Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 106
02/14/2014 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB278 | |
| Presentation: General Education Development (ged®) | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 278 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 278-EDUCATION: FUNDING/TAX CREDITS/PROGRAMS
8:05:32 AM
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), said that
the Technical and Vocational Education Programs (TVEP) component
is educational and also fits in with the Department of Labor &
Workforce Development (DLWD).
8:06:12 AM
DIANNE BLUMER, Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD), presented
the department's role regarding TVEP, paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
We have long recognized that college is not the only
avenue to success especially in Alaska - Of the more
than 350,000 workers in Alaska's labor force, only one
in five holds a job that requires a four-year degree
or higher.
However most do require post-secondary training - and
that requirement will only increase with the fruition
of oil & gas and other industrial projects on our
horizon.
Alaska's commitment to career & technical education is
critical to our ability to build a local workforce
trained to meet the needs of such projects.
Alaska is Unique in that the Legislature authorized a
dependable source of funds for career and technical
education training.
In 2000 we created TVEP, the Technical Vocational
Education Program, to provide grants to statewide job
training institutions.
In the bill that is presented here today our Governor
has focused on more education opportunities to meet
the needs of all Alaskans- this bill will reauthorize
the Technical Vocational Education Program through
2024 and expand dual credit options for high school
graduation and certification in a career field.
As we walk you through SB 139 and HB 278 I am sure you
will be as encouraged as I am about the new
opportunity for our future workforce.
8:07:57 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY clarified that the governor's bill is
comprised of two components. One extends the sunset date for 10
years, and the other establishes accountability levels for the
purpose of allowing high school students to receive dual
credits.
8:08:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 9, lines 16-25, listing
eligible vocational institutions receiving an allocation
percentage [derived from the Alaska Workforce Investment Board,
formerly known as the Alaska Human Resource Investment Council].
Noting that the distributed percentages are proposed to continue
through [June 30,] 2024, for the current institutions, he asked
about the procedure for including other vocational education
facilities that would like to participate. He surmised that the
percentages indicated are based on the current programs, and
that reallocations would occur with the addition of other
facilities.
COMMISSIONER BLUMER concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stressed that the percentages, as listed,
are subject to change.
8:11:15 AM
CHAIR GATTIS inquired about how a private agency initiating a
vocational program would be handled; could it be added to the
list prior to 2024 and be included in the distribution. She
asked if there is an open application period or date for
institutions to apply for a percentage of the allocation.
COMMISSIONER BLUMER answered that a facility could make a
request through the legislature for funding, during the next 10
years, prior to 2024.
8:12:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked if accreditation of programs is a
focus, and whether the records of the listed facilities track
the number of certificates issued, job placement statistics, and
job retention rates. Data of this type would be helpful in
understanding regional and state needs for training in specific
skill sets, she suggested.
COMMISSIONER BLUMER pointed out that four statutory measures
require the TVEP funding recipients to maintain records
regarding the number of participants served, employment
placement upon the completion of the program, and wage
statistics. The fourth statistical requirement has been
difficult to capture, she said, which are the satisfaction
levels of the participants and employers. She said that
employers are not particularly responsive to the training
facility follow-up telephone surveys. The articulated
agreement, to be formalized under HB 278 and which some
facilities already have in place, includes the gathering of this
detailed information. Additionally, the proposed language
establishes a consequence for non-compliance, lacking in current
statute, which could result in the loss of funding. To a
follow-up question, she offered to provide information regarding
accreditation.
8:15:35 AM
CHAIR GATTIS opined that if an employer has hired an outstanding
employee from a facility, the telephone inquiry would not go
unanswered. Reluctance to respond, she said, "may be a message
in itself on maybe how we're doing." Additionally, providing
information to the public encourages competitiveness, as
potential students choose which facility to attend based on
training success, employment placement, and satisfaction rates,
she finished.
8:16:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to Section 18 [pages 9-
10, lines 26-17], which contains performance reporting
requirements. He pointed out that the satisfaction surveys are
responses to the training facility, not to DLWD; clarifying the
use of the term "we" in the previous opinion.
COMMISSIONER BLUMER confirmed that it is the institution that is
required to conduct surveys and report information to the
department.
8:17:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON paraphrased from page 9, lines 27-31,
which read:
(e) The institutions receiving funding under (d) of
this section shall provide an expenditure and
performance report to the department by November 1 of
each year that includes the
(1) percentage of former participants in the
program who have jobs one year after leaving the
program;
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said that the current departmental
report indicates that this requirement is not being fulfilled by
the facilities. The importance for submitting this information
may need to be clarified with the institutions receiving the
funds, she suggested.
8:19:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to page 10, line 23, to
point out that the proposed funding penalty is expected to act
as an incentive.
COMMISSIONER BLUMER concurred.
8:19:30 AM
CHAIR GATTIS stated that it is important to report on employment
in the field of training versus whether a person is employed,
and asked if that is being differentiated.
COMMISSIONER BLUMER replied, no.
8:20:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON paraphrased page 10, lines 3-5, which
read:
(3) percentage of former participants who were
employed after leaving the program who received
training under the program that was related or
somewhat related to the former participant's jobs
seven to 12 months after leaving the program;
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON interpreted this language to mean that
employment is expected to be in the field of training, and asked
if further clarification of this requirement is needed for
reporting purposes.
COMMISSIONER BLUMER agreed that the language could be honed to
differentiate and provide further details. Currently the
regional training centers report on trainees "employed in Alaska
one year after leaving the program."
CHAIR GATTIS agreed that detailed reporting for employment
related to the training is needed, as that is the goal.
8:22:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked to have the administration suggest
amendment language to address the reporting requirement as
discussed and presented on page 10, lines 3-5.
8:23:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON agreed that an amendment is needed.
Further, she requested to know whether funding has historically
been decreased due to non-compliance or inadequate reporting.
COMMISSIONER BLUMER answered that the department does not have
statutory authority to withhold funds. Apparently,
confidentiality issues come into play for receiving and
reporting some information; however, the current report is a
good reflection of what the region training centers are
accomplishing. She clarified that HB 278 proposes to authorize
the department to withhold funding for non-compliance.
8:26:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said that she has recently had the
opportunity to tour the Alaska Vocational Technical Center
(AVTEC). Located in Seward, this training facility receives the
second largest percentage of the funding, 17 percent. The
program director reported to her that graduates are in demand
and the center cannot keep pace with the placement requests.
She speculated on the reasons, which included: capacity issues,
lack of dormitory housing, low enrollment, or tuition concerns.
COMMISSIONER BLUMER acknowledged that AVTEC has a high placement
rate, with requests often exceeding the number of graduates and
she offered to provide further information.
8:28:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON disclosed that he attended AVTEC to learn
diesel engine mechanic skills and graduated as a commercial
fisherman. He pondered how this type of graduate statistic is
accounted for and suggested that self-employment data be
included in the reporting information. Further, he noted that
the current percentage distribution rates were statutorily
fixed, and asked whether there is a departmental analysis to
consider the appropriateness of the percentages, and whether a
proposal is in order to consider adjustments to the list.
COMMISSIONER BLUMER said that an analysis of the percentage
breakout is not part of the available report. The department
works with all of the training centers in the state, TVEP
recipient facility or not, and a fine line is held for listing a
center. She said that if formula funding was not a factor, the
money would be competitively granted out, and predicted that
under the new language, if a reduction is necessary, a stringent
analysis will be completed.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON opined that it would be important to
understand whether adjustments need to be made based on facility
performance, and he suggested the committee consider ways and
means to take up the task of evaluating the facilities.
8:31:56 AM
COMMISSIONER BLUMER suggested that the TVEP report may already
answer many questions.
8:32:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked why AVTEC receives a distribution
percentage that outweighs all the other centers, and also what
were the originating criteria.
COMMISSIONER BLUMER opined that AVTEC is a large, well
established, facility, which may be the reason for the higher
percentage.
8:33:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said southeast has a center, SEATEC,
and said there is a high demand in the area for trainees by the
community. She opined that centers which are meeting employment
needs of the community or state, and fulfilling other
requirements, should take priority on the list.
8:36:27 AM
CHAIR GATTIS said public testimony will remain open and
announced HB 278 was held over.
PRESENTATION: General Education Development (GED®)
[Contains discussion of HB 278]
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the final order of business would be
a presentation from the Department of Labor & Workforce
Development (DLWD) regarding the General Education Development
(GED®) program.
8:37:18 AM
JAMES HARVEY, Director, Division of Employment Security,
Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD), described
the General Education Development (GED®) and related educational
programs supported by the Department of Labor & Workforce
Development (DLWD), paraphrasing from a prepared statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
The General Education Development (GED®) Diploma is
the only high school equivalency credential recognized
in all 50 states. It tests the applicant's academic
skills and knowledge in the subject areas of math,
reading, writing, science and social studies.
The division operates the Adult Basic Education (ABE)
program; Title II of the Workforce Investment Act
(WIA).
The ABE program provides adult learners with:
Instruction in the basic skills of reading,
writing and mathematics
English as a Second Language
General Education Development (GED®) test
preparation in order to prepare adults for transition
into the labor market or higher academic or vocational
training.
ABE is a grant program with 13 regional ABE grants, 1
ABE grant to the Dept. of Corrections, 3 volunteer
literacy grants and 1 English Literacy/Civics grant.
Collectively, these programs provide the following ABE
services and activities:
Instruction in the skills of reading, writing and
mathematics
Workplace literacy instruction to prepare for
employment
Focused instruction in math skills to enter an
apprenticeship program
Instruction and practice testing in preparation
to take the GED® tests
Instruction of English literacy skills in
preparation for citizenship testing
8:39:14 AM
MR. HARVEY offered to address four questions posed in prior
committee meetings, and paraphrased the responses from a
prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
1. GED: what is the cost of the test (last year and
this year)? How many students take the test annually?
Any other relevant information?
Last year the charge for the GED complete battery of 5
tests was $25 ($5 ea.). Now, the cost is $120 for the
complete four batteries. The GED® has seen five
versions (1942, 1978, 1988, 2002 & now 2014). Due to
the multi-battery aspect of the test, it's not easy to
answer the question of how many students take the test
annually because some might take one test, some take
two, etc. Additionally, many students start in one
year and finish in a different year. Our state
average is about 2,200 examinees per year (that is,
people who took at least one of the five tests
previously in a given year.) The number is 26,729
from the beginning of 2002 to the end of 2013. For
the number of graduates; Alaska had 1,623 GED
graduates in SFY13 and 1,635 as of 12/31 in SFY14.
The increased rate of graduates for this year is a
result of the test update/change in the new calendar
year and is a testament to the students drive and
desire to attain this credential.
8:42:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for the annual average of GED
certificates issued in Alaska.
MR. HARVEY responded that spikes occur when the tests are
updated, and offered recent year averages:
FY 09 - 1,641
FY 10 - 1,640
FY 11 - 1,659
FY 12 - 1,580
FY 13 - 1,623
FY 14 - 1,635 (report of the first 6 months)
8:43:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON noted the mention of the test being
updated, and asked if that means it is becoming more rigorous.
8:43:48 AM
MR. HARVEY said that the answer may become apparent and
continued paraphrasing:
2. What agency (private or public) oversees the
administration of a GED program? Under whose authority
does it fall? Who regulates its implementation?
Where does the test/program actually come from? Who
owns it?
The department serves as the State of Alaska's GED
program office. It is responsibilities that include
maintaining permanent transcript records, issuing
diplomas, responding to requests for transcripts or
diplomas, and for the overall coordination of the
program. The GED Testing Service (GEDTS) owns the
test. GEDTS determines the content of the test and
they set the cost of the test. They have designated
Pearson Vue testing centers as the sites for GED
testing.
3. What does having a GED provide for someone who
receives one? What does it do for DOLWD? What's its
value/ relevance?
The GED testing program is vital for workforce
development. Millions of adults in this country do
not have a high school diploma. The current GED test
is aligned with high school standards and, according
to the GEDTS, GED graduates earn salaries comparable
to high school graduates. A GED opens the door for an
individual to enter college, job training,
apprenticeships, or the military so they can gain the
skills and knowledge necessary to compete in the
workforce.
4. Does a student with a GED count as a graduate of
the public K-12 system? What are they considered a
graduate of?
GED graduates would not be counted as graduates of
public high schools. They are graduates of the GED
testing program.
8:44:57 AM
MR. HARVEY elaborated that according to GEDTS reports, the
process employed a representative sample of the 2013 graduate
class taking the GED. "The desire was to norm it to the
standards of that graduating class as an equivalency
certificate," he said.
8:45:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated his understanding that the GED is
to be the equivalent of an average high school diploma and is
recognized in all fifty states, as such.
MR. HARVEY replied that, specific under Alaska statute, the test
is for adult learners defined as 18 years and older, as well as
for emancipated minors of 16-17 years of age, or students
otherwise withdrawn from the school system. The GED is defined
as an equivalency certificate.
8:46:36 AM
CHAIR GATTIS noted the criteria and asked about an independent
home school student of 16-17 years old taking the test.
MR. HARVEY offered to verify the policy regarding underage home
school students, as the administrative code respects the adult
age factor, emancipated minors, and parental notice for a child
withdrawn from the system.
CHAIR GATTIS pointed out that a home school student may never
have entered the system, and, as such, could not be considered
withdrawn.
8:47:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to the Adult Basic Education
(ABE) programs and asked what percentage of the GED test takers
are above versus below the age of 18.
MR. HARVEY offered to provide the information.
8:47:55 AM
CHAIR GATTIS acknowledged that there is a perception that a
diploma carries more weight than a GED, and queried if this is a
valid assumption. She asked what restrictions might be
encountered throughout life by someone who chooses to attain a
GED rather than pursue a diploma.
MR. HARVEY answered that an equivalency certificate allows an
adult learner to gain access to college and vocational
education, apprenticeships, military service, and the
opportunity to be competitive in today's occupational climate.
8:49:00 AM
CHAIR GATTIS pointed out that this dispels the myth of not being
able to enter military service under a GED.
8:49:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER offered firsthand information regarding
recruitment into the National Guard and Army Guard. Five
percent of the enlistment openings are retained for GED
recipients; however these enlistees must attain a high score on
the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude test. Thus, a limited
number of openings are filled by those holding a GED versus a
diploma. He said the Air Guard does not appear to have similar
limitations. Referring to Chair Gattis' previous question, he
asked as a follow-up:
What does a GED get you that a diploma doesn't? Is it
only the time factor - if you're an adult you can get
a GED, ... you can't get a diploma.
MR. HARVEY agreed with the assumption. In essence, a GED is the
accepted equivalency for the adult learner.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER ascertained that the GED is a competency
test with five components; four of which must be passed to
attain the document.
MR. HARVEY concurred, and explained that the revised test is
based on a scoring system from 100-200. A score of 150, in all
four sections, is required to pass and an honors category can be
achieved with a higher score.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked about the minimum score required to
receive the GED; it is not an assessment it is a competency
test.
MR. HARVEY responded, "Correct," and said a minimum threshold
must be attained to be awarded the diploma versus receiving a
copy of the transcript.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for comment, as he opined:
This same legislation envisions eliminating the
[HSGQE] which would leave a diploma with nothing more
than assessments, no competency test for graduation;
which is what I believe the exit exam is. So in some
sense a GED is going to be a better, more rigorous
certificate of achievement than a high school diploma,
under the entirety of this bill.
MR. HARVEY deferred.
8:52:31 AM
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), referring
to the previous question comparing these two documents, he said,
"I don't think a GED gets you anything that a diploma doesn't."
Further, he opined that an employer does not give a GED the same
consideration as a high school diploma; a diploma gets a person
more opportunity than a GED but a GED doesn't provide as many
options as a diploma. A GED ratifies the holder's skills and
content knowledge. The GED opens many doors for students who
lack a diploma; however, many employers and colleges require a
diploma. A diploma represents a particular course of study that
has been undertaken, credit requirements met, and benchmarks
attained, that a GED does not. In practicality these are not
the same document, he stressed.
8:55:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested that colleges routinely accept
the GED for open enrollment; however, the Alaska Performance
Scholarship can only be sought through attainment of a diploma.
He pointed out that the discussion regarding GED attainment
arose under a section of HB 278 that was not under discussion in
today's hearing; the possibility that it would come into play
given the repealing of the high school graduation qualifying
exam (HSGQE). Current plans would see the HSGQE phased out but
funded and offered through 2017. The GED does appear to provide
the students holding a certificate of achievement the
opportunity to attain an equivalency degree, and no student will
be "left out in the cold" should the decision be made to end the
HSGQE prior to 2017.
CHAIR GATTIS offered to expand the discussion, and invited
comments directed to the HSGQE sections of HB 278.
8:59:43 AM
CHAIR GATTIS queried how many adult learners had failed to pass
the HSGQE and subsequently took the GED, determining that such
action was a viable "plan B."
9:00:09 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said the statistics are not available due to
the combination of circumstances that could result in a person
choosing to attain a GED. As one example, he said that a
student may pass the HSGQE and not receive a diploma if course
credit requirements are not met.
CHAIR GATTIS pointed out that it is important for students to
have options for attaining a diploma and the question being
grappled with is how to best retract the HSGQE requirement in a
fiscally responsible manner while honoring student needs.
9:01:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked about the need for holding the
HSGQE proctoring open for the proposed three year; representing
a significant cost through 2017.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said that without extended HSGQE proctoring
dates, a student will lose the opportunity to attain a diploma,
beyond the standard senior graduation window. Legal
implications also exist, if a requirement is held but the
possibility of meeting the requirement is not made available;
the time frame of three years was chosen in collaboration with
counsel.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER pointed out that the student would have
received several opportunities to pass the HSGQE beginning in
10th grade, possibly negating the argument of deprivation for
proctoring, and opined that there is no property right to the
chance to pass the test. Finally, he asked if the department
considered the GED, as an alternative credential.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered no, and explained that today's
revised GED is much more difficult than HSGQE, which is set at a
tenth grade level, while GED exams are targeted at the twelfth
grade level.
9:04:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to the spikes that occurred
prior to the GED tests being changed, as reported by Mr. Harvey.
She theorized that informed students, anticipating a change in
proctoring opportunities, may take personal responsibility for
passing the HSGQE.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY agreed with the member's observations and
stressed that a moral responsibility exists to alert
participants.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested the need for an ample funding
allocation to allow the department to advertise proctoring
changes statewide, if the three year window is not adopted under
final passage.
9:06:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON acknowledged that the GED is a tougher
exam designed to determine that a person has attained the
knowledge expected of an average graduating senior, while the
HSGQE is taken by tenth grade students prior to completion of
sophomore classes. He reported how advertising and information
on this topic has been handled in his district.
9:07:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER inquired about any connection between the
HSGQE and receipt of federal education funding.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that the HSGQE has never had any
ties to federal funding. Coincidentally, it came into place at
about the same time as the No Child Left Behind Act, which
directly connects to the standard based assessments (SBAs) taken
by the grade school students.
9:09:01 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked whether the department has an ongoing
contract that will incur penalties should the HSGQE be
dissolved.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded yes, and explained that the fiscal
note includes the ongoing costs. The assessment contractor also
performs other test proctoring for the department; the request
for proposal (RFP) was issued in totality - inclusive of all
proctored exams. Removal of the transitional three year period
will result in residual costs, which will be paid out through
completion of the contract, he noted. To a follow-up question,
he said the contract will expire in 2015; the bill invokes
proctoring of the HSGQE through 2017.
9:10:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON noted that, depending on the exact
expiration date, proctoring opportunities would remain intact,
possibly through spring of 2015.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY offered to provide further information.
9:11:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON queried how other assessments, such as the
SBAs, would be continued under the contract and asked about the
effect of a contract extension on these other proctored tests.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY explained that the current vendor will not
be the future vendor for the SBAs, as recently negotiated. The
newly contracted vendor did not bid for the science component,
however, and the department anticipates continuing with the
current vendor for science assessment needs. To a follow-up
question, he said the new vendor's contract begins in the spring
of 2015. Further, he clarified that the RFP identified the new
vendor, and the details of the contract are currently being
negotiated. The contract is not yet signed, but the overall
component costs have been determined.
9:14:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked about response from the business
community and local agencies regarding the status of the HSGQE.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that, as part of the high school
diploma, the HSGQE is not a topical question in the business
community. He explained that the tenth grade student takes one
test, which incorporates both the SBA and the HSGQE and
generates two sets of scores; the HSGQE is subsequently
proctored as a standalone test in the event of failure.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether colleges have commented on
the exit exam.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said discussions with the colleges revolve
around student preparation, and the standards and expectations
being met by students leaving high school. He said he does not
recall any conversations directly related to the HSGQE.
9:16:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON opined that it could be wise to put out
an RFP targeted to solicit science education proctors, rather
than retaining the current vendor without issuing a competitive
challenge.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY concurred.
9:17:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pondered that the prolonged extension
period poses a problem, when non-current students return to take
the HSGQE out of sync. He said it has been reported by school
officials that the residual proctoring will place a burden on
schools, and cause general, possibly costly, interference in the
general operations/routines of a facility.
9:19:39 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY agreed that it is a valid concern,
considering that about 300 individuals return to take the exam
in any given year. This requires a proctor, support staff, and
a classroom type setting. He said that each school handles this
differently, but someone's time will be taxed to fulfill the
offering.
CHAIR GATTIS, noting that a district may have only one returning
adult taking advantage of the HSGQE being administered,
acknowledged that the previous statements represent valid
concerns for the use of district resources.
9:21:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER pointed out that the HSGQE is based on
curriculum that a student is expected to have learned, not
specialized, foreign, or outside material that must be taken up
separately. Learning the material that is tested in the exit
exam should be part of the normal curriculum, he stressed.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said the exit exam is aligned to the current
standards and proficiencies, as established in the SBAs.
9:22:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON underscored that the majority of high
school dropouts have passed the exam.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said it is a fair statement; the HSGQE is
not the reason that students dropout.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reported that a longitudinal study
assessed students in the Anchorage district, which followed the
dropouts in detail and the majority had already passed the exam.
He reminded members that a high school diploma provides
graduates access to the Alaska Performance Scholarship over the
GED, and reviewed the scholarship requirements. He opined that
providing access to the scholarship by extending the opportunity
to pass the HSGQE is not a valid argument.
9:25:55 AM
CHAIR GATTIS offered that, as a parent, she has followed the
progress of the HSGQE. Districts offered practice tests to
ensure that students could pass the exam and graduate.
Recently, conversations have ensued regarding the dumbing down
of the HSGQE, and it is no longer respected as a valid means for
student assessment.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Letter from VRichards_TVEP Reauthorization_2-6-2014.pdf |
HEDC 2/14/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 278 |
| Letter from TCyrus_TVEP Reauthorization_2-6-2014.pdf |
HEDC 2/14/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 278 |
| Letter from CEdenshaw_TVEP Reauthorization_2-7-14.pdf |
HEDC 2/14/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 278 |
| Letter from BChesham_TVEP Reauthorizaiton_2-7-14.pdf |
HEDC 2/14/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 278 |
| HB278 Public Testimony various.pdf |
HEDC 2/14/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 278 |
| DEED Answers to Committee questions 2-11-14.pdf |
HEDC 2/14/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 278 |