Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
02/03/2012 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Chatham School District | |
| Presentation: Alaska Native Education Association | |
| HB256 | |
| State Board of Education - Annual Report to the Legislature | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 256 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 256-REPEAL STATE INTERVENTION IN SCHOOLS
8:38:31 AM
CHAIR DICK announced that the next 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."
8:39:19 AM
NEIL SLOTNICK, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Labor and
State Affairs Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, said
three legal issues are raised by HB 256. He said first it
creates uncertainty regarding EED authority, second it may have
unintended consequences, and third it could leave a void for
response by the legislature ensuring that children receive their
right to an education as guaranteed to them under the education
clause in Article VII, Section 1, of the Constitution of the
State of Alaska, and upheld by the Alaska Supreme court. He
said one element of that right is accountability. The rightful
education is administered in Alaska via locally controlled
schools in established districts, which must meet accountability
standards established under AS 14.07.123 for the state, as well
as under federal law. He said an inherent tension existed
between state accountability and local control. Prior to 2008,
the authority of EED to exercise accountability was implied
through federal law, but not absolute. In 2008, the legislature
adopted SB 285, which made it explicit and the department
understood that it had the authority to intervene in a district
and redirect funding, within the limitations set forth in the
bill. In order for the department to intervene requirements
were specified, which included: to be initiated only for the
purposes of improving instruction; an exit strategy to be pre-
established; and the existence of a petition process. The bill
provided clarity to help the department understand its scope of
authority, and, thus, reduce the previously mentioned tension.
He pointed out that HB 256 repeals SB 285 and removes the
explicit authority of the department and the restrictions of
authority, which results in uncertainty. Under HB 256, he
interpreted, it will no longer be as clear how the department
should react when implementing the accountability system that
state law requires. Intervention can be arrived at via federal
law, which is the source of the accountability requirement, but
this, he counseled, creates problems. Federal law provides a
menu to choose from for intervention purposes, but does not give
explicit authority for any of the options. When the state
legislature takes action, purposeful intent is behind the
action, he said. Under SB 285 the department has explicit
authority to redirect funds; if the department makes a finding
that doing so will improve the instruction that is offered in a
district. Federal law allows the option for intervention and
the redirection of funds, but not in a decisive manner, and the
resulting unknown allows room for legal debate and possible
litigation from either side of the argument. Conversely,
clarity increases the potential for collaboration and
cooperation between school districts and the department. He
provided an example of intervention preparations that were being
made by EED, following the adoption of SB 285. The school
district initiated a course of action that resulted in the
adoption of school reform measures that the department had been
considering. The collaborative, cooperative model that was
followed subsequently became a model that has proven effective
in other districts. He said:
Since the passage of SB 285, the department has not
intervened in one single school district. Since the
passage of SB 285 the department has not redirected
the funding in any single district - including those
that were already under intervention.
8:46:31 AM
MR. SLOTNICK referred to a question previously raised by a
committee member regarding unintentional consequences of HB 256,
and responded that SB 285 provides better direction than what is
available under federal law. Federal law is broad and directs
that intervention may occur based on low test scores. However,
SB 285 provides that the department may take action only when
instructional practices are lacking and require improvement via
intervention; representing a limited approach and providing
concise direction and understanding. He said a third concern,
regarding the adoption of HB 256, is that the legislature may
fail to comply with the constitutional requirements, as found in
Moore, et al. v. State of Alaska, 3AN-04-9756 CI, (2010); to
wit: the state must exercise accountability when it has
evidence of chronic low performance and take a more direct and
assistive role in the district. When Moore was decided, an
accountability and intervention system existed, but the judge
found that local control was not adequate. The court required a
legislative response, which came in the form of SB 285. By
repealing SB 285, without taking alternative measures, he
advised that the state would risk falling out of compliance with
the legal directives under Moore. The obligation of the
legislature is to provide an education for the children. He
said it would be appropriate for the legislature to hold the
department accountable for oversight, but the districts must
also be held accountable. Repealing SB 285 would remove
appropriate laws and methods that are in place and may create a
void.
8:51:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA noted that education in Alaska has been
dependent for a long period of time on support from the federal
government. The state has assumed a large percentage of the
task and efforts have been made to acknowledge, cultivate, and
preserve a locally based system, but western cultural rules
continue to persist. She asked whether federal funding might be
at stake if the state does not comply with mandates from the
U.S. Department of Education.
MR. SLOTNICK said yes, federal funding could be lost, if the
state lacks compliance.
8:54:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that the size and diversity of the
state creates unique issues, and communities may differ
regarding educational goals. He asked whether repealing the
High School Graduation Qualifying Examination (HSGQE) would be a
means to integrate flexible community standards; effectively
removing the uniform requirement, which may not serve every
area's needs. Further, he queried whether the HSGQE is an
underpinning criterion that is restrictive.
MR. SLOTNICK responded no, and added that nothing restricts
school districts and communities from embedding local culture
into the curriculum. However, it was made clear under Moore
that children must be provided the opportunity to be proficient
in reading, writing, and mathematic skills; it is the state's
obligation to uphold this constitutional right.
8:57:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE noted that the measurable attainment of
performance benchmarks need to be required of schools and
testing appears to be the only method for determining
proficiency. However, if the scores are low there may be any
number of contributing factors, including: lack of parental
involvement, and poor quality/distracting facilities. The
legislature can affect and rectify some situations through
statutory requirement and funding directives. He noted that
intervention may not be working well in the Yupiit district, but
it has been successful elsewhere. Instead of eliminating SB
285, he opined, perhaps additional measures should be added to
the statute to enhance the ability of the legislature to
intervene specifically in other areas outside of curriculum and
teaching methods. He asked whether there are there other legal
options to consider, under the existing statutes.
MR. SLOTNICK agreed that the legislature has that authority;
however, he declined to provide specific actions for committee
consideration.
9:01:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said that Moore names the legislature
as the ultimate responsible party. Referring to the committee
handout titled "Excerpts from Moore v. State regarding the Need
for State Authority to Hold Local Districts Accountable," page
7, she said:
[In evaluating the State's responses ... this Court
returns once again to the language of the Alaska
Constitution, which] places the responsibility 'to
maintain a system of public schools open to all
children of the State' squarely upon the Legislature.
... To date, the State has not demonstrated that the
delegation of this responsibility to school districts,
through local control, have been identified as
chronically underperforming, but do not appear to have
been accorded adequate assistance and oversight, will
result in compliance with this constitutional
responsibility.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON opined that the responsibility to
establish the best course of action rests with the legislators,
and specifically the current members of the House Education
Standing Committee. The exit exam results indicate that there
is a problem, but she said, administering the exam in high
school might be too late to affect a student's outcome. She
said the test could be given earlier with better results, and,
thus the committee should consider re-evaluating current
practices and making necessary changes, rather than repealing SB
285.
9:04:09 AM
CHAIR DICK agreed that the onus resides in the legislature. The
Yupiit intervention has not had a good outcome, and the
education committee is ultimately responsible. He underscored
his concern for creating a standalone intervention approach that
will not be dependent on administrative changes.
9:06:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the committee handout titled
"Excerpts from Moore v. State regarding the Need for State
Authority to Hold Local Districts Accountable," page 1,
paragraph titled "Pages 100-101," and read [original punctuation
provided]
... the opportunity to acquire the basic tools they
need to succeed in both traditional and global
societies.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that the current testing
regimen is based on the standards of the global society and does
not measure whether a student is capable of functioning in a
traditional society. He said if the traditional society
concerns are a focus, they are being ignored. If the mission
exists, as the court has stated, to address both of these areas,
he asked if the state is in jeopardy of not fulfilling the
court's directive. Additionally, he queried if there is a means
for the disparate communities to have any influence on which of
the two directions should receive the preponderance of focus.
9:08:29 AM
MR. SLOTNICK responded that parameters allow local control of
education and the setting of local priorities; many examples
exist throughout the state. However, Moore is clear that the
students also need to have proficiency in reading, writing, and
mathematics, to a specific, accountable standard.
9:09:32 AM
JEAN MISCHEL, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, agreed with
the assistant attorney general's statements, and added that
options, other than federal law, exist for guidance in
intervention should SB 285 be repealed. Statutory allowances
include: an accountability system; reward provisions that are
anticipated by the federal law in the form of grants; general
supervisory authority as granted to EED over all aspects of the
education system; and, she said, "Under Title 14, the
legislature is delegated functions both to the department and to
the local school boards." When Moore was handed down, stating
that the responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of the
legislature, she opined that the court was primarily concerned
with the decentralized system of education. The
decentralization may not work for some districts lacking the
resources or expertise to improve school performance over a
period of time; the subject of the Moore litigation. Until
2008, the school system operated under the existing state laws;
NCLB was passed in 2001. She opined that in the past the
legislature has given direction on how to improve schools and
suggested that what may be lacking is a coordination of
provisions. The legislative body cannot do specific hiring and
firing of school board members or other immediate actions, but
funding can be directed to support the hiring of qualified
assistance for necessary leadership/expertise/consultants in
identified districts. She referred to a previous question from
Representative Feige regarding the delegation of responsibility,
and said that in the past the Alaska Supreme Court has found
that the status quo is a good idea; one size does not fit all
but everyone must be afforded an adequate education - however
that is defined. The state is required to intervene when
failure occurs. Oversight authority by the State Board of
Education and EED, in the form of an accountability system,
allows for the withholding of funds, closure or take-over of
schools, and hiring of experts and technical assistance to help
the districts. All of these measures pre-date SB 285. The
school system was directed by the state, at one time, prior to
local control; a change which may not be working for some
communities as well as it does for others. The legislature
could rethink the delegation and division of functions, as well
as provide additional targeted grant funds. She recommended
that the committee review the Moore consent decree, if
restructuring is being considered. The settlement agreement
came in part from the local school districts that were asking
for the interventions. She said the ideas contained in the
decree are on a statewide level. One of the main differences in
the function of the consent decree versus the current school
district authority is that kindergarten is not mandatory,
neither is the funding of pre-schools outside of a few pilot
programs. The Moore consent decree also calls for targeted
grant funds to help with school improvement and specifically to
pay for teacher development and training that includes a four
week pre-classroom cultural training course, and an oversight
advisory body. The consent decree goes beyond the five
intervention districts and the legislature could devise a more
specific system in state law. Also, curriculum and standards
can be established under state statute.
CHAIR DICK asked the committee to hold further questions.
[HB 256 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|