Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
03/16/2016 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 | |
| SCR1 | |
| HB102 | |
| HB156 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SCR 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 102 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 156 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 156-SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES; FED. LAW
[Contains discussion of SCR 1]
9:22:25 AM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the final 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." [Before the committee,
adopted as a work draft on 3/30/15, was the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 156, Version 29-LS0566\I, Glover,
3/28/15.]
9:22:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 156, labeled 29-LS0566\Y, Glover,
3/11/16, as the working document. Without objection Version Y
was before the committee.
9:23:08 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 9:23 a.m.
9:23:40 AM
CHAIR KELLER described the changes proposed in Version Y
beginning with Sec. 1, page 1, lines 7-13, and continuing on
page 2, lines 1-6, which read as follows:
*Section 1. AS 14.03.120(f) is amended to read:
(f) By January 15 of each year, beginning in 2001, the
department shall provide to the governor and make
available to the public and the legislature a report
on the performance of public schools in this state.
The report must be entitled "Alaska's Public Schools:
A Report Card to the Public." The report must include
(1) comprehensive information on each public
school compiled, collected, and reported under (d) and
(e) of this section for the prior school year;
(2) a summary of the information described in (1)
of this subsection; the summary must be prepared in a
manner that allows school performance to be measured
against established state education standards; and
(3) for a report due by or after January 15,
2005, the most recent performance designation under AS
14.03.123 received by each public school and by the
state public school system.
CHAIR KELLER explained that the inserted language is intended to
generate a report on the entire school system.
9:26:18 AM
CHAIR KELLER turned to page 2, lines 17-19, which read as
follows:
(2) a comparison of the state public school system to
public schools in other states, including a comparison
of student participation in standards based
assessments and student performance on the
assessments;
CHAIR KELLER explained that this language directs the State
Board of Education to compare the performance of Alaska's
students with that of students across the nation.
9:27:04 AM
CHAIR KELLER continued on page 2, lines [24]-29, which read as
follows:
(5) [(4)] additional measures that may be
progressively implemented by the commissioner to
assist schools or districts to improve performance in
accordance with this section; [AND WITH FEDERAL LAW;
TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO CONFORM TO FEDERAL LAW,]
the additional measures may be unique to a certain
school or district if that school or district receives
federal funding that is not available to all schools
or districts in the state.
CHAIR KELLER said the removal of this language is to conform
with a change made later in the bill, and indicated that he
would refer back to this section, when the other modification is
noted.
9:28:05 AM
CHAIR KELLER turned to Sec. 4, page 3, lines 6-9, which read:
The improvement plan must, to the extent possible,
include 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 said this is a response to the new federal
regulations being instituted under the Every Student Succeeds
Act (ESSA) and to provide local accountability.
9:29:15 AM
CHAIR KELLER continued with Sec. 5, page 3, lines [11]-14, which
read:
(e) The department shall establish a program of
special recognition for those public schools that
receive a high performance designation, based on the
accountability system under (f) of this section, that
demonstrates an improvement over the school's
performance designation for 15 the previous year.
CHAIR KELLER said this is the aspect of the bill that requires
the state to establish a system of special recognition for the
schools that receive a high performance designation. The
recognition will be based on improvement, rather than status
quo. A school maintaining the standard, for many years, will be
incentivized to improve beyond the bar, he said, and there is
always room for improvement.
9:30:10 AM
CHAIR KELLER remained on page 3, lines 18-19, to indicate the
deleted Sec. 6 language, which read:
(1) [IMPLEMENT 20 U.S.C. 6301 - 7941 (ELEMENTARY AND
SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965), AS AMENDED;
CHAIR KELLER emphasized the importance of this change, as it
serves to remove the federal code, including ESSA, and ensures
district control. The interpretation of the language being
deleted, may be construed in a manner that would inhibit the
state legislature from establishing policy, as well as district
involvement in the process. He pointed out that the EED
attorneys do not consider this deletion to be a significant
change or threat.
9:31:54 AM
CHAIR KELLER continued with Sec. 6, page 3, lines 23-25, which
read:
(A) measures of student performance on standards-based
assessments in language arts and mathematics; the
assessments must be selected with the input of
teachers and school administrators and minimize
disruption to classroom instruction;
(B) measures of student improvement and academic
achievement; and
CHAIR KELLER said this language assures that the measures of
achievement are based on student improvement and actual
performance.
9:32:22 AM
CHAIR KELLER moved to Sec. 7, page 4, lines [5-10], which read:
(2) study the conditions and needs of the public
schools of the state, adopt or recommend plans,
administer and evaluate grants to improve school
performance awarded under AS 14.03.125, and adopt
regulations for the improvement of the public schools;
the department may consult with the University of
Alaska to develop secondary education requirements to
improve student achievement in college preparatory
courses;
CHAIR KELLER said the inserted language is intended to insure
that EED works in concert with the University of Alaska to
improve student achievement and provide appropriate preparatory
courses.
9:32:48 AM
CHAIR KELLER turned to Sec. 7, page 5, lines [16-20], which
read:
(12) provide educational opportunities in the areas of
vocational education and training, and basic education
to individuals over 16 years of age who are no longer
attending school; the department may consult with
businesses and labor unions to develop a program to
prepare students for apprenticeships or internships
that will lead to employment opportunities;
CHAIR KELLER explained that the insertion here is to address
businesses and labor union collaboration for the same purpose as
the language inserted in the previously reviewed paragraph (2).
9:33:08 AM
CHAIR KELLER pointed out page 6, line 5, and the reference
change, inserting AS 14.03.123(f)(1)(A) and removing [AS
14.03.123(f)(2)(A)]. He said this relates to the inclusion and
consideration of the classroom teachers and local districts.
9:33:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND returned to page 2, lines 17-19, to
express support for the added paragraph and ask for further
elaboration on the proposed language.
CHAIR KELLER replied that it changes the accountability segment
of law. He anticipates that the comparisons will be made via
assessments such as the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP). The assessments will not be named in the bill
as it will be up to the board to make those determinations, he
said, and added that it may also consider the inclusion of
international standards.
9:35:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ directed attention to page 2, lines 1-3,
which read:
(2) a summary of the information described in (1) of
this subsection; the summary must be prepared in a
manner that allows school performance to be measured
against established state education standards; and
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ suggested amending this to include "and
national education standards," to remain consistent with the
page 2, lines 17-19 language [paragraph (2)].
9:36:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER asked if the CS contains opt-out
provisions for parents who object to testing.
9:37:22 AM
CHAIR KELLER directed attention to Sec. 8, page 6, lines 13-31,
and continuing on page 7, lines 1-3, which read:
* Sec. 8. AS 14.07 is amended by adding a new section
to read: Sec. 14.07.175. Development of statewide
assessment plan; review of education laws and
regulations. (a) Notwithstanding AS 14.03.078,
14.03.120, 14.03.123, 14.03.300, 14.03.310, AS
14.07.020, 14.07.030, 14.07.165, or a provision of
federal law to the contrary, the department may not
require a school district or school to administer a
statewide standards-based assessment after July 1,
2016, and before July 1, 2018. The department and the
board shall create a plan for working with school
districts to develop or select statewide assessments
that are approved by school districts. The plan must
provide for the first administration the assessments
not later than the school year that begins in 2020.
(b) The department shall review state education laws
and regulations to identify unnecessary laws or
regulations and areas where the laws or regulations
may be changed to provide school districts with
greater control over public education policy in light
of the enactment of the Every Student Succeeds Act,
P.L. 114-95.
(c) On or before January 1, 2018, the department shall
submit a report to the senate secretary and chief
clerk of the house of representatives and notify the
legislature that the report is available. The report
must describe
(1) the final plan for developing or selecting
statewide assessments as 3 required under (a) of this
section; and
(2) recommendations for changes in laws or
regulations as required under (b) of this section.
(d) In this section, "school district" has the meaning
given in AS 14.30.350.
CHAIR KELLER termed this to be the most important section of the
bill, and said notwithstanding the existing statutes that apply
to assessment and performance standards, this section
establishes that EED may not require a school district to
administer a standard based test assessment, after July 1, 2017.
The language is not stated as an opt-out provision, but it
creates a timeframe when tests will no longer be required. The
current reauthorization of NCLB to ESSA will take some time to
assimilate, and the bill provides the time-out to accomplish
that task. The assumption is that the commissioner of education
will be in conversation and negotiation with the U.S. Department
of Education to ensure that federal funding remains secure.
This is a reasonable action, he opined, and reported that
California has paved the way with similar, successful,
negotiations. Further, he stated his belief that the bill
provides an important tool for the governor/commissioner for
negotiation purposes and provide adequate time for the state to
review Title 14 and establish clearly defined accountability and
assessment requirements and standards.
9:41:05 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:41 a.m. to 9:43 a.m.
9:43:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked whether a legal opinion is
forthcoming.
CHAIR KELLER responded that an earlier version is under legal
review, and comments, thus far, indicate that federal funds may
be at risk, but the constitutionality is not under question.
9:45:36 AM
DR. SUSAN MCCAULEY PhD, Interim Commissioner, Department of
Education and Early Development (EED), turned to page 2, lines
17-19, and said the ability for Alaska to accomplish the stated
comparison requirements would depend on two situations. First,
the ability to leverage results of like assessments that are
administered by both Alaska and other states. Or the board
would need to determine other factors that constitute a
sufficient comparison of Alaska's state system to that of other
states; such as graduation rates. Alaska currently utilizes a
unique, custom designed, assessment: the Alaska Measures of
Progress (AMP). The proposed language suggests that AMP will be
replaced and an alternative assessment adopted which would align
with that of other states. However, other than the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), there is no other
uniform assessment administered by all of the states. Every
state is free to choose assessments, and some do as Alaska did,
and administer unique assessments.
9:48:55 AM
CHAIR KELLER passed the gavel to Vice Chair Vazquez.
9:49:01 AM
CHAIR KELLER said the intent of the bill is to require an
assessment comparison, but not to mandate a specific type of
test for the state. In the past NAEP has been specified, but
has received resistance. He acknowledged that the proposed
language may need to be clarified.
9:49:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked for elaboration on NAEP.
COMMISSIONER MCCAULEY offered that NAEP is also referred to as
the Nation's assessment, as it's the only assessment required by
the federal government. The test is administered to a sampling
of students, in two grade levels, and national comparisons are
drawn from the statistics.
9:50:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked if it is possible to administer the
NAEP to every child in the state.
COMMISSIONER MCCAULEY stated her understanding that the sampling
system used is a prescribed and exclusive methodology and she
offered to confirm her statement.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND opined that NAEP is a thorough, grade
specific, assessment, and the results have continued to prove
useful.
9:54:02 AM
COMMISSIONER MCCAULEY moved to Sec. 8, page 6, lines 13-31, and
continuing on page 7, lines 1-3, to address the timeframe and
proposed deadline. Currently, the state is under contract with
the Achievement and Assessment Institute (AAI) [University of
Kansas] to deliver and administer AMP. It was decided in
February [2016], that the department would issue a request for
proposal (RFP) to replace the AMP assessment. Federal and state
law requires that an annual assessment be administered to all
students in grades 3-8 as well as all high school levels. She
said completing the proposal process by next spring constitutes
a "tall order," and described the steps involved, which include:
issuing the proposal, receiving and reviewing responses,
selecting viable proposals, and formulating a new assessment.
Whether the assessment chosen is custom designed, or off the
shelf, she said aspects will need to be tailored to include
elements that pertain specifically to Alaska. Checks and
balances will need to be considered in the areas of cultural
bias and sensitivity of items given the unique demographics of
the state. The job must be done right, she stressed, and doing
it fast, although possible, may compromise the outcome. Thus,
the challenge is doing it right, as well as fast, at the same
time. There may be an opportunity, and some wiggle room, she
conjectured and directed attention to page 6, lines 15-17, which
read:
Notwithstanding AS 14.03.078, 14.03.120, 14.03.123,
14.03.300, 14.03.310, AS 14.07.020, 14,07.030,
14.07.165, or a provision of federal law to the
contrary, the department may not ...
COMMISSIONER MCCAULEY opined that it would be beneficial to
negotiate an understanding of state requirements, with the U.S.
Department of Education; given the reauthorization transition.
The ESSA law is very different than NCLB, and an enormous
transition is occurring throughout the field of education on a
national level. Alaska has already begun the transition and the
confluence might provide room for negotiation by establishing
what the federal government will minimally require by the spring
of 2017. She opined that it's improbable that the U.S.
Department of Education would grant a two year reprieve from
administering a statewide assessment. Additionally, the state
may question the wisdom in not collecting assessment data on the
students for a period of two years. However, quality is a
concern, and to have all of the conditions previously stated,
met by the spring of 2017, will make that a difficult period,
she underscored.
9:59:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER cautioned that rushing to prepare an
assessment may not prove beneficial, and the superintendents
need to be heard. The elements of the bill address reform that
is necessary, he opined, and a hiatus would be appropriate. He
agreed that being prepared with a new regimen by spring of 2017
may not be plausible. He then referred to the CS page 6, line
17 to point out the term "may" and opined that "shall" could be
more appropriate in this section.
10:02:44 AM
POSIE BOGGS, Alaskans for Reading Proficiency, offered comments
on SCR1 and HB 156, from a prepared statement, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
I'm involved now in six advocacy groups focused on
reading proficiency for Alaskan children for example
Literate Nation Alaska and the Alaska Branch of the
International Dyslexia Association.
I would like to testify on SCR 1 and HB 156.
First, I would simply like The Civics Education Task
Force to know a couple of little details that I think
are important to their work. I would like them to
know the grade level reading required for the United
States original or founding documents. The
Declaration of Independence requires a 12th grade
reading ability, the Federalist papers require an 18th
grade, college graduation reading ability, and the
Constitution of the United States requires a 17th
grade reading ability. Given that only 30% of Alaskan
students graduate high school able to read at the 12th
grade level, I think we have a little bit of a
problem. School districts are not meeting the needs of
our students.
Second, I would like to testify on HB 156. However,
my testimony can also be related to HB 102. You just
heard from a mother on HB 102 and the effects of low
reading proficiency on mental health.
In HB 156, I'm very much in support of item number
five, line 6 in page 2 [CS for HB 156, 29-LS0566\I,
Glover, 3/28/15, previously adopted 3/30/15].
That states the methodology used to assign the state
public school system of performance designation that
compares the state public school system to public
school systems in other states and countries. I
believe that this the most important drivers that can
in proof Alaska's dismal reading proficiency levels.
Rep. Keller thank you very much for supporting
matching the rigor of National standards because we
can do it. I would further recommend that on page 3,
line 23 be changed to assess English language arts
that reports reading proficiency as a unique and
separate result. What the heck is English Language
Arts anyway is the question asked by parents.
However, on page 2 line 16 where it gives preference
to measures that increase local control.
I have some concerns. My main concern is that reading
instruction is scientifically evidenced but our
teachers and their own educators often do not have
this knowledge because the research about reading
occurs outside of education. Many do not even know
that it exists. If we continue to leave reading
instruction up to local control this means that a
school or district or school board can continue
choosing to ignore and discount scientific evidence
from over 35 National Institutes of Health reading
research centers for over 40 years. If we do allow
schools, districts, and school boards to continue
current practices, Alaskan children are doomed to
ridiculously low reading proficiency levels. I want
the legislature to make a plan to uphold their
responsibility per the Moore Case to ensure our
children are proficient readers. My masters is in
Educational diagnostics and Section 8 taking a break
is a good idea however, in the mean time I would also
recommend that there are quick standardized reading
assessment tools that schools and districts could give
to students that would provide a very accurate reading
proficiency score so that parents know while this
transition period happens. They are low cost and
group administered.
10:09:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ returned the gavel to Chair Keller.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SCR1_CivicsEd_BillText_VersionI.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2016 8:00:00 AM |
SCR 1 |
| Work Draft for {versioni} 3/16/2016.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2016 8:00:00 AM |
|
| SCR1_CivicEd_VersionI_Summary_of_Changes.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2016 8:00:00 AM |
SCR 1 |
| SCR1 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2016 8:00:00 AM |
SCR 1 |
| Work Draft for {version s HB102} 3/16/2016.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 102 |
| 6 HB102 Fiscal Note EED-SS 3-13-15.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 102 |
| HB 102 ASD Opposition House Education Committee Letter 031516.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 102 |
| HB156 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2016 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 1. HB156 Work draft Y.pdf |
HEDC 3/14/2016 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/16/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| HB102 North Star Response to Kenai Peninsula School District.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 102 |