Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 106
04/05/2013 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): Professional Teaching Practices Commission | |
| HB154 | |
| HB190 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 154 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 196 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 190 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 190-CREDIT FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL COURSES
8:27:50 AM
VICE CHAIR REINBOLD announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 190, "An Act providing for course credit
in secondary school based on demonstrated mastery of the
subject."
8:28:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
HB 190, offering a brief history for the proposed bill,
explained that some high school students in the Alaska Native
Science and Engineering Program (ANSEP) had only received
partial credit at University of Alaska, as they had not
accumulated enough seat time in their school districts. He
explained that the proposed bill allowed students who
demonstrated mastery of course content to challenge and test out
of high school courses and receive academic credit. The
proposed bill would leave the criteria for demonstrating mastery
to the discretion of the school district, and would require the
school district to provide an option for students to challenge a
course through an assessment, designed by the school district.
He noted that credits would apply to fulfilling the requirements
for the Alaska Performance Scholarship, but not necessarily be
factored in to the student's grade point average (GPA), if no
letter grade was given. It did not attempt to establish credit
for courses that were prerequisites for the challenged course.
He stated that currently there was no requirement for school
districts to provide an opportunity for students to challenge
courses for academic credit. Some districts had pre-approved
tech prep plans for certain college courses, but these were
primarily focused on vocational coursework and were limited to
established agreements between campuses. He pointed out that
some school districts already allowed course challenges,
including Anchorage, Kenai, Matanuska-Susitna, and North Star.
He declared the necessity to establish a unified approach for
challenging courses across the state, as this would keep
students engaged in learning and challenged with rigorous
coursework. He described the Anchorage Credit By Choice
program, which had established a policy on Credit by Examination
that students must score 90 percent to demonstrate proficiency.
He clarified that the proposed bill did not establish a
proficiency level for each school district, and would allow that
the authority be kept with the district. He declared the need
for the legislature to promote high academic achievement in
education and allow HB 190 to "remove a barrier to students who
wish to receive credit for their coursework and to support a
learning environment that continues to challenge and reward
student initiative." He stated that the proposed bill would
resolve the issue in a more universal way.
8:32:21 AM
VICE CHAIR REINBOLD read: "School districts must establish
assessment tool for the student to demonstrate secondary school
course mastery." She questioned whether school districts
already had this in place, in light of the zero fiscal note
[Included in members' packets.]
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that the proposed bill was not
offering a unified course or that the Department of Education
and Early Development (EED) develop a demonstration of mastery,
but was leaving this for each school district to design its own
tests to determine the level of proficiency.
VICE CHAIR REINBOLD suggested that parameters needed to be
established for eligibility to challenge a course. She asked if
this would result in a pass or no pass grade.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed his agreement, and suggested
that these questions would be answered at the district level.
VICE CHAIR REINBOLD asked for more definition regarding the
challenge to a course.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON opined that the intent of the proposed
bill was to allow each district to establish its policy. He
directed attention to an example of the Anchorage School
District programs and policies, titled "Credit By Choice program
(CBC) [Included in members' packets], which stated that a
student had to be taking the class in order to challenge. He
offered his belief that it would not be good policy to put the
determinations in statute, but instead, to let each district
make its own policy.
8:38:52 AM
VICE CHAIR REINBOLD asked if Anchorage School District (ASD) was
included on the list of existing programs, and if ASD was in
support of the proposed bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that Anchorage School District
had the aforementioned "credit by choice" program, as did Kenai,
Matanuska-Susitna, and several other school districts. He
pointed out that there were many school districts which did not
have the policy and had students who had passed a college
course, yet had to return to the high school classroom for more
seat time. He noted that the ASD did exempt physical education
classes. He emphasized that it was not productive or effective
education to require seat time of a student in order to
demonstrate mastery of a course.
VICE CHAIR REINBOLD declared that, although she agreed with the
concept, the application was an issue. She questioned the
activities of a student that had tested out of a class, asking
"where do they go ... is that child gonna wander the halls."
She declared her desire to ensure there were not any unintended
consequences.
8:42:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND pointed to page X, item 7, in the
aforementioned "Credit by Choice" program handout, and stated
that ASD had included a lot of detail. She offered her belief
that students were already short of time in each school day, and
she stated that she did not believe "there'll be students
sitting around twiddling their thumbs looking for something to
do or getting in trouble." She declared that these were
students in search of additional stimulation, and she opined
that they would do productive things with their time.
8:44:09 AM
VICE CHAIR REINBOLD stressed that students would need to be
directed to a specific place, and that parents did not want the
kids to go just anywhere. She opined that this would create
confusion for the teachers.
8:44:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if students were currently allowed
to go home, if they finished classes early in the day.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that the school district would
determine a policy and he stressed that the students being
served by the proposed bill were those students that tended to
be ahead of classmates. He declared that the unintended
consequence of students not being in the appropriate class was
boredom and a bigger workload on the teacher. He noted that it
was not required for a student to challenge a course, but that
the school district had to provide the opportunity for those
students who could demonstrate mastery of a subject to move on
to other material.
8:47:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if any school districts had
objected, as she was curious to the rationale for opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that every school district in Alaska
had been contacted. He listed several which already had a
program, while others were in discussion for the program. He
allowed that some school districts had not responded, but were
aware that the proposed bill was being considered.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked about the fiscal note, and announced
that she did not support unfunded mandates. She declared that,
although this should be a school district responsibility, it was
not fair to mandate it without funding it.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied that the proposed bill had a zero
fiscal note [Included in members' packets]. There would not be
any new tests or assessments imposed.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked to clarify that there was no
additional cost anticipated to the school district.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to the aforementioned
"Credit By Choice program" handout and noted that there was an
$85 fee for creation, administration, and evaluation of the
challenge test.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered her belief that this could "keep a
bright kid from a low-income family in a course they don't need
to have because they can't afford the $85 fee." She questioned
the wisdom in this policy.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that most policies allowed for
fee waivers and scholarships, and that it would be important to
refrain from placing details in statute. He cited that many
high school drop-outs were smart students who were not being
challenged and engaged. He declared the necessity to enforce
that school districts had a policy to allow students to
challenge out of a course for which they had demonstrated
mastery of the material.
8:52:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND directed attention to the "Credit By
Choice" handout, page XI, Program No. 6, "Community service and
field study," which listed the preapproved district programs
that earned 0.5 units of credit. She lauded the proposed bill,
and expressed a desire for the school districts to testify
regarding the administration of these programs.
8:53:54 AM
VICE CHAIR REINBOLD pointed out that schools with open forum
curriculum allowed students to work at their own pace. She
questioned whether the proposed bill would work in traditional
schools.
8:55:18 AM
HERB SCHROEDER, Vice Provost, University of Alaska Anchorage
(UAA), Alaska Native Science and Engineering Program, said that
the Alaska Native Science and Engineering Program components
allowed students statewide to complete the courses necessary to
earn the Alaska Performance Scholarship. He explained that
students came to Anchorage during the summer to complete
university courses taught by university faculty in the Alaska
Native Science and Engineering Program acceleration academy. He
declared that a problem which arose for students was that
completion of the course did not guarantee equivalent high
school credit. He reported that the proposed bill would provide
a mechanism for students to earn the correct high school
credits.
8:56:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked to clarify her concern for the
transfer of credits. She opined that, as 24 high school credits
in four years were required, a 0.5 credit was a single semester
class.
DR. SCHROEDER, in response, described a course at university
versus at high school, and noted that, as the university class
would be accomplished in a shorter period of time, a student was
therefore given fewer high school credits than if the course was
taken at the high school. He offered an anecdote of a student
who had taken multiple courses at the university while enrolled
in high school, yet was informed that he did not have enough
credits to graduate from high school.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND suggested that this issue should be
discussed between the school district and the university. She
referenced "Program No. 3 - College courses" in the
aforementioned "Credit By Choice program," which stated that a
three semester hour course at the university would only receive
0.5 high school credit.
9:00:10 AM
VICE CHAIR REINBOLD expressed her praise for the ANSEP facility
and the student levels of enthusiasm. She opined that, although
the ability for a student to challenge a class was a good idea,
she had concerns for the details at the classroom level.
9:01:20 AM
GENE STONE, Assistant Superintendent, Matanuska-Susitna Borough
School District, said that all school districts would benefit
from equality for credit transfers. He reported that the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District had adopted a policy
to mitigate credit transfer issues based on parental requests
and concerns. He pointed out that other credit options were
also in place and offered an anecdote in support of the
opportunity to test out of a class. If a freshman failed a
semester class and repeated the course, but had mastered the
content prior to the final examination, the school district
supported a course challenge which allowed the student to move
back into course sequence.
VICE CHAIR REINBOLD asked at what point could the assessment be
offered.
MR. STONE replied that this was a district and school board
policy, and that his school district reviewed these on a case by
case basis. He noted the other credit option opportunities,
which included on-line learning, and declared that this was a
mantra for learning plans in education.
VICE CHAIR REINBOLD repeated her concerns for unsupervised
students.
MR. STONE underscored that the district was able to manage each
case, and that it was not designed as a situation solely to sign
up and take the test.
9:09:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that the proposed bill would not
override the Anchorage School District policy, but merely
provided a student the opportunity to request the challenge and
demonstrate mastery of the coursework to school district
standards. He declared that education should engage students
and allow progress.
VICE CHAIR REINBOLD agreed with the concept, but declared her
concern for the subsequent use of student time.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied that the proposed bill only
required each school district to have a policy, that it left the
criteria to each school district, and that it was not intended
as a "one size fits all" solution.
9:12:38 AM
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), stated his
support for proposed HB 190, indicating that the bill
accomplished the intent to allow a student to prove proficiency
to a course. He offered his belief that a school district would
be able to establish a policy for students to test out of a
class, and define the boundaries as it chose for the best
educational practice.
9:14:36 AM
VICE CHAIR REINBOLD announced that public testimony would remain
open and that proposed HB 190 would be held over.