Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/13/2002 08:04 AM House EDU
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 352-SCHOOL PERFORMANCE REPORTS Number 2299 CHAIR BUNDE announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 352, "An Act extending the dates for assignment of performance designations of public schools and the dates for reports and monitoring based on those designations; and providing for an effective date." Number 2320 ED McLAIN, Ph.D., Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development (EED), presented HB 352. He explained that the bill moves the implementation date of the school designations to January 2005. One aspect addresses essential skills and brings alignment with the focus of SB 133, particularly at the high school level. House Bill 352 also aligns the date for reporting and monitoring progress with the general reporting dates to the public and the legislature. DR. McLAIN explained that the date-change request followed conversations with the school designator committee, the legislative forum, and school and educational leaders. This delay will do three things. First, it will allow EED time to align with the federal designation system incorporated in U.S. House Resolution 1 {H.R. 1}, the No Child Left Behind Act. This resolution, also referred to as the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), includes a school designation system; EED wants to be certain it can align with that. The House Special Committee on Education will be meeting with the ESEA federal personnel, he said, noting the importance of having one designation, rather than both a state and a federal designation. DR. McLAIN explained that second, the delay will allow EED to incorporate growth information into the designation. School status information already exists for public use, he noted. Third, the delay will allow for "capacity building" for data collection and management by schools, districts, and the state. As this data becomes higher-stakes, its accuracy becomes more important, he added. DR. McLAIN recounted the state's first experience with the federal designation for Title I schools and the steep learning curve this entailed [for educational personnel]. He offered that these new designations are much more extensive in nature; EED wants to "get this right." Dr. McLain explained that Mark Leal has been chairing the school designator committee. Number 2440 MARK LEAL, Director of Assessment, Teaching and Learning Support, Department of Education and Early Development, pointed out three documents in the committee packet. One is a summary of school designations and gives an overview of the school designator committee. TAPE 02-6, SIDE B Number 2462 MR. LEAL said this document summarizes school designations in two pages. The second document, "Description of School Designator System and Questions and Answers," answers common questions asked regarding school designations. The third document, "SAMPLE Alaska School Report Card," attempts to answer the biggest question about school designations: Why do we concentrate so much on test scores? MR. LEAL emphasized that the school designator committee has focused on the results in student achievement, rather than looking at process or context of the school. He offered that process and context are important, but many process and context items are based on the "effective schools" research in the mid- '80s and '90s. These items include parent and community involvement, school-business partnerships, site-based management, and other elements of effective schools. The standards movement has transferred the focus from process and context to student achievement of the standards. He explained that both are important; a school that received a "poor" designation based on student performance would want to review those context and process issues in the school to see how they might be affecting student performance. Number 2353 MR. LEAL stressed that the list of school context and school quality issues on the sample report card is for illustrative purposes only. It is not intended to be a comprehensive or final list; the designation will be based on student performance and a variety of context and quality issues. Some of these issues are already an element of the report card. Number 2307 CHAIR BUNDE offered his opinion that schools are primarily a reflection of the communities. When a school is in crisis, it is because the community is in crisis. He added that the legislative and administrative intent behind the [school reporting mandate] was not a "gotcha" for schools. He remarked, "Obviously, we'd like to suffer from 'Lake Wobegon syndrome' where all our children are above average." The focus of this will not be on average or above-average schools, he said, but on schools deemed to be in crisis. He asked Mr. Leal to estimate how many schools would be currently designated "in crisis" if the designation criteria were enacted. Number 2250 DR. McLAIN responded that half the schools would be below average. He offered that this is one reason EED is requesting the date change; EED wants to focus on growth. Some schools are in a community in crisis. If EED proceeds with the status scores alone, a variety of schools will be identified as deficient. A focus on growth will allow reward and recognition for that growth. The growth will also serve as a foundation for future progress. He said, "That's what the growth focus ... allows us to do, so that we don't forever have a school ... [designated] down simply because of the population or ... the community mechanics." Number 2191 CHAIR BUNDE said: You think a two-year [delay] will ... get these people to wake up and smell the coffee and focus on growth? ... Is ... your delay going to give you different testing mechanisms? My concern is, if this mechanism is going to be bad for our schools, it'll probably be bad for our schools in two years.... Is just delaying sufficient? Or does the whole legislation have to be changed substantially? Number 2250 DR. McLAIN acknowledged that EED has wrestled with similar questions. He said, "It is not simply to delay and not do anything differently." The federal legislation also contains designation pieces; EED wants to ensure alignment with those and to [have an effect on] the federal designations. He said Alaska has requested a seat on the rule-making committee to have some input to ensure that the designations are not simply punitive. Status scores are already in place; those are available to the public. He remarked, "When we disaggregated that data, that started to raise the attention about the differing achievement levels." DR. McLAIN said EED has asked schools to focus their Learning Opportunity Grants specifically on intervention strategies, to focus on students who were not succeeding. He said, "Will the world be suddenly reborn in two years? I don't think that's what we're talking about. But there is ... an awareness that there was not six months ago. There is a new legislation behind us now, ... the federal legislation pushing us that we want to align to." Number 2087 CHAIR BUNDE said the last time he'd addressed this, his attempts had been characterized as advocating public embarrassment of schools. He continued: If we take this legislation with schools that are in crisis and take it to its ultimate conclusion, nationally the results have been mixed when a state or a municipality takes over [a] school district ... in crisis. It was my view, ... and I think shared by some that have looked into this arena, that the "schools in crisis" really does ... little more than just focus a bright light on this school, which may serve to publicly embarrass them. And some research has said that helps.... What is the ultimate possible sanction, and how [will that] help a school in the administration's view? Number 2030 DR. McLAIN replied that this matter of sanctions is a critical question; it is one reason for the delay request. He said U.S. H.R. 1 identifies a series of steps that, practically speaking, don't make a lot of sense. The proposed solutions in U.S. HR 1 include providing transportation for students to attend another school, for example, which doesn't make much sense to a single school in an isolated setting. DR. McLAIN noted that Alaska hopes to have impact on these proposed solutions. Another provision calls for the replacement of staff in a failing school. Alaska's problem, however, is with retention of teachers and stability. This solution is therefore problematic. The state legislation calls for failing schools to develop - with community input - a plan [for improvement]. He said, "We agree wholeheartedly with you that this is not just what goes on ... in the school...; it is a community issue. And so the plan would call for that." Number 1968 DR. McLAIN indicated the supports EED could provide to failing schools depend upon actions of the legislature. Other initiatives include proposing that the Alaska Center for Excellence in Schools do research and act as a broker for resources to help [failing schools]. DR. McLAIN noted that EED has requested monies for a fund slated for assistance for targeted instruction and intervention in low- achieving schools. This funding request also includes monies slated for high-achieving schools, to provide support for successful strategies and use them as a model for other schools. He noted that EED still needs to determine how much flexibility is allowed in the federal legislation. He noted that this is a major focus for EED. CHAIR BUNDE remarked, "You don't make hollow threats when you want to get people to comply with important public policy." He said he looks at this possible state takeover as "pretty much a hollow threat." He added, "I guess it doesn't hurt, but it sure doesn't help any." Number 1866 REPRESENTATIVE GUESS asked how EED is dealing with the issue of transience. She referenced page two of EED's "School Designators - Summary of Issues," which discusses growth of [a class from year to year]. She noted her understanding that EED is working on [individual] student identification. She emphasized the importance of appropriate accountability in schools with high student turnover rates. She requested an update of EED's efforts in this area. Number 1838 MR. LEAL replied, "That's been a real thorny issue for the committee." The consultants the committee has been working with have done preliminary studies with Alaskan data and data from other states. These consultants have found very little statistical difference between a matched-student growth model and a growth model that compared groups of students one grade to the next, he reported. Alaska, however, presents some special dilemmas with small school size. The reason for this small statistical variation between the two groups is because in most states, transient students' profiles are quite similar. MR. LEAL said the committee is addressing this issue by allowing the unique student identifier to calculate matched-student growth. He continued, "If there was an indication that by matching it up, that the school was really providing more growth than it was through the original calculation, then ... we could talk to the school about that or look at exactly what was happening there." He stated that EED does not want to send the message that transient students don't count. So this is a dilemma in having a system that is perceived as fair without sending the unintended message that only non-transient students count. He said other states have dealt with this issue in a variety of ways. Number 1733 REPRESENTATIVE GUESS offered her opinion that this is one of the most important reasons for this delay. She emphasized the importance of this doing this part right; the state doesn't know how to do this yet, because there is such a migrant population. She asked about the use of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) as a school context designation and whether EED was considering reporting on poverty. She indicated that poverty is a large issue when addressing school context. MR. LEAL responded that the AFDC component in the school context is the place where EED will report on poverty. Currently, the information received by EED is self-reported; usually, this is through free-and-reduced-lunch counts and other things. There would need to be some measure of economic level of the school. REPRESENTATIVE GUESS sought clarification that there was no plan to use an AFDC count. MR. LEAL replied, "No. ... All of these are placeholders for items that we would want to [measure]." He said the purpose of the school report card is to show that schools are more than test scores. Many things affect test scores. He said, "We're looking at the school designation based on student performance, and these other ... school quality factors and school context factors would fit into the mix and ... may affect the designation." He offered the example of high parental participation in a school with low student achievement; EED does not want to be in a position of identifying this school as exemplary - the focus is student achievement. He stated that parent participation plays a role in student achievement and needs to be listed as an element of school quality while retaining the focus of student achievement. Number 1600 REPRESENTATIVE GUESS reported her understanding that research shows parental involvement in the home is a greater factor in student success than is parental involvement in the school. Number 1591 CHAIR BUNDE clarified that low student achievement does not directly correlate with low socioeconomic status. Many other factors play a role in student success. MR. LEAL said a designation system using only status indicators would highlight socioeconomic factors. A designation system based on both status and growth would provide a more accurate reflection of a school's accomplishments. CHAIR BUNDE commented that many times "A" and "B" students don't exhibit expected growth. Number 1538 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to Representative Guess's comment and offered that in his geographically small district, a disparity exists among schools with regard to student turnover rates. One school might have a turnover rate of 30 percent; another, 100 percent. When comparing these two schools, one might surmise that the latter school has a deficient program. He expressed concern that unless both schools' nontransient students' achievement were compared, an inaccurate designation might be imposed. He asked what EED plans to do with this issue as a result of the proposed delay that it wouldn't have otherwise done. He also asked how this issue is addressed currently. Number 1467 MR. LEAL indicated there is no mechanism in place for addressing this issue; a system that calculates growth is not being used. He said, "When we report test results for a school with a transient rate of 100 percent, ... that's the status scores - that's the snapshot in time of that school's performance." By calculating growth, he indicated, the progress of students who were present in that school or district could be measured. MR. LEAL reported that the center for assessment is finding that much of student movement occurs between schools within a district. Some occurs district-to-district and state-to-state, but the majority is within a district. The unique [student] identifier will allow student growth to be measured by groups or individual students. So the assessment of a school with a high transient rate would include the matched-student growth; this school still needs to be accountable in some manner, he noted. This school needs to be assessed in its effectiveness with its student population. Number 1385 MR. LEAL said, "In some manner, we need to be able to measure how effective they are with those students. We can't say, 'Because you have a transient population, we don't know how you do, or we don't care how you do.'" He added that EED is trying to build in mechanisms to measure growth. It has initiated the [student] identifier, and some sophisticated databases need to be built at the state level to manage test results. The two years will allow for this development, he noted. He pointed out that EED is concerned about the issues of transience and small schools that will reduce the reliability of the system. Number 1323 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN inquired whether a transient student who has low achievement scores as a result of his transience would be consequently identified as a special education student. Number 1286 MR. LEAL replied that this student would not be identified as a special education student unless he was tested and then identified as such. Number 1260 NICK STAYROOK, Executive Director, Planning and Evaluation, Fairbanks North Star Borough School District, testified via teleconference. He stated that he is a member of the school designator committee. He referenced a resolution dated January 15 from the Fairbanks North Star Borough School District requesting a delay in the school designations law. MR. STAYROOK noted his district's concurrence with the governor's transmittal letter that outlines the reasons needed for the delay. He indicated his committee believes growth is an important factor when looking at school quality. No growth information currently exists. He said the assessment system has been evolving for several years; growth data will be available by next year. He explained why the district views this as important: If we went forward with designations based simply on status - and the law does have a consequence that schools will begin to make school improvement plans based on these designations - we may be having many schools in the state producing school improvement plans based on status only, whereas when we get the growth data, [we might] find out that they didn't really need to do school improvement plans, and vice- versa. MR. STAYROOK added that the school board resolution also draws attention to the issue of specialized schools. Many districts across the state implement alternative programs. Fairbanks has a high-school-level alternative program. At-risk students are the targeted population for this alternative program; many of these students are low-performing students. He said, "We're just afraid that these kinds of specialized schools are going to result - inherently - in an 'in crisis' or 'deficient' classification." He added that correctional facilities and special education schools would face this same dilemma. MR. STAYROOK said the committee is also grappling with the issue of small schools. The current analysis for creating the designations is solely based on student achievement test scores on benchmark tests, norm-referenced tests, and the HSGQE test. He noted that of the approximately 500 schools in the state, 135 have enrollments of fewer than 50 students. This means that, on average, about four students are being tested at each grade level. He suggested that attempting to determine statistical validity of growth or achievement scores based on four students at a grade level is invalid. Number 1035 MR. STAYROOK offered that additional measures need to be used for small schools. He indicated measures of parental satisfaction would be added, along with student measures, in determining the quality of a school. He pointed out that the Fairbanks district has recently incorporated parent evaluation forms for schools, which have been a valuable tool for correcting parent-identified issues. MR. STAYROOK explained that the items for which schools will be held accountable in their designations will be the things that schools will concentrate on for improvement. Therefore, if designations are narrowly defined to consist of achievement in reading, writing, and math, those are things to which schools will pay particular attention. Other areas such as science, social studies, art, music, or other important subjects may be less emphasized and possibly ignored, he noted. He referenced an editorial by Darroll Hargraves, executive director of the [Alaska Council of School Administrators], that addressed the issue of narrow [curricular] focusing. Mr. Stayrook highlighted the importance of designation systems and the intent of them. MR. STAYROOK explained that the reauthorization of the ESEA is requiring a school accountability system. He expressed his opinion that one important thing to consider in the ESEA is the difference in the achievement gap among students of different ethnicity, gender, and [family income] levels. The Fairbanks district has been tracking this and has an initiative to close the achievement gap between these students. If closing this achievement gap is important in Alaska, that might be an element in the designation for each school. He remarked, "In other words, it's not good enough just to bring up the average performance of students in the school, but it's also important to close the gap in achievement between different types of students." Number 0885 CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Stayrook if he was comfortable that this [delay] issue would not be revisited with the same argument. MR. STAYROOK replied that he was certainly comfortable with the two-year extension. He offered that this was due to the current lack of a growth score. He said: Recent studies done by our test contractor will allow us to produce growth scores from the spring of '02 ... to the spring of '03. We think that we'll begin to have the growth scores there, and that having another year to pilot test this around the state - supply designations to schools, let them begin to working on their plans ... - would certainly make ... the entire legislation much more palatable. MR. STAYROOK said he saw no need to delay beyond 2004. This delay brings other dates into alignment with the HSGQE dates. Those results also can be incorporated into the designations specified in the summer of 2004, he concluded. TAPE 02-7, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIR BUNDE announced that public testimony on HB 352 would be closed following Mr. Johnson's following testimony. Number 0020 BRUCE JOHNSON, Director, Quality Schools/Quality Students, Association of Alaska School Boards (AASB), testified in support of the delay of the school designations, for reasons already outlined by other witnesses. Noting that two AASB members have served on the designator committee, he said: It's been a hardworking group of people that have been very serious to try to do this in a fair ... manner. ... Our very first meeting, we invited a couple [of] consultants from other states - one of them was from California - and we asked them how they dealt with small schools in California. And what we found out was that any school of 100 or fewer students was not included in the designation system. Obviously, we didn't feel that that would match the intent of the legislation that we were attempting to implement at that point in time. MR. JOHNSON said he'd offered the foregoing to help members understand the challenges Alaska faces with small schools in the designation system. Turning attention to the issue of growth, Mr. Johnson said he believes all people agree that the role of public education is to add value to a child. That has been somewhat narrowly defined in terms of achievement as a primary factor; he offered that he did not dispute that prominence. Number 0150 MR. JOHNSON indicated a school's job is to add that value, regardless of the child's background, first language, or family income. He suggested more time is needed to determine [appropriate designations]. He concurred that a system built only on status is inherently unfair. He said a system that includes growth will give schools a "fighting chance" to move beyond the two lower designations of "in crisis" or "deficient." Two years from now, the state will have a much better system, he concluded. Number 0250 CHAIR BUNDE sought assurance from Mr. Johnson that this issue would not be revisited in two years. MR. JOHNSON offered his opinion that everything should be in order over the next couple years; the assessment system should be in place to chart growth. Challenges will still exist in the realms of small schools and other matters. He said: One of the issues on the handout ... provided by Mr. Leal shows a confidence rating. How confident are we that the rating that was given to school "X" -- let's say that's a small school, K-12 with 50 students in it. Early on, those confidence ratings are not going to be very high. And I think they're going to be, perhaps, broad categories of low confidence, medium, or high - or something like that. MR. JOHNSON noted that as more data is collected and studied, the confidence rating will be a fair and appropriate designation. He emphasized, "We need to get going with this." He indicated this type of process is going on in other states. The recommendation originated with the administration, he said, acknowledging that the original timeline might have been overly ambitious. Number 0380 CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony on HB 352. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER commented that he thought he'd be supportive of this bill, but it is disquieting to him. He said, "The ... term that keeps ringing in my ears is, 'No pain, no gain.'" He said attempts to minimize pain - in terms of embarrassment to a school district or an individual student - is how this [need for an extension] was originally created. He remarked, "Many people need wake-up calls in many different areas, but I would think that the ordinary results of the testing that we have done is an indication that our education system, in general and in specific areas, needs a wake-up call." REPRESENTATIVE PORTER acknowledged that some students have low performance through no fault of their own. He offered his perception that many students have low performance because of a lack of sufficient motivation for them to perform higher than they can get by with. These students are passed from grade to grade and eventually out of the system. Number 0536 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER offered that the "growth score" idea is good, but he hopes it doesn't result in an excuse, "Well, you're okay because you've come from zero to one," while the bar is at ten. He remarked, "I'm all for saying something positive, but not at the risk of leaving the impression that that's okay, because it's not." REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said Mr. Johnson is correct to some degree that the education system should be designed to increase the value of a child's life. He added, "To me, that means the value that education is intended to place into it, in being able to survive in the world because of their academic skills, not [to] smooth their psyches so that they will never have to experience any pain." REPRESENTATIVE PORTER concluded with an anecdote: His son was doing poorly in math in the third grade. He discovered his son wasn't doing the required homework, and that the homework took two hours to complete redundant math problems each night. His son was not the only student doing poorly. Upon questioning the teacher, he was told the teacher was preparing his child for life. He'd responded, however, that preparing his son for life was his job as a father; he wanted the teacher to prepare his son for the fourth grade. Number 0688 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE moved to report HB 352 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, HB 352 was moved out of the House Special Committee on Education. Number 0741 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON requested clarification on the school [indicator] of high school persistence versus the dropout rate. She queried whether the use of persistence might be masking a problem. MR. LEAL offered that the use of persistence is for consistency; high test scores and low dropout scores are the goal. The dropout rate will be calculated and then used to recalculate the persistence rate. This will allow all the scores to be a positive number. He explained his committee's belief that scores are easier to read if all higher scores indicate higher performance, rather than having one indicator be that the lower the score is, the better the performance is. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON offered that she didn't want the emphasis lost [by using the persistency rate]. Number 0852 CHAIR BUNDE said he'd appreciate assurance that this issue will not require revisitation in two years' time. DR. McLAIN pointed out that the federal legislation has its own timelines that will [require the completion of the designations by the administration-proposed timeline]. [HB 352 was moved out of the House Special Committee on Education.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|