Legislature(2013 - 2014)EAGLE RIVER
06/18/2014 08:00 AM House ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION REVIEW
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Implementation and Effectiveness of Teacher Evaluation Systems | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
Eagle River, Alaska
June 18, 2014
8:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lora Reinbold, Chair
Representative Geran Tarr
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Cathy Giessel, Vice Chair
Representative Mike Hawker
Senator Gary Stevens
Senator Hollis French
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative Tammie Wilson (via teleconference)
Representative Sam Kito (via teleconference)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF TEACHER EVALUATION SYSTEMS
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
SANDRA STOSTKY, Ed.D, Professor Emerita
University of Arkansas
Brookline, Massachusetts
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concern with tying teacher
evaluations with a single test.
ANDY HOLLEMAN, President
Anchorage Education Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided remarks on the teacher evaluation
system.
MARK VANARSDALE, Parent & Technology Coordinator
Eagle River High School
Anchorage School District
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with the teacher
evaluation system.
MATT PRNKA, Teacher
Eagle River High School
Anchorage School District
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with the teacher
evaluation system.
GLENN MORDINE, Retired Teacher, Administrator
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided remarks regarding Alaska's teacher
evaluation system.
RICK SMITH, Teacher
(No address provided.)
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concern with the proposed teacher
evaluation system.
LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing teacher evaluation systems,
answered questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:07:41 AM
CHAIR LORA REINBOLD called the Administrative Regulation Review
Committee meeting to order at 8:07 a.m. Representatives Tarr
and Reinbold were present at the call to order. Also in
attendance were Representatives Gattis, T. Wilson (via
teleconference), and Kito III (via teleconference).
^Implementation and Effectiveness of Teacher Evaluation Systems
Implementation and Effectiveness of Teacher Evaluation Systems
8:08:43 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD announced that the only order of business would
be to hear public testimony from teachers across the state
regarding the teacher evaluation regulation adopted by the
Alaska State Board of Education & Early Development in December
2012. She stated that there was overwhelming concern regarding
these regulations, in fact, over 800 public comments were
received by the Department of Education and Early Development
(EED) during the public comment period, and the majority of the
comments were in opposition to the regulations. The main
concerns were with regard to confidentiality, student data
collection, and the evaluation of student scope and performance.
During the December 6-7, 2012 board meetings, an amendment was
adopted that changed the student scope and performance from a
base of 20 percent in fiscal year 2015-2017, to 36 percent in
2017-2018, and to 50 percent in 2018-2019. Therefore, by 2018,
50 percent of a teacher's evaluation will be determined by
student growth and performance, including performance on one
standardized test, she explained. Chair Reinbold opined that
the aforementioned criterion does not take into consideration
variables outside the control of the classroom teacher. This
change to the regulation, she pointed out, is based on a public
comment submitted by the governor, and the teachers were not
provided sufficient time to comment on the proposed change.
Therefore, this hearing is to provide teachers the opportunity
to voice their concerns with the change and to hear EED's
reasoning behind the regulations and the amendment.
8:10:27 AM
SANDRA STOTSKY, Ed.D, speaking on her own behalf, informed the
committee that she is a former member of the Massachusetts
Department of Education where she was a senior associate
commissioner from 1999-2003. She further informed the committee
that she was a member of the Common Core Validation Committee
and is now a retired professor of education reform from the
University of Arkansas.
[Due to a technical difficulty, there is no audio from 8:13 a.m.
to 8:17 a.m. and the audio of Mr. Holleman's testimony begins
mid-testimony.]
8:17:37 AM
ANDY HOLLEMAN, President, Anchorage Education Association, [poor
quality audio] indicated concern with regard to the small amount
of data. He discussed using test scores of students to evaluate
teachers and expressed the desire to delay [that portion of the
teacher evaluation system] until there is more (indisc.)
regarding its accuracy.
8:18:42 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD inquired as to how Mr. Holleman would recommend
grading students [and evaluating teachers] if not based on
student growth.
MR. HOLLEMAN [poor quality audio and most of his response is
indiscernible]. Mr. Holleman opined that [teachers should be
evaluated] via classroom observations to identify any problems
and develop a plan of improvement for the teacher.
8:21:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR [poor quality audio that is indiscernible].
MR. HOLLEMAN [poor quality audio that is indiscernible].
8:21:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR [poor quality audio that is indiscernible]
related her understanding that the goal is to identify [problems
with teachers] early to intervene appropriately.
MR. HOLLEMAN [poor quality audio that is indiscernible] opined
that at the end of the year, if there is not a lot of growth,
the principal should address it.
8:25:01 AM
MARK VANARSDALE, Parent and Technology Coordinator, Eagle River
High School, Anchorage School District, speaking first as a
parent of a learning disabled student, expressed great concern
with the up to 50 percent of data used to evaluate his son's
teacher. He related that his son is a chronically flat
performer on any type of [written] evaluation, particularly a
formative or summative database test. He said his son has been
blessed with some wonderful special education teachers, but "my
son would disproportionally make his teachers look terrible."
All of his teachers who have worked with him have great concern
for his son's overall growth as a person as well as
academically. However, he opined, when it comes to any type of
written assessment, his son would disproportionately negatively
impact his teachers. Mr. VanArsdale opined that obtaining
quality special education teachers is remarkably difficult.
Therefore, he expressed concern that for special education
teachers with low class sizes and poor performers like his son,
tying 50 percent of their evaluation to student data would make
them look bad when in fact they are remarkable. From a parent
perspective, Mr. VanArsdale expressed fear that this type of
evaluation system would become very punitive in nature rather
than incentivizing better instruction. Speaking as a teacher,
he informed the committee that he is a technology collaborator
for Eagle River High School, and therefore he is a specialist.
He explained that although he carries one to two student classes
per year, there is no formal test to evaluate his performance as
a technology collaborator. However, he pointed out, if he does
not do his job, many teachers in the building cannot do their
jobs. Furthermore, he said, there are a large number of
educators who will be evaluated who are not language arts and
math teachers. Noting that he is not opposed to the use of data
[in teacher evaluations], he opined that the use of 50 percent
of data in the evaluation of teachers ties the hands of
principals, whose main objective is to build a group of good
educators into better educators by evaluating them in meaningful
ways.
8:31:02 AM
MATT PRNKA, Teacher, Eagle River High School, Anchorage School
District, expressed concern regarding the definition of growth,
particularly for those teachers with special needs students who
are on the lower end of academic achievement. He said that the
lack of growth could destroy a teacher's [evaluation] score. On
the other end of the spectrum, there are teachers with a large
number of honors and above-average students who are already
performing above the state test scores at the beginning of the
school year. Therefore, they will still score above average at
the end of the school year, which technically means there is no
growth. In such a situation, he questioned whether that would
be detrimental to the teacher's evaluation score. Mr. Prnka
then expressed concern for the many teachers of courses that
cannot be assessed by standardized tests, such as theatre,
debate, choir, and physical education.
8:34:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked if anyone has an idea of a different
way to implement teacher evaluations rather than the one in
regulations, such as a more collaborative approach in which
families are involved. She spoke of students who are challenged
by bad home situations, where things that should be happening at
home to help a child learn are not happening, and the teachers
can be limited in their impacts.
MR. PRNKA, drawing from his experience with individualized
education program (IEP) committees with various other education
professionals, students, and their families, indicated that
having multiple people reviewing a student's learning and
achievement levels from their various perspectives and
specialties can be positive; "multiple pairs of eyes can really
take something apart and look for ways of improvement."
However, he didn't see how such could be achieved for all
students merely due to the time involved. He mentioned parent
teacher conference nights that can provide great insight into a
student's life outside of the classroom, but it's a short
timeframe and is voluntary in terms of parent and student
attendance.
8:38:41 AM
GLENN MORDINE, Retired Teacher, Administrator, (Indisc. - poor
quality audio throughout this testimony) speaking as a retired
teacher and administrator, reviewed his past involvement in
teaching, including his time as a special education teacher and
director of special education programs. He indicated a
difference between [the views of] standardized testing in low-
income schools and high-income schools. He pointed out that the
federal law, IEP, trumps state and local laws for special needs
students. Mr. Mordine said that he could understand the
frustration of teachers as one cannot generalize about a group
of students and expect the same outcome from all of them. He
emphasized the need to consider special needs students as they
cannot be held to the same standard as [non-special needs
students] unless there is agreement from the parent and
educator.
8:43:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS inquired as to how Mr. Mordine's testimony
may have changed the testimony of others had he testified first.
MR. VANARSDALE maintained concern with 50 percent of the teacher
evaluation being based upon student data, as special education
teachers can be disproportionately impacted by the poor
performance of a few students.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS surmised, then, that Mr. VanArsdale is
concerned with the low student-to-teacher ratio, particularly in
special education, as it could skew the evaluations for the
teacher.
MR. VANARSDALE highlighted how difficult it is to get special
education teachers and how their small student-teacher ratio [in
conjunction with this evaluation criterion] could make it worse.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS offered, on the other hand, that perhaps
more people would be attracted to become special education
teachers because of the low student-teacher ratios that could
provide a greater opportunity to excel, and "the opposite could
be true as well."
MR. VANARSDALE pointed out the unreliability of information from
very small sets of data.
8:48:28 AM
SANDRA STOSTKY, Ed.D, Professor Emerita, University of Arkansas,
expressed great concern that a decision was made to tie teacher
evaluations to any percent of a single test, especially not 50
percent, without having testing experts talking to the state
board of education or the Governor about the problems with a
single test and a test based on Common Core standards. She said
there is no professional basis for tying any percentage of the
score to a test that is based on standards that have been
validated. "We need to go back, and think how you use a test
that isn't even going to be vetted by Alaska reviewers that will
be used to evaluate teachers when the test is based on standards
themselves that have not been validated." Even if the test is
based on Alaska's standards, which are almost identical to the
Common Core standards that are not internationally benchmarked
or research-based. The result is to base 50 percent of a
teacher's evaluation on a dubious test based on dubious
standards. She opined that the aforementioned is neither
professional nor fair to the teachers. In fact, she said she
was not sure how student growth would be evaluated, because
value-added methodologies have been subjected to a great deal of
criticism. She suggested that perhaps the effort to hold
teachers [accountable] would be better placed if there were
tougher licensure tests for prospective teachers and
administrators. She further suggested that Alaska's use of the
Praxis test for elementary teachers and other specialists should
be reviewed by EED. Dr. Stotsky, noting that she was on the
National Mathematics Advisory Committee, informed the committee
that research has shown that the only characteristic of an
effective teacher is mastery of subject matter. Although
mastery of subject matter should be placed first, somewhere, and
it is not included in the professional standards as the
priority. Therefore, subject matter mastery should be addressed
rather than tying evaluations of teacher, who have been prepared
without a focus on mastery of subject matter, to student scores
from a test that is based on non-internationally benchmarked and
non-research-based standards.
8:52:42 AM
DR. STOTSKY, in response to Representative Gattis, confirmed
that research shows that teachers need to know the subject they
are teaching; this is what the research shows. Dr. Stotsky said
what matters is the correlation between a teacher's mastery of
the subject and improvement in student scores. In further
response to Representative Gattis, Dr. Stotsky opined that the
basis for evaluating teachers is whether they can knowledgably,
sensibly, and rationally teach the content for what they are
licensed to teach. The aforementioned is what a good
administrator used to be able to review when they observed a
teacher's classroom, she added. How well a teacher teaches a
subject is based on the pedagogy they are supposed learn, which
is built on the teacher's academic knowledge of the subject
matter. [The teacher evaluation system in Alaska] does not get
at the aforementioned because of the problem with the test and
the standards on which they are based.
8:56:11 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD inquired as to number of people on the Validating
Committee for the Common Core standards. She also inquired as
to who on the committee had research-based experience with
curriculum and had an understanding of what good standards are.
DR. STOTSKY answered that by the end of 2010, there were 29
people on the committee of which 5 did not sign off on the
standards as internationally benchmarked, researched-based, or
rigorous. She explained that the Validation Committee consisted
of only one English language arts standards expert, herself, and
only one mathematician, and he had a PhD in mathematics; both
she and the mathematics expert did not sign off on the
standards. Although there were other members referred to as
math experts, they were all located in Departments of Education
or had doctoral degrees in mathematics education. Dr. Stotsky
emphasized that the Common Core standards have yet to be
internationally benchmarked in the years since they were
adopted, which was practically overnight, by a variety of
different states. She highlighted that some states changed the
name of the standards so that it would look as if they were not
the Common Core standards, although they essentially were.
8:58:35 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD inquired as to why she did not validate the
Common Core standards.
DR. STOTSKY explained that she did not validate the English
language arts standards because they were not internationally
benchmarked, which is also one of the reasons why the expert
mathematician did not validate the math standards. Furthermore,
the standards were not research-based, which was related to how
the standards were organized in that 50 percent of what teachers
teach in K-12 is referred to as informational text and literary
study has to be reduced to about 50 percent in the English
class. The English language arts standards emphasized writing
more than reading, which is in opposition to 100 years of
research on the topic.
9:00:07 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD inquired as to how the Alaska Academic Standards
compare to the Common Core standards.
DR. STOTSKY replied that the Alaska Academic Standards for
English language arts seem identical, except for the
introductory material.
9:01:45 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD related that she initially was open-minded about
the Common Core standards and then she became a skeptic, and now
she is really questioning whether the Common Core is right for
Alaska. She then asked if the Common Core is more rigorous or
just different, particularly with the English language arts
(ELA) subject.
DR. STOTSKY stated that the ELA standards are inappropriate at
the primary grade level in many ways, because they ask for
writing that small children simply cannot do yet. "I wouldn't
call that rigor; I would simply call it inappropriateness," she
added. Rigor means more challenging academically, Dr. Stotsky
said, and there is nothing at the high school level that is more
challenging academically in Common Core standards than what was
already available in many states. "Common Core is so mediocre
that it cannot help but drag Alaskan students down," she opined.
She further opined that the Common Core does not include
anything that will challenge students, as the standards really
reflect skills rather than content. The ELA standards are not
rigorous, she reiterated.
9:05:26 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD related her understanding that WorkKeys, ACT, and
SAT are all aligned with the Common Core standards.
DR. STOTSKY agreed that appears to be the case, but she hears
different messages from those who represent ACT and SAT. "Many
of them are trying to say both things simultaneously," she
stated. When David Coleman became the head of the College
Boards in March, he said he was going to align the SATs to the
level of Common Core, "which means they would be aligned
downward," as would the AP tests, she opined. The SAT sounds
like it will be easier. She suggested that the higher education
institutions in Alaska should come together to develop a
matriculation test-that means that high school graduates would
have to aim for this test in order to get into one of Alaska's
higher education institutions. She added that Alaska does not
need the SAT, WorkKeys, or ACT, it needs tests developed by its
own educators for Alaska students.
9:07:33 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD then inquired as to Dr. Stotsky's view of 50
percent of a teacher's evaluation being linked to [test scores].
DR. STOTSKY characterized it as a very bad idea as it is unfair
to teachers and makes no sense for anyone who understands
testing and measurements. The tests are based on standards that
have not been validated. She questioned how the governor could
have made such a recommendation on his own or how a state board
could have even approved and incorporated such a recommendation
without having hearings with testing experts.
9:09:20 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD highlighted that www.act.org specifies that the
ACT is pleased to be an active partner with Common Core state
standard initiatives. She then related her understanding that
the university is aligned to the Common Core standards.
DR. STOTSKY informed the committee that in the [Race to Top]
application for a waiver, states had to commit to obtaining
cooperation of higher education faculty that students who passed
a college-readiness test will be able to take credit-bearing
classes in their freshman year of college. Any test based on
Common Core-like standards will result in students with 8th
grade or Algebra I level mathematics going to a higher education
institution. Therefore, university mathematics departments will
have to ensure the mathematics courses are accessible to them.
The aforementioned, she emphasized, makes it important for
higher education to become involved in terms of vetting tests
used with state standards.
9:12:39 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD recalled that at a recent Board of Regents
meeting one of the academic officials said [the university
system] is in alignment with the national agenda and set on
obtaining more data. She noted that many Alaskan students are
not going to attend higher education schools in Alaska.
Moreover, she stressed the need for the university to focus on
excellence in order to attract students.
DR. STOTSKY expressed the need to have details of the national
agenda, particularly in terms of the level of knowledge in an
academic area. In further response to Chair Reinbold, Dr.
Stotsky said that professors will not pay attention to high
school standards unless invited to do so.
9:15:43 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD asked if there is any correlation between the
NCLB [No Child Left Behind] waiver and the Common Core
initiative.
DR. STOTSKY explained that the U.S. Department of Education
waiver was an effort to let states off the hook that were
committed under NCLB to have all students reach the level of
"proficient" by 2014. All states knew they could not achieve
proficiency with all of their students, and many asked and
received waivers, but the waivers commit the states to adopting
Common Core standards and the tests associated with them. "In
other words, they come with strings attached," she stated. "If
Alaska wants strings, that's a choice your governor [and] your
legislature can make."
9:17:29 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD expressed frustration that the State Board of
Education and EED moved forward with adopting the standards and
applying for a waiver without consent/involvement of the
legislature.
DR. STOTSKY remarked that most legislatures were in the dark,
but pointed out that it is never too late to determine to what
the state is committed as there will certainly be bills.
CHAIR REINBOLD said that is why she has the EED on line. She
noted that it has been very difficult obtaining information
regarding funding and the [structure] of the total package in
terms of the strings/costs associated with the federal
requirements. She said she is glad the EED is on line and she
will be asking, again, what the federal mandates are. The train
is going very fast, and the legislature is overlooked, she
opined. Chair Reinbold emphasized the need for the elected
officials to listen to teachers and parents on these matters and
to have authority and oversight on education. She said she is
studying the waiver.
9:19:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS said she did not think that Alaska applied
for Race to the Top money, and she inquired as to what an
international benchmark is, and how that may apply to Alaska
state standards.
DR. STOTSKY explained that international benchmarking determines
whether a course's standards are comparable to those in high-
achieving countries, most of which are Asian countries. Experts
in the topics need to compare the subjects across the countries.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS pointed out the huge hurdles and concerns
with measuring domestically, and asked why it is necessary to
measure internationally.
DR. STOTSKY clarified that international benchmarking matters
legally, particularly since those who created the Common Core
standards promised the state that the standards would be
internationally benchmarked. Furthermore, the [federal] Race to
the Top application contained legal language specifying that
states will be given internationally benchmarked standards. If
standards are not aligned to the best standards available and
have not been validated, she questioned why teacher evaluations
would be tied to student test scores.
9:24:33 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD mentioned that HB 278 includes lots of links with
the NCLB waiver. She pointed out that now states are required
to pay for the ACT, SAT, and WorkKeys tests that are aligned to
the Common Core. There's no escaping the Common Core, she
opined.
DR. STOTSKY suggested that if Alaska developed its own state
test, it would get itself out of this trouble.
CHAIR REINBOLD related that Alaska has maintained some state
control by setting the cut scores.
9:28:33 AM
GLENN MORDINE (indisc. - poor quality audio throughout this
testimony) opined that administrators were left out of this,
although administrators have the goal of assisting and helping
teachers obtain the maximum performance from their children. He
remarked that from a practical standpoint, there has to be an
understanding of the population. He provided remarks drawing
from his recent experiences as a high school principal.
9:31:52 AM
RICK SMITH, Teacher, said that teacher evaluations by principals
can be biased based on the relationship between the two people,
and he believes there should be a more objective evaluation
process. But, he expressed concern when teachers are evaluated
on the test scores of students, even when the teacher is making
progress with their students it may not bear out in the test
score because student achievement is based on many things over
which teachers have no control. Students have a life outside of
school that impacts their learning and their test scores. He
questioned what would happen in those schools with large
populations of students impacted by their socioeconomic levels
and home life, upon which the teachers will be adversely
evaluated. He suggested that teachers are being made scapegoats
for parents and society failing the students.
9:37:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS surmised then that there are teachers who
are considering moving elsewhere because they will be evaluated
negatively compared to teachers with students whose parents are
involved. In low-performing schools, one would assume that
there is some function or some way that they would welcome
something like coaching or mentoring. Representative Gattis
opined that discussion of the lack of parental and community
involvement does not advance the need to educate kids to get
them out of a bad situation [socioeconomically or otherwise],
and the only way out for these youth is to become educated. She
said the question is how to facilitate giving "those kids the
opportunity to get out of that mess." She said her employees
like a plan for improvement to know where they are, where they
made mistakes, what they have to do to improve, and where the
next step is. She said she does not see that as a bad thing.
MR. SMITH agreed with Representative Gattis, adding that there
are definitely teachers that need to be out.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS surmised that the challenge is to develop
a teacher evaluation system that targets teachers who would be
better suited for another industry. It is not fair that others
have to take up the slack, she added. She understands that
teachers are concerned about ousting good teachers, but there
are parents that are concerned about wasting a year of their
children's education [on a bad teacher]. "I think we all know
something should be done." She then commended the department
for advancing forward the idea that something needs to be done.
9:41:37 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD reminded everyone that the legislature does not
write regulations; the boards and departments write regulations
based on statutes passed by the legislature. She noted that the
passage of her legislation, HB 140, will provide legislators 10
days to review and weigh-in on regulations prior to their
adoption and the opportunity to interact with the departments
when regulations are being developed.
9:43:09 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD informed the committee that research her office
gathered found that approximately 42 states have adopted, or are
in the process of adopting, a plan to revise teacher evaluations
with the Common Core initiative. She said she understood the
need to consider new standards, per the 1996 law governing
teachers and administrative evaluations. However, she
questioned why it is occurring now and whether it is part of the
NCLB waiver. She then questioned how the department is
addressing the 800 comments it has received, particularly the
concerns from teachers. She directed the department to address
the concerns surrounding special needs students and unfair
weighting on math, language arts, and science teachers. She
then asked the department to describe the difference between the
Common Core standards and Alaska's standards. She also inquired
as to why 50 percent of a teacher's evaluation is related to
[student test scores] and how tied the state is to the NCLB
waiver. She also asked how different the Applied Measurement
Professionals, Inc. (AMP) test is from the Smarter Balanced
Assessment Consortium (SBAC) and Partnership for Assessment of
Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) tests.
9:46:47 AM
LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education and
Early Development, said he will try to address what the
department was asked to speak about, and he will also attempt to
address many of the issues that have been brought up at this
hearing. He then provided some background, including when the
process started, which he opined would illustrate disconnect
from any federal agenda. He then said he would review the
regulatory process followed by response to the questions raised
in any remaining time.
CHAIR REINBOLD interjected that she would like the questions
that have been raised during today's meeting to be answered
first.
MR. MORSE turned to the question of why now. He explained that
in 2008, Alaska brought together 400 stakeholders from across
the state. The stakeholders identified teacher quality as one
of the key areas for developing an education plan. In 2009, EED
put together a teacher quality working group that included 37
individuals who were not departmental staff or Alaska State
School Board members; two were principals, one was from the
Alaska principals association, and three were from NEA. After
working a number of years, in March, 2012, that working group
provided a report to the Alaska State Board of Education and
took action on a number of items in the report, including the
purpose of the evaluation and adding more objectivity to the
evaluation. There was an issue of subjectivity when principals
evaluate teachers. The working group wanted to focus on student
learning rather than student achievement. The aforementioned is
an important distinction, he opined, because focusing on student
achievement would potentially result in focusing only on the
test that is given. He highlighted that the regulations are
clear that this is not focused on a single test but rather
multiple measures designed locally with teachers engaged in the
process. In June 2012, the board put out the regulations for an
extended public comment period; those regulations addressed the
cultural standards included in the evaluation, the purpose and
scope of the evaluation, reporting, and student learning data.
The public comment period lasted from June 13, 2012, to November
2, 2012, he said. In response to Chair Reinbold, Mr. Morse
recalled that they received about 800 public comments. The
public notice on June 13, 2012, stated that after the public
comment ends, EED will adopt these or other provisions dealing
with the same subject without further notice. The public
comment that was provided in writing was included in the Alaska
State Board of Education packet that was put out for the public
to review, including the public comment that was received from
the Governor. The Governor's public comment encouraged the
Alaska State Board of Education to consider 50 percent of the
evaluation being student data. The main job of schools is to
improve student learning; therefore, it makes sense that student
learning would be part of a teacher's evaluation, he opined. In
fact, it seems counter intuitive that student learning has not
been part of a teacher's evaluation. Although some people felt
that student learning/data should be 100 percent of a teacher's
evaluation, the Alaska State Board of Education felt that
observational information learned from teacher evaluations
should be included. The Alaska State Board of Education took a
gradual approach to implementation of the regulations, he
explained. Mr. Morse highlighted that the department reviewed
the public comments very carefully. In fact, so much public
comment was received early on that the department re-noticed the
regulations at its October meeting to point out the 11
adjustments to the regulations in October, although the
adjustments were not very significant and fell within the scope.
9:53:08 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD, relaying questions from someone in the audience,
inquired as to how much the regulations were changed. She then
inquired as to the trends that manifested in the 800 public
comments. She also asked if the department took action based on
the input from the teachers across the state.
MR. MORSE replied yes, reiterating that 11 changes were made to
the regulations. He noted that there were comments that were
beyond the scope of the noticed regulations, some of which have
been mentioned at this meeting as well. For example, there were
concerns with regard to data collection, which is not really an
issue. There was also concern regarding confidentiality, but
the confidentiality of the teacher evaluation system was not
impacted by these regulations. In fact, there are some strong
confidentiality protections that remain in place in statute.
Therefore, the department could not respond to some of the
comments because they were outside the scope of the process.
9:54:15 AM
MR. MORSE, returning to the timeline of the process, informed
the committee that the Alaska State Board of Education adopted
the regulations in December 2012. He then explained that this
regulation requires that measures of student learning are used
in teacher evaluations. Furthermore, it requires at least two,
but up to four, measures that the local districts develop by
working with their teachers. The regulation does not require
every teacher in the district to be evaluated identically.
Therefore, special education teachers who only deal with special
education students may be looked at differently. Moreover, the
regulation does not require the sole source of use to be state
assessments. The regulation, 19.099, defines "measurement"
clearly as "assessment of student knowledge, understanding, or
skill and may include an assessment that is not a standardized
test". Therefore, the measurement could be a performance of
music or physical education or based on student projects. Mr.
Morse explained that in terms of including student learning, the
districts are supposed to pilot a system next year and, by next
summer, bring it before their local board for adoption. For
2015-2016 and 2016-2017, 20 percent of the rating of the overall
system would include student learning, and that will increase to
35 percent by 2017-2018 and to 50 percent by 2018-2019.
9:56:57 AM
MR. MORSE, in response to earlier questions/concerns, informed
the committee that testing experts were consulted. He further
informed the committee that the department has worked with the
University of Alaska and will continue to do so. He refuted the
notion that the test is dubious. With regard to the comments
that there should be tougher measures in terms of the Praxis,
the Alaska State Board of Education expressed its concerns with
that at its March and June meetings. To the comments that
content knowledge is not important to Alaska's teachers, Mr.
Morse pointed out that 4 AAC 04.200, standard 4, is about
content knowledge. There are eight standards for teachers, and
one targets content knowledge and all eight are a priority.
With regard to the concerns that there is subjectivity in the
process of evaluation, this work is actually about removing
subjectivity. Concerns that this is limited to a written
assessment are not true, as it can be a performance, he said.
Furthermore, it is not the department's objective to make [the
teacher evaluation system] punitive but rather to improve
learning in schools, improve achievement, and help teachers
perform better. Drawing from his 28 years in the profession, 11
of which were in the classroom, Mr. Morse said he was a better
teacher with feedback. With regard to the concerns about data,
the department is not suggesting collecting data that it has not
already collected and can now be used to help teachers perform
better and students to learn more. In terms of the notion that
principals should have been more engaged from the beginning, he
reiterated that principals were engaged from 2009 forward.
Regarding gifted students versus those in special education,
those differences can be addressed because the system is
designed locally. Noting that he taught both populations, he
opined that it is more difficult to increase achievement of
really high achievers, but one should not make the excuse that
high achievers cannot learn more. The same should be true of
low-performing students regardless of why they are low
performing. He stated that the entire system is about moving
students forward. Mr. Morse emphasized that [the department]
was very deliberate in including more than standardized tests;
it is about looking at local performance. With regard to
comments that this evaluation system might attract more teachers
to special education because achievement could be increased and
teacher performance could be rated higher, he opined that such a
result would be great.
10:00:27 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD thanked Mr. Morse and said there will be on=going
hearings. She asked where people can send questions.
MR. MORSE recommended that people with questions can contact him
or Marci Herman, legislative liaison. He noted that the
department is doing a lot of work with districts as these
systems are moved forward and response will be done in the
balance of all those needs.
10:01:33 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD asked if these regulations are a requirement of
the NCLB waiver.
MR. MORSE explained that the regulations were moved forward in
2008 and adopted in 2012, well before the waiver became part of
the process in Alaska. Therefore, these regulations preceded
the NCLB waiver. Because this system was in place by choice,
the state was able to meet the requirement of evaluation within
the waiver. He clarified that Alaska had a system that allowed
the state to apply for the waiver, but the system was not built
in response to applying for a waiver.
CHAIR REINBOLD asked if the regulations are a requirement of the
NCLB waiver.
MR. MORSE answered that the department did not pass these
regulations as a requirement of the waiver. In further response
to Chair Reinbold, Mr. Morse said the NCLB waiver requires the
use of student learning in evaluating teachers, which Alaska -
by choice - had in place prior to the application for the
waiver.
10:03:08 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD asked if the new teacher evaluation system is
similar to evaluation systems in other states that have fully
adopted the Common Core initiative.
MR. MORSE responded that he could not speak for other states as
the department is focused on Alaska.
10:03:50 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the
Administrative Regulation Review Committee meeting was adjourned
at 10:03 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|