Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 106
03/27/2008 03:00 PM House HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB285 | |
| HB386 | |
| HB306 | |
| HB358 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 285 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 386 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 358 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 306 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 285-STATE INTERVENTION IN SCHOOL DISTRICT 3:06:36 PM CHAIR WILSON announced that the first order of business would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 285(FIN), "An Act relating to the power and duties of the Department of Education and Early Development for improving instructional practices in school districts; and providing for an effective date." 3:07:38 PM TIM LAMKIN, Staff to Senator Gary Stevens, Alaska State Legislature, informed the committee that SB 285 was a direct result of the Moore v. State court case that clarified that the legislature has a constitutional obligation to establish and maintain a system of public schools. The judge ruled that the legislature has met its requirement to fund schools, but has failed to maintain those schools. Further, where schools have failed to meet adequate yearly progress, local control must give way to legislative oversight that is delegated to the Department of Education and Early Development (EED). Mr. Lamkin, reading from the court case, remarked: The court finds that the education clause requires the state to take ultimate responsibility for ensuring that each child in the state is accorded a meaningful opportunity to achieve proficiency in writing, math, reading, and science. ... The evidence at trial clearly established that considerably greater oversight by the state over the education of Alaska's children, at least at the state's most seriously underperforming schools is critically needed. ... In order to achieve compliance with the education clause requirements, to maintain a system of public schools, the state must do, at a minimum, two things. First, it must establish clear standards for school districts that are necessary for the districts to retain full local control. Second, the state must exercise considerably more oversight and provide considerably more assistance and direction to those schools that are identified as failing to meet the state's constitutional obligation. Finally, this court has found that the state has violated the education clause in one significant respect; although the state may delegate its responsibility to maintain public schools to local school districts as it has done, it has failed to exercise adequate supervision and oversight. MR. LAMKIN concluded that this bill would provide the means for the EED to exercise the required supervision when needed. 3:11:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER clarified that Version L was before the committee. 3:11:24 PM MR. LAMKIN explained each section of the bill. He pointed out that page 3 of the bill provides clear guidelines as to when an intervention by the EED into a local district school district would occur. Mr. Lamkin called the committee's attention to page 5, line 1, that specified "employees that are in a supervisory capacity over instructional practices." This identified principals and superintendents. Further, throughout the bill, the word "withhold" was replaced by "redirect." Finally, on page 3, there was a minor oversight of a correction. 3:13:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES observed that one of the points from the court case states that when a school is deficient, an intervention occurs throughout the school district based on the performance of one school in the district. 3:14:47 PM MR. LAMKIN responded that it was not the purpose of the bill to affect an entire school district. The language of the bill allows the EED to intervene specifically at the school, or schools, that are deficient. 3:15:03 PM CHAIR WILSON asked how the EED would determine an intervention was necessary. 3:15:31 PM EDDY JEANS, Director, School Finance and Facilities Section, Department of Education and Early Development, spoke first to Representative Roses' question and stated that on page 5, [subparagraph] (A), the language allows for "supervisory authority for instructional practices in the district or in a specified school." 3:16:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked, "Who determines the or?" 3:16:07 PM MR. JEANS answered that the EED would make the determination. 3:16:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES further asked what guidelines would be used. 3:16:27 PM MR. JEANS explained that this legislation was to allow the EED to supervise at the individual school level, as requested by the court. The district as a whole would still be accounted for by the standards under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). 3:17:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES gave an example in which a school is deemed deficient and intervention begins. He asked whether the EED advisors would address the concerns only to the personnel of the deficient school or to the entire district. 3:17:46 PM MR. JEANS reminded the committee that proposed regulations allow for a school level component that focuses on individual schools. This would direct the EED to work with the district administration and school board to develop a school improvement plan for a single school, or multiple schools, as necessary. REPRESENTATIVE ROSES opined that the language in the bill did not make that distinction. MR. JEANS affirmed that the EED does have a desk audit and intervention strategy for districts in separate regulations. 3:19:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES observed that this discussion is to clarify the distinction and intent of the bill. He noted that there is concern from school districts on this issue. 3:19:22 PM MR. LAMKIN pointed out the letter of intent provided in the committee packet. 3:19:53 PM CHAIR WILSON recalled that the committee previously used the tests scores from NCLB assessments to determine failing schools. She asked what the procedure would be after the passage of SB 285. MR. JEANS explained that the common thread between state intervention and NCLB is the use of the same data. However, the state intervention is guided by regulations from the State Board of Education. First, the school must meet its annual yearly progress (AYP); second, 50 percent of the students must be proficient; third, the students must show growth. If there is no growth, the intervention process begins. 3:22:15 PM CHAIR WILSON surmised that, in the first year, a school might be put on notice. 3:22:31 PM MR. JEANS indicated that, if decreases were apparent in student proficiencies in one year, there would not be any hesitancy on the part of the EED to contact the school and begin a school level improvement plan, including training and possibly the assignment of a school coach. 3:24:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER referred to page 3, line 25, that directs the EED to inform the legislature before intervention. She asked how this requirement would affect the timing of an intervention. 3:24:56 PM LES MORSE, Director, Assessment and Accountability, Department of Education and Early Development, informed the committee that assessments take place in April and school progress determinations would be final, and are analyzed, in August. He pointed out that analysis is not solely based on annual AYP, but on other data also. 3:25:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER further asked whether a decision made in August would be delayed until the legislature convenes in January. 3:26:02 PM MR. JEANS said no. The bill does not require approval by the legislature to intervene, but that the legislature would be provided notice of any action. 3:26:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER advised that the bill states [page 3, line 26] that the legislature would receive notification before intervention. 3:27:16 PM SENATOR GARY STEVENS, Alaska State Legislature, stressed that the legislature can not abandon its responsibility; even during interim, meetings would be held by committees to shoulder this responsibility and to maintain the legislature's involvement. 3:28:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER expressed her concern that establishing in statute that the legislature must be informed before an intervention, may be an impediment to the EED. 3:29:01 PM MR. JEANS opined that this requirement would not be an impediment, but would simply require written notice to the committee chair of each body that an intervention was necessary. CHAIR WILSON indicated the propriety of notification. 3:29:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER referred to the transcript of the Moore v State case and read: Mr. Slotnick said, speaking to the judge, "As far as the legislature taking action, the legislature is going to do what it does. We don't know if it will take any action or not, but as far as what the state Department of Education is doing, that's in progress, that's not going to change, and even if there were action taken by the legislature that wouldn't change the improvement plans that we have in place that we're implementing right now. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER then questioned whether SB 285 was necessary. 3:31:09 PM MR. JEANS assured the committee that SB 285 clarifies that the legislature supports interventions by the EED in schools. When the EED intervenes through NCLB, the first question from the local district is whether it has the authority to act; this legislation will remove the question of local control. 3:31:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA opined that the state should support schools in a constructive way. She then referred to page 3, line 27, that read "withholding public school funding" and asked whether "redirecting public school funding" would be more appropriate. 3:33:44 PM MR. LAMKIN agreed and indicated that the language would be changed in the forthcoming committee substitute (CS). 3:34:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked whether the school coaches are adequately trained to assist schools in rural communities such as South Naknek, in a supportive and cooperative effort. 3:35:42 PM MR. JEANS acknowledged that South Naknek is unique; however, its situation is not new. The high school students have been flying across the river for many years, and now the population has declined and the decision was made at the local level to close the grade school. Previous legislation dictated that a school must have ten students to receive funding at a separate site. On the other hand, this legislation was to help improve student achievement at schools that are not making progress in instructional practices. Mr. Eddy stated that past interventions have resulted in increases in student achievement in all of the districts affected. 3:37:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER referred to the gains that schools have made after intervention and asked Mr. Jeans whether, in some cases, outside factors can not be overcome. 3:38:26 PM MR. JEANS accepted that possibility; however, the state would need to be able to demonstrate to the courts that the EED has made every effort within the confines of the school to increase achievement. 3:38:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated his support for the concept of the bill. Furthermore, the state has taken steps beyond this legislation to prove to the court that adequate and equitable adjustments across the state are being made by the implementation of area cost differentials to ensure equitable opportunities for education. Also, the state is making adjustments in school transportation costs. Addressing the concerns of intensive needs students is another prescriptive measure taken. He stressed that the problem will not be solved immediately, however, the state has demonstrated its understanding of the problem and prescriptive measures toward solutions are underway. Representative Roses pointed out that the court's decision covered K through 12 education, which includes charter, home, and correspondence schools. Thus, the Joint Legislative Education Funding Task Force began the work required, and he indicated that the court should acknowledge this first step. Representative Roses warned that one bill will not provide all of the strategies needed. 3:43:02 PM MR. JEANS reminded the committee that the state won the lawsuit in the area concerning whether the state provides adequate funds for education. The point that the judge made was that sufficient oversight was not being provided in areas where students are not meeting proficiencies. He opined that this legislation responds to the ruling by the judge by giving the EED the clear authority to intervene in individual schools. 3:44:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES gave the example of the intervention of the Northwest Arctic School District. He expressed his understanding that three of the twelve schools were identified by the instructional audit, but the intervention was district wide. 3:44:45 PM MR. JEANS disagreed. 3:45:14 PM MR. MORSE explained that an instructional audit was done in three schools for data on the school district. In addition, data from 2005 was compared and indicated that eight of the twelve schools had declined in performance. Furthermore, ten of the schools had not made AYP for several years. Mr. Morse pointed out that site visits are representative of what is happening in the district. In response to a question, he indicated that sites are picked for their ability to represent the district. 3:46:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES related his experience with irrelevant in- services. He questioned the wisdom of redirecting funds that are needed for programs. On the other hand, perhaps effective districts should be rewarded. He then asked for an explanation of what the long range impact is to a school that must redirect funding from programs due to an intervention. 3:49:32 PM MR. MORSE explained how a lack of efficiency was identified in another school district. The EED assisted the district with changes in curriculum and funding redirection resulted in gains within a short period of time. 3:51:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES reminded the committee that every department in the state has a supplemental budget, except for the school districts. He expressed his concern that the redirection of funds, without a mechanism to recapture those funds, could have a negative impact on schools. 3:52:10 PM CHAIR WILSON asked for the funding source that pays coaches who go to the schools. 3:52:28 PM MR. JEANS stated that the fiscal note includes over $200,000 that would be used to hire the coaches, as well as the redirected funds. He cautioned against requiring the districts to pay for the coaches. 3:53:12 PM CHAIR WILSON agreed that there is a negative impact of redirecting money from a district's instructional budget to provide funds for a coach. She supported the fiscal note accompanying the bill. Chair Wilson then invited public testimony. 3:54:32 PM NORMAN ECK, PhD; Superintendent, Northwest Arctic Borough School District, stated that he was speaking as an individual and indicated his support for SB 285 and the improvements that have been made to the original bill. He agreed that this bill is a first step in acknowledging the constitutional right of all children to be successful academically. Dr. Eck described how the intervention occurred in his district, and explained that prior to that action, a district wide improvement plan was in progress. His school district was pleased to partner with the EED in the intervention and expects to continue to see student growth. The three schools in his district that were subject to intervention had flat line performances over a period of time and they are now experiencing growth. However, he said that a more focused approach would be superior as teachers in successful schools are unnecessarily included in intervention strategies. Furthermore, the fiscal note accompanying SB 285 is inadequate as schools in rural areas do not have the infrastructure, such as school psychologists and speech pathologists, to make a difference. He suggested a pool of $5 million that would be available to the five school districts identified for intervention. Dr. Eck summarized that the EED has been communicative with his district on the issues of the intervention; nevertheless, there were errors and flaws in the execution of the task. In fact, there were some harmful aspects to the intervention, and he cited a 50 percent turnover in staff that has occurred as a consequence. Dr. Eck advised the committee that SB 285 was legislation that was necessary for an in-depth examination of all of the issues. 4:03:08 PM CHAIR WILSON closed public testimony, and stated her intent to hold the bill. 4:03:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH recalled the statement made by the superintendent that "the department should have been ready." She expressed her belief that the school district should have been ready and pointed out that the EED communicated with the school district on the program and analysis of the intervention. Additionally, she agreed that an intervention by the state should do no harm. Representative Fairclough then opined that the state should establish best teaching practices statewide and intervention is necessary when progress is not being made. She remarked: We do listen and we cogitate, and we re-think and we debate, but it doesn't mean that it's a statement of fact, just because it's said on the record. 4:05:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Mr. Morse for the definition of proficiency as used in the language of the bill to determine the end date of an intervention and to measure growth. 4:06:33 PM MR. MORSE explained that there are four levels of proficiency; far below, below, proficient, and advanced. The EED looks at how many students are proficient and advanced, not just whether there has been an improvement from far below to below. Therefore, there must be a two percent increase in groups of students moving into proficiency in each of the content areas of reading, writing, and math, for three consecutive years. 4:07:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that the percentage of students moving from proficient to advanced, or from far below to below, has no effect. 4:08:29 PM MR. MORSE said that is correct. The ultimate goal is for every child to be proficient, at the minimum. 4:08:54 PM CHAIR WILSON observed that a below proficient student would increase by two percent. MR. MORSE stated that that is the group that would need to make gains. 4:09:14 PM CHAIR WILSON opined that the language of the bill differs from Mr. Morse's statement. MR. MORSE assured the committee of the intent of the bill. 4:10:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether "proficiency" is the measure, or is it the two percent student growth. He surmised that the two percent increase is in the number of students that pass the line from below proficient to above proficient. Measurements of students that move from proficient to advanced would not yield an increase in proficiency. 4:11:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES warned about the type of assessment that focuses all of the energy and resources on bringing below proficient percentages up, at the expense of maintaining a steady percentage of advanced students. 4:12:32 PM MR. MORSE responded that the growth of all the students in a school is monitored. In finding an exit strategy to end an intervention, an attempt was made to create a line that would be clear enough to indicate a means for proficiency. He assured the committee that growth factors are always measured in the accountability systems. 4:13:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated that teaching to mediocrity is his concern. It should not be the intent, or the goal, to focus on the students who need to attain proficiency; the intent should be for every student to increase and individual growth should be measured. 4:14:43 PM MR. MORSE said that is correct. 4:14:46 PM CHAIR WILSON announced that SB 285 would be held.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|