Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/15/1997 01:48 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 146
"An Act relating to competency testing requirements for
secondary students; and providing for an effective
date."
LYNNE SMITH, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE, testified in
support of HB 146. She asserted that many high school
graduates are finishing school and receiving high school
diplomas without the skills necessary to survive in the
world.
Ms. Smith noted that over twenty states now conduct student
competency tests for a standard high school diploma. The
students in these states must pass a test with a minimum
score before they are allowed to graduate. Three states
also have an exit exam for an "Endorsed Diploma." To earn
this, the students not only have to pass the test, but must
score at a designated level, higher than the minimum
required for a regular diploma. "Honors Diplomas" are
awarded in three states for higher testing levels.
Ms. Smith observed that under the provisions of CS HB 146
(HES), a student is required to pass a competency
examination in the areas of reading, English, mathematics,
science, Alaska and United States history before receiving a
high school diploma. The test would be selected by the
Department of Education. A pupil who failed this
examination and was no longer in attendance would get a
certificate of attendance. It would indicate the number of
years of attendance, but would also show that the pupil has
neither passed a competency examination nor received a
diploma. The pupil would have the opportunity to be re-
examined, within three years after the pupil left high
school.
2
Representative Martin provided members with Amendment 1
(copy on file). He noted that the amendment would begin
testing earlier.
NANCY BUELL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TEACHING AND LEARNING
SUPPORT explained that it is important for students to have
multiple opportunities to take the test and be remediated.
Co-Chair Therriault summarized that the test would be
administered to earlier grades so that there would be a
number of years for students to be brought up to speed.
Ms. Buell noted that the Department could not only
administer the test in the senior years. Co-Chair
Therriault observed that the test would be administered in
grades 9 through 12.
Representative Mulder noted that the committee substitute
would test United States and Alaska history.
Ms. Buell noted that social science tests are developmental.
She stressed that social science is a broad field. She
stated that social science tests are more complex. She
emphasized that it would be difficult to estimate the cost
of these tests.
Representative Mulder spoke in support of testing in
mathematics, English and reading. He failed to see how a
diploma could be denied to a child that did not have an
understanding of Alaska history. Ms. Buell observed that
the Department cautioned against the inclusion of this
subject area.
Representative Martin maintained that the development of
humanity and civilization are basic subjects. He stated
that the Department of Education should be able to evaluate
the students. He noted that Amendment 1 would test children
in grades 4, 8 and 11, and make sure remedial courses are
available.
Ms. Buell clarified that the Department of Education doesn't
have the expertise to develop tests that will withstand
legal scrutiny, from the state level, to deny a diploma.
She observed that teachers throughout the districts are
adequately testing competency. She emphasized that there
are no mandated curriculums or standards in the State.
Representative Kelly questioned why there is a three year
limit on the test. Ms. Smith observed that the Sponsor felt
that it would be a good idea to enable the student to have
another chance. She observed that Representative Bunde felt
3
that three years was a reasonable amount of time to retake
the test.
Representative Kelly spoke in support of extending the time
that a student could take the test.
Representative Grussendorf noted that good students may not
be able to pass the test. He asked what would happen to
children that cannot pass the test. Ms. Buell stated that
the Department is concerned about students that do not pass
the test. She observed that studies in Texas show that
adequate students have dropped out of school after failing
the test, due to test anxiety or other reasons. She
stressed that students that could succeed in secondary
education will fail the test due to other factors.
Representative Grussendorf stated that the system sometimes
fails in the delivery of the initial skills, such as reading
and writing.
Co-Chair Hanley clarified that the legislation would not
affect GED's. Ms. Buell noted that GED's cannot be given to
anyone who is currently in school. Co-Chair Hanley noted
that the student has three years after they leave high
school to pass the test. He felt that three years was a
reasonable extension.
Ms. Buell noted that other states have begun testing in the
8th or 9th grades. She stated that it takes 3 to 4 years to
get everyone through the test. She added that there will be
a substantial dropout rate following the institution of the
test.
Co-Chair Hanley stated that it is clear that testing needs
to start earlier. He maintained that if able students are
failing the test then the test is flawed. He stated that,
ideally, it would be up to each individual school district,
starting in the first grade, to make sure their students
were trained. He observed that the question is "at what
place do we as a State mandate, so that the school districts
that aren't doing their jobs are forced to do have a test."
Representative Davis expressed concern that the test would
compete with the GED program. He asked how the content of
the test would relate to the GED test.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that pupils have to meet all the
requirements of high school and pass the test to get a high
school diploma.
JAMES POPHAM, IOX ASSESSMENT ASSOCIATES testified via the
teleconference network. He stated that he has developed
4
assessment tests and has testified regarding assessment
tests. He explained that the motivation behind assessment
tests is to increase the caliber of the education that the
State's children are receiving. He observed that Alaska is
in a position to profit from the experiences of other
states. He emphasized that the nature of the test is the
most important issue. He maintain that if the test is
inappropriate or cheaply purchased that education in Alaska
will not benefit.
Mr. Popham explained that the tests measure the important
knowledge and skills that legislators think a high school
student ought to possess before receiving a high school
diploma. He stated that if the test conceptualizes those
skills in a manner that the teachers of the state can
address then the test becomes a powerful catalyst to
improving the quality of the instruction. If the test is
not well designed it can be an impediment to high quality
instruction. The test functions as a curriculum magnet.
Whatever is assessed becomes a target of instruction for the
state's teachers. He cautioned against an "off the shelf"
test, such as a standardized achievement test. He noted
that these tests are not designed as instructional targets.
He observed that these tests cannot be defended in court.
He stated that it costs between $150 and $250 thousand
dollars to develop a test per subject matter. He stressed
that this level of funding has to be available to assure
that the test will withstand litigation.
Co-Chair Hanley observed that HB 146 provides that the
Department of Education develop and score the test. He
asked what areas are the most commonly tested.
Mr. Popham cautioned against installing measures of content
that would not be considered mainline for United States
citizens to possess, such as Alaska history. He stated that
it would be a violation of a child's constitutional right to
be refused a diploma for not passing a test on Alaska
history. He observed that most tests focus on reading,
language arts and mathematics. Newer tests have included
science and social studies. He noted that the first tests
were developed to assess basic skills. He noted that there
are four major areas reading/language arts, mathematics,
science, and social studies.
In response to a question by Representative Martin, Mr.
Popham noted that tests have been installed because
legislators did not believe that students were receiving a
proper education. Tests have been used as a lever to
increase quality. He cautioned that the installation of a
badly conceived test has negative impacts.
5
Representative Martin noted that legislators are expressing
the frustration of parents, employers and colleges. Mr.
Popham agreed that citizens have cried out for the tests.
He noted that tests, that are built properly, benefit
structural planning decisions and improve the quality of
schooling.
Representative Mulder asked if the scope was limited to only
reading, writing, and mathematics, would the State have a
more defensible test. Mr. Popham indicated that limiting
the subject matter would make it easier to build first rate,
legally defensible tests. He noted that there has been
ample experience and guidance in the area of basic skills.
He observed that the work of other states could be used.
Mr. Popham noted that educators and non-educators must
review each item for bias. Representatives of individual
minority groups must review each item. He emphasized that
it is too important not to do the job well.
Representative Mulder asked if the State would save money by
limiting the scope. Mr. Popham agreed that the State would
save money by limiting the scope. He emphasized that any
time an exotic area, such as social studies, is considered
the cost is greater. He noted that social studies includes
history, geography and government. He recommended that the
State start with what is well known.
Representative Martin maintained that if a person is going
to be a full citizen of America they must learn the full
political process.
(Tape Change, HFC 97-97, Side 2)
Mr. Popham observed that the inclusion alone of social
studies as a test area would not be contested in court.
However, if the test was not properly developed, with
involvement of all concerned constituencies, it could lead
to a court challenge. He stated that tests cost
approximately $200 to $250 thousand dollars per subject
area.
Co-Chair Hanley stated that the intent is to test for skills
versus understanding. He observed that the ability to read
allows learning in a lot of areas. He emphasized the
benefit of verbal and written communication. He asked how
often tests should be issued.
Mr. Popham recommended that the law not include all the
details. He stated that students should be given four years
notice that they are going to master the skills that are
going to be tested. He observed that no state has been able
6
to require testing with less than three years notice.
Students should begin testing in the ninth or tenth grade.
Multiple forms of the test are needed.
Co-Chair Therriault summarized that the first test would be
offered to ninth graders two years from now. The test would
be phased in over four years.
Mr. Popham stated that parents and children should be
notified in advance of the first test. He observed that
some lawsuits have claimed that students have been
emotionally marked by doing bad on the first test. Parents
should be given a sample test.
Representative Martin emphasized that parents and educators
need to be responsible. Mr. Popham stated that teachers and
administrators do not like testing. He agreed that the
focus should be on the educational delivery system. He
stressed that the notion is to have reform stimulated by the
tests.
Representative Grussendorf observed that many tests depend
on memory. He asked if a true skills test could be
constructed.
Ms. Buell stated that the Department of Education does not
have the expertise to construct the test. She referred to
the Alaska Student Content Standards. She observed that the
standards address learning in a more sophisticated way. She
stated that the CAT 5 could not be used as an exit exam.
Representative Martin MOVED to adopt Amendment 1 (copy on
file). He observed that the amendment incorporates
recommendations by Anchorage educators. Amendment 1 would
assess students at grades 4, 8 and 11. The amendment would
also require intervention plans to be developed to assist
students whose assessments reveal they have not mastered
skills required for the exit exam.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that there will be multiple
chances for students to be tested. He observed that school
districts can implement testing at earlier grades. He asked
if the fiscal impact of remedial instruction had been
considered. Representative Martin responded that he did not
know the impact of remedial instruction requirements.
Co-Chair Therriault reiterated that testing will occur in
grades 9 through 12. Representative Martin stressed that
testing should begin in earlier grades.
Ms. Buell explained that the Department will have bench
marks available to school districts, of what students will
7
need to know in each grade. Co-Chair Therriault observed
that most states administer exit tests in high school.
Co-Chair Hanley noted that under the amendment the
Department of Education would determine the examination, but
the district would set their own standards. Representative
Martin responded that perhaps the Department of Education
would be a better facilitator.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that individual districts
can do what they want to prepare their students. The State
establishes the hurdle for graduation.
Representative Martin noted frustration by teachers.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment
1.
IN FAVOR: Martin, Grussendorf, Foster, Kohring, Kelly
OPPOSED: Mulder, Davis, Hanley, Therriault
Representatives Moses and Davies were absent from the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (5-4).
Representative Mulder discussed Amendment 2 (copy on file).
Amendment 2 would delete the requirement for testing
science, and social science. He stated that the amendment
would leave in the basic areas of reading, writing and
mathematics. He stressed that the amendment would reduce
the fiscal note and future litigation costs.
Representative Kelly MOVED to rescind the Committee's action
in adopting Amendment 1. Representative Kelly expressed
concern with the fiscal cost of the amendment. There being
NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Martin spoke in support of Amendment 1. He
maintained that the amendment will be minor in relationship
to the failure of students in earlier school years. Co-
Chair Therriault asserted that establishment of the test
will cause school districts to reevaluate their students.
Representative Davis emphasized that the legislation has
been drafted around other states' experiences. He stressed
that the amendment should be addressed in separate
legislation. He stated that the legislation is the first
step. Representative Mulder agreed that HB 146 is the
starting point from which to expand. He emphasized that if
the legislation is too broad and encompassing it will fail.
8
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment
1.
IN FAVOR: Grussendorf, Kohring, Martin
OPPOSED: Mulder, Davis, Foster, Kelly, Moses,
Hanley, Therriault
Representative Davies was absent from the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (3-7).
Representative Mulder MOVED to adopt Amendment 2. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Mulder asked if the Department of Education's
fiscal note could be revised downward. Ms. Buell stated
that the Department's fiscal note was underestimated. She
stressed that the fiscal note is conservative. She observed
that the fiscal note did not anticipate implementation of
tests for two years. She observed that funding should be
transferred from personal services to the contractual line.
She stressed the need for expertise. She did not think the
fiscal impact of the first year would be changed. She
emphasized that if the test security is lost it has to be
redeveloped and reprinted.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Therriault, Ms. Buell
stated that additional clerical support should be
maintained. She noted that Department of Education staff
has to oversee security, confidentially, scoring, and
transmission of data. She estimated that one higher level
staff person could be eliminated. She observed that the
Department of Education currently has one person for all
assessment tests, with no clerical support. She noted that
this is almost the only general fund position that "does
this kind of thing". Other positions are supported with
federal funds. She emphasized that it is not possible to
redeploy staff from other tasks.
Co-Chair Hanley recounted that the cost to develop the test
is around $200 thousand dollars per test. He observed that
reading and English would be one test. He stressed that
only two tests would be developed.
Ms. Buell noted that travel is necessary to convene groups
of people who will scrutinize the test.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that the educational specialist II
position, at range 21A, costs $71,602 thousand dollars. He
suggested that this amount be removed from personal
services. He stated that he would support $400 thousand
dollars in contractual. Ms. Buell stated that this would be
9
the minimum amount needed. She maintained that reading is a
separate area from the rest of language arts.
Representative Kohring spoke against the legislation. He
questioned the cost of the legislation. Ms. Buell noted
that Hawaii's assessment budget is $500 thousand dollars per
year. Hawaii's student population is similar to Alaska's.
Representative Kohring emphasized the need to reduce the
budget.
Ms. Buell stressed that the Department of Education cannot
support the legislation if it is not adequately funded.
In response to comments by Representative Martin, Co-Chair
Therriault emphasized that tests have to be defensible in
court.
HB 146 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
(Tape Change, HFC 97-98, Side 1)
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|