Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
03/30/2015 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB130 | |
| HB156 | |
| HB163 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 130 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 156 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 163 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 156-SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES; FED. LAW
8:19:08 AM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 156, "An Act relating to compliance with federal
education laws; relating to public school accountability; and
providing for an effective date."
8:19:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ moved to adopt CSHB 156, 29-LS0566\I, as
the working document. Without objection Version I was before
the committee.
CHAIR KELLER passed the gavel to Vice-Chair Vazquez.
8:20:29 AM
CHAIR KELLER, as prime sponsor, suggested that the last 15 years
have been evidential in determining whether No Child Left Behind
{NCLB) has been a positive means to reform education in the
state. He offered the following question to the committee to
consider: "Has test based education reform worked? Has, or can,
education reform effort we've been focused on for over 15 years
... or roughly 15 years now, a little less maybe ... you know,
can it improve education or has it improved education?" He
advised HB 156 is based upon the premise that it is time to
admit the legislature made a mistake after spending an enormous
amount of money and time attempting to reform education using
the test based theory. He opined it is time to stop the over-
testing taking place in Alaska, stop the narrowing of the
curriculum to enforce alignment with standardized tests, stop
teaching to the test mode, and stop the unhealthy time spent
getting ready for the test. He said his teacher education was
completed in 1983, and he had no inkling of the concept of test
based reform because a test is a teaching tool. He pointed out
that test based reform was "enshrined" in 2002 when NCLB passed
as it was a reenactment of the Elementary Secondary Education
Act (ESEA) of 1965. He opined it was passed to address the
continuing problem of closing gaps to make education assessable,
but NCLB has not made a difference for poor children and
communities not being served with education. Initially, he
remarked, it appeared to be an appropriate means to understand
the measurement of progress. In 2001, the Alaska legislature
did express support for NCLB but it was conditional support
based upon the possible advantages which have not been proven,
he pointed out. He mentioned that in 2001, the resolution was
HJR 13 and there were 134,358 students, and when HJR 13 passed
the next year, third graders were the first group to be exposed
to the new idea. They are now 21 years old and; therefore, the
high stakes tests should have been proven by that generation.
He opined that the federal government entrusted these Alaskans
to the unproven and ambitious belief that children are to be
tested and teachers held responsible for improving the test
scores. Thereby, almost all of the children would be
proficient. He stated they gave a promise that by 2014 no child
would be left behind. However, he said by 2014, NCLB could not
be attained.
8:26:18 AM
CHAIR KELLER pointed to HB 156 and said it is time to rethink
this educational approach in that the bill directs the state
school board to allow parents to opt out of high stakes testing;
and it eliminates all high stakes tests within three years
unless new legislation is enacted to specifically reauthorize
the Alaska testing system in place in existing laws. He said
sun setting the mandated tests as opposed to repealing them
would be against federal law and the bill establishes a
direction for repeal. He opined that the premise for NCLB may
have an honorable intent, and assuming the honorable intent
allows room for renegotiation of how the state is doing business
and in compliance with federal law. The testing was pushed by
two presidential administrations but it has become a real
problem. He pointed out that the federal funds, $69 million per
year, is not an on/off switch and opined that this bill would in
no manner cause the federal government to throw the switch and
determine that no more money goes to Alaska. He related that
firm resistance is appropriate to allow an opportunity to vet
the concerns and issues of Alaska's teachers, superintendents,
and children, and to be involved. He asked the committee to
consider that there is a process coming into being that will
begin to evaluate teachers based upon the test results of the
students, and teachers are told it is federal law. He referred
to a comment within the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED), February 7, 2015 new release that it would
make the test based reform process be part of the teacher
training process, and use high-stake tests to qualify teachers.
He described a pattern wherein legislators read about these
issues in the press and it soon shows up in regulation, and yet
the legislature has had nothing to say about it. He summarized
that it is past time to take action "And what this bill does,
the most dramatic thing I think it does is it deletes this much.
That's ESEA, and that's before NCLB, there is actually another
300 pages you can add to that." Within this bill there are two
sections, "this" must be implemented and the legislature has to
conform to it.
8:33:03 AM
CHAIR KELLER passed to the committee, Sec. 14.03.123 "School and
district accountability," which is one page "but it's one page
plus this. The bill simply takes this out. Okay now, does that
negate ... does that say that we're annulling what the feds are
doing? Not at all. The federal law exists and stands and it
doesn't matter what we do in state law. And I think you'll get
testimony from the department and Department of Law (DOL) that
taking this out does not, in and of itself ... any kind of
defiance ... legal defiance here." He commented that there are
1,291 pages that have been added. He said, "Oh by the way, just
that bill ... there's another ... because of the fact that we
are held responsible to oversee public education in the State of
Alaska, there is another factor. I mean it's not just the 1,291
pages, you've got the waivers, and you've got the agreements
that happen not because they want to leave us out but just that
we're not part of the process." He stated the real issue is
whether or not the legislature can comply with the court mandate
that the legislature oversees public education. He cited a one
page press release from the Council of Great Urban Schools "I
think it is, and I think Anchorage is a member of that." He
mentioned a comment within the press release, "The council urges
the states' to apply for the new waivers ... NCLB waivers, and
work with their districts on those applications. If the states
are reluctant to proceed, urban districts should initiate their
own application." He surmised it is an appeal by an
organization to our school districts to work directly with the
federal government if DEED or the legislature does not engage.
8:36:03 AM
CHAIR KELLER directed attention to the bill and advised it
offers an "opt out" process for students, mandates the
elimination of those tests pending action and approval by the
legislature, and a vetting process. He referred to page 2,
lines 7-9, which read:
(5) the methodology used to assign the state
public school system a performance designation
that compares the state public school system to
public school systems in other states and
countries.
CHAIR KELLER referred to a comment in the fiscal note indicating
the language may be incorrect, but states his intent. He then
referred to AS 14.03.123(a), School and district accountability,
which read:
(a) By September 1 of each year, the department shall
assign a performance designation to each public school
and school district and to the state public school
system in accordance with (f) of this section.
CHAIR KELLER continued, it is law that the department assigns
these public school systems "a grade or give us some kind of
idea of what is going on." He said the missing piece is the
requirement that they report the methodology. He opined that
nothing new is required in Title 14.03.123(a) as there is old,
trustworthy, and good information comparing how the state is
doing which is the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) that evaluates all states and provides a rating of the
proficiency of the students together with a comparison of the
other states. He explained that he did not want to include,
within AS 14.03.123(c)(5), that the methodology should be narrow
and favored DEED using whatever metric system it prefers to
determine the grade in rating Alaska against the other systems.
He referred to AS 14.03.123(c)(4), page 2, lines 3-4, which
read:
(4)... [AND WITH FEDERAL LAW; TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY
TO CONFORM TO FEDERAL LAW,] ...
CHAIR KELLER then referred to AS 14.03.123(f)(1), which read:
(1) [IMPLEMENT 20 U.S.C. 6301 - (ELEMENTARY AND
SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965), AS AMENDED:
CHAIR KELLER explained that the language deletes the reference
to the implementation or conforming to the federal law, and it
does not delete the state's accountability system as it simply
deletes references to the federal law.
8:39:23 AM
CHAIR KELLER referred to AS 14.03.123(d), Sec. 2, page 2, lines
17-20, and advised the section addresses the low performance
designation for students, which read:
(d) ... The improvement plan must give preference
to measures that increase local control of education
and parental choice and that do not require a direct
increase in state or federal funding for the school or
district.
CHAIR KELLER advised it emphasizes when a school is in trouble
(d) doesn't presume that the local community cares or that the
parents care, but (d) says "if they do ... and then you have ...
that's part of the plan ... that has to be given preference."
He opined that it is legitimate, especially for rural schools to
have that type of input.
8:40:20 AM
CHAIR KELLER referred to AS 14.03.123(e), Sec. 3, page 2, lines
23-25, which reads:
(e) ... , based on the accountability system
under (f) of this section, that demonstrates an
improvement over the school's performance designation
for the previous year.
CHAIR KELLER explained that (e) refers to schools performing
well and a mandate that DEED must establish special recognition.
The department included the improvement element in evaluating
these schools, which is excellent, he said. The above states
that schools with high and special recognition are those schools
that are constantly improving and removes the high cap.
8:41:36 AM
CHAIR KELLER referred to a new subsection AS 14.03.123(h), Sec.
5, page 3, lines 9-18, which read:
(h) The department shall, by regulation, develop
procedures to
(1) allow the parent or guardian of a
student or a student who is emancipated or is 18 years
of age or older to opt out of any student assessment
used to implement the accountability system under this
section; and
(2) ensure that individually identifiable
data pertaining to a student collected under this
section is stored securely and is only accessible to
the student, the student's parents or guardian, the
student's teacher, and other individuals in the state
with a legitimate need for the information to perform
the duties described under this section.
8:41:44 AM
CHAIR KELLER advised that AS 14.03.123(h) provides for an opt
out segment for parents and students, and data collected on the
students is safe, secure, and legitimately protected, and is not
personally identifiable. He pointed out that AS 14.03.123(h)(2)
is part of the reason the bill will not be moved out of
committee today as he would like the committee's consideration
on whether or not it should be strengthened. He advised that a
bill has been requested for hearing from Representative
Reinbold, regarding data security. Subsequent to Representative
Reinbold's presentation he would like the committee to consider
folding in the elements it prefers into the subparagraphs.
8:42:58 AM
CHAIR KELLER pointed the committee to a new section, AS
14.03.123, Sec. 6, page 3, lines 19-31, and page 4, lines 1-9,
which read:
*Sec. 6. AS 14.03 is amended by adding a new section
to read:
Sec. 14.03.124 Approval of standards-based
assessments and teacher performance standards. (a) The
department shall establish, by regulation, a process
for submitting standards-based assessments and teacher
performance standards to school districts and the
legislature for approval. The process must include
(1) school district involvement in
developing, revising, and selecting standards-based
assessments and teacher performance standards;
(2) an opportunity for school districts to
review and recommend approval or disapproval of the
standards-based assessments and teacher performance
standards;
(3) submission of the standards-based
assessments and teacher performance standards to the
legislature for approval if a majority of school
districts recommend approval of the standards-based
assessments and teacher performance standards;
(4) procedures for revising standards-based
assessments and teacher performance standards that the
legislature disapproves under this section.
(b) If the legislature fails to take action on
the standards-based assessments or teacher performance
standards before the end of the legislative session in
which the standards-based assessments or teacher
performance standards are submitted to the
legislature, or, if submitted during the interim
between legislative sessions, the session immediately
following that interim, the standards-based
assessments or teacher performance standards on which
the legislature failed to act are approved.
CHAIR KELLER said the section is the process for stopping the
high-stakes tests unless there is a process in the legislature
that includes the school district vetting the issues. He
pointed out that the working language is AS 14.03, Sec. 6, page
4, line 8-9, which read:
(b) ... immediately following that interim, the
standards-based assessments or teacher performance
standards on which the legislature failed to act are
approved.
CHAIR KELLER said "if after consideration and maybe new
legislation being presented in the following session, the
standards-based tests and teacher performance standards on which
the legislature failed to act or approve." He summarized that
if the legislature doesn't act, and something comes forward from
the department and school districts then it automatically
becomes law. Whether that is an appropriate trigger or not, he
said, he would ask the committee to determine as he is somewhat
uncomfortable with it.
8:44:20 AM
CHAIR KELLER explained that AS 14.07.020(a), page 4-6, is
existing law, and page 6, lines 10-11 is a "clean up," which
read:
(B) ... AS 14.03.123(f)(1)(A) [AS
14.03.123(f)(2)(A); and ...
8:44:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER expressed general support and said he
agrees with deleting conforming to federal law, and an area of
trepidation is the draft new process for teacher evaluations and
developing performance standards that have not been tested. He
referred to page 3, Sec. 6, wherein the legislature cannot act
to repeal standards and process as developed by the department
through the Alaska State Board of Education & Early Development.
He asked whether this would hold an abeyance to the current
process until a better formula is better vetted and the
districts have an opportunity to participate in the teacher
evaluation process.
CHAIR KELLER opined "it would not" as it is a system being
phased in and he deferred to the department for details. He
said from his perspective, he does not know what is appropriate
because the issue has not been vetted.
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER commented that he would like to hear the
department's thoughts. He suggested the committee include a
section that "we put on hold the existing evaluation process
until we have one that's more thoroughly vetted and involves
more stakeholder ... involvement." He pointed out there is a
large dark cloud hanging over educators and the legislature in
moving away from condemnation of failing schools under NCLB when
reviewing this type of reform. He appreciates Chair Keller's
statement of more local control, parental control, and Alaska
getting back control of its education process and pealing back
federal control as much as possible.
8:48:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled debate on a bill brought forward
by the previous administration wherein the legislature was
looking at teacher evaluations at 50 percent or 30 percent
evaluation. He questioned whether that issue is being revisited
here because a number of people were firmly committed to a much
higher percentage of the teacher evaluation being related to the
performance of their students. He noted that his understanding
of the presentation was to put in abeyance the teacher
accountability. He said he was unsure what form would come
forward if there wasn't the system the previous legislature
considered.
CHAIR KELLER said he does not recall the interaction
Representative Seaton referred to or the bill, but was not on
the House Education Standing Committee at that time. He offered
that it is an issue driven from the federal government and the
legislature may have unrealized options within the 1,291 pages.
8:50:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON provided that over the last several years
the legislature dealt with the idea of low performing schools,
taking over, and having an improvement plan in that local
districts with the full control of their curriculum, plans, and
development were called "failing schools" by Alaska's standards.
He asked whether this bill takes Alaska back to the system that
local districts will have all control of curriculum even if they
are under-performing.
CHAIR KELLER explained that it does not, as it leaves the
existing system in place. He said, "I think what you are
referring to is that if we violated the waivers that are in
place to NCLB then there is a possibility that we would go back
to the NCLB as we've just deleted ... an area, if we go through
with this bill ... so under that system, under the NCLB, then I
think we would be back to the old designators, and all the
criterial. But, I think, that HB 156 as you have it in front of
you does not change that, it just kind of opens the door for
reconsideration on it."
8:52:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to CSHB 156, Sec. 2, and
the added language to AS 14.03.123, and asked whether the
sponsor had specific ideas of measures of improvement they might
incorporate that represent local control of education of
parental choice. He pointed out that if the bill is encouraging
local control of education, the sponsor may want to prescribe
measures to local school districts to improve that are trying,
or not trying, to embrace local control.
CHAIR KELLER replied that the manner in which the bill is
written is that the department would be required to provide
preference, or ideas if it saw it as appropriate as DEED's
duties and responsibilities do not change in the bill and to pay
attention to what the local districts prefer. He referred to
mentors, and said in the event a school creates a plan for
improvement, it would have to be worked on by the department and
the community. He suggested the language indicates that in the
event a community was against a mentor in its community they
would have to consider that as a primary factor in working with
the plan for improvement of local schools. He summarized that
it puts emphasis on a low performing school and to discuss it
with the parents, local school board members, and the community
to determine what they believe is required for improvement. He
commented that the failure of the test based reform project is
that Alaska has not stepped forward with the resources necessary
to address issues in the local community.
8:56:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that currently the legislature is
revising the entire idea of testing so it is not only computer-
based but analytical in concept as opposed to regurgitation of
facts. He opined that Chair Keller was appropriately addressing
the testing regime of regurgitation of facts that has proven to
not assist students in engaging in long-term learning. He asked
whether the change in testing, in that Alaska is now going to
testing based on analytics and analysis, whether the reform of
that regime makes any difference, or whether it is a discussion
regarding all tests within the bill.
CHAIR KELLER related that the problem lies with the fact that
Alaska has made the results of the tests so high-stakes with
everyone focused on a high score on the test, which it isn't so
much whether it is computer-based. He opined the computer based
element of the testing enables Alaska to do that more easily
than a paper-based system. He noted that he questions the
process of making the test-based element the lever to try to
force a better education system, which was NCLB in 2002. He
remarked he is calling into question the entire concept as there
are other options.
8:59:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER opined that NCLB is a failed experiment
that has become a major driver in the educational system and
submitted that educators in the trenches are stressed by the
mandates for testing. He described the loss of local control as
a concern and would like feedback from the districts as to what
they would do in lieu of these mandates. He pointed out that
the high school exit exam is an example of how standardized
testing can be misdirected. For example, he explained, a few
years ago there was testimony within the Senate Education
Standing Committee from administrators and students from Chehak.
The administrators testified that their students were at a
disadvantage because questions were asked on the standardized
test ... for instance, "How do you get to the hospital?" The
students answered "airplane," except the correct answer on the
standardized test was "ambulance." He opined that was where
they segwayed into local control. He described that the meaning
of local control to a community in Alaska, and the norm
necessary for education and survival may be much different than
the nationalized standard test. Currently, districts are under
pressure because the teacher evaluations will be generated from
the results of these tests. He opined that the bill provides a
fresh means of addressing what may or may not be working, and
how to provide appropriate local control for assessments. He
added that cultural sensitivity is a concern as each specific
area of Alaska is different.
9:02:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS directed the committee's attention
AS 14.03, Sec. 1, page 2, lines 7-9, and requested the sponsor
to speak to the intent of the language, which read:
(5) the methodology used to assign the state
public school system a performance designation that
compares the state public school system to public
school system in other states and countries.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS added that his interpretation is
that it would compare the Alaska Department of Education and
Early Development (DEED) against other similar Departments of
Education around the country.
CHAIR KELLER responded "No, that is not my intent," as the
school system is how Alaska is performing overall. He said that
in reviewing the law, AS 14.03.123(a), which is not in the bill
but provided earlier by Chair Keller, may clarify that section,
which read:
(a) By September 1 of each year, the department
shall assign a performance designation to each public
school and school district and to the state public
school system in accordance with (f) of this section.
CHAIR KELLER went on to explain that the reference on Page 2,
lines 7-9, goes back to the one element of the "public school
system." He said the intent of the author was to identify how
the department would give the school system a grade and opined
that should he assign a grade, he would use the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) as there are national
and international comparisons. He said his "first inclination
was to write that they use NAEP" which offers Alaska a
proficiency rating in how students are doing in reading,
writing, and arithmetic in the schools, but if there is a
different methodology to use he wants it identified.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the removal of the
reference of the federal statute in Sec. 4, jeopardize Alaska's
waiver to NCLB, and whether there are ramifications in terms of
loss of federal funding.
CHAIR KELLER deferred to DEED, but he opined that it will not.
He previously reviewed the history, and research how it became
law in the first place. He then realized he did not vote on the
bill, but was in the legislature and spoke to the bill. He
confessed he has had a change of heart in the entire process as
he is frustrated with the constant evidences received on the low
performance of Alaska's schools. He advised that on the record,
when the bill passed, Neil Slotnick from the Department of Law
said there is nothing in the NCLB that requires it to be encoded
into state law.
9:09:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 2, lines 7-9, regarding
performance for the school system, and surmised that the
preference is that the comparative student performance is used
on a test to rate the different school systems.
CHAIR KELLER answered that NAEP is not a high-stakes test as it
is data collected on the school system in general, which is a
reason Alaska went to the high stakes testing beyond NAEP. A
student cannot be identified and tracked through schools with
NAEP as it gives a general overall proficiency assessment for
national comparison. He stated that the answer to
Representative Seaton's question is "yes," although it is not
fair to say that Alaska is using a high stakes test to get rid
of the high stakes test. He pointed that the record shows that
NAEP costs the state zero dollars, but does cost time when
testing students.
9:10:17 AM
VICE CHAIR VAZQUEZ asked what the acronym NAEP stands for.
CHAIR KELLER deferred to the department. [The National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)]
VICE-CHAIR VAZQUEZ requested the definition of high stakes
testing.
CHAIR KELLER opined that the failure has consequences that are
significant beyond just the awareness there is a lack of
knowledge, in that a student may not graduate. He explained it
is high stakes in the sense that this bill must pass or Alaska
will lose federal funding.
VICE CHAIR VAZQUEZ asked the last time the NAEP test was used by
the State of Alaska.
CHAIR KELLER advised that NAEP is an ongoing annual event, and
deferred to the department for details. He said that NAEP was
under the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA).
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ presumed it is no longer used in the
State of Alaska.
CHAIR KELLER replied it is ongoing and a person can go online to
obtain the NAEP scores, which is the basis for comparing Alaska
with other states currently.
9:12:56 AM
VICE CHAIR VAZQUEZ asked whether NAEP can be provided to each
student, not on a sample basis. For example, she said, a parent
may request the performance level of their child whenever these
tests are administered and the parents may assume their own
child is doing well compared to the state and national level.
CHAIR KELLER opined that it is not an option for NAEP as it is
not proctored in that manner. He reiterated that this bill does
not mean that Alaska quits tracking its students with tests,
because as a teacher he understood early on that when teaching a
group of children the first thing a teacher must do is find out
what they know by testing. At the end of the class another test
is given to determine whether the teacher succeeded in their
efforts. He described the bill as a reaction against the high
stakes part and not a reaction against testing to track student
locally, at home, and in the state, as long as the tracking is
performed in a secure fashion.
9:14:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether in Sec. 5, page 3, lines 11-
13, the legislation does not give the parent or guardian of the
student the ability to opt out of assessment. He noted there is
only a certain assessment that the legislation allows them to
opt out of and this doesn't give them the ability to opt out of
that end of course or end of school year test.
CHAIR KELLER responded that the terminology used in the bill
"allows the option to opt out of an assessment used to implement
the accountability system under this section." He related his
intent is that the state accountability system stay in place
until the legislature reconsiders whether the language should be
more specific regarding what can actually be opted out of and
name the tests. He reiterated that, as a teacher, he wants to
know where the students start and where they finish. He opined
it is the parent's constitutional right to not have the child
participate, and no penalty can be placed upon them as they have
the option to not be there and not take tests, which is a human
basic right. He suggested it may need to be refined better
because the requirement put on the district is different than
the basic freedom given the parent.
9:17:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said she was somewhat confused in that
the test of the proposed law indicates that students may opt out
of any student assessment used to implement the accountability
system under this section, but within Chair Keller's
explanation, a parent may opt a student out of any test
including that which the teacher gives at every step of the
process in their classroom. She questioned how a teacher would
know whether the students are making progress if they are opted
out of every test the parent choses to opt them out of.
CHAIR KELLER responded that he was referring to the broader
sense of opting out, the parent has the right to have the
student there, or not. He described his intent when discussing
high stake tests is that the State Board of Education & Early
Development determines a process to allow the students to opt
out. Currently, in other states parents are voting with their
feet and are not sending their children. He opined there is no
reason the legislature cannot ask the State Board of Education &
Early Development to determine a process to opt out. He advised
that when he said it is the parent's right, he was thinking in
the most basic and fundamental sense.
9:19:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested a list of the high stakes tests
being administered in the state since the elimination of the
exit exam, other than bill inserting a graduation requirement.
He described the graduation requirement as a high stakes test on
a passage of a constitutionalism element. He opined he is
unaware of any high stakes graduation requirements in the state
other than passing all of the required number of credits.
CHAIR KELLER replied that teachers in the State of Alaska,
currently, would list that AMP and MAP is taking up their class
time that could be used for curriculum and instruction. He
indicated he would provide a list.
9:21:22 AM
VICE CHAIR VAZQUEZ requested the definition of the acronyms he
used.
CHAIR KELLER said he could not, but they are tests required by
the state accountability system, grades 3-10 motivated by NCLB
which actually requires testing from grades 3-8. In the State
of Alaska its accountability system has grades 3-10 and 2 tests,
AMP and MAP, he explained.
9:22:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that he question was not what
tests are required to be taken, but rather the designation of a
high stakes test - meaning if a student does not obtain a
certain test score they do not pass. He questioned whether the
high stakes terminology is being used in a different terminology
than an exit exam or passing the bar exam which are high stakes
tests, whether it is being used in a different context.
CHAIR KELLER pointed out that the high stakes tests are terms he
"he has been throwing around in discussion" as the tests are
very high stakes in the sense that if Alaska does not comply,
there are $69 million federal revenue stream dollars at stake.
9:23:48 AM
DAVID NEES, testified in support of CSHB 156, and stated it is
time to review the relationship between the Alaska education
system and the federal government. He advised that when the
NCLB came in everyone said it would be impossible to get
everyone on track by 2014, and they were correct. He added that
the NAEP is an actual test, but encouraged the committee to take
a look at the tests of adult basic school education "that pays
the test." It costs approximately $1.25 to administer and
requires a pencil, approximately 20 minutes, and is accurate,
and he pointed out is what all GED centers have used to
determine whether student are behind. He advised there is
nothing in current state law mandating DEED do any intervention
on students not performing well. He said one of the things
missing is assigning the responsibility for intervention on a
child's education when falling behind.
9:25:48 AM
BARBARA HANEY, advised she has a web page entitled "Alaskans
Against Common Core," but is testifying on her own behalf. She
commented that the NAEP test was recently given in Houston. In
the context of the high stakes tests, she opined, anytime there
is district funding and accountability tied to testing it is
high stakes whether it is high stakes for the student, the
district, or the state is the issue. She addressed the comment
of what local control look like, and encouraged the committee to
review Mary Janice's statement at the February 15, 2015, Lunch
and Learn as within the presentation she discussed her own
upbringing in the State of Alaska in the 70's and 80's when
there was absolute local control. Ms. Haney reminded the
committee that the Alaska Statehood Act, Sec. 14, made it clear
that the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development
(DEED) would have no control over curriculum in the organized
districts as that right was extended to Regional Educational
Attendance Area (REAAs) on January 1, 1976. Since 2005, or 2006
DEED has been allowed to intervene in areas of curriculum and
testing with the local districts. She advised she applauds this
bill, but pointed out that parents currently have the right to
refuse the test and referred specifically to page 412, of the
District Test Manual. She said it is her hope that the
committee consider the issue of redacted testing as well, as
before this current test was adopted they got rid of the
legislation (indisc.) testing in order that redacted testing
could be implemented. She noted that testing should sunset at
the end of 2016-2017, and the new (indisc.) "or whatever they
reauthorize" will probably be known by that time and
consequently the sunset with this and federal legislation would
dovetail nicely. She pointed out that within the methodology
section of the bill, if NAEP is used, to consider the Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study (IMSS). Any
researcher would take into consideration the problems on the
2000 NAEP tests because computers errors were so bad it can't be
used by researchers for benchmarking. She asked the committee
to consider an index of freedoms, political considerations, and
sampling size in making any state or international comparisons.
The Journal of American Statistical Association and the American
Statistical Society recently published a review regarding the
value of student test scores, teacher quality, and teacher
variability. The review found that less than one were actually
involved in accountability for teacher variability. Finally,
there are laws on the books regarding spending money on Common
Core and, she advised, the department has done almost nothing in
that regard and it is still spending money on Common Core. She
remarked that laws do not have an impact on DEED unless the laws
are backed by sanctions or action. She referred to the Moore v.
State, Case No. 3AN-04-9756 Civil, decision and she stated that
Judge Gleason may not have understood that one of the witnesses
had "skin in the game and had a testing company." Generally
speaking, she said, she is supportive of the bill but is looking
for something with teeth that will end federal involvement, and
give local control back to Alaska that was given within the
Alaska Statehood Act.
VICE CHAIR VAZQUEZ invited DEED to work with the sponsor in this
legislation and announced CSHB 156 would be held over.
9:32:15 AM
The committee took a brief at ease.
9:32:32 AM
[VICE CHAIR VAZQUEZ passed the gavel to Chair Keller.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHB130.pdf |
HEDC 3/30/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 130 |
| CSHB130 Draft Proposed W.pdf |
HEDC 3/30/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 130 |
| HB0130 version A.PDF |
HEDC 3/30/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 130 |
| HB130 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 3/30/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 130 |
| HB130 Fiscal Note - HB130-DOT-EDC-3-3-15.pdf |
HEDC 3/30/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 130 |
| HB130 Supporting Document - Letter Steve Rollins.pdf |
HEDC 3/30/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 130 |
| HB130 Supporting Document - Letter Dr. Rosita Worl.pdf |
HEDC 3/30/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 130 |
| HB130 Supporting Document - Kashevaroff background.pdf |
HEDC 3/30/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 130 |
| HB 163 ver A.pdf |
HEDC 3/30/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 163 |
| HB163 Sponsor Statement 3-25-15.pdf |
HEDC 3/30/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 163 |
| HB163 Fiscal Note EED-CN-3-26-14.pdf |
HEDC 3/30/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 163 |
| HB 163 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HEDC 3/30/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 163 |
| HB 163 Supporting Documents - Smart Snacks State Agency Fundraising Exemptions.pdf |
HEDC 3/30/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 163 |
| HB 163 Supporting Documents - Smart Snacks Nutrition Standards and Exempt Fundraisers.pdf |
HEDC 3/30/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 163 |
| HB 163 Supporting Documents - Smart Snacks in School _ USDA All Foods Sold in Schools Standards.pdf |
HEDC 3/30/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 163 |
| CSHB156 Workdraft I.pdf |
HEDC 3/30/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/13/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/14/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| CSHB156Fiscal Note.pdf |
HEDC 3/30/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/13/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/14/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| HB156A.PDF |
HEDC 3/30/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/13/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/14/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| HB156 Sponsor Statment.pdf |
HEDC 3/30/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/13/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/14/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| HB156 FY 16 proposed ed budget.pdf |
HEDC 3/30/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/14/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| HB156 FED LAW REVISE.pdf |
HEDC 3/30/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/13/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/14/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| HB156 Ed Week stories.pdf |
HEDC 3/30/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/13/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/14/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |