Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 106
02/06/2009 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview(s): Professional Teaching Practices Commission | |
| Overview(s): No Child Left Behind | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 6, 2009
8:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz, Vice Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Robert L. "Bob" Buch
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW(S):
PROFESSIONAL TEACHING PRACTICES COMMISSION
- HEARD
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to report
WITNESS REGISTER
PATRICIA TRUMAN, Executive Director
Professional Teaching Practices Commission(PTPC)
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview of the commission.
EDDY JEANS, Director
School Finance and Facilities Section
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions regarding the
Professional Teaching Practices Commission overview.
LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions regarding the No
Child Left Behind program.
CYNTHIA CURRAN, Director
Teaching and Learning Support (TLS)
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of the No Child Left
Behind program, and responded to questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:03:23 AM
VICE CHAIR CATHY ENGSTROM MUNOZ called the House Education
Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:03 a.m.
Representatives Munoz, Edgmon, Keller, Buch, Gardner, and Wilson
were present at the call to order.
8:03:45 AM
^OVERVIEW(S): PROFESSIONAL TEACHING PRACTICES COMMISSION
8:04:18 AM
PATRICIA TRUMAN, Executive Director, Professional Teaching
Practices Commission (PTPC), Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), explained that, by act of the 1966
legislative session, the nine member commission was established
and empowered to define and enforce ethical standards in the
teaching profession. Sanctions can be imposed against the
certificates of members who are found to be in violation of the
code of conduct. The mission has expanded since the inception
of the PTPC to include efforts toward enhancing the standards of
the teaching professions. One means of meeting this goal is via
the publications issued throughout the year by the commission.
As executive director, her duties include providing
presentations regarding the code of ethics to audiences of the
various stakeholder groups including: Alaska Association of
State School Boards, superintendents, pre-service teachers,
mentors, principals, and parents. This helps to promote how the
children are being kept safe through the ethical standards
adhered to by Alaska licensed school employees. The commission
can impose four levels of sanctions beginning with a warning. A
warning is not published but does become a matter of public
record. The other levels are reprimand, suspension, and
revocation, which are all publicly announced actions. The year
2008 had 68 cases investigated, by the two member staff of the
commission; herself and an administrative assistant. She
reported that the administrative assistant position is currently
vacant. If an application is received with a question attached,
perhaps a background check requirement, it becomes incumbent on
the staff to make a review. Of the total number of applications
received, in 2008, 292 were subject for review, of which 68 were
investigated, resulting in 8 certificates receiving sanctions.
She explained that the misconduct definition, as used in the
PTPC ethics code, is broad. Examples include breech of test
security, failure to maintain appropriate boundaries with
students, and breech of confidentiality. The commission acts as
a quasi judicial body, with the power to impose sanctions, based
on the preponderance of evidence versus a criminal proceeding
requiring reasonable doubt. The bottom line for this commission
is to hold colleagues to a high ethical standard, as is demanded
by a professional entrusted with the care and teaching of
children.
8:13:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON observed that the commission appears to
parallel the legislative ethics committee structure. He asked
whether the teachers are able to pose questions to the
commission, prior to committing an activity which may be within
the gray area of misconduct.
MS. TRUMAN answered yes, and said calls of that nature are
fielded on a daily basis. To Representative Edgmon's follow up
question, she said there is no yearly review requirement,
although it is encouraged that members have a full understanding
of the obligations.
8:15:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON queried if an on-line data base exists for
independent review.
MS. TRUMAN assured the committee that there is a user friendly
web site, which allows access/review of all the standards. The
site also includes sanctions, the newsletter, a complaint form,
and other up to date information.
8:16:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON referred to the eight mentioned sanctions
and asked for an example of how the actions were administered.
MS. TRUMAN explained that the first step is a letter of
admonition; something has occurred that must never recur. This
is followed by a formal reprimand, stating that inappropriate
activity must cease and will not be tolerated. A reprimand
remains in a member's file and must be divulged anytime that
employment status changes, such as a re-application for license,
employment application, or position reassignment takes place.
These steps are followed by a suspension, which may be for one,
two or three years. She provided an example of an educator who
unilaterally breeches their employment contract with no
mitigating circumstances. In this scenario, the commission
would suspend the license for one year. The final step is
revocation of the teaching license for life, which happens in
egregious cases involving illegal activities of a criminal or
fraudulent nature.
8:20:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked whether appointment seats are open
this year.
MS. TRUMAN cited the two positions which were recently appointed
by the governor and are awaiting confirmation by the present
legislature. One seat is for a teacher and the other is
reserved for a principal.
8:20:55 AM
EDDY JEANS, Director, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), interjected
that, in the case of specific sanctions, teachers are required
to receive additional training prior to re-entering the work
force. He asked to have Ms. Truman elaborate on the newsletter
publication.
MS. TRUMAN indicated that a copy of that newsletter is on line,
and is mailed to every educator in Alaska.
8:22:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked how sanctions would effect a teacher
gaining tenure.
MS. TRUMAN stipulated that teacher tenure is a labor issue,
which is not the purview of the commission.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON restated, asking whether there would be a
connection between sanctions and teacher tenure.
MS. TRUMAN responded that if a person lost their
license/employment they would lose tenure, or eligibility for
tenure.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON continued stating his interest in how
sanctions reflect in a teacher's ability to attain tenure
status.
MS. TRUMAN said the district might consider a sanction, and
stressed that the commission has no jurisdiction regarding
tenure.
8:24:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked for further clarification of how a
district would handle a sanction, particularly in the case of a
suspension.
8:24:47 AM
MS. TRUMAN explained that when an educator is suspended, it also
results in the loss of employment; leave with pay does not
occur. The district would be required to hire another educator
to fill the vacant post.
8:25:33 AM
VICE CHAIR MUNOZ inquired whether a teacher, brought before the
commission without the result of a formal sanction, would have
the hearing become part of their permanent employee record.
8:25:59 AM
MS. TRUMAN said, "No."
8:26:01 AM
^OVERVIEW(S): NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
8:26:20 AM
VICE CHAIR MUNOZ announced that the final order of business
would be a presentation on the No Child Left Behind act.
8:26:26 AM
LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education and
Early Development (EED), began by providing answers to
previously submitted questions from the committee. The first
question, "Can there be a change in the way that adequate yearly
progress (AYP) is evaluated." He explained that each year a
determination is made of how children in a given school are
performing by determining what percentage of the population is
proficient. The resulting percentage of proficient students is
measured against a target number - the annual measurable
objective (AMO). The proficiency requirements this year were
mathematics 66 percent, and language arts 77 percent. The
school percentage is measured first as a whole, then broken into
sub groups of special education, limited English proficient, and
finally low income status. Additionally, a growth measure is
taken to establish how many of the students would become
proficient if they continue to make gains as shown in the prior
year. The department sought permission to utilize the growth
model aspect, which is not an element in every state. He
stipulated that federal statute and state regulations would need
to be altered, to effect the model being instituted. In the
past year, he reported, 58 percent of Alaska's schools, 294 of
501, met AYP standards.
8:29:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked if the annual measurable target is a
state wide standard or does it vary between schools, and have
the results of non-proficient students become positive in the
last two years.
MR. MORSE responded that the target is the same for all schools
in the state and the sub groups. The target remains level for
two years then moves up incrementally. In terms of the growth
results, he said, students do show improvement, however not
enough growth has been tracked to make a difference in a schools
AYP.
8:31:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON stated her understanding that a school
could use the information to zero in on an individual child to
track progress.
MR. MORSE concurred that the benefit of the growth model is how
a school receives specific information about each child,
enabling focus to be brought where needed. Schools in areas
with superintendants, principals, and teachers who understand
the model are able to use the system to full advantage, and some
districts are not as informed. The department is in the process
of making presentations to every district.
8:33:08 AM
VICE CHAIR MUNOZ observed that the model helps the schools look
at individual students, but does not help them to meet their AYP
calculation.
MR. MORSE defended that not enough students have shown the type
of gains that would enable a school to meet the AYP. He
predicted that, as schools become more familiar with the model
and are able to specifically target intervention, this could
change in the future.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that some schools have utilized
this model to focus on individual children successfully, and
expressed her support for its use as an educational tool.
8:34:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER referred to the longitudinal data base
that is becoming available with individual student information,
and the pilot programs being implemented, and asked when he
could expect it to be available in his district.
8:35:44 AM
MR. MORSE reported that the fall of 2009 is the expected
timeline for widespread use of the longitudinal database. The
department's contract requires the service provider to design
the database for accessibility to a wider audience. The form
that it is currently in does not present in a dynamic user
friendly accessible format, but the data is available.
8:37:09 AM
VICE CHAIR MUNOZ asked whether the EED has approached the U.S.
Department of Education requesting that the individual growth
model be made part of the flexibility that each school district
has in achieving AYP.
MR. MORSE reiterated that the EED gained permission to use this
growth model through negotiations with the U.S. Department of
Education. There may be some changes to be renegotiated, when
the new federal administration is in place.
VICE CHAIR MUNOZ stated her understanding that a school may have
compliance with the standard, meet the goal, but have a few
students falling below that level. If the progress of the
individual students is documented, would the entire school be
allowed to meet progress standards, she asked.
MR. MORSE established that, conceptually the model works in that
way, however, the amount of progress that the student would be
required to make cannot just be a minimal gain. For a student
who is not achieving at grade level, a four year gain versus a
one year leap, could be a realistic expectation for meeting the
target. If the new administration is amenable to negotiation,
the department will request a more reasonable gain factor.
8:40:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER commented that receiving the waiver was an
important step, and expressed appreciation to EED for that
effort.
8:41:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if a four year gain trajectory
student would also be identified by an individual education plan
(IEP).
MR. MORSE replied that a number of them have would have an IEP,
through the special education program, however, not proficient
students occur in several of the sub groups. Although a school
may have a plan for each of these students, he pointed out, they
may not necessarily hold a formal IEP.
8:41:48 AM
CYNTHIA CURRAN, Director, Teaching and Learning Support (TLS),
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), began by
responding to previous submitted committee questions. The first
question referred to changing the deadline for the required
parent meeting regarding parental choice for students in Title I
schools. She clarified that notification is the requirement
under the federal regulations, not a parent meeting; however, a
parent meeting may be considered best practices. The
requirement is for notification to occur no later than 14 days
prior to the start of the school year, allowing parents the
opportunity to make choices for their child's education.
VICE CHAIR MUNOZ indicated that the concern is in light of the
meetings occurring prior to the beginning of school, precluding
the attendance of some parents. Would it be possible to provide
a flexibility measure for meetings to be scheduled after school
commences.
MR. MORSE pointed out that these are the federal requirements
regarding choice. There is no requirement to hold a meeting.
If choice is an option, notification is required prior to the
beginning of school, via optional means - public meeting forum
or web site posting, for example.
8:45:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted that it would seem prudent to have
the meeting prior to the beginning of school to allow parents to
have the advantage of enrolling in a school of choice.
MR. MORSE underscored that the requirement for notification
prior to school is mandatory where educational choice will be an
option for parents.
8:46:03 AM
MS. CURRAN referred to the flexibility questions regarding the
hiring of highly qualified teachers, as mandated by No Child
Left Behind (NCLB). The difficulty of getting teachers highly
qualified to teach all of the core content areas required became
a national issue when NCLB was enacted. Thus, the federal
government provided a flexibility in the time line for training
a teacher to meet the standard. Additionally, it was stipulated
that when a teacher is hired, they have a subject area in which
they are highly qualified. One resource used in Alaska to meet
this requirement has been the distance learning program, she
reported, and provided an example from the Lower Kuskokwim
school district. In the example, one school in the district has
a highly qualified teacher for Algebra II, whose presentation
can then be transmitted to classes throughout the district.
Each participating site has a teaching aide to assist students
who are remote from the originating classroom. State
regulations include provisions for small, rural schools with an
ADM of less than 150, to have this type of flexibility in
attaining the qualified teacher mandate. In regard to the
special education teachers who, when hired, are highly qualified
in academic courses, they are provided additional time to become
qualified in extra content areas. She said that in order to
meet all of the federal requirements, Title II offers
competitive grant programs, as well as the math-science
partnership grants. Alaska's congressional delegation, and
interested organizations are continually consulted for advice on
flexibility in providing appropriate options to Alaska's rural
teachers.
8:49:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH inquired about the comprehensive aspect of
the distance learning system.
MS. CURRAN said the technology varies in each district. Some
districts may not choose to use distance learning, having
partnered and created a network between their schools. Distance
education is not mandated, but it is a means to assure access to
highly qualified teachers in every subject.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH queried how he could access more information
regarding the distance learning system - which schools are
involved, and cost/effectiveness of the program, for example.
MS. CURRAN offered to provide information to the committee, as
well as an update on the Alaska Distance Education Consortium
(ADEC), which meets regularly.
8:53:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER requested information regarding the
partnerships between the districts and how the implementation of
the distance learning is considered for funding purposes. He
suggested that there may be a conflict of resource sharing if a
school is not able to benefit from a student being counted in
the ADM, when accessing an on site, highly qualified teacher.
MS. CURRAN mentioned the mutually beneficial partnership between
the Delta Greely and Kodiak Island Borough school districts, and
offered to provide additional information.
8:56:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if, under Title II - preparing and
training teachers and principals, there is a focus on special
education teachers, considering the current demands.
MS. CURRAN said that any time there is a math-science
partnership, or higher education grant, it is open to all
teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if teachers taking professional
development courses are receiving encouragement from the state
to learn methods to meet a variety of learning styles, not
specifically targeted towards special education.
MS. CURRAN responded that professional development occurs
throughout the year in a variety of areas. The course trainers
offer the attendees strategies for teaching children with a wide
variety of learning challenges. Many of the new teachers, and
mentors, will be attending the upcoming Alaska Special Education
Conference, she reported.
8:59:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON requested that EED provide the committee
with a comprehensive, macro level report of how NCLB is working
throughout Alaska.
MS. CURRAN directed attention to the committee packet handout,
to information regarding the Title grants, and the pie chart
that was requested. She said that reauthorization is still many
months away, given the federal administrative change. The
department is working with Alaska's congressional delegation to
report on, and suggest improvements to, the NCLB program.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON maintained his request for an in depth
level understanding of how NCLB is carried out in rural Alaska.
9:02:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER directed attention to the page 3 pie
chart in the committee handout, and asked what the zero
percentages represent.
MS. CURRAN responded that under Title V, the category titled
"State Grants for Innovative Programs" has been zeroed out of
the federal budget.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted how that was a federal choice, and
asked if the state is still under a mandate to perform in that
area.
MS. CURRAN explained that these grants were available to states
for improvement and innovative in education, with the intent of
being funding start up programs; it is up to the state whether
to continue funding. A federal mandate does not exist for
innovative programs, however, these funds were helpful for
Alaska in beginning several programs. She clarified that the
teacher mentorship program does not fall under this funding, but
comes under state funding of Title V and some funds from Title
IIA.
9:05:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out the other zero percent
figures next to amounts on the pie chart and asked what they
represent.
MR. MORSE said it indicates less than one percent.
[A brief panel discussion ensued on what type of report the EED
could bring to the committee to provide more detailed
information on NCLB, how the funds are utilized, and for
discovery of the areas to be elaborated upon.]
9:10:00 AM
MR. MORSE indicated how the previous school budget document
overlays the page 3 pie chart, to establish the detail breakout
of the NCLB funding.
9:12:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted that NCLB was implemented in the
state with controversy. Considering the funding benefits and
program options, versus the mandates and requirements, she
asked, if given the choice, would the department choose to opt
out or stay with NCLB.
9:13:14 AM
MR. MORSE indicated that many of the requirements of NCLB are
parallel to those of state statute. Because of the overlap, the
department has been able to leverage joint funds to build a high
quality system, as well as improve assessment and
accountability. He expressed his belief that much good has come
out of the NCLB mandate. The department has been aggressive in
meeting the challenges that have arisen in meeting the federal
requirements, and benefits have been gleaned.
9:15:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH opined on the evolution of education in the
state, and stated the importance for the committee to receive
input from EED towards improvement of the system.
9:17:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked how Alaska compares to the other
states.
MR. MORSE said that it would depend on the area being
considered: accountability systems, assessment systems, teacher
quality, or innovative programs. He opined that, in general,
Alaska is in the top half, and, in certain areas, has taken a
leading role, such as when gaining approval for the growth
model. He also pointed out that NCLB roots were first
established, in the mid 1960's, under the Elementary and
Secondary Education act. When the act was reauthorized, in the
1990's, the law requirement included the establishment of
standards for accountability and assessment systems for Title I
schools; expanded to incorporate all schools. Alaska has been
on the forefront in terms of readiness to respond to these
evolving educational mandates, due to the existing state
statutes, he maintained.
9:20:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON reviewed his understanding of the NCLB
Title designations, which mandate standards to be met, in order
to receive federal funding.
MR. MORSE explained that the funding is based on a formula for
each of the Title programs. Additional funding is not gained
through compliance, but consequences in the form of mandates and
other reporting impositions to correct violations, or fund
withholdings, could occur. However, Alaska has always
maintained an acceptable level of compliance. To a follow up
question, Mr. Morse said that when competitive grants are
available, such as the longitudinal data system, Alaska is in a
positive position to be awarded because of what is already in
place, and due to the state's record of compliance standards.
9:23:43 AM
VICE CHAIR MUNOZ reviewed Monday's meetings agenda.
9:24:20 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:24 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| PTPC Talking Points.pdf |
HEDC 2/2/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/6/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| NCLB Information.doc |
HEDC 2/6/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/16/2009 8:00:00 AM |