with my staff trying to find
the intent that was going on at that time ....
8:15:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK stated that this was the groundwork for the
proposed bill, declaring that he would like to move on to
testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON returned the gavel to Chair Dick.
8:15:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BOB HERRON, Alaska State Legislature, testified
in support of HB 256, and, prefacing that his comments about
proposed HB 256 and intervention rules would not be a polite
conversation, stated that his comments were based on dialogue
with his constituents over the last several months. He
stipulated that "Yupik parents are not confrontational; it's not
in their makeup." He pointed out that, since 2005, there had
been five commissioners in the Department of Education and Early
Development (EED). He opined that this high rate of turnover
could lead to some inconsistencies in the department leadership.
He clarified that he did not question anyone's integrity, but he
offered his belief that EED was a machine without a conscience,
and that there was an institutional bias, or discrimination,
against Western Alaska.
8:18:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON reported that, in 2010, he had requested a
meeting with the YSD school board, EED leadership staff and
Commissioner LeDoux, and Attorney General Sullivan, in Akiachak,
with members of the Department of Law (DOL) and EED attending
via teleconference. He declared this meeting to be a frank,
"animated conversation about the direction the department [EED]
was going toward our school district." He opined that an
understanding had been reached between DOL, EED, and community
leaders to move forward in "true collaboration." However, he
noted, several weeks later a new EED commissioner, Michael
Hanley, was appointed, and then Attorney General Sullivan was
appointed as the commissioner of Department of Natural Resources
(DNR). He declared this to be a "starting over." He provided
an analogy that EED had been given a tool box for collaboration
but that the only tool being used for intervention was the
hammer, regardless of what was actually required. He declared
the EED staff to be "trapped in a machine that they can't get
out of." He emphasized that a one size fits all approach was
flawed, especially for a small, not wealthy community. He
opined that the words of collaboration were hollow, essentially
just lip service. He declared:
when the machine [EED] is single minded, has a single
minded focus, about it has to raise test scores, but
they do it in a vacuum, they don't live there, they
don't understand what's going on in the community, so
they don't take into account about the students, and
about the community.
Representative Herron assessed that this forced the community,
the students, the parents, and the teachers to have this same
single minded focus. He offered his belief that this focus did
not take into account the entire individual, and that resistance
to it was a natural reaction.
8:23:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON established that the intervention process
began in 2005 with a district improvement plan provided by EED.
He emphasized that any collaboration for this plan had been
minimal. He directed attention to the next improvement plan, a
result of EED dissatisfaction with the initial plan, which did
not include any discussion with the school district. "They were
tellin' 'em how to do it." He expressed his desire that the
current commissioner of EED [Mike Hanley] could provide true
collaboration. He directed attention to a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) with the Yupiit School District, expressing
his concern that lawyers and do not reside in these communities
and would lack understanding of the local ethos. He declared
the MOU to be "take it or leave it," and that the school
district was forced to accept the MOU. He indicated that any
coordination and collaboration in advance had been "laughable."
8:25:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON ascertained that, as his constituency was
frustrated with this process and concerned that any challenge
would be met with punitive action, he had been approached. He
recounted that the Yupiit School District had been asked by EED
to identify three important focus areas, and that YSD had
identified curriculum, professional development, and support.
He relayed that the EED response had been "your focus ideas are
not working." He underscored that the school district was
expected to follow direction from a remote supervisor without
any on-sight support. He observed that HB 256 was not solely to
eliminate Senate Bill 285, but was written for collaborative
work toward successful intervention. He declared that the
educational leader was, by default, the leader of the community,
with an expectation for many responsibilities. He urged
consistency from the leadership in EED, with intervention to be
directed by a person living in the rural community.
8:31:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked how proposed HB 256 reached this
desired conclusion, directing attention to page 3, line 13,
which eliminated all the restrictions and criteria on EED. He
offered his belief that proposed HB 256 removed the security for
school districts to know that a plan was necessary. He
suggested that an elimination of restrictions on EED for
intervention could be interpreted as a future discretionary
intervention by its commissioner.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, in response to Representative Seaton,
stated that while it was necessary to direct attention to a
problem, the solution could not be created in a vacuum, which
would erode any successes. He declared a necessity to create an
"effective, protected process." He opined that the current EED
process was punitive.
8:35:09 AM
CHAIR DICK, in response to Representative Seaton, described the
work to craft a bill that would be prescriptive to the
situation. He declared "this is the hammer that we're referring
to here," and read from Senate Bill 285, page 5, line 17:
redirect public school funding under AS 14.17
appropriated for distribution to a school district,
after providing notice to the district and an
opportunity for the district to respond ....
He declared that this passage raised concern for all the school
superintendents with whom he had spoken. He stated his desire
to arrive at a prescriptive solution that did not include "some
outside source coming and telling us how to direct our funds."
8:36:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reflected that the proposed bill had not
yet been amended in committee, and he questioned whether
elimination of the constraints on the commissioner of EED to
intervene was the best approach as it could result in a school
district remaining in intervention. He reminded the committee
that former EED Commissioner LeDoux had proposed collaboration
with each community for its educational model, but that certain
prescriptive legislative requirements, such as the High School
Graduation Qualifying [Examination], were a basis for education.
He cautioned the committee that it was necessary to recognize
the constraints for balancing the laws and the proposals.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON commented that prescriptive language was
necessary to require collaborative service from EED; currently,
he opined, the onus was on the school district. He emphasized
that a successful implementation of intervention was "true
collaboration, true problem solving."
8:40:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON offered her belief that, as the Alaska
State Constitution established that each governor may appoint
commissioners of choice, "the train gets goin', the engine
changes, but there's so many cars on the track that it's goin'
and we get a new engine in here, but it's just pushin' along and
they say we've already got this program started, we've spent all
this money, and now we wanna change direction." She expressed
the difficulty for each commissioner to "come in and change
gears." She opined that it was the responsibility of the
legislature to address this issue.
CHAIR DICK reminded the committee that the proposed bill was
"opening a Pandora's box."
8:44:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA observed that different worlds existed in
the various communities throughout Alaska, and that a lack of
communication was part of the issue. She suggested that rural
Alaska was not well heard. She stated: "I want to hear
everybody."
8:47:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE replied that he had also lived in Bush
Alaska, and he asked Representative Herron if there were urban
and bush lifestyles, attitudes, and cultures. He surmised that
EED was attempting to apply a statewide educational standard
when it would be more appropriate to have divisions in EED to
separately address urban and rural districts.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON provided an analogy that EED was flying a
plane while they were still building it.
8:50:15 AM
DIANE GEORGE, Assistant Superintendent, Yupiit School District
(YSD), provided testimony on HB 256, paraphrasing from a
prepared statement:
I want to thank you for allowing me to tell my story
of intervention as it has unfolded in the Yupiit
School District since the fall of 2005. I'd like to
let you know that I have lived in Akiachak for 31
years. I started working for the Yupiit School
District in 1988, as a special education teacher, and
have been in the district office since 1999.
It's my intention here to let people know what's been
happening in our district, and how the imposition of
the current model has impacted the district. It's not
my intent to pick on anybody in particular or to point
fingers at anybody.
In the fall of 2005 I received a phone call from then
Commissioner of [Department of Education and Early
Development], Roger Sampson. He was dissatisfied with
our district improvement plan. He felt that it was
not well aligned with our school improvement plans and
was not appropriately focused. He told us that he
intended to send out a team to help us. We were
informed that our NCLB [No Child Left Behind Act]
funds would not be released until we had participated
in a training in November of 2005 and had made
revisions to our district improvement plan.
In November of 2005, approximately five individuals
arrived at the Yupiit School District district office
and provided five days of training. We brought in the
three principals, we brought in our literacy leaders,
some teacher leaders, and I was present at the
training. The focus of the training was the
implementation of the AIMSweb assessment system. As
well, the facilitator of the meeting worked with us to
set some goals and provide a more direct focus. By
the end of those five days, we had, the teams had gone
around to all the schools, every student had been
tested, given the AIMSweb test, we had revised our
district improvement plan, based on recommendations,
and we had set some goals and scheduled weekly
collaborative meetings ....
It's important to realize that before this happened;
the district administration and staff had recognized
that there were things that we needed to do to improve
.... We were focusing on literacy, we had put
literacy leaders in each of our schools, we were
providing what we felt was high quality professional
development in reading and writing, and we had
implemented assessments to track student progress. I
want you to understand, as I said, that we recognized
there was a need and, at the time, we were doing the
best we knew how to address those issues.
During either 2006-2007 or 2007-2008, the department
[EED] assigned a district coach to our district. This
was something that we weren't aware of until the
person was introduced to us. That first year I have a
vague recollection of very infrequent visits and not
really much impact on the district [YSD]. I do
remember that there was reporting that we needed to
do, but it was minimal.
For 2008-2009, that year the coach made monthly visits
into our district. We talked frequently. I felt he
served as a mentor and a guide to myself and to our
principals. We worked together. He helped me
facilitate monthly principal meetings. The department
had provided us with a district improvement plan that
year. We focused our principal meetings, and when he
was in the district, he focused his efforts on what we
were doing to meet the requirements of the district
improvement plan.
By this time we had functioned under the department
imposed district improvement plan for three years. As
a result of the requirements of the plan we had
eliminated many of the different things that we had
initially attempted to do in our district. We were
experiencing difficulty with professional development
that we felt was necessary to provide to our staff, we
were having trouble with trying to schedule and figure
out how to get the requirements of the district
improvement plan in place, as well as what we felt was
important. It became more and more difficult to
provide professional development that we thought was
appropriate for our staff.
At the end of the 2008-2009 school year, myself, Joe
Slats, then superintendent, Willie Kasayulie, our
regional school board chair, met, via phone, with some
department folks. At that time, we discussed the
district writing its own district improvement plan
using the guidelines of the department. It was our
understanding at the conclusion of that meeting, that
while the district improvement plan template was very
comprehensive, and included many different facets,
that we could focus on a couple, and in particular,
after meeting with the principals at a later date, and
looking forward to the following year, we decided that
it was important to look at curriculum and
professional development.
During May of 2009, when I attended the Alaska State
Leadership Institute, I then met our new district
coach ... There was no consultation with us, no
previous introduction.
Then, in 2009, Howard Diamond began his tenure as
superintendent. It was then that he and I met with
Commissioner LeDoux during our August in-service when
we were in Anchorage. At that time, Commissioner
Ledoux discussed the continued involvement and what he
was calling intervention plus and the intention to
ratchet it up, and get the hammer out.
The requirements related to this Intervention Plus
status were set out in a MOU [memorandum of
understanding] which was given to the district by the
department. The terms of the MOU were not developed
in consultation with the district or based on any
discussion with district administration about the
district needs.
It indicated that the department's efforts would be
coordinated and collaboratively discussed with the
district in advance of implementation. I feel that
did not ever happen. We were presented with an MOU.
We were presented with what needed to happen and even
where we had been previously led to believe that
specific requirements would not be in place, it then
changed; the game changed. As I said, in the spring,
we were given the impression that we could focus on
certain aspects of district improvement planning. We
chose those aspects because we felt that we didn't
have the resources to focus on a broader spectrum.
That fall we were told we had to focus on every facet
of the district improvement plan, we had to address
every facet. Yet still, we did not have the
resources, nothing had changed from March to August,
we still did not have the resources that we needed.
In terms of the design and implementation of the MOU,
there was no coordinated effort or meaningful
collaboration. That was the year that the content
specialists began visiting the district. We were told
that they would concentrate their efforts in Tuluksak.
We were told when they were coming, we were told where
they were going, and we were told what they would be
doing.
I think it was the following year that the trustee was
then introduced to our district. For me, this has
been probably a very, even more frustrating
experience. There was again no collaboration or
coordination as to the role of the trustee. The
trustee arrives in our district, he sleeps in our
schools, he chats with our staff, he observes, that's
what he does. A few times over the last year,
previous years, we asked him to assist us with
specific tasks, and we were told that he could not do
those things. And so that's where we are today. The
trustee is still in our district, it is not a
collaboration, and I feel that we are not, have not,
been heard in the past.
A few other key points that I would like to bring up.
Judge Gleason was the only person, to my recollection,
who ever specifically said, what assistance do you
need in your district?
I believe that the intervention has never been
designed to support the district and build capacity
within the district, and I think that it's critical
that we, in order for anything to be sustainable, the
capacity has to be built within the district.
Test scores have been up and down. There's really
very little consistency to the test scores, as far as,
if you look at AYP [Adequate Yearly Progress], and for
the few years that intervention has been in place,
they have decreased.
I want to emphasize that we have, and have had, high
quality staff in our district, who have recognized a
need and we have sought grant opportunities, and tried
to implement initiatives to improve student
achievement in our district and to address the needs
of our students, not only academic, but other needs of
our students. But, there is always, a ... it's like
juggling, if we do this, what do we let drop and if
we're told we can't let something drop, then we have
to let what we've chosen to do, drop. ... I think
intervention has exasperated the situation.
We were told that there would be no boots on the
ground when we indicated the need for on-site, full-
time support specialists.
The content area coaches are knowledgeable
professionals, they are good people. I have nothing
against them. They are in our villages for a few
days, a few months of the year. Their visits are too
infrequent and too short in duration, in my opinion,
to positively impact student learning.
The staff had to be told by our regional school board
chair, Willie Kasayulie, in August of 2011, during our
in-service he specifically told the staff that Howard
Diamond was the Superintendent of YSD and in charge of
the district, not the trustee. He said this because
staff had expressed confusion over the role of the
trustee. Why is he here? What is he doing? Is he
our boss? Am I gonna lose my job if he sees that I'm
not doing something?
Trustee and coaches, at times, have made statements
that have caused confusion and, I believe, have
undermined the authority of the district
administration and school administration.
9:04:32 AM
MS. GEORGE stated that, in 2005, there was lack of a long term
plan; instead, an immediate response to what was perceived to be
a problem and lack of collaboration to solve the problem.
9:05:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked what changes had occurred since
the passage of Senate Bill 285.
MS. GEORGE offered her belief that the initial intervention was
not as intrusive or intensive, but had become much more
intensive and punitive during the last four years.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked if YSD had any input into
development of the plan prior to 2008.
MS. GEORGE replied: "no, we did not have any input into the
plan, to the district improvement plans ...."
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked if the opt out clause, included in
the intervention plan in Senate Bill 285, had been considered.
MS. GEORGE replied that she was not aware of this option.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI pointed out that Senate Bill 285
included a process by which school districts could remove
themselves from the intervention plan. He asked if it was
possible that the collaboration and coordination was not dealt
with in a timely manner because of the continual turnover of EED
commissioners. He asked to know the effects for removal of
intervention within a rural school district.
9:09:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked if confidence in the ability of the
intervention person was lost.
MS. GEORGE, in response to Representative Feige, shared that she
never had confidence that the person could lead them out of
intervention.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked if the coach had any experience in
rural Alaska.
MS. GEORGE offered her belief that he had been a superintendent,
and possibly a teacher, in a rural school district.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked if he was qualified to provide the
necessary help.
MS. GEORGE replied that he was a qualified individual, but that
his role had not been clearly defined. She shared that they had
built a collaborative relationship.
CHAIR DICK stated that it was a very difficult role.
9:12:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked if there had been any schedule.
MS. GEORGE replied that currently there was a monthly schedule,
but that previously there had not been.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked about the observers.
9:13:57 AM
CHAIR DICK asked Ms. George to clarify the roles of the coach
and the trustee.
MS. GEORGE explained that the content area coaches worked
directly with the teachers; whereas, the trustee was the
overseer for the operations of the district, and did not get
involved at the classroom level.
9:15:15 AM
HOWARD DIAMOND, Superintendent, Yupiit School District (YSD), in
response to Representative P. Wilson, noted that the trustee,
upon arrival to the community, was asked to share the goals and
timelines, as Mr. Diamond had not been involved with any of the
planning. The trustee's response had been "to just observe."
He shared that it was difficult to have someone just wander the
school, observing. He had been told there would be an exit
interview with the trustee at the end of the visit, at which
time suggestions would be provided to the school district;
however, he declared that these suggestions did not "meet the
root causes of an underperforming school district." He
confirmed that he had spent his career, more than 30 years, as a
teacher and superintendent in rural Alaska, and when he left his
job as superintendent in Yakutat, he had been approached to work
in the Yupiit School District, the lowest performing school
district in the state.
9:17:43 AM
MR. DIAMOND declared that he had wanted to return to the Yupiit
School District, and that upon his return, both the commissioner
and the deputy commissioner met with him. He shared this
conversation, as it focused on a demand for "considerable
improvement on the test scores, considerable improvement on the
direction of the district, that we will ratchet it up, we have
the authority to give you a trustee, we have the authority to
take over the school board and dissolve the school board, and
basically we were told to go about our business and make the
changes that were necessary to improve the district." He
expressed that he departed the meeting feeling bewildered and
confused, with a real sense for the feelings of the parents and
the school board. He stated that he did not find any
coordination with EED to establish goals and expectations for
the district. He affirmed that the confusion still existed. He
expressed his belief that these conversations would lead to more
direct collaboration with the current commissioner, and to a
structure that would be self-standing, regardless of the
commissioner.
9:20:47 AM
CHAIR DICK asked about the contributions of [YSD] Trustee
Sanborn, noting his yearly contract for $193,000, which required
ten to fifteen days each month in the community.
MR. DIAMOND, in response to Chair Dick, said that the trustee
had not resolved any of the root causes to improving instruction
in the district.
CHAIR DICK asked if, between May 15 and August 15, 2011, YSD had
any meaningful interaction with Trustee Sanborn.
MR. DIAMOND replied, "I can't recall."
9:21:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA, indicating that there did not appear to
be an integral relationship between the trustee and the school
district and community, asked about the number of district
staff, and how the contract with the trustee worked.
MR. DIAMOND replied that there were approximately 50 certified
teachers in the district, with an additional 100 staff. In
response to Chair Dick, he declared that a root cause for
failure in rural Alaska schools was that although highly
qualified teachers were identified and attracted to the
district, almost 30-40 percent would leave by the end of 10
months. He reported that the combination of living off the road
system, in a different culture, with unusual weather patterns,
and a bombardment of programs from the state and the district
was a lot to handle. He reported that it took about six months
for an understanding and vision of village life. He declared
that the teacher turnover was difficult and a root cause of
problems in the district.
9:25:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked to clarify that the role of content
coaches were for professional development, and that the role of
the trustee was to observe. He asked if there would be a
conflict with the role of the superintendent if the trustee
inserted himself.
MR. DIAMOND agreed that the school district was confused with
the role of the trustee. He pointed out that conversation and
collaboration would eliminate confusion and result in solutions.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked why there had not been a
teleconference with the EED commissioner to establish the role
of the trustee within the district.
MR. DIAMOND replied that there had not been any conversation
with the commissioner for the first two years. He offered his
belief that the trustee represented the department and answered
to the commissioner. He pointed out that, under the new
administration and with a new commissioner, there were now
conversations and that an exit strategy for intervention had
been developed for the district. He reported that the new EED
commissioner had admitted his lack of background with rural
school districts, and had visited the village, meeting with the
local advisory board, the regional school board, the teachers,
and the parents. He surmised that this had offered the
commissioner a better understanding to some of the problems in
rural school districts.
9:29:51 AM
CHAIR DICK clarified that the intent was for the creation of a
stable system that did not fluctuate with the changes to
administration. He referenced an earlier meeting he had
organized in Anchorage between EED Commissioner Hanley, Mr.
Diamond, Ms. George, and Mr. Kasayulie. He reported that the
two issues discussed were testing, and the YSD trustee. He
noted that the EED commissioner had informed YSD that the same
trustee would be retained. He asked Mr. Diamond to speak about
the $7 million appropriation by the legislature, in 2010, which
was to be directed toward intervention districts for improvement
of instruction.
9:31:22 AM
MR. DIAMOND relayed that discussions had ensued among the
superintendents upon hearing of the appropriation for the
intervention districts. They had discussed ideas for the
funding, which encouraged all of them until they were informed
that each district would have to apply for the funds, with
awards being proffered. He summarized a serious incident which
occurred late that summer in Tuluksak, a sexual assault of a
teacher, and that safety became an issue. He reported that, as
law enforcement was minimal in Tuluksak, a security surveillance
system was agreed to as a layer of safety. He had requested the
cost of $.5 million be awarded as the appropriation share to
Tuluksak; however, the commissioner's office had responded that
the estimate seemed high, and suggested obtaining two more
proposals, although there was not a guarantee of approval. Mr.
Diamond pointed out that the initial proposal had taken six
weeks, and so he included the initial security system proposal
with the district's appropriation application. In the summer of
2011, EDD announced that some of the 2010 funds were still
available. Mr. Diamond conveyed his frustration that he was
never contacted regarding these solicitations, either by e-mail
or by telephone. He stated that the funding went unused, and
the proposal for a security surveillance system was not awarded.
He expressed his frustration as this funding could have provided
a solution toward safety and teacher retention.
CHAIR DICK offered his belief that more than $4 million of the
appropriation was not spent. He expressed his concern that the
trustee had not contacted Mr. Diamond about the still available
funding. He reiterated his desire for a positive solution.
9:38:17 AM
CHAIR DICK asked Ms. George whether the previous YSD
superintendent had been defiant toward EED.
MS. GEORGE, in response, said "not to my knowledge, no." She
added that, as they were the two administrators in the YSD
office, they had worked closely.
CHAIR DICK asked if the previous superintendent had made a
statement that indicated "some kids can't learn" or that "some
kids do have challenges."
MS. GEORGE, in response, said that a statement may have been
made with the intent that some students "have a more challenging
time learning, and there may be different things that need to be
done in order to meet the needs of these kids."
9:39:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked that Mr. Diamond provide the
committee a list of the other core problems not contained in the
improvement plan.
9:40:44 AM
CHAIR DICK directed attention to an earlier visit by Phyllis
Carlson [Alaska Director of Rural Education] to YSD, asking what
YSD needed and wanted. He paraphrased the community response,
"we do want to learn the academics, but we do need to have that
within the context of our local culture." He asked Mr. Diamond
to compare this to conversations with the trustee.
MR. DIAMOND, in response, explained that culture was the basis
for what programs were emphasized in the Yupiit School District,
but that some of these curriculums had been set aside to meet
the new mandates. He listed the career technical education
programs, including small engine repair, welding, and
construction, as being very important for rural Alaskans, yet it
was these programs which had been eliminated. He confirmed that
local advisory school board meetings were very spirited, as
people stated their program requests. He pointed out that there
were no certified music, art, or Physical Education teachers in
the district. He emphasized that, although student attendance
exceeded 90 percent, an education relevant to where they live
and to their culture was not being delivered.
9:44:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked for the reasons to not schedule
the other classes.
MR. DIAMOND replied that the district was being judged on
criteria that included more testing with an emphasis on reading,
writing, and math; therefore, time did not allow the other
curriculums.
CHAIR DICK remarked that enrichment programs engaged students.
He asked if either the coaches or the trustees had initiated an
event with parent involvement.
MS. GEORGE replied, "Not that I'm aware of, no."
CHAIR DICK asked if there was ever a model for involvement of
parents with the school programs.
MS. GEORGE replied that school activities, usually initiated by
either the teacher or the principal, had occurred in which a
coach may have been involved.
MR. DIAMOND observed that although the coaches were competent,
experienced, and tended to participate, they did not organize
parent involvement groups.
9:46:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA offered her belief it was necessary that
skill sets to help children live in the community be taught, and
not to solely focus on teaching western culture. She said that
it was imperative to have school board members from rural Alaska
participate in these discussions.
9:48:14 AM
CHAIR DICK reported that rural school boards had been frustrated
with EED for a lack of input to the process.
MR. DIAMOND assured the committee that he would return to Juneau
with a YSD board member, and they would schedule discussion time
with each committee member.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA replied that these conversations needed to
be shared statewide.
9:50:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON affirmed his agreement with Representative
Cissna for community engagement and community goals; he pointed
out, however, that state law required that specific testing
occur. He assessed that the committee had declared a need for
community standards and parental engagement, yet this was not
what was required by law. He specified his concerns that
proposed HB 256 included the removal of criteria for
intervention but did not address the root cause for
intervention. He declared that the decision should be toward
realignment and allowance for education. He emphasized that it
was unfair to ask a community to set its goals for education, if
the laws already declared that measurement and testing were
necessary for other objectives. He observed that too often the
committee discussed what was wanted, but did not address how to
attain it. He opined that intervention could be used as a means
to address the root causes of what was acceptable for relevant
education in rural Alaska. He declared the need for a balance
between the education requirements for college and the needs of
living in rural Alaska.
9:54:17 AM
CHAIR DICK reflected on an earlier conversation with Alaska
State Board of Education & Early Development member, Patrick
Shier. Mr. Shier said that the only testimony he had heard
about an intervention was from Trustee Sanborn in YSD, and that
this testimony had projected an image that YSD was in turmoil
and that EED had the solutions in place. Chair Dick reflected
that this testimony had only included pieces of the total
picture.
9:56:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON commented that four members of the
House Education Standing Committee were also members of the
Education & Early Development Finance Sub-Committee, and she
pledged her support.
[HB 256 was held over.]
9:58:45 AM
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIR DICK announced that the meeting of the House Education
Standing Committee was recessed at 9:58 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| House Education Com Agenda 020112.doc |
HEDC 2/1/2012 8:00:00 AM |
House Education Com. Agenda HB 256 |
| Dr. Norm Eck 02 01 12 HB 256 Testimony.doc |
HEDC 2/1/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 256 |
| CO Power Point Regarding HB 256.pptx |
HEDC 2/1/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 256 |
| HB256-EED-TLS-1-31-12 (3).pdf |
HEDC 2/1/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 256 |