Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/05/2014 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB82 | |
| SJR9 | |
| SB111 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 82 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 111 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SJR 9 | ||
SENATE BILL NO. 111
"An Act repealing the secondary student competency
examination and related requirements; and providing
for an effective date."
10:27:49 AM
SENATOR GARY STEVENS, introduced SB 111 and indicated that
the bill would repeal the high school exit exam. He
discussed the vote on the exit exam on the House Floor in
2001 and noted that it had passed 40-0. He recalled that at
the time, the issue had seemed very important because
students were graduating without basic skills for jobs,
careers, and college. The exit exams had been in effect
since 2004 and had been in operation for 10 years. He
offered that very little was gained through the exit exam
and that new accountability measures were in place that
made it obsolete. He discussed the new standards that had
been implemented and opined that it no longer made sense to
have the exit exam because it was not aligned to the new
state common score standards. He pointed out that the exit
exam was high stakes and that it caused enormous anxiety
among students, teachers, and parents. He recalled that
when the legislature had passed the exit exam, it had made
sense to him to establish a floor and that all children
should have certain abilities upon graduation; however, it
had become a ceiling and not a floor. He recalled that
children thought that if they passed the exit exam their
sophomore year, they were done with high school. He
reported that the exit exam was expensive to the state and
had a cost of $3 million annually; furthermore, it took 6
days out of the school year.
Senator Stevens continued to address the bill and related
that there was enormous support for repealing the exit exam
from students, parents, school boards, superintendents, the
State Board of Education, the commissioner of DEED, and the
governor.
Co-Chair Kelly inquired if Senator Stevens had a number for
how many people had a certificate of participation over
this period of time.
TIM LAMKIN, STAFF, SENATOR GARY STEVENS, responded that the
numbers could probably be extrapolated from the test
results in the packet, but deferred to DEED for a specific
number.
Co-Chair Kelly thought that the bill did not envision what
the state would do with the people that did not pass the
exit exam and had only received a certificate of
participation; he did not want to leave those people high
and dry. He recalled that the summer after he had voted on
the exit exam, he had more time to think about the issue
and had decided that he did not like the whole idea. He
stated that one of things he liked least about the exit
exam were the certificates of participation; he did not
want people from Alaska who received a certificate of
participation to be at a disadvantage against students from
other states who may have received the same education. He
wanted to make sure that people who had certificates of
participation while the exit exams were in effect received
credit for a high school education. He thought that a high
school diploma should be the test and that the state had
lost sight of that because it was eager to address an
ongoing education problem. He wanted to remember the people
who received certificates of participation during the
discussions on education.
10:33:34 AM
Senator Stevens stated that the exit exam was a national
movement and that the state had been caught up in the
excitement of it; however, in 10 years, it had not solved
the problem. He pointed out that it was important that
students that were in school this year knew that they had
to take the exit exam. The issue was far from being
resolved and students would still be taking the exam in the
current year; if students failed the exam, they would have
the opportunity to take it over and over again. He pointed
to the bill and noted that exam would still be in effect
till June 30, 2017 if the legislation passed. He noted that
should the bill pass, students who failed the test this
year would have 6 opportunities to retake the text before
it was abolished.
Senator Dunleavy inquired if there had ever been a study or
a look regarding how many employers had asked to see if a
student had passed all 3 parts of the high school
qualifying exam. Senator Stevens replied that he was
unsure, but that it represented a good question that would
be nice to know. He deferred further answer to the
administration.
Senator Olson inquired if Senator Stevens was saying that
the high school qualifying exam was totally ineffective and
that there had not been increases in SAT scores or other
college exams; he found it hard to believe that it did not
stimulate some students. Senator Stevens replied that there
were some changes, but that his youngest daughter had taken
the test her sophomore year in high school and had thought
it was sort of silly. He opined that some students saw the
exit exam as pretty much a waste of time.
Mr. Lamkin stated that there was information in members'
packets from DEED that showed test results of the full
lifespan of the exit exam from spring of 2004 to the last
test results in the spring 2013(copy on file); during that
time period, reading proficiency had raised from 70 percent
to 84 percent. During the same period, efficiency in
writing had dropped from 86 percent to 72 percent; the
biggest change during the exit exam was perhaps in
mathematics where proficiency increased from 67 percent to
77 percent.
Senator Stevens noted that there were some changes that
took place over the 10 years that the exit exam had been in
place.
Senator Olson wondered if the sponsors viewed the 10
percent increase in math, as well as the other increases as
a positive thing. Senator Stevens replied that it was
absolutely a positive for the districts, but that exam did
not fit into the new standards that had been approved by
the governor or the commissioner of DEED that were based on
the new common core standards. He added that the exit exam
did not align with what the current goal was for children
in Alaska.
10:37:54 AM
Co-Chair Meyer supported the bill and thought that it was
something that should have been done several years prior.
He expressed appreciation for the positive fiscal note and
thought that there should be more bills like it. He thought
that the bill would save the school districts a substantial
amount of money by eliminating the administration and
preparation for the test. Senator Stevens replied that the
money that would be saved, as well as putting 6 days back
in the classroom was a real positive thing.
Senator Stevens pointed out that repealing the exit exam
was part of the governor's omnibus bill and assumed that it
would be the vehicle for the effort; however, should that
legislation falter along the way, SB 111 would be there.
Co-Chair Meyer agreed that repealing the exit exam would
probably be part of the omnibus bill, but that the issue
was important enough that the committee would want it to go
as a stand-alone bill if necessary.
TODD POAGE, SUPERINTENDENT, ALASKA GATEWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
TOK (via teleconference), spoke in support of SB 111. He
pointed out that he had supported the exit exam because it
brought attention to a level of academic proficiency that
each student needed to obtain to receive a high school
diploma; students took the assessment seriously because of
the consequences associated with not passing. He reported
that the exit exam was no longer relevant since the new
Alaska academic standards had been reformed in math and
language arts. He related that if another high stakes
assessment tool was developed, the Alaska Gateway School
District supported one that incorporated essential skills
required for college and intertwined work-force readiness
skills. The district also supported the development and
implementation of an online assessment tool to increase
testing efficiency, so student answers were submitted and
results were received in a timelier manner. He concluded
that a new high-stakes test did not have to be a
requirement for graduation, but could be an inserted emblem
on a diploma that contained a designated score that
indicated readiness for college classes. He thought that a
new exam could designate levels of eligibility for Alaska
Performance Scholarships.
10:42:53 AM
Senator Dunleavy inquired what kind of feedback the
department had received over the years regarding the exit
exams and colleges. He inquired if colleges and employers
looked at the exit exam. Mr. Morse responded that an
employer looked for if a student had a diploma or not and
that passing the exit exam was required for a diploma. He
reported that the only true feedback was from people at the
university that the exam did not provide the level of
information needed to be able to tell if a student had the
required math skills because of the minimum competency
approach. He added that many employers asked for and
required a high school diploma.
10:44:24 AM
Senator Dunleavy inquired if there was any feedback from
employers that they were focusing on the high school
qualifying exam as a crucial part of that overall portfolio
of graduation. Mr. Morse replied in the negative.
ERNIE MANZIE, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
testified in favor of SB 111. He pointed out that it had
been asserted that repealing the exam took away an
accountability aspect, but that he did not agree with that.
He strongly supported the other assessments such as the SAT
and ACT. He strongly supported WorkKeys and opined that it
was a wonderful assessment that targeted students that
possibly were not going on to a 4-year college; it targeted
students that were looking for technical colleges or
careers in the trades. He recalled serving on the
Governor's Council on Disabilities and Special Education
and pointed out that students on Individualized Education
Programs (IEP) had difficulties with having the exit exam
placed on them. He pointed out that he was a parent of
child that was on an IEP all through elementary, middle,
and most of high school and that his son had passed his
writing exam on this last chance. The qualifying exam had
not told his family anything it did not already know, which
was that his son was a poor writer; how they addressed his
son's poor writing was through his IEP and working with
high school staff. He did not think that a qualified exam
in itself should serve as a barrier to a diploma. He
expressed appreciation for the comments of Co-Chair Kelly
regarding what to do with students who met all of the other
requirements but had not passed the exit exam and
therefore, did not receive a diploma.
In response to an earlier question by Senator Dunleavy, Mr.
Manzie thought that employers looked at whether someone had
a high school diploma or not. He added that he had never
heard of employers asking questions about whether someone
had passed the exit exam.
SB 111 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
10:49:12 AM
Co-Chair Meyer discussed the following meeting's agenda.